Many comments have been made along the lines of "why deny...

Many comments have been made along the lines of "why deny patients a treatment for a terrible disease that might provide some relief" . I thnk it was agent88, on another thread, who questioned how I, as a doctor, could justify such an attitude.

No-one would want to deny anyone with the disease an effective cure, but there are a couple of snags that go along with following that process to it's logical conclusion i.e. letting loose on patients any treatment that "might" be effective.

1 - unexpected and devastating side effects
2 - exploitation of the vulnerable who will clutch at straws out of desperation and be exposed to charlatans who take advantage of the situation to line their pockets.

Please note that these are general considerations and in the circumstances surrounding cVac it is exceedingly unlikely that they would be relevant.

However any relaxation of a high standard of medical research and introduction of treatments is fraught with danger. The loss of an effective treatment to some patients must be weighed against the potential harm to others.

In the case of cVac the safety data available to date lends substantial reassurance about making the treatment more generally available. This must be accompanied by detailed monitoring and auditing of outcomes and side effects.