Originally published August 18 2014
New malaria vaccine doesn't work most of the time, but manufacturer says it's good enough to sell
by Jonathan Benson, staff writer
(NaturalNews) There's a good chance that the vast majority of people who receive it won't derive any benefits whatsoever. But that isn't stopping British drug giant GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) from seeking regulatory approval for a new vaccine for malaria, known as RTS,S, that a recent study determined is only about 30 percent effective at preventing severe cases of the disease, which has no recognized cure.
Published in the journal PLOS Medicine, the study found that RTS,S provides limited protection in select individuals for up to a year-and-a-half, at most. In children five to 17 years of age, the vaccine can supposedly prevent infection up to 46 percent of the time, and severe infection up to 34 percent of the time. These figures, claim GSK, are good enough to warrant the drug's approval, even though no other vaccine with such a poor success record has ever been approved.
"It's a pretty good vaccine," stated Mary Hamel, a medical epidemiologist at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), one of the authors of the new study. "We were looking for 30 percent or higher."
High cost, limited efficacy suggest RTS,S is a medical scam
Since malaria reportedly kills about 600,000 people every year, GSK and its allies believe that even limited success is enough to excuse the failures of RTS,S -- just think of the children! Except this tired excuse isn't really working this time around, as many are asking how the nations of the world will be able to pay for this hit-or-miss jab, which appears to require constant booster shots just to remain even minimally effective.
Not only that, RTS,S is even less effective on young children between the ages of six and 12 weeks old. For these young ones, who are more prone than others to contracting malaria, RTS,S maybe offers a 27 percent success rate, which in efficacy terms is exceptionally poor. And for those who do benefit from the vaccine, regular booster shots are necessary to maintain immunity.
"Who is going to pay to deliver this vaccine, which is not a cheap vaccine to manufacture?" asked Dr. Jonathan Kurtis from Brown University, as quoted by VOA News. "Will they pay to stop 20 cases per 1000 participants per year and a half? I can't answer that."
Majority of those threatened by malaria death won't even benefit from RTS,S
Interestingly, those who are most prone to dying from malaria -- children under the age of five -- are the least likely to benefit from RTS,S, as admitted in the study. While adults have the highest rate of protection at about 45 percent, young children have about a one in four chance of avoiding the disease. At the same time, they face potential adverse events from the vaccine and its various toxic adjuvants and other additives.
As you will notice in this GSK information sheet [PDF], RTS,S is also a product of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which has admittedly spent hundreds of millions of dollars pushing its development. According to the same sheet, GSK will have spent more than half-a-billion dollars on RTS,S when all is said and done.
Sources for this article include:
http://www.voanews.com
http://vaccinenewsdaily.com
http://www.pharmabiz.com
http://www.malariavaccine.org [PDF]
http://www.plosmedicine.org
All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. Truth Publishing LLC takes sole responsibility for all content. Truth Publishing sells no hard products and earns no money from the recommendation of products. NaturalNews.com is presented for educational and commentary purposes only and should not be construed as professional advice from any licensed practitioner. Truth Publishing assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. For the full terms of usage of this material, visit www.NaturalNews.com/terms.shtml