Slashdot Mirror
Ebola Vaccine Human Trials Begin
securitas writes "The Washington Post reports on the first human to be injected with '100 trillion strands of synthetic' Ebola DNA. The DNA in the vaccine has been bioengineered by Vical to remove 'the part that triggers illness and the part that might allow the DNA to recombine with the DNA of some other virus.' The New York Times, AP via ABC and BBC all have stories about the new vaccine as the WHO reports 11 dead in a new Ebola outbreak in Congo this week. If you're interested in participating in the Ebola clinical trials, the NIH needs 27 volunteers. The study only has two. Best quote comes from the NIH vaccine center's nursing director: 'People freak out about Ebola.' Slashdot previously discussed an Ebola/HIV gene therapy."
how is this insightful? parent simply doesn't understand the concept of a vaccine.
if you get mod points, wait for something decent to come along, don't immediately blow your load over the first thing you see.
Wouldn't a better idea be to seek volunteers in Congo - in high risk areas? Possibly near the area of the outbreak (/as soon as the next one starts so as to also try and prevent the spread of infection). Otherwise are they planning to infect the volunteers with Ebola... and don't expect anything to go wrong?
On the unethical side - if anything goes wrong it's not like the settlement in Congo will be remotely what it's in the west. People are probably less "freaked out"/don't understand the dangers, so volunteers would be easier to find. -- not that I support these reasons,
From the article:
The only real proof of whether or not this is effective or not will be when it's distributed to those running a daily risk of infection in the Congo. I understand that before that stage it must be proven safe, but imagine if it fails. That would be a big setback for what sounds like a innovative and creative technique (ie - man made DNA mimicing a pathogen).
Considering the potential and the amount of time and money invested, I'm hoping this meets with success. The benefit when applied to other rampant diseases is enormous.
7 figures would seem ridiculous unless something went wrong. I believe that putting yourself in harms way for the greater good deserves better compensation. In the end, some company is going to make a profit that well exceeds the total of all compensation given. Why not give the profits to the people that made the drug/vaccine possible?
I do sincerely thank you for putting yourself in harms way.
Given all the hype about bio terrorism and the wrenching effects of this hemorrhagic fever, the public tends to think of Ebola as a foremost danger.
Meanwhile, AIDS, which was a big scare two decades ago, has not become an widespread epidemic in developed nations despite having been around a couple of decades, takes a long time for mortality when properly treated with the latest expensive drugs, and "seems to be something that only gays and drug users get". In the public mind, it's not considered much of a danger.
But AIDS is devastating Africa these days.
6-10 Kenyan soldiers die weekly; 80% infected
AIDS orphans outcast
"Provided by the management for your protection."
From a global point of view it does not make sense to invest too much into research on Ebola as it only causes problems for a view people (who are extremly poor creatures that need help of course, don't get me wrong!).
Putting the money into Malaria related projects would benefit more humans, as Malaria is one of the biggest killers in Africa, esp. amoungst children. HIV would be next on this list as whole generations are at risk and actually dying because of HIV.
But surely it is interesting to do research on Ebola and with the mediy hype about it you can even become famous...
My concern would be the testing phase.
"Ok, we gave him the vaccine 2 weeks ago... let's expose him to the virus and see what happens...."
Now, I'd hope that this isn't exactly how it would happen -- at least, not at first (IANA MicroBiologist). First they should pull blood / tissue samples, and expose those to the virus. But still, it has a bit of an omenous [sp?] ring to it, not to mention as fast as some viruses mutate, are you really sure it couldn't cause illness?
It's a good idea, and I look forward to testing it out.... in about 20 years.
I am dyslexia of borg - your ass will be laminated.
besides the horrible horrible pathology of the disease, ebola isn't really a "biblical plague" virus - it tends to self-contain due to the clear symptomatology leading to rapid isolation and the relative difficulty of transmission. Now, if it became airborne and contagious like rhinoviruses, then we have a serious problem; it hasn't, perhaps we'd be better off spending the time and effort to find a vaccine for that most devilish of virii, HIV?
disclaimer: i am not a virologist/geneticist familiar with the details of ebola's function, so i can't say that figuring a vaccine for ebola isn't a conceptual breakthrough that will allow a whole new class of vaccines...but if it isn't, this just seems like mental masturbation, a cure for a nonexistent problem.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley
Playing golf or attending meetings usually have a much lower chance of dying a gruesome death and have little benefit for the rest of society.
First of all, that's only true *because of* the successful polio vaccination programs of the last 50 years. As immigrants flood in (to Europe, Canada, the US) from non-immunized locations, thedanger of a polio outbreak is quite real. Second, it is true that the common Salk live-virus vaccine carries more risk than the Sabin dead-virus vaccine. Naturally, Sabin costs more (or did a few years back). A directed switch to dead-virus formulations would remove essentially all risk.
Referring back up the post chain a bit: educate-yourself.org is a crackpot site. Don't believe things just because they can help you justify not getting an injection or two.
https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
Rather than moderate this, as I have some points to burn, I'd like to respond to this...unfortunately I can't make an intelligent response, because (surprise, surprise) you gave absolutely no sources. You show me where I can find the article that supports these 'proven' claims of yours, or the journal that showed this, and I'd love to read and crtique it for myself. Otherwise, I'll stick with the peer reviewed and well substantiated research that shows otherwise.
In medicine we do a lot of debatable things. Vacines, however, IMO have been the most effective, simple and safe things we have ever done to decrease the mortality and morbitiy to the human race.
Do they expose you to the virus, or only the vaccine? If it were only the vaccine, I would probably do it for $2,000 to $5,000. That would be the boost I need to get the Miata I want, and I don't feel there's much risk there (some sure, but not nearly as much). If they were going to give me the vaccine and then expose me to the virus, the 7 figures would seem about right. Should something go wrong, and I died, I know my parents would be devistated. The least I could do is make sure they never have to worry about money again (I have no kids or husband. My parents are my closest living relatives).