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."
In the article it specifically notes "Volunteers will not be exposed to Ebola virus." No live virus was involved in the manufacturing process either.
Because of the ethical problems involved in any human clinical trial with real live virus, they'll probably use the "two-animal" rule in that if it protects at least two animal species from the virus, it's considered valid. Once this study proves safety, then it'll be licensed. The real trial would begin if they ever use this in the next Ebola outbreak.
If its not so bad, would you sign up for it then?
7 figures? That's ridiculous. That only seems reasonable if you completely misunderstand vaccine manufacture. That said, I'd do it for $1500. I participate in these type of studies regularly, which is why I am able to eat. Worst one yet is the smallpox vaccine, which is the same one most people between 25-70 were given when they were younger. That one paid about $600 total.
barzelay.net
If someone here voulenteers and provides proof I'll PayPal them $20.
So who else is with me? Let's see how much we can get here!
My uncle is a quiet and reserved guy. He works with highly infectious agents as his job - space suits and special rooms - that whole deal.
For Christmas back in the day he gave me The Hot Zone by Richard Preston. I read it that weekend and then asked him about ebola - my uncle is one of the team that they send to the part of the world that is having some new outbreak - ebola is one of his specialties.
He was in the Peace Corps in Zaire back when then first discovered ebola, and even met his wife that way when they were both in the same tent recovering from malaria.
He said ebola was really nothing to worry about since it killed its host so fast. He said that it was indeed a bad thing if you ever got it, and it does need to be contained, but it dies very quickly outside of its host, and it kills its host too quickly.
He also noted that AIDS isn't particularly impressive either. It dies quickly outside of the person as well.
He isn't discounting the viruses by any means - just in terms of the scary stuff that he works with, he wasn't as scared by those and they are on different containment levels than other things.
He mentioned smallpox as being horrible.
I am now finishing up Richard Preston's The Demon in the Freezer and I must say that it is very interesting (his books all seem to be written in a way that you can finish them in an unnerving weekend).
Smallpox in itself is scary stuff, and then the bioengineered completely resistant smallpox is really freaky.
Anthrax is nothing compared to this stuff - anthrax can kill its host, but it is not contagious from that sick host - if someone with anthrax coughs in the same room as you, you don't then get anthrax. Whereas one person with smallpox can infect an extremely large area around them very quickly - and they don't necessarily show any signs of having it but are capable of spreading it in the first few days of being infected.
Personally, I would much rather die of a drug overdose while having sex with supermodels than have to die of any of these viruses.
Hopefully the chances of either being my final exit are equally slim.
There are some odd things afoot now, in the Villa Straylight.
Although I find kneejerk quips about SCO about as funny as cancer, your comment may have a grain of truth in it.
Genetic Technologies, a small Australian firm, own patents to "junk" DNA, a particular kind of DNA. More than 80% of the human genome is junk DNA, and I'd guess that a large portion of the ebola genome is junk DNA too. Intellectual property is just as bad for biology as for software development, it seems.
Back during the big anthrax scare, they were doing vaccine trials at the medical school at Vanderbilt University. My sisters had a few friends who were lured by the mad cash (about $200 or $500) and became guinea pigs...apparently some of them got sick, and from what I understand the vaccine had a certain risk of causing a heart condition.
So don't volunteer for these studies for the cash; only do it if you are prepared to become a medical sacrifice for the good of the world. Or something like that.
...
The very last line of the article, hanging out all by itself:
Scientists might test the vaccine in an outbreak of Ebola under emergency conditions.
There was a very intruiging article in the New Yorker awhile back about just this subject: testing HIV/AIDS vaccines and other pharmaceuticals on Africans. Unfortunately it's not available online, and I wouldn't want to go into any more detail and risk being -1 Offtopic. But here's a short summary of the article.
For example, in some countries children were and are given vaccines agains the polio virus. It has been proven that in wester-european countries, complications from the vaccine cause more problems than the illness itself.
A very similar argument can be held against vaccinating people that travel to tropical countries. For example, the chance of contracting hepatits-B while staying in the average asian country is less than 1/1.000.000, and even if one is infected, there is some chance of recovery without (permanent) damage.
However, I would not be surprised if the chance of permantent damage is larger then 1/1.000.000 when one visits a clinic (trough traffic), receives an injection with a vaccine and sits at home with a fever while becoming immune (in some cases).
When looking at statistics alone, it may be wise not to get all possible vaccines and treatments just to lower the already slim chance of contracting some illness.
Ebola scares us in the west because we don't have a cure, and death is nearly certain. We, the rich people in the west, feel threaten and therefore spend the money on looking for a vaccine for it, but consider this:
Very few (less than a 100) die of ebola each year. The biggest killer in the world is tuberculosis. Why don't we look for a vaccine against it ? Oh yeah that's right if somebocy gets tuberculosis in the west, we cure them with antibiotics - the people who die because of tuberculosis are in the poor countries... who cares.
Type in "smallpox vaccine dangers" into Google.
....NO.
No vaccines.... ever. Period." Maybe a little paranoid, but read for reasons.
Here's some nice pictures of some side effects.
From article: "NO. No matter WHAT they say or threaten you with, tell them
The rest of the Google links.
"What is Internet Explorer 7? Are you saying we can't access the normal internet?" - I love tech support. Really.
We had a family friend who patriotically volunteered for the small pox vaccine being developed. Took him out.
The pharm.s want you to believe the vaccine cannot induce the disease but this is bad science and a lie. Start to poll your network of people and you'll determine a direct correlation between people taking the flu vaccine and getting sick or else those nearby getting sick within a fwe days.
That part about max on healthy humans is very scary as many pharm.s are trying to promote older people to take vaccines. This is a really bad idea IMHO. I have a nephew who recently became quite ill from a flu vaccine. His two siblings (one older and one younger) did not get the vaccine and did not get sick. As no monetary impetus stimulates determining vaccines are not healthy choices, one has to be extremely conservative.
What you have to understand is the mentality of those driving the vaccines. They think "well, some 0.1% will die but then the human race will in the future be tolerant as those intolerant died." This is the thought. Controlled elimination of non-tolerant human strains rather than sudden elimination. As one who is fairly tolerant this does not scare me but you must realize the rights of the individual are being succumbed to the goal of the whole.
Expect Freedom.
If you've been through smallpox epidemics with 30-50% fatality rates, 0.1% looks pretty good.
Vaccines are a risk, so is all medicine. I apparently spent a few hours in a tub of ice at the hospital when I was 1 or whatever after my measles vaccine gave me measles. I'll take that over a 25% chance of getting measles at some random point later on where the diagnosis wouldn't have been so easy and treatment wouldn't have been as accessible.
phase 1 and 2 determine the suitable dosage, potential side effects, etc... phase 3 and 4 trials involve the more extreme situation of testing on people who may then be exposed. I've been involeved in a number of phase 1 and 2 trilals, and they generally are simple blood and/or urine measurements to see how the drug is absorbe and eliminated ina healthy patient... however, vaccine trials are much more potentially lethal than say, the type of trials i've done, since vaccines are generally made from the virus itself, in this case, it's the viral dna >_
i've only tested medications that were going to become generics... so every phase 1 and 2 study i've done has been on a drug who's name brand counterpart has long been on the market...
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html