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.
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
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.
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.