Slashdot Mirror


Ebola Vaccines Successfully Tested on Monkeys

An Anonymous Reader writes "Canadian and American researchers, in a joint venture between Canada's National Microbiology Lab and the U.S. military, have created two vaccines that prevent Monkeys from becoming ill with Ebola and Marburg. While a human vaccine may still be 5 years away, this is very promising news.

39 comments

  1. That's great news! by poopdeville · · Score: 1

    Congratulations to all involved! Especially the monkeys!

    Did anyone see that Discovery Channel show a few (seven?) years ago about the Ebola virus and how one doctor noticed that one in one hundred or so survive and asked the survivors for blood samples and injected the samples in uninfected villagers and almost all of them survived despite being exposed to the contagion? That was neat.

    --
    After all, I am strangely colored.
    1. Re:That's great news! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How did they survive getting the wrong blood type injected?

    2. Re:That's great news! by CaptainCheese · · Score: 1

      presumably by spinning it in a centrifuge to separate the red blood cells from the plasma.

      --
      -- .sigs are a waste of data...turn them off...
    3. Re:That's great news! by dfinster · · Score: 1
      ...asked the survivors for blood samples and injected the samples in uninfected villagers and almost all of them survived...

      He deliberately infected healthy people with Ebola? That's not "neat", that's criminal. Some people survive HIV also, you wanna sign up for a transfusion from one of them?
    4. Re:That's great news! by poopdeville · · Score: 1

      I have to admit, I mischaracterized what happened. The patients he gave transfusions to were already infected with Ebola. He gave them the blood of convalescant Ebola patients, and 87.5 of them survived. See this. Plans are being made to study the phenomenon on a much larger scale with the next big Ebola outbreak.

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
    5. Re:That's great news! by AEton · · Score: 1

      He gave them the blood of convalescant Ebola patients, and 87.5 of them survived.

      Should I ask what happened to that last half there?

      --
      We recently had heard in the office over one of the Yellow Machine that's made by Anthology Solutions.
    6. Re:That's great news! by poopdeville · · Score: 1

      D'oh! 87.5%. :-D

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
  2. What??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Are you implying that monkeys are perhaps related to human beings in some way? That sounds like evolution to me!

    Don't waste your time with monkeys. The proper way to treat and cure disease is with prayer and the occasional feeding tube.

    You know why God sent ebola to the heathens, right? Because they haven't professed their love for Jesus Christ. If you don't want to get the ebola flesh eating disease, get down on your knees now. No silly, we're not going to play "catholic priest and alterboy" again, this time I want you to pray.

    1. Re:What??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Those evil monkeys clearly need to be spanked in Jesus' name!

  3. More details from the Globe & Mail by Eric+Giguere · · Score: 1

    This was a front page story in today's Globe and Mail: New vaccines target Ebola, Marburg. Still at least five years away from testing... but if I had Ebola I think I'd be ready to sign up for early clinical trials!

    Interesting how the vaccine may end up saving African apes as well...

    Eric
    Read about my new AdSense book for non-techies
    1. Re:More details from the Globe & Mail by ResidntGeek · · Score: 2, Informative

      if I had Ebola I think I'd be ready to sign up for early clinical trials!

      It's a vaccine. It prevents infection, doesn't cure it.

      --
      ResidntGeek
    2. Re:More details from the Globe & Mail by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      but if I had Ebola I think I'd be ready to sign up for early clinical trials!

      No, you'd be dead.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    3. Re:More details from the Globe & Mail by jacen_sunstrider · · Score: 2, Informative

      Vaccinations prevent, not cure. In fact, if you were afflicated by an ailment and injected with the vaccine, in many cases it would make the matter worse. However, it's pretty hard to make ebola worse.

  4. Great. I guess. by Seumas · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Well, the good thing is that they have a potential vaccine.

    The downside is that, just like with most other vaccines, they will not distribute it to everyone everywhere. It simply isn't affordable. And once youcome in contact with it, the vaccine isn't going to do you a damn bit of good.

    I don't see how an ebola vaccine is of any use, other than to vaccinate people just before they go to regions which are currently experiencing an ebola outbreak and the person being vaccinated will be directly in contact with those suffering from the outbreak.

    1. Re:Great. I guess. by vondo · · Score: 2, Informative
      That's exactly how it's useful. Widespread smallpox vaccination was stop *before* smallpox was eliminated. In the interim, any reported case of small pox resulted in vacinating people in the area and those who could have come into contact with the infected in a containment policy.

      Sure, people will still die in outbreaks, but they can be contained with many fewer people. No matter what the financial cost, *I* don't want a vaccination against Ebola unless I'm going somewhere where there is an outbreak. There are risks with vaccines too. (About 1 in a million died from the smallpox vaccine, I think).

      IANAP (pathologist)

    2. Re:Great. I guess. by ohithere · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, it depends on the type of vaccine...

      If the vaccine is based on a surface protein of the virus, it could serve to trigger and rally the immune system of an infected person. If the vaccine is merely based on inert particles, it may not help. Of course the BEST alternative for someone infected with ebola would be the blood serum of another survivor.

      An ebola vaccine would be of great help in containing outbreaks of the disease. When the first case of ebola pops up in whatever isolated town, the whole town could be vaccinated against the disease, thereby preventing the massive slaughter that the disease normally causes. Like you said, it also would be effective in preventing healthcare provider infection with the disease as well.

      The ebola vaccine would be VERY useful, especially if ebola were to ever migrate into a moderately large city. Forced immunization of all the people that would be infected by it in the city would forestall an outbreak of the disease and help to contain it.

    3. Re:Great. I guess. by tigersha · · Score: 1

      That healthcare provider part is very important since in the beginning almost half of the people who died from the disease were the missionary doctors and nurses in the villages where it first broke out.

      They simply did not know what they were dealing with since the disease had not been seen before, and because in the places where ebola is prevalent the sanitary standard of the West is simply non-existent.

      --
      The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
  5. Why not just test it on humans now? by killa62 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Since Ebola is such a deadly disease, surely many natives would risk the possible side effects of the vaccine to have resistance to ebola, so why not test it, if it works, just implement it and not wait 5 years of more people dying, etc?
    This is the same with all drugs, why not?

    1. Re:Why not just test it on humans now? by ohithere · · Score: 1

      Surely many natives would not have the money to pay for their vaccination, since vaccines are priced in order to recoup the losses for research and development of the vaccine. With smallpox (in the 20th century), the only people immunized for the disease were people that were nearby others infected with the disease. That method worked to wipe out smallpox. What would be the point in getting a vaccine to ebola and mass distributing it to every person in Africa? That wouldn't be very cost effective and in reality it would probably harm a hell of a lot more people than it would help. Why just throw money and resources at a problem when you have NO IDEA whether or not it will ever pay off?

    2. Re:Why not just test it on humans now? by tigersha · · Score: 1

      ANd because the natives would be way more interested in spending the money on clean drinking water, schools and hospitals to cure other things that kill them sin much greater numbers such as Gastrointestinal Parasites, Cholera, Common Flu and Malaria.

      Virus-induced haemmoragic fever (Ebola Marburg, Congo and a few others) are an extremely rare diseases that does really not affect many people. Ebola and Marburg has more schock value than anything else, mostly because if the way they kill and the fact that no-one knew about their existence when they first broke out.

      That said, the USSR weaponized Marburg for their Bioweapons program and maybe, just maybe, some easily distributed strain still exists somewhere waiting for an accident to happend.

      --
      The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
  6. I want to be on the HMO the monkeys have. by Quarters · · Score: 3, Funny

    Those monkeys are always getting the breakthrough drugs before us!

    1. Re:I want to be on the HMO the monkeys have. by Spunk · · Score: 1

      My HMO is close - it's run by monkeys.

  7. Queue the Whackos by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    So this vaccine is probably on track to save millions of people, and will probably be used as an agent to eradicate ebola.

    So when does ALF firebomb the lab?

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    1. Re:Queue the Whackos by Seumas · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Talk about a whacko.

      Save millions of people? You do realize ebola has only ever killed, like, 800 people?

    2. Re:Queue the Whackos by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Save millions of people? You do realize ebola has only ever killed, like, 800 people?

      Right, so "on track to" mean "is likely to in the future". Note the tense.

      In 1959 there was 1 known case of HIV. Both viruses are spread back and forth from monkeys to humans either through 'bushmeat' or other activities. Ebola is far more contagious, though the host's mortality rate is greatly increased.

      So typically, we like to learn from past lessons, extrapolate, and prevent where possible.

      Besides that, it can be weaponized.

      Consider that they have a reason for working on this vaccine, when there are still other vaccines that need making. Perhaps you're chalking it up to some kind of false-macho among epidemiologists. Either that or they know what they're doing, eh?

      Or maybe you're just sympathetic to ALF/ARM?

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    3. Re:Queue the Whackos by Atrax · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ebola, as it currently stands, is too deadly to be a global threat. that's right. too deadly. it kills the host too quickly and in too spectacular a manner to achieve a serious spread. The real killers are the ones that spread silently, then take effect. Like flu.

      Of course, it could mutate into a slower incubating version, in which case panic, put until then, I'm not worried about filoviruses. I'd be more worried about the asian 'bird flu'.

      --
      Screw you all! I'm off to the pub
    4. Re:Queue the Whackos by Seumas · · Score: 1

      So your rationalization is sort of the same of stripping us of all our rights because "someday there COULD be terrorists that COULD anthrax the hell out of us!".

      Brilliant.

      And what does the Animal Liberation Front have to do with ebola?!

    5. Re:Queue the Whackos by tigersha · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Epidemics are like fires. The ones that burn really fast consume their fuel too quickly and then die out.

      Ebola is probably not really a virus well adapted to humans. At any given time the chance that there is nobody in the world sick with it is quite high, youonly hear about sporadic outbreaks once in a while (maybe 8 times or soo in 20 years if I recall). Marburg is even rarer. So the virus lives in other organisms and once in a while it accidentally reaches humans kills of a few hundred and then the infection dies out in a month. This is not good for the long time suvival of the virus itself, which is what the virus wants to achieve.

      That said, HIV was for many years a Simian virus and somewhere in the 1960's adapted to Homo Sapiens. But HIV (and influenza's) trick is that you can carry it and be contagious WITHOUT dying for a long time. Ebola is not like that, as far as we know. So from an epidemical point of view the virus is a minor nuisance.

      The big thing about Ebola is the gruesome way in which people die, which makes for great headlines in the tabloid press, and the fact that it suddenly appeared from nowhere in 1976 and tht certainly added to the fear factor. HIV also suddenly appeared from nowehre in about 1980, but it does not dissolve the flesh of its victims so nobody cared for along time, and, in fact, nobody knew it existed for quite a while.

      Read "The Coming Plague" by Laurie Garrett sometime. Its an amazing book.

      --
      The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
    6. Re:Queue the Whackos by Curtman · · Score: 1

      You do realize ebola has only ever killed, like, 800 people?

      Strange how cigarettes do kill millions, and we can't find a cure for them yet.

      Strawberry flavoured Ebola would be a big hit I think.

    7. Re:Queue the Whackos by mzieg · · Score: 1
      You do realize ebola has only ever killed, like, 800 people?
      I didn't realize that. A little Googling suggested more like 1200, but you're right: that's pretty small compared to the all the consternation caused by The Hot Zone and Outbreak.

      Still, I see that Ebola was only "discovered" (in the Western sense of "now we have a Latin name for it") around 1976. So this could well be a Lovecraftian "buried mystery" whose revelation will rise up from the murky primordial depths and slay us all...

      ...or not. But I'm glad for the vaccine progress all the same :-) (Noting, too, that progress at combatting any virus is a valuable advance in human knowledge, helping to forestall the return of real killers like the 1918 flu...)

    8. Re:Queue the Whackos by nounderscores · · Score: 1

      There are treatments for cigarette related illnesses. They involve drugs, radiation and knives.

      Somehow that doesn't scare people away from smoking them.

    9. Re:Queue the Whackos by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      So your rationalization is sort of the same of stripping us of all our rights because "someday there COULD be terrorists that COULD anthrax the hell out of us!".

      Right. Vaccines strip you of your rights. OK.

      And what does the Animal Liberation Front have to do with ebola?!

      They firebomb labs that use monkeys. Try reading the links I bothered to make.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    10. Re:Queue the Whackos by juhaz · · Score: 1

      So this vaccine is probably on track to save millions of people, and will probably be used as an agent to eradicate ebola.

      It would be nigh impossible to eradicate ebola, because it has non-human carrier, each of which would also need to be vaccinated, and we don't even know the species (assuming there is only one) for certain!

  8. Hmm... by Mr2cents · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I can see a new plot leading to the exact same movie as Planet Of The Apes...

    --
    "It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
  9. go canada! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well that's two amazing scientific breakthroughs for Canada in the last week. First molecule transistors, and now the Ebola vaccine. Go Canada Go! I can't for the life of me, figure out why this story didn't make the main index of Slashdot... poor taste.

  10. Not necessarily worse by jgoemat · · Score: 2, Informative

    Vaccines rally the immune system to fight the invader. If given after infection but before symptoms show up, it may be able to help your body fight it off. That's exactly what is done with rabies.

  11. ebola now more dangerous? by nounderscores · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You know, a working vaccine could make ebola more dangerous. After all if you could immunise all your agents against it, and then gave them little aerosol sprayer packs full of it, you could get them to walk like the angels of death through a city cutting down people left and right.

  12. No, it really is great. by Vacindak · · Score: 1

    Well, you've got the right idea. Undoubtedly, it'll be an expensive vaccine to administer, and you're right, I probably won't do you any good once you've got the disease, especially given how fast it kills you.

    But the vaccine will still be very, very useful. For example: right now, when you have an Ebola outbreak, health care workers are usually so scared out of their minds of the disease that they won't take care of the people who might or might not be infected, which ultimately leads to greater spread of the infection. And beyond that, the health care workers themselves are often a major vector for the transmission of the virus to others. Having the doctors and nurses vaccinated ahead of time in higher risk areas could dramatically reduce the spread of the virus in an outbreak situation. And obviously, giving the vaccine to uninfected villagers will help plenty as well.

    And obviously, in terms of countering a biowarfare attack, this is a huge development. People have been postulating for years that a modified or especially contagious version of Ebola released into a heavily populated area could wipe out huge numbers of people and possibly be far more destructive than even nuclear weapons. Having a vaccine is, in and of itself a deterrant, making the time and effort required on the part of terrorists to build such a biological weapon more of a waste of time, not to mention how useful it would be in case of an actual attack. The attraction to Ebola as a possible weapon has always been based on a) how sickening the disease is, b) how fast it kills and how contageous it is, and c) that there was no vaccine.

  13. Does this mean another 40 years of bad music? by socialhack · · Score: 1
    I didn't even know Davy Jones & Co. had ebola.

    Hey! Hey! We're the Monkey's...

    --
    Never leave a dead horse unbeaten!