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.

12 of 39 comments (clear)

  1. 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.

  2. 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
  3. 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?

  4. 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!

  5. 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.

  6. 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?

  7. 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
  8. 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.

  9. 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
  10. 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.