Slashdot Mirror


Ebola Vaccine Passes Initial Human Tests

An anonymous reader writes "Washingtonpost.com has an article about the first successful tests of an Ebola vaccine on human subjects." From the article: "Nabel and colleagues at the NIH's Vaccine Research Center developed a vaccine made of DNA strands that encode three Ebola proteins. They boosted that vaccine with a weakened cold-related virus, and the combination protected monkeys exposed to Ebola. The first human testing looked just at the vaccine's DNA portion; the full combination will be tested later. At a microbiology meeting in Washington on Friday, Nabel and colleagues reported seeing no worrisome side effects when comparing six people given dummy shots with 21 volunteers given increasing doses of the DNA vaccine."

140 comments

  1. Rainbow Six by ender06 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    that ruins the entire book. reading about someone crashing and bleeding out just isn't the same when you know there's a vaccine. wonder if it would work on the Shiva virus.

  2. Medical experiments for the lot of us... by benjamindees · · Score: 2, Interesting

    TFA says "volunteers" but I'll bet they're paid volunteers. I wonder if they're told that they're being injected with ebola?

    --
    "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    1. Re:Medical experiments for the lot of us... by Mike570 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      TFA says "volunteers" but I'll bet they're paid volunteers. I wonder if they're told that they're being injected with ebola?

      They have to be. Otherwise it would be a serious medical ethics violation that could end their careers.

    2. Re:Medical experiments for the lot of us... by Medinole · · Score: 5, Informative

      Participants in clinical trials are required to be told what is or could be happening to them throughout the trial. For drug trials that make it to the clinical stage, single or double blind methods are used depending on how far along the drug is on its way to the market. Participants are told that they will be given either the drug or a placebo, and are monitored for any side effects. In this case, no one has actually been infected with ebola. All that has been done is the administration of a vaccine to see if it elicited an immune response (the participants made antibodies against ebola) and to see if it had any obvious side effects (it did not).

    3. Re:Medical experiments for the lot of us... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well of course it would end their careers; they would be dead.

      (Yeah, I know what you meant.)

    4. Re:Medical experiments for the lot of us... by appleLaserWriter · · Score: 1

      I know I won't be volunteering for any medical trials. Ever.

    5. Re:Medical experiments for the lot of us... by Mysterius · · Score: 3, Informative

      I can see why people might be concerned, but reading the article carefully can help a lot. As someone pointed out earlier, the test were to just study the immune reaction to the vaccine, not to actually infect anyone. The test subjects produced antibodies to the virus, so it passed the trial.

    6. Re:Medical experiments for the lot of us... by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 3, Informative

      I don't think they could have been injected with Ebola, ethics aside, outside a Level 4 lab. What they got was "a vaccine made of DNA strands that encode three Ebola proteins". The monkeys, by comparison, got a cold virus with the DNA spliced in.

    7. Re:Medical experiments for the lot of us... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Is this splicing of DNA into a cold virus a new technique? Any chance of "whoops we made an Ebola variant that spreads like the common cold" ?

    8. Re:Medical experiments for the lot of us... by tsm_sf · · Score: 3, Insightful

      For a value of "ever" that does not include infection w/ an incurable, fatal disease. Right?

      --
      Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
    9. Re:Medical experiments for the lot of us... by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 5, Funny
      Any chance of "whoops we made an Ebola variant that spreads like the common cold" ?

      No problem. Just take new NyQuil-EB: It's the one cold medication especially designed for when you have those itchy, sneezy, bleeding-out-of-every-orifice cold symptoms.

    10. Re:Medical experiments for the lot of us... by PakProtector · · Score: 1

      I volunteered for this a few years ago when I heard about. Unfortunately I didn't feel like flying half-way across the US to partake. As I recall, it was about a week after the trial was announced and they only had 2 other volunteers.

      --

      Edward@Tomato - /home/Edward/ man woman
      man: no entry for woman in the manual.
      "Qua!?"

    11. Re:Medical experiments for the lot of us... by MeandmyShadow · · Score: 2, Informative

      I volunteered for this study and was given the DNA vaccine. One of the heftier dosages.

      I was compensated, something like $25 a visit, hard to remember now, but in terms of travel time, not to mention a whole lot of holes poked in my arms, I wouldn't say that was the main attraction.

      A friend talked to me about it who spent quite a lot of time in Africa, and I joined him.

      I'm looking forward to finding out how long the antibodies remain (without the cold virus to help 'em spread a bit, probably not long) and what sort of protection they confer. Now that the study has been announced I'm going to have to hassle the researchers for a little more data on us.

      And they say no side effects. Dunno, I seemed to have been sick every other week that winter. Could've just been coincidence though, or hypochondria.

  3. ...not that cool... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but being the second post has got to make you feel FAMOUS.
     
    LOL -Neil bauman

  4. What is Ebola? by solafide · · Score: 1

    If I remember correctly, Ebola was this virus a few years ago that "spread from apes to humans" and thus would spread and kill us all. Wait, isn't that what Avian Flu is going to do to us? It's all a lot of hype.

    1. Re:What is Ebola? by baryon351 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If I remember correctly, Ebola was this virus a few years ago that "spread from apes to humans" and thus would spread and kill us all. Wait, isn't that what Avian Flu is going to do to us? It's all a lot of hype.

      It's a lot of valid potentiality that gets drummed up as hype by doomsayers, the media, and anyone else who has something to gain by promoting a state of fear, interest or worry in people.

      Total worldwide ebola deaths since 1976 are 1,500. If you catch it, there's an 80% chance you'll die.

      But then there have been 1.2million people in the US alone killed in fatal car accidents in the same time period. If you're caught in a fatal car accident, there's a pretty big chance you'll die too.

      Avian flu is known to have killed under 100 people worldwide, since 1996. Worldwide deaths from normal influenza currently reach 500,000 EVERY SINGLE YEAR worldwide. FIVE MILLION PEOPLE since 1996.

      Read the above and you see how the panic effect of statistics is all in how the info is presented. Don't rely on alarmist messages of any type (this one included) to base your fears on, go & read up as much background info as you can. It makes the only sense.

    2. Re:What is Ebola? by Kohaku+Nanaya · · Score: 5, Informative

      Ebola is certainly deadly. If anything, it's underhyped. The thing that is overhyped however, is the "it will kill us all!" mentality. Sure, it's one of the most gruesome and deadly viruses around (classified even higher than AIDS), but it is spread only by direct contact with infected fluids. And when someone has Ebola, you KNOW they have it, and there is little chance you'll be close enough to the person to get infected. It mainly is prevalent in places like Africa, since they reuse needles in their hospitals there. Ebola takes 2 weeks or so after initial infection (about a week before anything starts to show up) to kill, or come close to killing a victim. It surrounds and destroys cells, and it is known to partially or completely liquify the kidneys and liver. There is craploads of bleeding from every orifice, and vomitting dead blood. They say even one droplet of blood at that stage contains at least 100,000,000 particles of the virus. It just destroys you, literally. There are a few strains, the one of the lowest mortality rate being 50%, and the highest being 90%.

    3. Re:What is Ebola? by Mysterius · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, Ebola has an incubation period of up to 3 weeks. Symptoms only appear after the incubation period. That means it is quite possible for someone to be infected and not notice. Check out the "Myths" section in Wikipedia's article on Ebola.

    4. Re:What is Ebola? by Kohaku+Nanaya · · Score: 1

      Hmm..the medical book I read about it only said 1 to 2 weeks of incubation..

    5. Re:What is Ebola? by Mike570 · · Score: 1

      There have been outbreaks in the US but fortunately it's been the far less virulent Ebola-Reston strain. I really don't think Ebola is a doomsday virus (yet) but for those that get it, I don't think there are many other worse ways to die. Remember, viruses can mutate under the right circumstances. If it ever became airborne, we'd be in some trouble. Another problem is that the symptoms aren't very apparent at first. They mostly look like the flu. The bleeding doesn't come along until later.

    6. Re:What is Ebola? by Mysterius · · Score: 1

      Well, I said up to 3 weeks; 1 to 2 may be the mean period.

    7. Re:What is Ebola? by Kohaku+Nanaya · · Score: 1

      Yeash. I was talking about the parts that seperate it from other stuff. Ebola Reston could have easily been a bad situation, since it was airborne somewhat. But it only infected monkies.. so we were lucky.

    8. Re:What is Ebola? by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      Read this book. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0385479565/103-56 67832-1909461?v=glance&n=283155 One of the quotes from the CDC official when asked how he felt about sums it how. "How does 'shit scared' grab you?"

    9. Re:What is Ebola? by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      The avain flue does not spread from human to human at this time

      But its 5x as deadly as teh 1918 flue pandemic which killed millions. In this global service economy it can easily kill over a billion people and wipe out 1 out of 6 people.

      Also auto deaths are very high. I drive with caution.

    10. Re:What is Ebola? by SnoopJeDi · · Score: 2, Informative

      Read The Hot Zone and you'll never make such a drastically wrong statement about Ebola ever again. It's some seriously nasty shit. In fact, if you just read the excerpt about Charles Monet's infection and eventual death, it will probably set you straight.

      Ebola makes liquid smoothies out of people, and the scare in Reston in 1989 shows how drastic an epidemic could be. If a strain of Ebola resembling Zaire in lethality towards humans and the airborne characteristics of Reston were to evolve, it would be a bad day for a lot of people.

    11. Re:What is Ebola? by Firehed · · Score: 1
      And there's nothing to show that it will start being transmissable from humans to humans either. It's one of those "if it does, it'll be bad" scenarios. Guess what - the plague was bad too! The Avian Flu has a 50% mortality rate (roughly) if caught, but right now your chance of catching it is near zero. One form of the black death had not only a 100% mortality rate (vs the ~35% of the most common type), but killed you within a matter of hours by causing your blood to coagulate while you're still alive - basically a full-body blood clot. And why was that one so rare? It killed people so fast, they didn't have a chance to spread it. I haven't heard much on the gestation period of the Avian Flu, but if it's a matter of hours like the septicemic plague, it's potential for mass death will be fairly limited. If, OTOH, you carry it around for a month before symptoms start, shovel sales will skyrocket.

      So if Avian Flu starts actually becoming a problem, just barracade yourself in the house for a couple weeks like everyone else will be doing, and try to get your hands on a dose of TamiFlu if you must go out. Until that point - if it comes - just live out your life. In all reality, we could shut down world travel for a week - no good for the ecomony, but quite good for your health. We can do enough over the internet to get by; we seem to be able to cope with it no matter how inconvenient it is.

      Auto deaths? You driving cautiously won't make a huge difference unless everyone else is as well. Just because you see that drunk driver headed for some metal-bending fun in your direction doesn't mean you can actually get out of the way. But statistically speaking, you're more likely to be killed in a car crash in a given year than sued by the RIAA (though the lawsuit is somewhat more favorable), and that's something like one in fifty thousand. With 500 in 6,000,000,000 having died from ebola, I wouldn't worry too much.

      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
    12. Re:What is Ebola? by gklnx · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I think you are mistaking the point of the fear. The problem is in the death rate, not the total number of deaths.

      People are not afraid of the common flu, since the death rate nowadays is what, less than 0.01%? However, both Ebola and Avian Flu have a high chance of killing you, if you get it.

      I think that the concern currently is the transmission of the Avian flu virus like the common flu, i.e. influentza with a death rate of 50% or so.

    13. Re:What is Ebola? by cruachan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Frankly that's an idiotic argument. Fortunatly our medical science has now advanced to the point we can see potential threats coming. Avian Influenza is a case in point - if it does mutate to pass from human to human then it's very likely to be a rerun of 1918 (the viruses are remarkably similar) and kill 5% of the population. The 1918 epidemic killed more people that WWI.

      Ebola is less of an immediate threat, but there are some signs that it, or something related, could mutate to an airborne or aerosol form. On the scale of risk the probability is low, but there's some convincing arguments that some past plagues - even the Black Death - were hemorregic fevers.

      It therefore makes sense that we take some preventative measures against potential threats now. Personally I'm very glad that the WHO hyped up Avian Flu because at least governments have started to take some precautions, pump money into vaccine development etc. If we are luckly and the virus doesn't mutate for another year or two then there's a good chance that the death rate from an epidemic could be substantially cut. Reducing the number of cases of Avian Flu in humans by culling birds and inducing fear in the populations where it occurs all helps by reducing the chances the virus has to mutate.

      Of course in some cases the percieved threat will never have been real, and in others preventative actions will stall a major disaster so the sceptics will argue there was no major threat in the first place. Whatever, in both human and economic terms the cost of a small amount of hype and preparatory action now will pay off many, many times over.

    14. Re:What is Ebola? by Forbman · · Score: 1

      The thing that is overhyped however, is the "it will kill us all!"

      No, if an outbreak started in Kinshasha instead of in the jungle, the possibilities of rapid viral doom greatly increase. For one, Kinshasha is a big enough city with various modes of travel out of the city, and enough people "flux". As it stands, since it happens first in the boondocks, it's easy enough for it to be isolated relatively quickly once the alarm gets out.

    15. Re:What is Ebola? by Forbman · · Score: 1

      Avian flu is known to have killed under 100 people worldwide, since 1996. Worldwide deaths from normal influenza currently reach 500,000 EVERY SINGLE YEAR worldwide. FIVE MILLION PEOPLE since 1996. ...but who normally dies from "normal" influenza? Aged and young children or people with weak immune systems. It has the potential to kill a "normal, healthy individual", but how often does that happen? Not nearly as frequently.

      Avian flu has the potential to reach out and zap everyone, which is why it's a big deal.

    16. Re:What is Ebola? by mmortal03 · · Score: 1

      "If you're caught in a fatal car accident, there's a pretty big chance you'll die too."

      If you're caught in a fatal car accident, there's a 100% chance that you'll die.

    17. Re:What is Ebola? by typical · · Score: 1

      If you're caught in a fatal car accident, there's a 100% chance that you'll die.

      No -- that's what the guy next to you is for.

      --
      Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
    18. Re:What is Ebola? by DarkNebula · · Score: 1

      So... the other 20% live forever?

    19. Re:What is Ebola? by shdwshard · · Score: 1

      It's inducing a state of unnessisary fear IMHO though. Most of us have really nothing to fear from this, as, realistically, there's little to nothing we can do about it for the forseeable future. If an outbreak occurs, maybe it's safer to telecommute to work in the interim whenever possible, but until then, I won't worry about it, and you shouldn't either. I love to see the problem being tackled agressively by drug companies, (on a theorhetical level... I don't like the fear mongering they'll do to induce everyone to buy their products) but the problem I see with it is that it's a hit and miss game. The vaccine they develop for today's bird flu may not kill the one that hits us.

      Also who knows if it will be truely deadly? We have some theories, but until the mutated strain actually gets out there, we won't know how potent it is.

      My one last thought is this: The price is worth it TO YOU, but think about whos chickens are being slaughtered. I guarentee you, the economic effect of this isn't being felt hardly at all by larger farms in wealthier countries like the US, that have the money to kill their entire stock of chickens and buy new ones.

    20. Re:What is Ebola? by Spunk · · Score: 1

      Conversely, the survival rate of nonfatal car accidents is 100%.

  5. Immunity by Stoned4Life · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Quoting from the article, "...the vaccine recipients produced Ebola-specific antibodies, giving 'us some confidence that the vaccine is having an effect on the immune system'..." If this is the case, it will most likely be added among the shots we receive when we are born. Possibly, if all goes well, we could at it to Malaria as a thing of the past. You just have to wonder though, does it have the potential to mutate and develope new/different strands?

    --
    Stoned4Life
    gen = new Random
    1. Re:Immunity by Kohaku+Nanaya · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Ebola right now has had millions of years to develop and grow. It is said to be one of the oldest lifeforms on Earth. It has become so used to us, that it can completely overcome our current immune system as if it were nonexistant. I'd be glad for a cure but..if anything has the ability to dramaticly change, it's this thing.

    2. Re:Immunity by grogdamighty · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I doubt that the Ebola vaccine will be added to infant vaccines any time soon - or even suggested for the general populace. Ebola isn't like the hepatitis viruses or HIV which might be quietly spread without showing any symptoms... when an outbreak happens, you know it's happening immediately and you can treat those affected and vaccinate the rest. Infant vaccines tend to be those viruses that can sneak under the radar easier but have high infant mortality rates.

      As for malaria, it is far from eradicated. While you won't hear about it much in temperate climes or in developed nations, it's still a very big problem for millions of people who live in rural areas or don't have ready access to the drugs that prevent and kill it. For that matter, not all of the old, cheap drugs work as well any more, and the expensive newre ones are great for suburbanites on vacation to the tropics, but not as easily disseminated to the slums of India or the far reaches of Africa.

      --
      My other sig is funny.
    3. Re:Immunity by Mike570 · · Score: 1

      If this is the case, it will most likely be added among the shots we receive when we are born. Possibly, if all goes well, we could at it to Malaria as a thing of the past.

      Many people still get malaria in the poor parts of the world to this day. It's only a thing of the past in the rich western countries.

      You just have to wonder though, does it have the potential to mutate and develop new/different strands?

      Yes, there are already multiple strains of the virus. Their mortality rate ranges from "might survive" to "A snowballs chance in hell" and any virus has the potential to mutate.

    4. Re:Immunity by Jippy+T+Flounder · · Score: 1

      hailing from south africa, i find it distasteful to hear us being described as "the far reaches".
      malaria most definitely hasn't been eradicated, and although preventative measures are available, it's still not unthinkable to contract it in relatively developed areas.
      all it requires is some blood-suckers and a single infected person... think about how many lawyers exist YOUR side of the world!

      we're sending you an infected person over right now, we'll see how long you last.

      --
      ---- I was woken up this morning by a face full of fur. Damn cat thought my head made a good pillow.
    5. Re:Immunity by grogdamighty · · Score: 1
      There are still cases of malaria in the U.S. every year... I was just saying that it is more common in tropical regions and far, far, far more common in those regions which don't have adequate access to medical care.

      Will you agree not to send any lawyers now? =/

      --
      My other sig is funny.
    6. Re:Immunity by afidel · · Score: 1

      Huh? Ebola is immature in humans, that is proven by the fact that it generally kills the host before widespread transmission occours. Mature viruses do a great job of spreading by meerly weakening the host. The common cold, the flu, and AIDS are all examples of mature viruses in humans. They have all been sucessful by NOT immediatly killing the host which is why they have all spread to millions or billions of people whereas ebola has infected hundreds.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    7. Re:Immunity by Forbman · · Score: 1

      It's a thing of the past in "rich western countries" because we've drained off most/all of the swamps, most of them have temperate, not tropical, climates, and the mosquitoes that harbor it don't do well outside of the tropics or were beaten back while DDT was still being used, and have been outcompeted by other mosquito species. That notwithstanding, the incidences of Dengue Fever, for example, are slowly creeping up in Florida... then there's west nile virus, equine encephalitis, etc... Bug people were suprised to find so-called "tiger mosquitoes" doing well on the left coast of the US (they are bigger and more agressive than native N.American mosquitoes), but only speculation for how they got over here from Asia.

    8. Re:Immunity by Forbman · · Score: 1

      Plus, it's so dang lethal in a short time frame. Flu is successful (even the flu of 1917) becaues it took a week or so for you to die if you were going to die. Plenty of time for you to cough and snort over your environment, ensuring others got sick.

      Ebola tends to get transmitted in the Congo because of human-human contact. Person gets ebola, gets sick, people tending him get his blood on them, they get it ebola. But in a small village, there is likely to be one smart person who observes, "if everyone else taking care of the sick people also gets sick, I'd probably be better off isolating myself", so the disease eventually burns itself out.

      If you think of it like a fire, ebola is a rapid oxidizer that, when it comes in contact with its fuel (humans), produces a hot fire that burns out too quickly before it can turn into a raging inferno. Now this could change rather quickly if it mutates to become airborne or takes slightly longer for it to become symptomatic, both giving it more opportunity to spread itself before people modify tthings to slow it down or stop it.

    9. Re:Immunity by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      The only thing I could think of was that maybe he was thinking of smallpox. That's been eradicated from the wild. Even polio is holding on in a few areas, mostly due to religious leaders stirring them up against the vaccine(something about it being birth control from what I heard).

      Malaria is actually making a comeback, which some attribute to the banning of DDT. They say that DDT, used properly is effective and safe. You just don't go spraying whole countries with it.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    10. Re:Immunity by Frozen+Void · · Score: 1

      (i'm not expert on this but)
      What if that vaccine gives the virus the time to spread when host immune system eradicates it.Host can be alive but what if he carries the virus?
      I.e.like Melissa doesn't format your harddisk right away,it just spreads.

    11. Re:Immunity by Jippy+T+Flounder · · Score: 1

      ha! that's the point - you have plenty of lawyers, we just need to provide the disease. however, if there are already cases over there, that's half the job taken care of ^_^

      --
      ---- I was woken up this morning by a face full of fur. Damn cat thought my head made a good pillow.
    12. Re:Immunity by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Actually we have the lawyers, we have the disease... isn't that the whole job right there? :( /doom!

    13. Re:Immunity by Jippy+T+Flounder · · Score: 1

      well. well, well, well. good luck to you guys then! and thanks - i've now got a huge grin pasted all over my face ^_^

      --
      ---- I was woken up this morning by a face full of fur. Damn cat thought my head made a good pillow.
  6. waste of resources by f1055man · · Score: 2, Insightful

    considering the rarity of ebola, what's the point of a vaccine? Who do you even give it to? From wikipedia: "Of the approximate 1,500 identified Ebola cases worldwide, over 80% of the patients have died." Maybe we should be working on a cure for fan death instead.

    1. Re:waste of resources by Kohaku+Nanaya · · Score: 1

      I think that if you can save at least one life by doing something, it is worth it. It is rare, yes, but the possibility of people dying from it is very real.

    2. Re:waste of resources by Hannah+E.+Davis · · Score: 1

      Well, I'm pretty sure that the 1500 people who've caught it in the past would have appreciated a vaccine, and if this vaccine works, there will almost certainly be lives saved in the future.

      Besides, learning how to combat Ebola may help us fight other similar viruses, especially if it's generic enough to work on all strains of Ebola, including the one that hasn't passed to humans yet (I forget the name offhand, but it was discovered in a research facility in the US).

    3. Re:waste of resources by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 1

      I disagree completely. If it's too expensive, then it's not worth it, even if you save one life. You could use the money to prevent a million kids from getting polio instead.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    4. Re:waste of resources by lennywood1 · · Score: 1
      (I forget the name offhand, but it was discovered in a research facility in the US).
      Ebola Reston (named for Reston, VA) was the strain if I remember The Hot Zone correctly. Good book too. the opening chapter describing someone crashing and bleeding out are pretty intense.
    5. Re:waste of resources by Mike570 · · Score: 5, Informative

      considering the rarity of ebola, what's the point of a vaccine? Who do you even give it to? From wikipedia: "Of the approximate 1,500 identified Ebola cases worldwide, over 80% of the patients have died." Maybe we should be working on a cure for fan death instead.

      It could be used to help fight an outbreak. Right now the only thing we have is isolation. If we could send health workers a few dozen miles ahead of the outbreak to start innoculating people, that might stop the outbreak in its tracks. Of course, it may take a while for full immunity to take effect but I imagine even partial immunity is better than nothing.

    6. Re:waste of resources by Hannah+E.+Davis · · Score: 1

      Yep, that's exactly what I was thinking of. I read that book at least twice... I'm a biology geek (among other things), so I loved it.

    7. Re:waste of resources by Kohath · · Score: 1

      A few points here:

      - They didn't say how difficult it was to create a vaccine. Maybe it was easy. Some vaccines are easier to create than others.

      - Working on a project like this often leads to discoveries that are useful in fighting other diseases

      - Just because there have been limited outbreaks in the past doesn't mean there won't be worse ones in the future (although I think Ebola is too deadly to spread very far)

      - Ebola can be used in biological terrorist attacks, and it would likely be quite effective. It would be irresponsible not to try to develop a sound defense against such attacks.

      - And maybe the next 1500 people can be saved from dying of Ebola in Africa

    8. Re:waste of resources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck that. Let the population controls run their course.

    9. Re:waste of resources by cruachan · · Score: 1

      Right, so you're quite happy to run the risk of an airborne Ebola strain because you'd rather save a relatively small amount of money?

      Ebola outbreaks currently burn themselves out pretty fast because they are (a) horrific and very deadly, so really motivate the population to take action and (b) only transmitted by blood contact. However there have been some indications of a monkey strain that can transmit either airborne or aerosol.

      Add to that there's a good argument that the Black Death was not bubonic plague but a hemorragic fever. It's a long way from proven but there are some persuasive lines of evidence - lack of DNA from plague bacteria in the corpses of Black Death victims for example, the spread of the Black Death in Iceland despite the fact that the vector - black rats - was absent.

      Apart from the non-trivil consideration that having an vaccine for Ebola will save lives in future outbreaks, having the expertese in filiovirus haemoregic fever vaccines would be of considerable help if the situation ever became more serious.

    10. Re:waste of resources by Mistshadow2k4 · · Score: 1

      Humane attitude you got there. To save even more money, let's never treat anyone - including you if you happen to catch something. It's too expensive. Honestly, tell me, if you catch a disease why should we bother treating you if it's too expensive to treat others? I sure can't think of a reason.

      A clue for you, friend: when you're dying of a disease you don't give a damn about how much the cure costs. And believe it or not, some people in the world aren't as selfish and tight as you and actually want to help prevent others from dying of terrible diseases. Thank God there are some of them left since the kind of selfishness like you've displayed is becoming more normal in our society.

      Jesus, how did this get modded up? Next thing neo-Nazis proclaiming we should kill all the Jews will get modded up as well.

      --
      I dream of a better world... one in which chickens can cross roads without their motives being questioned.
    11. Re:waste of resources by dustmite · · Score: 1

      To save even more money, let's never treat anyone - including you if you happen to catch something.

      Thanks for the strawman, but ProfaneMF never said that at all - he/she said spend the money on something else instead, and I quote, "You could use the money to prevent a million kids from getting polio instead." Brush up on your reading skills.

      ProfaneMF is correct ... Ebola kills a miniscule number of people (a few dozen a year, give or take), while millions of people die each year from curable diseases like Tuberculosis. There is a 100% certainty that the amount of money spent on developing this vaccine could have saved more lives.

      More people die of Tuberculosis every single hour than the total number of people that have died from Ebola so far, ever.

      The real killers in the poor areas of Africa and elsewhere are mostly curable diseases, that's the great tragedy of it.

    12. Re:waste of resources by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1
      Ebola is horrific, and spreads very rapidly to people who have contact with an infected person (who is in the latter stages of the disease). It takes a while to get going but once breakdown starts it proceeds quickly.

      The worry is that a person who gets infected for instance in Africa might start feeling ill, panic and head for an airport. They arrive at the airport and start leaking infected blood - worst case scenario it becomes airborne somehow and the whole airport gets infected. A few weeks later and you have a worldwide outbreak of the disease, mass panics, riots etc.

      A vaccine against this thing would be very, very good to have ....

    13. Re:waste of resources by Forbman · · Score: 1

      Well, lucky for humanity, it seems to be too lethal, but it does mutate quickly. A slightly less lethal version that had a slightly longer shelf-life could cause lots more problems.

      Which is all the reason why there is such a hubbub about SARS and bird flu. Some of it is panic mongering. Some of it is plain and simple "the potential of this to do bad shit on a wide scale in a short time is worth scaring people and developing a vaccine quickly".

      Are we worried about the people who actually live in the Congo jungle? Not that much. It's there, it'll always be there. It just is not in anyone's interest, though, for someone who is presymptomatic to hop on a jet that is going to Cairo, for example, without having SOME sort of backup plan besides isolation. It's easy enough to isolate the small villages, etc., in the Congo region. It will not be possible to do so in a place like Cairo. You'd have to lock down the entire city and its 20 million inhabitants.

    14. Re:waste of resources by cnerd2025 · · Score: 1

      Mistshadow, I agree with you. I feel like walking up to PMF and telling him (or her), "You have cancer. There is a cure, but it costs too much to manufacture. Have a nice day!"

      Polio is almost as uncommon as ebola and far less deadly. Today only about 1000 new cases of polio occur each year, and the WHO is working to eliminate the virus completely, despite civil war in Sudan and a boost in cases in Nigeria, which claimed the West was tainting the vaccine with sterility substances and HIV to destroy Islam. After a 10-month ban, the muslim clerics recanted, since a massive resurgence of the virus had occured across Nigeria and in several neighboring states, a few of which had never seen the Virus. I doubt that the polio vaccination is terribly "cost-effective", but that doesn't mean it isn't worth it. With viruses like polio out of the way, other, even more dangerous diseases can be stopped, like Ebola and HIV.

      To the user who posted about TB, keep in mind that TB is a bacterial infection, and thus quite different from a viral one. Bacteria are able to live outside of a host, given a "food" supply, while viruses often are dormant or destroyed (as with AIDS). That said, TB is estmated to infect 2 billion people worldwide, and is thus an extremely serious pathogen.

    15. Re:waste of resources by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 1

      That was an absolutely beautiful troll. It had nothing at all to do with what I said. It was extremely inflammatory. It calls me inhumane. It invokes Nazis.

      Brings a tear to my eye. That's how trolling used to be done in the old days.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    16. Re:waste of resources by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 1

      Polio has not and probably is not going to be eradicated. The WHO missed their target for eradication, and now a lot of people have doubts about the political will to do it.

      Now, about walking up to me and telling me something. That would be fine, except that I'd respond that your reading skills are sub-par. To reduce your argument to absurdity, to follow your advice would be the same as spending ALL the money on my cancer, and allowing everyone else to die.

      I'm saying that spending a lot of money on Ebola isn't going to be the best use of the money. I gave Polio as an example, and you treated it as an argument. Polio isn't important here. Pick another disease, I dont care. What I am arguing is that if you have a certain amount of money, there's a spending curve that you should maximize so that the maximum number of lives should be saved with that money.

      Since you're arguing that I'm wrong on that, you are arguing that some people should die. You are what they call a "bad man".

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    17. Re:waste of resources by cnerd2025 · · Score: 1

      Hmmm... I'm from the camp who says, "Let's try and find cures or at least treatments for any diseases we can." That makes me a bad man? I go on /. to have a decent debate... Well I should have known about some loser whose fucking name is redundant. You're acting like there is some limited quantity of money AND that the treatment of disease is some sort of profitable endeavor. Good luck with that one! You're also saying that some people deserve to live over others because the "cost curve" is more favorable for them. We're talking about human beings here. They all deserve to live! Your logic is on par with that of George W. Bush ("Your either with me or against me...") and your compassion that of Dr. Strangelove. People like you make me sick, because people like you are the ones who don't fight malaria. Though you advocate fighting disease, the eventuality of your argument is the ignorance of the human race. The eventuality of your argument is the disregard of those starving in countries because of greedy and heavily armed war lords or religious and ethnic conflicts or abuse of political power. Saving lives is not some sort of "optimization" problem. There simply aren't enough resources to help those who need help. Instead of preaching about how money should be spent, why not do something about it? You'll feel better and maybe take that pair of chopsticks out of your ass.

    18. Re:waste of resources by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 1

      I don't think you want to help anyone at all. I think you're a sociopath.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
  7. BULLSHIT by Andrew+Tanenbaum · · Score: 1
    1. Re:BULLSHIT by Medinole · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't know the specifics of that occasion, but: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct/info/whatis#whati s Informed consent is an essential part of the drug testing process, and I did not see anything in the above article to suggest that it was not used. Unfortnately, human trials often come with side effects, both expected and unexpected, and it is just part of the process (heartless though that may be). For a drug to even make it to the point of clinical trials in humans it must show enough a high enough risk to reward ratio in animal and analytical models. A major problem with HIV is that the only animal models that are close are primates, and the strain of "HIV" they carry is not similar enough to what is in humans for scientists to be able to accurately predict a drugs action in human HIV. Still, toxilogical data would have been gathered from animal models in your case, and it was decided by the powers that be that the side effects of those drugs did not warrent an end to this (these?) drug's trial. Only about 1/10,000 potential drugs actually makes it to market, not many "bad" drugs will ever be released to the public. They always have a benefit that is percieved as being greater than the detriment.

    2. Re:BULLSHIT by gd23ka · · Score: 1

      Medinole,

      Illegal human experimentation sans knowledge and sans consent is a fact. Spare us stupid excuses.

    3. Re:BULLSHIT by ichigo+2.0 · · Score: 1

      Wow, you sound so convincing that I will immediately believe you. Thank you so much for stating this compelling fact to us.

  8. When I was a youngun' by Deliveranc3 · · Score: 4, Funny

    We used to puke blood and have gaping sores appear and gosh darn it that's how we LIKED it!

  9. So then.... by Rob_Bryerton · · Score: 1

    So....

    Who first?

  10. ...passes initial human test... by carlvlad · · Score: 0

    hah! take that!

    not so important now, mouse/rats ?

  11. Wohooo its totally cured! by dj245 · · Score: 1

    So theres a study that says that one component of the vaccine has no harmful side effects on humans. But does it work? And more importantly, how much can I make by buying up some pharmco stock now?

    --
    Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
  12. Least Developed Countries by ndogg · · Score: 1

    Since the primary victims of this disease are impoverished, will this be given at no cost to them?

    If not, then the research was moot.

    --
    // file: mice.h
    #include "frickin_lasers.h"
    1. Re:Least Developed Countries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like most evil corporations, they are in it for the money. So step 2 of the plan is "release ebola into weathly countries, using any Tom Clancy plot mode". Then sell the vaccine to wealthy people that don't want to die.

    2. Re:Least Developed Countries by NerveGas · · Score: 1

      It'll get tested on them for efficacy. Once it's proven effective, then they'll get charged for it. That may sound cynical, but look at what' happened with the recent rotavirus vaccine - since the last rotavirus vaccine was taken off of the market for safety concerns, the new one was tested almost entirely in Latin American countries. The official explanation was that it was needed there more than other places - but the real reasoning is that those locations are easy and cheap to test in, with little or no restrictions, and little (if any) accountability.

      steve

      --
      Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
    3. Re:Least Developed Countries by Forbman · · Score: 1

      Well, if their exposure to the virus in the wild is far greater there than in Europe, US, whatever, then it makes more sense to do it there, too, even at the risk of "exploiting" the natives. If it's going to work as a preventative, then it needs to work in the hot zones, so to speak, otherwise it's not really going to work.

      We have no problem testing new cancer treatments that are on the verge of lethal for "normal" people on terminal cancer patients...why is this any different, then?

      If I think I've developed a new treatment or prevention of cholera or typhoid, I'm not testing it in Anchorage, AK. I'm going to Manila, Buenos Aires, Rio de Janiero, Cairo, etc. to see if it actually works, once I'm pretty sure that the drug won't kill those it is put into outright. I can't just sneak into a water treatment center and surreptitiously route sewage discharge into the drinking water supply bypassing the filters and Cl2 treatments, etc.

      Thalidomide works on the bacteria that causes Leprosy. Should it not be used for this because it also causes gross birth defects? Just don't give it to pregnant lepers, then, duh.

    4. Re:Least Developed Countries by NerveGas · · Score: 1

      "We have no problem testing new cancer treatments that are on the verge of lethal for "normal" people on terminal cancer patients...why is this any different, then?"

          Well, you tell me: Is there a difference between a potentially lethal drug being used on a terminal patient, and a potentially lethal drug (yes, the old one killed some people) being used on someone that's just going to have diarrhea for a few days?

          Sure, you could argue that those people would die from dehydration resulting from diarrhea, but having lived in those areas, most of the people which are likely available for the tests also have easy access to pedialyte to take care of that.

          Wait until you've seen Latin American cholera wings in hospitals, where the patients are in hammocks with holes cut out for their butts, and buckets underneat them. =)

      --
      Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
    5. Re:Least Developed Countries by NerveGas · · Score: 1

      One more thing...

      "If I think I've developed a new treatment or prevention of cholera or typhoid, I'm not testing it in Anchorage, AK. I'm going to Manila, Buenos Aires, Rio de Janiero, Cairo, etc. to see if it actually works, once I'm pretty sure that the drug won't kill those it is put into outright. I can't just sneak into a water treatment center and surreptitiously route sewage discharge into the drinking water supply bypassing the filters and Cl2 treatments, etc."

        If it were really that important, and it were really isolated to Latin America, then why are they testing it in Norway as well? As cynical as my argument sounds, I've worked for large companies, and I have seen first-hand how these decisions get made. The times when the interest of people at large - even poor people - is a deciding factor in the decision making process are so few that you can't believe it when it happens.

        "Hmm... test the drug in the US. 1% chance of a multi-billion dollar lawsuit. The feds keep track of our results. OK, test in Nicaragua, 0% chance of any lawsuit, nobody knows if anything bad happens. What should we do?"

      steve

      --
      Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
  13. for just the briefest of moments... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... my brain went, "WTF is an electronic bola?"

  14. Wow by LittleBigScript · · Score: 1

    I thought my job interview with Frito Lay was tough!

  15. You really don't want to be in the placebo group by Belseth · · Score: 4, Funny

    Let me guess the group bleeding out of their eyes got the placebo?

  16. Adverse reaction considerations by aschoff_nodule · · Score: 2, Informative

    Without discounting their achievement, I would like to say that 21 people is very less a number to be satisfied about the safety of a drug. Lethal idiosyncratic aplastic anemia in chloramphenicol occurs in 1 in 25000 people, which was sufficient for this drug to be almost kicked out of the market (it is only used where all other drugs have failed).

    Also, it is yet to be seen if side effects appear in the patients in the presence of Ebola virus, since all these subjects were not exposed to Ebola virus (ofcourse it is not ethical to do such an experiment, but we will come to know of that only after the vaccine comes out in the market - via Phase IV trials).

    1. Re:Adverse reaction considerations by shawb · · Score: 1

      For a little clarification, Chloramphenicol is still used widely in veterinary applications. There are just extra precautions taken to prevent ingestion (even absorption through the skin.) and it generally is not sent home with owners to administer to pets.

      And 21 people is indeed a small trial, but this is probably just a stepping stone to larger trials. And some diseases are worth the risk of possible side effects.

      --
      I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
    2. Re:Adverse reaction considerations by aschoff_nodule · · Score: 1

      Lets consider the case of typhoid fever - Chloramphenicol is the most effective drug in the lab. However, when it comes to practical use it is replaced by fluoroquinolones and ceftriaxone because of the potential side effects. When Chloramphenicol was introduced half a century ago, it was widely hailed as a broad spectrum antibiotic and indiscriminately used. However, only after it was administered to millions of people its idiosyncratic dyscrasia (aplastic anemia) came to be known - considering the incidence between 1 in 40,000 to 1 in 25,000 when you treat one million people with chloramphenicol between 25 and 40 ppl will be expected to have the reaction. Such a rare, though lethal reaction, cannot have been predicted even by administering to 10,000 ppl (which is generally a sufficiently large study).

      Secondly, I do not disagree that this is a stepping stone to further studies - read my first line "Without discounting their achievements............"

      Finally, safety standards are very stringent for humans - not so much for pets. Hence, though I am not aware, Chloramphenicol as you say may be used more frequently in pets. But that is not the point of our discussion.

    3. Re:Adverse reaction considerations by shawb · · Score: 1

      Sorry, didn't mean to make it sound like I was discounting your post. I was just trying to roll with the topic a little, put in a casual side note.

      --
      I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
  17. errrm by MikeSty · · Score: 2, Insightful

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meningococcus

    Yes, antibiotics are reserved to fight bacterial infections, but it's stupid to say you can not vaccinate against bacterial infections and only virii. Why do we take pre-emptive measures to fight bacterial meningitis by way of vaccination?

    Perhaps I'm mistaken, but it is my believe a vaccination is merely a precautionary cure regardless of the type of ilness (bacteria / virus) ...

    1. Re:errrm by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 1

      I think it's a lot harder to make a vaccine against bacterial infection than against a viral one.

      This is why vaccines against bacterial infections (lyme, meningitis) have only recently appeared on the market.

      For a very long time, only viral infections could be prevented by vaccination.

      --
      retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
  18. Re:VACCINE FOR A BACTERIA??? by Ramze · · Score: 1

    Vaccines are for viruses, antibiotics are for bacteria, but Ebola IS a virus. Maybe you should do some MORE checking before you post, eh?

  19. Re:VACCINE FOR A BACTERIA??? by fossa · · Score: 1

    Um, Ebola is a virus. Check the article. Or check google; you can even buy it on eBay...

  20. Re:VACCINE FOR A BACTERIA??? by MikeSty · · Score: 1

    This is true... so i suppose my mild argument was moot. Key word in "Ebola Virus" is VIRUS. :)

  21. Are you kidding? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How can you not know what ebola is? IF you aren't a troll, you're stupid beyond comprehension.

  22. Grade A Infection by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 3, Funny

    Until I read the whole blurb, I was sure that Ebola was aceing final exams in sociology and psychology, now that they play the role that the old driver's test used to play in becoming a "real person" in America.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  23. Re:VACCINE FOR A BACTERIA??? by whitehatlurker · · Score: 4, Interesting
    While antibiotics are for bacteria, there are also vaccines for bacteria caused diseases. As well, while it's neither virus nor bacterium, there is a Malaria Vaccine Initiative, funded in part by the Gates Foundation.

    Yes, we should get terminology correct. I will not point out why the "ebola virus" would not be affected by antibiotics.

    --
    .. paranoid crackpot leftover from the days of Amiga.
  24. Re:VACCINE FOR A BACTERIA??? by Biomechanical · · Score: 5, Informative

    Khyber, Ebola is a virus, not a bacteria.

    Ebola is a filovirus, one of the simplest and deadliest that we know of on earth.

    If I remember correctly, it is a string of biological matter that consists of six proteins and looks under a microscope like a shepherd's crook.

    It infects cells in the human body - both blood and tissue - and replicates quite rapidly utilizing the body's own RNA strands until the cell literally bursts and releases quite a large quantity of the newly formed virus, which then infects more cells and repeats the process.

    Ebola's only purpose is to replicate inside the warm biological matter of humans and monkeys, destroying cellular tissue as it goes about its "life cycle".

    Ebola Zaire kills about 9 out of 10 people it comes into direct contact with, and Marburg - another filovirus - kills about 8 out of 10.

    Ebola Reston was first found in Washington state in a storage facility built to house monkeys. It infected two workers who came into contact with dead or infected monkeys, but it didn't kill them.

    Ebola Reston and Ebola Zaire are 1 marker apart in their protein make-up, but Zaire kills humans while Reston doesn't seem to, yet.

    However, Ebola Reston seems capable of moving through the air, hence monkeys in the storage warehouse getting sick without contact with each other but all breathing the same re-circulated air conditioned air inside.

    Ebola Zaire, deadly, only contractable through contact with infected bodily fluids. Ebola Reston, one protein different and apparently able to be breathed out by an infected person and infect someone else, like a cold.

    Think about that.

    I hope that this anti-viral vaccine is able to be produced quickly and cheaply because we don't want an outbreak of mutated Reston.

    --
    His name is Robert Paulsen...
  25. But is i available for Windows? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    eom

  26. A girl that I dated... by NerveGas · · Score: 1


        Yeah, that's a weird subject for an ebola thread.

        I once dated a girl who worked in a pathology lab identifying contagious disease samples. When she'd talk about it, she made it sound like she dealt with some pretty serious stuff, so I asked her what she had worked with that day. I don't recall all of the different things, but among them were two different types of ebola. That kind of surprised me. I mean, the 3 or 4 different types of HIV you can expect - with hundreds of millions of people infected all over the world, that's a given, but ebola is vastly less common, and I didn't expect to hear of her dealing with two different types in a single day.

    --
    Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
    1. Re:A girl that I dated... by Forbman · · Score: 1

      Well, if you've read "The Hot Zone", there are at least two different strains of Ebola. Actually, each outbreak of Ebola seems to be a little bit different. The strain that came into the US is now called the "Reston" strain. Luckily it only caused bad flu-like symptoms in the two people who got it from the monkeys that were in that Reston, VA, business park, and it didn't turn into the full meltdown version that usually happens in Africa.

      What is even more interesting about Ebola is that Ebola antibodies are found in new world as well as old world monkeys, but the only outbreaks seem to be in Africa (Congo jungle)...

      "The Hot Zone" is a pretty good book. If you want more details on tropical illnesses, read "The Coming Plague".

  27. Re:VACCINE FOR A BACTERIA??? by OmgTEHMATRICKS · · Score: 1

    Actually, I was thinking of something else - because Ebola is going to be injected into people(although most of the time dead, sometimes it is still alive -just look at all the flu vaccines.) it might be given a rather large chance to mutate THAT way.

  28. Cure already found. by CCFreak2K · · Score: 2, Funny

    Didn't Dustan Hoffman already find a cure for Ebola?

    --
    "Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."
  29. Wikipedia article not sourced by sunbeam60 · · Score: 1
    That part of the Wikipedia article wasn't sourced, and has a big red Neutrality-disputed sign next to it. If you quote from Wikipedia, it better be a sourced part of Wikipedia. Hell, I could go in and write whatever I want to support my argument.

    I'm not saying you are wrong about the 2-21 days, merely that you use a bad argument to support your case. Instead, you could have used Questions and Answers about Ebola. Don't worry, I already added that as a source in Wikipedia.

  30. Wait? by Bizzeh · · Score: 1

    wasnt their always a cure for ebola? or was that just a movie thing?

  31. How about the monkeys? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does this mean it will be safe to try the raw monkey brains the next time I'm in Africa?

  32. Interesting program. by biglig2 · · Score: 4, Funny

    "We're going to test this vaccine on you, now there may be a few side effects."
    "What sort of thing, doc?"
    "Well, nausea, itching, your entire body melting, and there's a chance of drowsiness. So avoid using heavy machinery."

    --
    ~~~~~ BigLig2? You mean there's another one of me?
  33. Re:VACCINE FOR A BACTERIA??? by Doggan · · Score: 0

    One correction:

    Ebola Reston was first found in Washington D.C. (specifically, a storage facility in Reston, Virginia).

  34. Really? Well then you have some reading to do... by gd23ka · · Score: 1

    Dept. of Energy Human Radiation Experiments

    Tuskekee Syphilis Experimentation

    Essay on Human Experimentation ...
    ...
    Though I just yanked the top most of my mind and located that on Google for you, this should get you started.

  35. Re:Really? Well then you have some reading to do.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The incidents you listed are all more than 50 years old

    maybe "was a fact" may have been more appropriate

  36. "first successful tests of an Ebola vaccine" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Aren't you glad you were not in an "unsuccessful" test!

  37. Parent getting a 4 shows /.s moderation is broken by Szplug · · Score: 1

    It needs to go to an 'everyone can moderate everything' system like kuro5hin or digg. Most people would knock the above butt-extruded joke down but, because there are 4 retards who found it funny it gets rated high and stays that way because no-one wants to waste their points.

    --
    Someday we'll all be negroes
  38. Re:Really? Well then you have some thinking to do by gd23ka · · Score: 1

    How come I am under the impression that I'm just talking to one person who is upset about this? Talk to me fifty years from now and I will tell you about the experimentation that went on in 2006. Humanity may have made a couple of leaps forwards in technology hence, but certainly not in ethics so what makes you think a third world life is worth more than four figure value a piece?

  39. Ebola... check. AIDS... wait a minute by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So. They got a vaccine for Ebola. What's preventing them from getting something similar for AIDS? Do medical companies do not feel the urge to cure AIDS because that would dry up their revenue stream? You know, Ebola patients die much, much faster than AIDS ones, giving companies very little time to milk their prospective customers.... What's the catch besides the old "a solution for HIV is hard because the virus mutates" blurb?

    1. Re:Ebola... check. AIDS... wait a minute by epee1221 · · Score: 1

      The fact that people have been infected by AIDS vaccines

      --
      "The use-mention distinction" is not "enforced here."
  40. Re:VACCINE FOR A BACTERIA??? by Scribski · · Score: 1

    you may need to check your facts. The term vaccine comes from vaca which is the latin root for cow. This is because the first vaccine came from using the COWPOX scabs to provide immunity against SMALLPOX (yes that is a virus). BUT Vaccines are anything that boosts the immune system to respond to an agent that was previously unnoticed (or sometimes under-noticed) There is for instance a vaccine for nicotine (an organic molecule) there are vaccines for shigella, campylobacte j. and ETEC (THESE ARE BACERIA) which are common causes of gastroenteritis in general and travelers diarrhea in particular.

  41. Re:VACCINE FOR A BACTERIA??? by geekboy642 · · Score: 1

    "-1, Idiot".

    Come on Slashdot, I know it's possible. Gimme more choices for moderating!!

    --
    Just another "DOJ fascist authoritarian totalitarian bootlicker" -- Zeio
  42. Missing the point... by Scribski · · Score: 1

    Ebola is a bioterrorism agent. It is one of the few level fours that we have (The top). It would be a difficult weapon as, at the moment 1) its not airborne (though ebola reston was) 2) it has a low attack rate (meaning you arent as likely to get it if someone coughs blood in your eyes) 3) its not very tough (dies quickly on countertops) 4) burns itself out quickly (anything that kills it host quickly doesnt allow you to spread it very far. on average a person with ebola infects 5-8 whereas smallpox would get 10-15 at least)

    BUT its a great bioterrorism agent because 1) the deaths are spectacular and 2) people are scared of it. 3) its out there not locked up in labs (like smallpox) 4) we have zero treatments (RTIs, etc dont help much)

    1)A vaccine is an awesome thing to have b/c some day we may need it here. 2) there are healthcare workers in africa who could use it now. 3) every vaccine that works gives us an idea on how to fight other similar viri.

  43. Re:VACCINE FOR A BACTERIA??? by Physician · · Score: 0

    Every baby today gets the hib vaccine to protect against haemophilus influenza type b, a bacteria that was once a major cause of meningitis in infants. Now it's rarely seen. Ever hear of the DPT vaccine that most people on this forum have received? It protects against diphtheria, pertussis (whooping cough) and tetanus. Guess what? They're all caused by bacteria. Moral of the story. Of course vaccines can protect against bacteria.

    --
    Does God treat us as servants or friends? Check my homepage.
  44. Re:You really don't want to be in the placebo grou by Forbman · · Score: 1

    No, it would have been the other way around. This was simply a test to see if the vaccine does NOT evoke the thing it is trying to prevent (Ebola) or cause any other outright acute adverse events. Eventually there will be inocculation with the vaccine followed by exposure to Ebola virus (or enough of the virus to see if an immunologic response is evoked while minimizing the risk of actually getting Ebola).

  45. Re:You really don't want to be in the placebo grou by deadkittens · · Score: 1

    The group bleeding from their ass was considered more important.

  46. Re:You really don't want to be in the placebo grou by jheath314 · · Score: 1

    IIRC from The Hot Zone, you only need about five virii fragments in order to get the infection.

    --
    Procrastination Man strikes again!
  47. Re:VACCINE FOR A BACTERIA??? by deadkittens · · Score: 1

    Reminds of the book "The Hot Zone." They describe all the different Ebola incarnations and the original peopls infected by it. One person got it from bat guano while spelunking. Pretty tough shit to go through. You think you have a bad flu, until you start coughing up parts of yourself and your epi/dermis seperates to form a 3rd layer made purely of blood. The bodies literally look like they got slow cooked because the virus just overtakes their flesh.

  48. Re:VACCINE FOR A BACTERIA??? by Forbman · · Score: 1

    And probably the main bacterial vaccine that everyone should be familiar with on Slashdot, tetanus toxoid vaccine. There are quite a few more antibacterial vaccines for animals (campyolobacteria, chlamydia, etc.).

  49. Re:VACCINE FOR A BACTERIA??? by Forbman · · Score: 1

    Monkeys were being stored in a business park in Reston, Virginia, prior to going to their final destinations. Reston is a suburb of Washington, D.C....

  50. Re:VACCINE FOR A BACTERIA??? by typical · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That reads like the flyleaf of a thriller.

    I'm still a lot more scared of getting hit by a car.

    And, frankly, I'd say that Africa should worry a lot more about AIDS than about Ebola.

    --
    Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
  51. Re:Parent getting a 4 shows /.s moderation is brok by epee1221 · · Score: 1

    Calm down. You'll get your turn to moderate, and then you can do your part to rid the world of jokes that don't make you laugh.

    --
    "The use-mention distinction" is not "enforced here."
  52. Scare tactics are bad. by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 1

    "Reducing the number of cases of Avian Flu in humans by culling birds and inducing fear in the populations where it occurs all helps by reducing the chances the virus has to mutate."

    Inducing fear in populations leads to a distribution nightmare for treatments.

    Due to all the scare and paranoia, there is a worldwide shortage of Tamiflu despite the fact that the actual need for the drug is far lower than the production capability. The problem is that tons of people who have no actual need for it are hoarding it in advance, resulting in the few people who actually need it not getting it.

    A few months ago I was at a pharmacy getting a prescription filled, and the Asian lady in front of me somehow convinced a doctor to give her three "blank check" prescriptions for Tamiflu without any patient names on them. It was pretty clear the lady didn't need it, and I'm pretty sure given the hinky nature of the prescription(s) that no one in her family actually needed it too. If they had, their doctor would have actually written the required patient names on the prescriptions. (Thankfully, the pharmacy wouldn't fill the prescriptions because they weren't legitimate without a patient name. Of course I had to wait ten minutes while the lady argued with the pharmacist...)

    --
    retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    1. Re:Scare tactics are bad. by cruachan · · Score: 1

      That's a good point and it's difficult to know how that could be managed. However the problem is that H5N1 first came up on the radar as a potentially serious threat back in 1997 in Hong Kong, and although the HK authorities handled it well there, it was obvious that the virus didn't originate in HK and so hadn't been eliminated. Nevertheless it was then almost completely ignored by any form of Government anywhere.

      When in 2002/3 when it surfaced again seriously in Vietnam it was again almost completely ignored outside the WHO and Vietnam itself. That continued with the situation deteriorating even when it became apparent that the virus was endemic in wildfowl populations and so was virtually certain, eventually, to break out of SE Asia and spread worldwide. Although I no longer work in the field I'm a microbiologist myself by training so I tend to follow these kinds of news items and I myself found it incredible that the situation seemed to be given such low priority internationally. It was also pretty easy to see that at the time an awful lot of scientists who were aware of the problem seemed to be picking up their own personal stockpiles of Tamiflu - particularly after the SARS outbreak when it became apparent how quickly a virus could spread under moden conditions (SARS was interesting itself as it was quite obvious early on that it would be controlled eventually - the lack of transmission by an infected passenger on an international flight pretty much confirmed that).

      At least now there's a lot of hopeful signs around about potential vaccines - the work on which would not have been done without the profile being raised. And we have increased awareness about looking out for sick birds and human infection, and money available for WHO, CDC etc to send teams to third world countries which should reduce the opportunity for transmission. In Vietnam the situation is now under control with all of the country's fowl stocks vaccinated against the virus, so it can be beaten. More could be done of course - and should be - but without the certain amount of scare-mongering that was done I don't think we'd even be this far.

      Scariest thing of course is that the scare-mongering isn't even necessarily untrue. Experiments on the reconstructed 1918 virus in mice showed it ripped through lung tissue an order of magnitude faster than any other flu virus previously examined. And although there's good reasons to expect that the lethality of a human-transmissible H5N1 will be much lowerer than that seen at the moment, there is no law that says that has to be true.

      Odd thing is that for myself I now find myself in the strange position whereas before it became media news I was more concerned about it than everyone I knew, whereas now I find that I'm reassuring people that it's perfectly ok for us to have booked a holiday this summer in a country which has had H5N1 reported and we'll be at far, far more risk of a salmonella infection that from avian flu.

  53. Not Washington state by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 1

    Ebola Reston is named after Restion, Virginia, a suburb of Washington, D.C. Not the state of Washington.

    Also I believe there is a second African strain of Ebola that is less lethal than Zaire but still lethal to humans.

    --
    retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
  54. Re:Really? Well then you have some thinking to do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Those were all just isolated incidents and you are making it sound like some conspiracy. People like you should have their heads examined.

  55. Re:Parent getting a 4 shows /.s moderation is brok by Rakarra · · Score: 1

    You're probably more in the minority instead of the majority if you would have moderated that down.
    As for 'wasting' mod points, I look at each comment and if I really think it deserves to be modded up or down, I'll spend the point. Most of the time I have mod points that expire unallocated.

  56. Re: .. getting a 4 shows /.s moderation broken by Szplug · · Score: 1

    Well, I find that hard to believe, but thanks for responding.

    I guess I'm used to that level of humor getting filtered out at other sites (kuro5hin.org).

    --
    Someday we'll all be negroes