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."
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"
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.
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%.
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
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.
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.
We used to puke blood and have gaping sores appear and gosh darn it that's how we LIKED it!
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.
Let me guess the group bleeding out of their eyes got the placebo?
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).
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)
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
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.
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.
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...
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."
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.
"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?
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.