Slashdot Mirror


Possible Treatment For Ebola

RedEaredSlider writes "Researchers at the US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases have found a class of drugs that could provide treatment for Ebola and Marburg hemorrhagic fever. The new drugs are called 'antisense' compounds, and they allow the immune system to attack the viruses before they can do enough damage to kill the patient. Travis Warren, research scientist at USAMRIID, said while the work is still preliminary -— the drugs have been tested only on primates — the results are so far promising. In the case of Ebola, five of eight monkeys infected with the virus lived, and with Marburg, all survived. The drugs were developed as part of a program to deal with possible bioterrorist threats, in partnership with AVI Biopharma."

157 comments

  1. Netflix Called by Some.Net(Guy) · · Score: 2, Funny

    Outbreak rentals just dropped to zero

    1. Re:Netflix Called by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 0

      This just in: Still no cure for Cancer.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    2. Re:Netflix Called by SydShamino · · Score: 0

      Well, now we can infect the cancer with flesh-eating bacteria with less worry that it will kill the host.

      Just need to tame Ebola like we have Botulism and people can lose that unwanted body weight by having it eaten off.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    3. Re:Netflix Called by falconwolf · · Score: 0

      Outbreak rentals just dropped to zero

      That's alright, I own the tape and DVD. I buy, I don't rent.

      Falcon

    4. Re:Netflix Called by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A good Capricorn will help them.

    5. Re:Netflix Called by Dexter+Herbivore · · Score: 2, Funny

      Of course, there's no military applications to curing cancer.

    6. Re:Netflix Called by rainmouse · · Score: 1

      Anyone else concerned by their use of the word 'treatment' rather than cure? After all you can only sell a cure once.

    7. Re:Netflix Called by Swanktastic · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Given the rare, rare incidence of these diseases, I'd say treatment makes more sense than a cure. If we're thinking cure, does it really make sense to spend health dollars on potentially vaccinating everyone for Ebola?

    8. Re:Netflix Called by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure if you're being ironic. In case you're not, cancer treatment is a big problem for veterans: cancer is expensive to treat, it's debilitating, and it's shockingly common among veterans exposed to battlefield poisons not necessarily listed as cancer causing (such as the Agent Orange problems), poison handled in their workplaces with less than rigorous toxin handling techniques because the military is in a rush and saving money during battle, and all the _smoking_ common to troopers forced to hurry up and wait for hours and days at their base and in the field. There's also radiation damage which has happened in weapons testing and in handling nuclear materials, even in peaceful times.

      And there is, of course, the military applicaton of exending the viability of exposed military personnel in nuclear warfare, especially in case the Soviets invade Europe and we drop nuclear weapons on the border. This was a very closely examined scenario, and is partly why NATO has nucleare weapons in Europe.

    9. Re:Netflix Called by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It makes sense to come up with a cure (vaccine) for Malaria because of so many people in third-world countries who come down with it. Sure, there aren't many first-world countries where you'll get it, but you'd want to vaccinate people around hot spots or disease reservoirs. Also, remember that just because someone is on the other side of the world, that doesn't mean they can't be in your population center in under 24 hours on an international flight. The world has gotten much smaller, and disease can spread much faster.

    10. Re:Netflix Called by Swanktastic · · Score: 1

      Couldn't agree more. I would limit the boundaries of my opinion to very rare needs like Ebola treatment, not endemic problems like Malaria.

    11. Re:Netflix Called by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      That's alright, I own the tape and DVD. I buy, I don't rent.

      The *IAA called - they're concerned about the possibility that you are carrying an unauthorised copy of "Outbreak" in your brain, and would like you to call into your local Copyright Control Centre to have any such copies excised. You will be offered a choice between lobotomy and Electro-Convulsive Therapy for the copy excision.

      Have a nice day for the remainder of your personality's life.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  2. This Is Great News ... by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ... but how on earth will the people affected by these diseases get these drugs in time once they are sick? We can't even get decent distribution of (somewhat) affordable malaria drugs to the parts of the world that need it. This will be just one more cure for a disease that is defeated by poverty and corruption in parts of the world that can't afford any more of either.

    1. Re:This Is Great News ... by DigiShaman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Perhaps the priority should be more focused on dealing with corruption and poverty in the first place. For example. The UN will address the symptoms with food and aid, but will never address the problem of dictatorships and warlords that cause this poverty and corruption.

      Don't be surprised though. Western civilization has lost its resolve a long time ago. As an American, I really wish the British Empire never dissolved.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    2. Re:This Is Great News ... by camperdave · · Score: 5, Informative

      While it may not be practical on the bulk of Ebola patients, there are a number of people who contract the disease and then travel to other countries and spread it. However, this isn't necessarily about Ebola. This is a new class of disease fighting agents: anti-sense drugs. They work by slowing down a virus's reproductive rate to the point where the body's defenses gain the advantage. It could work against influenza strains, SARS, Lassa and Dengue fever, and a host of other viral infections.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    3. Re:This Is Great News ... by Enry · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Ebola only occurs in one part of the world unlike malaria, so you could stockpile them with an NGO like WHO to take with them when an outbreak occurs.

    4. Re:This Is Great News ... by Relic+of+the+Future · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Note: "possible bioterrorist threats"

      This isn't meant to help poor third-world countries, or to deal with natural outbreaks. The concerns you express were never part of the project's goals.

      (Not saying that's a good thing; just saying that that's what it is.)

      --
      Those who fail to understand communication protocols, are doomed to repeat them over port 80.
    5. Re:This Is Great News ... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The UN will address the symptoms with food and aid, but will never address the problem of dictatorships and warlords that cause this poverty and corruption.

      The U.N. doesn't have any way to deal with dictatorships and warlords, since most of them are members in good standing of the U.N. If you were to expel all the nations with disfunctional governments from the U.N., it would look a lot like NATO (plus Japan and India)...

      As an American, I really wish the British Empire never dissolved.

      So, basically you wish that the British were still around to do all the things you say rude things about the Americans doing? Or do you somehow imagine that the British ruled their Empire without fighting in third-world hellholes pretty regularly?

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    6. Re:This Is Great News ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's no natural immunity developed against malaria, unlike most viral infections. Thus it costs significantly more to protect against it as residents in those areas will need treatment again and again.

    7. Re:This Is Great News ... by TopSpin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      how on earth will the people affected by these diseases get these drugs in time

      Don't think like an ambulance driver. If some part of the world is attacked with ebola people will be killed. The response will then be to manufacture and deploy the 'antidote' to the contaminated area and other areas that might also be at risk of attack. Meanwhile the attackers get hunted down, with prejudice, as the saying goes.

      one more cure for a disease that is defeated by poverty and corruption

      All the good intentions in the world are doomed in the face of corruption, of which poverty is only the most obvious symptom. A solution is not invalid only because it requires more sophistication than can exist in corrupt and impoverished places. When it's your butt on the line you aren't going to walk away from the fix just because the Congolese don't have the option. You will demand it as a right and curse anyone that fails to agree.

      --
      Lurking at the bottom of the gravity well, getting old
    8. Re:This Is Great News ... by interkin3tic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They'll have it for "critical personnel," AKA not you or I, and certainly not the people who would actually be encountering ebola.

      That said, I don't know much about this antisense treatment, but it seems to be based on oligonucleotides, short DNA sequences. Oligos aren't too expensive, have a long shelf life (for my applications anyway) and when dehydrated can be stored at room temperature for quite a while. If antisense therapy works for a wide variety of viruses, it could make sense for large cities and major international airports to have a "toolkit" of antisense oligos ready to go for a variety of outbreaks, and this wouldn't be too expensive to maintain. If ebola entered the network of airports and large outbreaks started, you could have the therapy right there. Influenza? Same thing.

      But with ebola, the time you have is extremely short, and if an outbreak happened in a large city, I doubt anything could be deployed soon enough. And there's no way cities are going to spend the money to keep enough to dose everyone on hand. And that still wouldn't help the populations in Africa who would be exposed first.

      By the way, I find it somewhat strange that "terrorism" is mentioned as a reason here. I guess it's possible that terrorists have biological safety cabinets and autoclaves, and certainly it's dangerous to underestimate terror threats, but I'm imagining Osama bin Laden saying "Lets get some of this Ebola." Terrorist lackey number one obtains a jar of infected blood, hands it to Osama without gloves, and two days later they're all bleeding to death from every orifice.

    9. Re:This Is Great News ... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm assuming that the developers have no plan for that. Either because they view it as somebody else's problem, or because they just don't care.

      The "U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases" isn't exactly the Peace Corps. They probably wouldn't object if the UN or some NGO wanted to buy a bunch of doses for people where hemorrhagic fevers are endemic; this sure isn't being announced like it is some sort of national secret; but I assume that their interest in doing the research is in addressing the contingency of having a 1st world, especially American, population center with the stuff by malice or accident and high speed air travel.

      Even there, unless we are planning to stock a lot of doses, it would almost certainly be used to preserve military readiness and civilians deemed to be important. I doubt the PR people would really like to talk about it; but it isn't exactly a gigantic secret that some people would be closer to the top of the list than others in an emergency.

    10. Re:This Is Great News ... by Enry · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I dunno about that. We really dodged a bullet with the Reston strain. There's no reason it could mutate again and become airborne and lethal.

    11. Re:This Is Great News ... by HomoErectusDied4U · · Score: 2, Informative

      Your point about poverty and corruption defeating cures and treatments is valid, but is perhaps not entirely applicable to Ebola and Marburg. Both of these viruses are zoonoses, that is, they are transmitted to humans from other animals. We do not know for certain which animals are the natural reservoirs of Filoviruses (Ebola and Marburg are the two genera of the Filoviridae), but an incident in the Philippines in 2009 where Ebola infected swine illustrates that cosmopolitan animals (like pigs) can carry the virus. Furthermore, we know that a wide swathe of mammals (from rodents to bats to marsupials) carry 'fossil' Filovirus genetic material in their genomes, meaning that at least their ancestors were carriers of these viruses. Still further, Ebola and Marburg are part of the order Mononegavirales. This order contains the viruses that cause rabies, measles, mumps, and Newcastle disease (a really nasty scourge of domestic and wild birds). It's certainly possible that this treatment, as it undergoes further development, could be applied to related diseases. Sanitation and vaccination rendered rabies, measles, and mumps more or less non-issues in the developed world decades ago, but the current treatment for, say, rabies (if you contract it) is extremely dangerous and not particularly effective.

    12. Re:This Is Great News ... by ibsteve2u · · Score: 3, Informative

      You might want to look at the list of known Ebola outbreaks before you determine where to site your stockpile.

      --
      Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
    13. Re:This Is Great News ... by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 1

      Note: "possible bioterrorist threats"

      This isn't meant to help poor third-world countries, or to deal with natural outbreaks. The concerns you express were never part of the project's goals.

      (Not saying that's a good thing; just saying that that's what it is.)

      I absolutely hate that your answer true, but you are 100% correct. Damn, what a world it's become.

    14. Re:This Is Great News ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It almost certainly won't work against the flu. The big problem with RNA interference therapies like this is that viral genomes mutate rapidly. Otherwise we would have had AIDS cured the day after RNAi was published in 1998.

    15. Re:This Is Great News ... by Enry · · Score: 3, Informative

      Ebola-Reston is different than Ebola-Zaire. The Reston strain isn't deadly to humans (so far), so stockpile can be in/near central Africa since that's where most of the Zaire cases were.

    16. Re:This Is Great News ... by Redlazer · · Score: 1

      You're probably right - we should just stop looking for answers, and give up.

      --
      Guns don't kill people, "with glowing hearts" kills people.
    17. Re:This Is Great News ... by shoehornjob · · Score: 1

      Sad but true.. I think they will market this to people who can pay (like the armed forces). They will make some humanitarian gesture but in the end it's not profitable for them to donate their product for humanitarian reasons.

      --
      "We are just a war away from Amerikastan. When god vs god the undoing of man." Dave Mustaine
    18. Re:This Is Great News ... by gandhi_2 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      This, filled with auto-injector flechette rounds.

    19. Re:This Is Great News ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhhh, but if the reproduction is slowed down, then so too is the mechanism for mutation, no? Or, do you mean that there are already too many mutant versions around in the body for you to be able to target enough of them with your tailored RNAi therapy?

    20. Re:This Is Great News ... by stonewallred · · Score: 1, Insightful

      And how long before every idiot doctor starts prescribing these drugs and cause them to be just as ineffective as the anti_TB drugs are now? TB kills not only the poor in 3rd countries, it has been steadily increasing in the US prison populations and killing prison guards. Not just prisoners, but guards. Who do have health insurance, who do seek and receive treatment and who are still dying. Fuck elbola, it kills very few people every year. A minute number. TB is killing Americans. Let's cure that first.

    21. Re:This Is Great News ... by TeethWhitener · · Score: 2, Informative

      It almost certainly won't work against the flu. The big problem with RNA interference therapies like this is that viral genomes mutate rapidly. Otherwise we would have had AIDS cured the day after RNAi was published in 1998.

      Ahem...

      Turns out getting the government to approve drugs takes time.

    22. Re:This Is Great News ... by macwhizkid · · Score: 1

      Ebola only occurs in one part of the world unlike malaria, so you could stockpile them with an NGO like WHO to take with them when an outbreak occurs.

      Slight correction: Ebola originates in one part of the world. Unfortunately, since there's a 7-10 day incubation period, it's too easy for someone to hop on a plane and be in any other corner of the world when they actually fall ill. Lots of the original case studies were like that: people visiting Kitum cave, the monkeys infected in the Reston outbreak near DC, etc.

      On the flip side, that does mean the physical location of the stockpile becomes less important when it's possible to get it anywhere in the world in 24 hours. Since Ebola is at least several days between onset and death, a 24 hour delay is tolerable. It's certainly better than supportive care.

    23. Re:This Is Great News ... by Genda · · Score: 2, Informative

      Clearly you don't know what you're talking about... the infectious agent of Malaria is the Plasmodia protozoan (not a virus like Yellow Fever), and there is already a precedent for a two part vaccine program that shows great promise (part 1 is a long term vaccine that provides significant resistance, but not immunity, reinforced by part 2 a short term vaccine that imparts full immunity.) The real issue here is one of economics. The 40% of the human beings on the planet at serious and immediate risk are also the poorest 40% of the human population, and therefore are not in position to inspire immediate and significant response from those companies that make vaccines.

      The only real hope for a permanent and lasting solution, is to align first and second world nations in governments in a global effort to eradicate malaria. As long as such a huge reservoir of disease exists, new and vicious mutations will certainly arise, putting global populations at risk of pandemic (exacerbated by global climate change and the growing spread of insect vectors.) Besides the huge humanitarian benefits, there is a more immediate benefit, and it's one of self interest for every citizen of the first and second world. A pandemic, would be a modern plague, resistant to modern drugs, and treatments, and able to kill many millions even billions of people. This should be among our government's top priorities in the new century

    24. Re:This Is Great News ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are too many strains around in the *world*. The medicine isn't made for you specifically.

    25. Re:This Is Great News ... by kyriosdelis · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Assuming, by their name (anti-sense) that these drugs take advantage of the RNA-interference pathway, the molecules used, short interfering RNA (siRNA) don't need to have a 100% specific match to a messenger RNA (mRNA) in order to silence it. When the match is 100%, then the viral mRNA is cleaved (by means of a complex called RISC), and there is no chance of it translating into protein, whereas non-perfect matches don't result in RNA cleavage, but at the same time still block the enzymes that perform the translation (because the siRNA remain stuck to the viral mRNA). Therefore, small mutations in the virus might not have an effect in the drug's efficiency. It's a win-win situation for us.

      --
      I don't mind dating a girl that has been with everybody, as long as she had a good shower afterwards.
    26. Re:This Is Great News ... by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Most of those corrupt and poor countries were fine until a little thing called American Foreign Policy was introduced to them and their neighbors.

      That's some funny shit right there.
      Misguided and wrong, but funny.

    27. Re:This Is Great News ... by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, you can blame the US for South & Central America problems sure. Long history of involvement there. But Africa? When were any African Nations "doing just fine" meaning "not suffering from being poor and not having dictators"?

      Note: I'm not saying American Forien Policy has always been the best for African nations, but were the countries really ever OK? Go back before we were involved and you run into the Colonial rule. Which ( with the exception of Liberia), was mostly European in nature.

      --
      Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    28. Re:This Is Great News ... by macwhizkid · · Score: 1

      I dunno about that. We really dodged a bullet with the Reston strain. There's no reason it could mutate again and become airborne and lethal.

      Indeed. And Reston may have been airborne, too. The disease managed to spread to every room in the monkey facility, though it's still unclear exactly how (as I recall, at the time the Army was a bit too preoccupied trying to prevent an epidemic to stop and conduct an experiment).

      So few people realize just how closely we dodged the bullet with Reston. Two researchers at one point smelled an open test tube of the stuff, the animal handlers in the monkey facility were uninformed and contaminated with it, the company almost didn't let the Army in to contain the building because of publicity concerns. Had it been human-to-human airborne, we may well have been screwed.

    29. Re:This Is Great News ... by kanto · · Score: 1

      They work by slowing down a virus's reproductive rate to the point where the body's defenses gain the advantage.

      If something like this could be used against viral videos, I just might start using social media.

    30. Re:This Is Great News ... by sjames · · Score: 1

      Oh! Did you think it was for them? Nah, they'll make enough for each world leader to have so they can feel important.

    31. Re:This Is Great News ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Assuming like the other reply that these are anti-sense RNA class drugs, it is basically impossible for a virus to become truly immune to the class it self, if you can get them to work then they will be better than antibiotics are for bacteria. They target the RNA of the virus with other RNA, the two bind and are degraded by the cell. While viruses simply lack the capacity to evolve active immunity to these drugs as a class they have been known to suppress parts of the cells defenses, however these types of mechanism are involved in gene regulation as well, it is not like the virus can stop them without killing the cell immediately.

      Larger sequence changes will confer immunity, but the difficult part of these drugs is not making them but delivering them. Once you have a method of delivery you can block arbitrary sequences, changing is easy, or you can chose a part of the virus that is particularly essential, derive all possible *functioning* variants of it and use them all at once.

    32. Re:This Is Great News ... by sjames · · Score: 1

      The U.N. doesn't have any way to deal with dictatorships and warlords, since most of them are members in good standing of the U.N. If you were to expel all the nations with disfunctional governments from the U.N., it would look a lot like NATO (plus Japan and India)...

      Dysfunctional but well meaning governments can be fixed. It's the corrupt governments run for the benefit of the leader and his cronies only that should be expelled if they refuse to change (and they will refuse). When you lie down with dogs you get up with fleas.

    33. Re:This Is Great News ... by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "This will be just one more cure for a disease that is defeated by poverty and corruption in parts of the world that can't afford any more of either."

      Failure is part of the human condition. That doesn't negate advances in medicine, it just means they won't be as available to area where the humans who run things make bad decisions.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    34. Re:This Is Great News ... by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "By the way, I find it somewhat strange that "terrorism" is mentioned as a reason here."

      I don't. Weaponisation of both agents was a concern many years ago, and mentioned routinely in military NBC training.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    35. Re:This Is Great News ... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      It's the corrupt governments run for the benefit of the leader and his cronies only that should be expelled if they refuse to change (and they will refuse).

      The only way to expel someone from the U.N. is by majority vote of the U.N. General Assembly. Since the majority of the governments in that body fit within the definition of "corrupt governments run for the benefit of the leader and his cronies", it's not terribly likely that your fantasy will come to pass.

      The only real solution to the U.N. is to dissolve it and replace it with a new organization, by invitation only.

      Unfortunately, the only real way to dissolve the U.N. would be for the USA to withdraw from it (and take with us the majority of the U.N. funding). And that's just not going to happen. C'mon, the USA just joined the UN Council on Human Rights (which we've carefully avoided till now, since letting a bunch of tin-pot dictators lecture us on human rights is a waste of everyone's time) - we're not about to withdraw from the U.N. this side of a Presidential Election, and probably (realistically, certainly) not then.

      Unfortunately, there are still a lot of people in the USA and Europe (and Canada, too) who believe in the miraculous powers of the U.N. to solve the world's problems....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    36. Re:This Is Great News ... by Darth_brooks · · Score: 3, Insightful

      but an incident in the Philippines in 2009 where Ebola infected swine illustrates that cosmopolitan animals (like pigs) can carry the virus.

      Pigs are hardly cosmopolitan animals. In fact, the last pig I encountered was downright boarish.

      --
      There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
    37. Re:This Is Great News ... by sjames · · Score: 1

      By the way, I find it somewhat strange that "terrorism" is mentioned as a reason here. I guess it's possible that terrorists have biological safety cabinets and autoclaves, and certainly it's dangerous to underestimate terror threats, but I'm imagining Osama bin Laden saying "Lets get some of this Ebola." Terrorist lackey number one obtains a jar of infected blood, hands it to Osama without gloves, and two days later they're all bleeding to death from every orifice.

      If the terrorists tried to develop biological weapons, we might finally be rid of them. It's unfortunate an uncontrollable number of innocents would go with them, otherwise it might be worth encouraging them to try.

    38. Re:This Is Great News ... by brettz9 · · Score: 1

      The UN will address the symptoms with food and aid, but will never address the problem of dictatorships and warlords that cause this poverty and corruption.

      The U.N. doesn't have any way to deal with dictatorships and warlords, since most of them are members in good standing of the U.N. If you were to expel all the nations with disfunctional governments from the U.N., it would look a lot like NATO (plus Japan and India)...

      While there is no doubt a continuing and increasing need for regional alliances between countries with a relatively high level of sustainable political development, and while it is a good point that dictatorships having membership in the U.N., no less on bodies like the Human Rights Council, is a serious issue, as with any union of countries wishing to refine its membership, there is still great unrecognized potential in picking a fight you can win: starting with denying membership to the most obvious targets, the most egregious violators, so as to avoid spooking those which may eventually come around with the right incentives.

      There is a VAST difference between countries like Iran which systematically and even have a blueprint for violating rights, like how they deny their largest non-Muslim religious and non-political minority, Baha'is access to university education, bulldoze their cemeteries, imprison their leaders, instigate violence even against children, etc., and other countries which may be a bit too heavy-handed with those actively working against them, but which otherwise do not have a proactively rights-abusing agenda.

      Restricting membership in the U.N. (which can be done according to Chapter 2 of the U.N. Charter) might be done simultaneously with other reforms which would give incentives to less developed countries to go along with this (and also improve the U.N. in the process), such as phasing out permanent membership in the Security Council, making the General Assembly partially proportional to population and making their resolutions binding, and extending jurisdiction of the hamstrung International Court to actually make judgments in cases where both parties have not agreed to put the case before them.

    39. Re:This Is Great News ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Fuck elbola, it kills very few people every year. A minute number. TB is killing Americans. Let's cure that first.

      Because the US, as a nation of 300,000,000 people, doesn't have the resources to fight more than one disease at a time?

    40. Re:This Is Great News ... by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      I should be clear, I can see the hazard, certainly. I am, however, having a hard time picturing the terrorists we're all focusing on right now doing anything more than killing themselves painfully with Ebola.

      Were North Korea to get their hands on Ebola, sure, they're crazy enough to use it to wipe the rest of the world out, and there are probably individuals who would be willing and capable of deploying Ebola. I was merely making some gallows humor.

    41. Re:This Is Great News ... by brettz9 · · Score: 1

      I hardly see a lot of people believing in the miraculous powers of the U.N., though I do think there is a strong impetus toward people feeling that things should be done in an international rather than go-it-alone way--a sentiment which is rather suitable to a nation priding itself on democracy. Maybe there is some naivete within some in this group, but I don't think even naive people would fail to accept politicians who indicated by their words and proposals, that they did want to work within a more international umbrella, if certain core concerns were met.

      It is even possible that with the right incentives and assurances to the rest of the membership that the present-day U.N. could come around to expelling the most egregious violators. Majority decisions of the General Assembly have been found to condemn rights abuses in certain countries, and not merely when it was the U.S. and Israel either, but countries like Iran.

      But even if not, threats to leave the U.N. might also be politically viable (even a major windfall) if joined with a middle-road expressed desire to unite with a diversity of truly peace-loving nations and offer more real (but still federated) power to any proposed newly created collective body.

    42. Re:This Is Great News ... by corbettw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The UN will address the symptoms with food and aid, but will never address the problem of dictatorships and warlords that cause this poverty and corruption.

      That's because the UN was set up to help provide a way to prevent wars between nations. As long as a dictator is only starving his own people, the UN has no reason to get involved. It sucks, but the alternative is to have the UN turn into a one-world government, which could present its own set of challenges.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    43. Re:This Is Great News ... by wombat1966 · · Score: 1

      I think you are right. It astonishes me, really that we've made so little progress in fighting viruses. But then, antibiotics were discovered by accident! I wonder if you know why they are called anti-sense drugs? It seems such an odd name- there must be a reason behind it. Pam http://www.nutrition--news.com/

    44. Re:This Is Great News ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those evil Americans will show up with soldiers, once again, to keep people alive in spite of their best efforts. Nothing like getting shot at while delivering food and medicine. For reference, I now firmly believe that nuking Mog is a good idea ... a little east of the Ebola threat, but right close to the rift valley fever threat, which is another nasty hemorrhagic fever.

    45. Re:This Is Great News ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You clearly don't understand what natural immunity means.

      A malaria infection does not confer immunity from subsequent infections.

    46. Re:This Is Great News ... by adolf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Better idea: Let's stop imprisoning so many people.

    47. Re:This Is Great News ... by will_die · · Score: 1

      Except the fear, and the reason the money was spend on a low killing virus, was that it would be weaponized and us in North America and Europe.

    48. Re:This Is Great News ... by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Note: I'm not saying American Forien Policy has always been the best for African nations, but were the countries really ever OK? Go back before we were involved and you run into the Colonial rule. Which ( with the exception of Liberia), was mostly European in nature.

      Europe has been out of most of Africa for 50 to 100 years, how long can we keep blaming Europe for this and avoid assigning responsibility to the Africans?

      Many of the better off African nations maintain voluntary ties to the Commonwealth of Nations that came out of the old British empire. South Africa (got full membership back after Apartheid in 1994) Botswana, Ghana and a few others.

      Note that I'm not saying a US style of interference will help, in fact I think it will make things worse for Africa (even worse) but some should definitely be demoted in the UN to diminished members (thinking the likes of Nigeria, Zimbabwe). Even China and the Former Iraqi state cares/d a great deal about feeding it's people. Saddam paid corrupt officials up to three times the price for food shipments back in the 90's. A few of the African governments get away with murder (literally for Mr Mugabe) under the guise of sovereign rights.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    49. Re:This Is Great News ... by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Note: "possible bioterrorist threats"

      This isn't meant to help poor third-world countries, or to deal with natural outbreaks. The concerns you express were never part of the project's goals.

      No money in helping poor African nations but there's plenty of profit in making rich, lazy and ignorant first world nations scared of a non-existent bogeyman.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    50. Re:This Is Great News ... by stonewallred · · Score: 1

      Someone remove the flamebait mod on parent. Disagree does not equal flamebait.

    51. Re:This Is Great News ... by d3ac0n · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I agree. We should stop simply imprisoning murderers and violent felons and go back to executing them. That would free up quite a bit of space in our prisons. /chainyank

      --
      Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
    52. Re:This Is Great News ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to that page, in 1996-1997 (Jul-Jan) in Gabon, among 60 people infected 45 died (i.e. 74%).

    53. Re:This Is Great News ... by Muad'Dave · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, the purpose of this therapy, as developed by The U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, is to keep US troops safe from infection should some whackjob decide to use Ebola, etc as an aerosolized biological weapon. Did you RTFA?

      Certainly there will be civilian uses for such a treatment, but that's not what this research is about.

      If you feel so strongly about helping "poor African nations", start a campaign to fund stockpiles of this drug when it makes it out of the research phase. Since it was developed by the US government, I'd hope you would be able to get the right to manufacture license-free, since We The People(tm) funded the research.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    54. Re:This Is Great News ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But Africa? When were any African Nations "doing just fine" meaning "not suffering from being poor and not having dictators"?

      Your time scale seems to be very small.
      Take a look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_empires
      They seem to have managed pretty good before white people invaded them, and took them as slaves for the greatness of America.

    55. Re:This Is Great News ... by camperdave · · Score: 2, Insightful

      TB is killing Americans. Let's cure that first.

      What's so special about Americans that we should be curing their diseases first?

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    56. Re:This Is Great News ... by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      To be fair, they sold themselves (well, each other really) to the white people as slaves. It's not like they weren't complicit in the process.

    57. Re:This Is Great News ... by jbeaupre · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Ebola-Reston is unique another way: airborne transmission. No humans have died so far, but we can't yet rule out a .1% or 1% mortality rate (over 80% chance a 1% mortality rate is undetected). Heck, with 20 exposed people surviving, there's potentially a 1/3 chance of a 5% mortality going undetected.

      Airborne and with the potential for killing millions, yeah, might as well stockpile a little bit in the Philippines just in case.

      --
      The world is made by those who show up for the job.
    58. Re:This Is Great News ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Simple: they WON'T get the 'drugs' in time once they are sick, and it won't matter anyway, because no drug EVER cured a disease.

    59. Re:This Is Great News ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Guess what? There are plenty of organizations that exist so the more functional governments can talk to each other. Check out the US's International Organization participation list in its CIA world factbook entry:

          https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html

      The main function of the UN is to prevent wars that are a result of miscommunication. To do that, you specifically want to have as many countries present as possible. Especially the ones that aren't functional, since those are the countries most likely to want to start wars.

      [Posting AC because I used mod points elsewhere in this thread.]

    60. Re:This Is Great News ... by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 1

      My time scale was very small, because I was specifically replying to the posters claim that the Untied states foreign policy were directly to blame for turning perfectly good countries into poor, corrupt ones. Yes, Africa as a nation was "fine" before European involvement. That's not at all related to the point I was making. My point is that it wasn't fine before the United States involvement. United States != Europe.

      --
      Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    61. Re:This Is Great News ... by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1

      Your signature is awesome =) Oh, and quality post as well.

    62. Re:This Is Great News ... by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      They already kill themselves with bombs. It's plausible that some of them may be willing to risk this kind of death in order to inflict it upon others.

      Not quite as spectacular as a suicide bombing, but it would still have a very chilling effect.

    63. Re:This Is Great News ... by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      There's no natural immunity developed against malaria, unlike most viral infections.

      It's good to see an AC who has no clue what he talking about every now and then. Breaks the stereotype.

    64. Re:This Is Great News ... by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      the current treatment for, say, rabies (if you contract it) is extremely dangerous and not particularly effective.

      I assume you mean the Milwaukee Protocol, because post-exposure prophylaxis is very effective, you just have to know you've been exposed.

    65. Re:This Is Great News ... by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      there are a number of people who contract the disease [Ebola] and then travel to other countries and spread it.

      Please cite your sources.
      No, seriously. I used to work in a medical research animal house, and I take a non-trivial interest in such matters.
      The only cases of Ebola (and haemmoragic filovirus fevers in general) that I'm aware of outside Africa are : the Marburg incident, where a shipment of monkeys from outside Europe contained a number of animals with active disease, which spread to unsuspecting handlers in Marburg, East German) ; a small number of needlestick incidents affecting single research workers ; the Washington incident (nearly a duplicate of Marburg, except that it was recognised early thanks to knowledge of the Marburg incident) ; and that's about it.

      So - please cite your sources of evidence for human-to-human transmission of haemmoragic fevers outside the country of origin.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  3. E-1101 by camperdave · · Score: 2, Funny

    I guess they just pulled some E-1101 out of the freezer.

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  4. Great by Beardydog · · Score: 2, Funny

    Now what am I supposed to wish upon my enemies?

    1. Re:Great by Pseudonym+Authority · · Score: 2, Funny

      You only wished for Ebola? I always go with erectile dysfunction.

    2. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now what am I supposed to wish upon my enemies?

      Wish them to hate no one and love everyone?
      Oh, wait, that's how AIDS got started...

    3. Re:Great by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2, Funny

      Ebola and an anti-ebola shot juuuuuuuust out of reach.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    4. Re:Great by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "Now what am I supposed to wish upon my enemies?"

      Nancy Pelosi, naked and petrified.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    5. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Now what am I supposed to wish upon my enemies?"

      Nancy Pelosi, naked and petrified.

      Wouldn't it lose effect if nothing sways? Forget petrified, make it out of a firm jello mix, and make them lick it through some twisted scenario.

    6. Re:Great by GrumblyStuff · · Score: 1

      A curse that makes them sweat pine sap?

    7. Re:Great by stonewallred · · Score: 1

      Pelosi and Cheney, naked and with strap-ons just for you. Give Cheney a towel and Pelosi a garden hose and you have violated every possible human rights law in the world. Now that is a awful fate to wish upon your very worst enemies.

    8. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now what am I supposed to wish upon my enemies?

      I always like the curse "My the flees of 100 camels take rest in your nose hairs."

    9. Re:Great by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1

      Death via Keeping Up With The Kardashians. I'd much prefer hemorrhagic fever over that =)

  5. This is how anti-terrorism funding should be spent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This, right here, is an example of the correct priorities for anti-terrorism funding.

    It's much harder to cure someone who has been blown up by a bomb, I realize that. But, things like this, and harmonizing emergency radio systems, and subsidized first aid, and other sensible measures that should be done anyway but aren't only as a pure factor of economic reality, they are the first things that should be in line for funding that truly saves lives and makes people safer; and they work equally well for terrorism, natural disasters, negligent officials, and plain bad luck (unlike most anti-terrorism programs which look impressive but are essentially military in nature).

    Bruce Schneier has said the same thing for about as long. But still you've got sheriffs buying robotic sentry cannons and military research into autonomous robotic assassins. It's only lucky that, like the space program, the benefits do eventually trickle down to private industry and then to the general population. But it could still be better spent in the first place, for more immediate effect.

    So, what are the chances of this actually being supplied to "unimportant" people (ie. foreign countries), for fear of bioterrorist chemists engineering resistant strains?

  6. Re:This is how anti-terrorism funding should be sp by mr_mischief · · Score: 4, Insightful

    IMO first aid should be a required class beginning in about the 6th grade, right along with household and small business microeconomics.

  7. Primates by markdavis · · Score: 2, Informative

    "said while the work is still preliminary - the drugs have been tested only on primates"

    Last time I checked, Humans are primates...

    1. Re:Primates by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

      Last time I checked, Humans are primates...

      That can't be right. I'm sure I've seen a human lawyer at the zoo.

    2. Re:Primates by alanebro · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Humans are animals. However, the term "animals" is generally used to describe all animals EXCEPT us. Rinse and repeat for your example.

    3. Re:Primates by MokuMokuRyoushi · · Score: 1

      True though that may be, different species can have wildly different immune responses. And humans are wildly different from monkeys or apes.

      --
      Humans are terrible replicators of Godly things.
    4. Re:Primates by mog007 · · Score: 1

      And humans are wildly different from monkeys or apes.

      That's like saying that Texans are wildly different from Americans.

      It's a meaningless comparison, because one is a subgroup of the other.

    5. Re:Primates by markdavis · · Score: 1

      While I know that, note the term "animal" was never used in the summary...

    6. Re:Primates by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      I used to think humans and other primates were more closely related than they are before I found out that we don't even share the same number of chromosomes. We have 46, chimps (and many other apes) have 48. By that metric humans are more like Sable Antelopes and whatever the hell this thing is than chimps.

      Chimps share chromosome number 48 with deer mice, gorillas, hares, orangutans, potatoes (tetraploid), rhesus monkeys, and tobacco (tetraploid).
      Humans share chromosome number 46 with Sable deer and the Reeve's Muntjac.

      FYI, horses have 64 and donkeys 62. Mules, the love children of their ill-fated summer flings, have 63 and are mostly infertile.

      Is there (or could there be) a similar chimp/human hybrid? I've never heard of one, so it seems that humans and chimps are farther apart, genetic compatibility-wise, than horses and donkeys.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    7. Re:Primates by mog007 · · Score: 1

      Humans have 2 fewer chromosomes, because at some point after our divergence with the Chimpanzee, two of them fused.

      That's not just idle speculation, it's actually been proven. If we shared a common ancestor with the other great apes, then either the ancestor had 46 or 48. Since Gorillas, Chimps, and Orangutans all have 48, it seems reasonable that humans must be the odd ones out.

      You can't lose a pair of chromosomes, because it would kill the organism, so they must still be there. Every chromosome has a telomere on the ends, and a centromere in the middle. In order for our origin to reside in the great ape lineage, there must be a human chromosome that has two centromeres, and a telomere in the middle of a chromosome.

      Since chromosomes are always paired, the correct way to look at is that humans have 23 pairs, and the other great apes have 24. It's chromosome pair 2, that contains the teleomere in the middle, as well as an extra centromere.

  8. Cue Bush joke in 3.. 2.. 1... by Leuf · · Score: 0, Troll

    "antisense compounds" tested on primates. Too easy.

  9. Bioterrorism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ebola isn't that bad, from a bioweapons POV. Yeah, it's deadly... but it sucks at infections in the early stages (the first week or two?) I guess it works for "bioterrorism" though, given the high scary rate.

    There's a lot nastier stuff out there, which spreads faster and easier... while still being pretty high on the mortality rate.

    1. Re:Bioterrorism by mousse-man · · Score: 1

      A antibiotics-resistant version of Yersinia pestis would be optimal - high killing rate, high infection rate, and the disease spread can only be stopped with drastic measures.

      If I were a terrorist, I'd forego using Ebola since this disease kills it's host rather fast. Too fast for a successful spread of the disease.

    2. Re:Bioterrorism by mr100percent · · Score: 1

      Yeah but it's scarier

    3. Re:Bioterrorism by AJWM · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Only pneumonic plague spreads very quickly, the bubonic kind doesn't. But more to the point, anyone descended from European or Middle Eastern ancestry has a pretty solid level of genetic resistance to plague. It's not the killer today that it was in the 14th century, even without antibiotics -- the vulnerable population died out.

      So no, Yersinia pestis isn't going to be that effective.

      --
      -- Alastair
  10. Re:This is how anti-terrorism funding should be sp by cmiller173 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Couldn't agree more. In sixth grade I took a 4-part Red Cross first aid course as an after school program.would have been 1977-1978 or so. Planning to find something similar for my daughter next summer weather it's through school or not.

  11. Possible Treatment For Ebola by falconwolf · · Score: 3, Informative

    Researchers at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases have found a class of drugs that could provide treatment for Ebola and Marburg hemorrhagic fever.

    Is this going to be another example of government spending hundreds of Hundreds Millions of Taxpayer Dollars developing a drug only to give it away exclusively to a pharmaceutical business who can then make billions of dollars on the drug if there's an outbreak? That is exactly what the National Cancer Institute or NCI, part of the US federal government's National Institutes of Health did. The NCI spent more than $484 Million [pdf] developing and testing Taxol as a breast cancer drug. The NCI then gave Bristol-Myers Squibb, BMS, exclusive rights to its use. What did BMS pay for those rights? BMS paid $35 Million in royalty payments through 2002. BMS had those exclusive rights for more than 10 years. Guess how much BMS sold Taxol for... In 2000 BMS sold $1.6 Billion, earning between $4 and $5 Million a day.

    Falcon

    1. Re:Possible Treatment For Ebola by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure about this, but I'd consider adding the amount paid directly ($35 million, as you state) to the amount collected in tax revenues from the sales of the drug as well. Not the sales taxes, or the income taxes from the jobs created, but the corporate taxes paid, as they directly relate to those sales. That's a more accurate figure of what BMS gave the government.

    2. Re:Possible Treatment For Ebola by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure about this, but I'd consider adding the amount paid directly ($35 million, as you state) to the amount collected in tax revenues from the sales of the drug as well. Not the sales taxes, or the income taxes from the jobs created, but the corporate taxes paid, as they directly relate to those sales. That's a more accurate figure of what BMS gave the government.

      Those sells were world wide not just in the US, and businesses don't pay income tax on all of that. And what jobs? The jobs at the NCI? They did the research not BMS. All BMS did was research on how to lower its own costs. And manufacturing costs don't count either, as stated before in 2000 BMS made more than a billion dollars in profit. And guess who paid some of that? Taxpayers, Medicare pays for treatment too.

      Falcon

    3. Re:Possible Treatment For Ebola by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      Then you take the taxes paid on the sales in the US. Either way, the figure is important. It could be sold at $35 million as a down payment, with the agency expecting to recoup the investment only if the drug turns out to be viable to bring to market.

      Also, if you think the processes for making any drug are exactly the same between research quantity and market quantity, you're sorely mistaken. There's engineering jobs to be had converting those processes from small scale to the large scale, and "manufacturing" (may fall under another category) jobs when the process is implemented. Definitely not a "no jobs created" situation when they get this kind of drug handed to them, but I say not to include that portion in this calculation anyway.

      Figure out what they paid in taxes due to sales of that drug, then your argument is more convincing. They could have easily paid $400 million (or more) in taxes, at which point the government has nearly (or completely, then doubly) recouped the investment by this point, but you don't even address that aspect of the situation.

    4. Re:Possible Treatment For Ebola by VShael · · Score: 1

      It's not socialism, if the money flows upwards, and if the rich man's bill is split across the tax payers.

    5. Re:Possible Treatment For Ebola by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      At what point was the drug bought, and how much did BMS pay for other compounds that didn't work out?

      These kinds of royalty payments aren't unusual if a compound is bought before it has gone through any kinds of trials. If that sum was paid after Phase III trials were complete then of course they managed to get some kind of back room deal.

      The reason that compounds are cheap before trials is that most of them turn out not to work. Google for headlines about pharmaceutical companies buying the rights to drugs from small companies. Note how much is being paid for them. Note how many of them there are. Now, Google for drug approvals and see how many of those compounds that were licensed 8 years ago are on the market.

      If a company licenses 10 compounds for $35M each, chances are half of them will get canceled, and the other half will end up making $50M/yr or something like that. It is pretty rare for a compound that cost $35M to buy to turn into a $1B/yr drug.

      Compounds sold early in development are a bit like buying a car on auction from a catalog - sight-unseen, without any warranty or certification of any kind. A car that might sell for $2k to somebody who can test drive it might sell for $500 sight-unseen. The buyer is taking on a huge risk buying a car without any assurance that it will work, and that will reflect in the price. The same applies to drugs, which are notoriously likely to fail even if everybody is acting in good faith.

      That said, the fact that the government is a poor negotiator is a surprise to nobody. My thinking is that the government should run two sets of operations in parallel. When they discover a promising compound, half of the time they auction it on the open market for the highest price (it might not sell for as much as you expect - untested drugs usually don't work out), and half of the time the NIH should just develop the compound to completion (failure or success) and then license the manufacture of the compound non-exclusively (meaning that it will be dirt cheap to buy). Then a comparison can be made of the approaches and the ultimate costs to consumers and success rates/etc.

    6. Re:Possible Treatment For Ebola by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The NIH is all bad and listening to your government's advice on health is just another way of failing to comprehend history, at least if you live in the USA. They also spent hundreds of millions in taxpayer money trying to prove that eating fat made you fat. The closest they could come was a study which showed that taking drugs to reduce your cholesterol reduced your risk of heart disease. On the basis of this study the USDA built a food pyramid suggesting that you avoid fats and choke down metric fucktons of carbohydrates. This coincides with the rise of packaged, prepared snack foods in this country, which are uniformly carb-heavy. Eating pure lard will lower your cholesterol score, so this is not at all relevant; it's the prepared foods which contain "ready" (pre-processed, and thus rapidly digestible) carbs AND fat which raise cholesterol the most. Further, as we became more sedentary, the USDA continued to promote a 2,000 calorie diet appropriate for active individuals; and when you consume 2,000 calories of mostly carbohydrates you invite diabetes, heart disease, and a host of other illnesses including glucose resistance... which doesn't sound like a disease until you realize it's the mechanism behind carbohydrate addiction, since you have to eat more and more carbs to feel full.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:Possible Treatment For Ebola by b4dc0d3r · · Score: 1

      It's not just your taxes, it's mine too, and I'm ok with this. You got your interstate highway system, I got my Ebola cure, just like I always wanted.

      Based on what I'm seeing, without the NCI this would probably not exist, so we're all better off. I'd say this falls under the 'general welfare' part of the Constitution, so it's money well spent. The only thing that matters here is whether BMS got special treatment. Did all companies bid on this and BMS offered more? Or did someone make a sweetheart deal? Are competitors complaining about this deal?

      You're falling into the camp of "governmnet should never spend money to make life better for anyone unless there is profit involved."

      Also, did you know that you can request funding for cancer-related research from NCI? It's entirely possible that someone could request funding and come up with Taxol, and financially it equates to the same thing - a subsidy paid by the government for private research. The difference is, the governmnet does not want to produce drugs, nor be responsible for the inevitable lawsuits. so they had to get someone to make it. How does one entice a private entity to produce a good for the betterment of the population? Financial incentive.

      If Taxol does what it's supposed to do, actual costs of cancer treatment should go down overall, with part of the savings going to BMS as incentive to make the drug and take responsibility. This seems like the way forward for government to me.

      That said, most of the Ebola cases happen in countries too poor to afford Taxol. My only concern isn't whether some company gets exclusive rights to Ebola cure, it's whether the cost allows people with Ebola to benefit from it. If someone profits from production, import, and sales in the types of areas where Ebola is a concern, more power to them. I'm not going anywhere near the stuff, not even to give doses to people who need it. But it can't be a supply/demand pricing where you measure the cost of a poor person's life. If it's not affordable there will be outrage, otherwise not so much.

    8. Re:Possible Treatment For Ebola by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      It's not just your taxes, it's mine too, and I'm ok with this. You got your interstate highway system, I got my Ebola cure, just like I always wanted.

      You got the interstate highway system too. And I didn't say I didn't want a cure for Ebola. I dare you to point out where I did. No, what I said was I hoped it would not be a corporate give away. Further, what I'd like to see is for the government to open source this treatment. Treatment not cure. That is allow any company who wanted to to manufacture and sell the drug. If not that then have companies who do make and sell it pay a royalty, say 5%. That money can then be put back in the system to fund more research.

      I'd say this falls under the 'general welfare' part of the Constitution

      Your definition of "general welfare" is different than the USA's Founding Fathers. As Thomas Jefferson, the person who wrote the "Declaration of Independence", said: "[T]he laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose." James Madison referred to the enumerated powers of the federal government and said all other powers not mentioned are denied to the government. In a 1792 letter to Henry Lee who asked if the general welfare clause was a grant of power Jame Madison said "If not only the means but the objects are unlimited, the parchment [the Constitution] should be thrown into the fire at once." Meanwhile the 1828 edition of Noah Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language defines "welfare" as follows:
      WELFARE, n. [well and fare, a good going; G. wohlfahrt; D. welvaard; Sw. valfart; Dan. velfærd.]
      1. Exemption from misfortune, sickness, calamity or evil; the enjoyment of health and the common blessings of life; prosperity; happiness; applied to persons.
      2. Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government; applies to states.

      You're falling into the camp of "governmnet should never spend money to make life better for anyone unless there is profit involved."

      Again I dare you to find where I said anything like that. Fact is is I want the government to stay within the limits put on it by the Constitution. However if you want to give the government more power then there is a process to do so, it's called proposing an amendment to the constitution.

      The rest of the post is just more hogwash.

      Falcon

  12. shudder... by pedantic+bore · · Score: 1

    For me, the fact that a treatment that gives a 60% survival rate is considered a major breakthrough only underscores the fact that Ebola is terrifyingly dangerous, and it's just a few mutations from being real trouble.

    If you enjoy being frightened, give Richard Preston's The Hot Zone a read.

    --
    Am I part of the core demographic for Swedish Fish?
    1. Re:shudder... by watermark · · Score: 1

      Read it again, it says all of the primates given the drug survived. 5 of the 8 of the control set (no drugs) survived.

    2. Re:shudder... by pedantic+bore · · Score: 1

      No; here's what the article says:

      In the case of Ebola, five of eight monkeys infected with the virus lived, and with Marburg, all survived.

      There is no mention in the article of a control group, although it is mentioned that the mortality rate for both Ebola and Marburg is 60-90%.

      Perhaps the article does not make it sufficiently clear that Ebola and Marburg are different, although similar and perhaps related, diseases.

      --
      Am I part of the core demographic for Swedish Fish?
    3. Re:shudder... by andrewagill · · Score: 1

      So...the placebo effect has a 60 percent success rate (in the case of Marburg)? I still see your point, and await further studies.

  13. Recommended... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...by 5 out of 8 monkeys.

  14. Ebola by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    Ebola only occurs in one part of the world unlike malaria

    Except that's not true. Here's a table of known cases of ebola outbreaks published by the CDC. In 1976 there was one in England. In the US the first one was in 1989. Other countries with outbreaks not in Africa is Italy and the Philippines.

    Falcon

    1. Re:Ebola by Enry · · Score: 1

      I've already addressed that elsewhere. Ebola-Reston is the primary strain that occurs outside Africa yet is not harmful to humans. It's still important to track, but as for a treatment, the other strains like Ebola-Zaire are the concern.

  15. Where the money is by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

    Military is where the money is, where the magically-cuts-through-red-tape national-security rationale is most available.
    Seems like reasonable means to a good end though, in cases like this.

    --
    I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
  16. economics by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    IMO first aid should be a required class beginning in about the 6th grade, right along with household and small business microeconomics.

    You might be interested in Ariel Community Academy, a school in Chicagoland. In it students, K to 8th grade, are taught to invest. Students "in grades K-8 hone math skills and learn practical, lifelong lessons in finance by managing a $20,000 class stock portfolio."

    Falcon

  17. Ebola by funkify · · Score: 4, Funny

    There once was a man from Angola
    Who contracted a case of Ebola.
    He puked out his guts,
    Not excluding his nuts,
    Then died as he cried out, "Ricola!"

  18. Let me guess.... by Lord_of_the_nerf · · Score: 1

    This was all discovered in the nick of time by a disillusioned older scientist and his female research partner with whom he shares a past with, despite the interference of a gung ho General who was in favour of the scorched earth policy?

  19. Obligatory Futurama quote by jewishbaconzombies · · Score: 1

    Professor: As a man enters his 18th decade, he thinks back on the mistakes he made in life.
    Amy: Like the heaps of the dead monkeys?
    Professor: Science can not move forward without heaps!

  20. Germophobic? Psychosomatic? Don't read this. by symbolset · · Score: 4, Informative

    I do believe that Reston was proven to be airborne by USAMRIID.

    Somebody's playing with with the wikipedia ebola Reston page. The page now says that the site of the oubreak was demolished, but has since been rebuilt as a Kindercare. I really seriously doubt this is possible. I would really need video leading from the street signs to the building for this one.

    It says a lot that this is an upbeat article about Ebola that delivers the wonderful news: of the immunized monkeys, only three of eight died! This is one nastly little bug. The fatality rate of Ebola Zaire in humans is up to 90%, with an average fatality rate in humans of 83% over 27 years of experience. Nine of ten dead little humans, in three weeks from infection on the outside or two days if you're lucky. Generally speaking that surviving tenth human isn't well off either as the course of infection normally involves a great deal of organ damage. In the case of a group of people who are all infected the likelihood that the one human of ten would receive the care necessary to survive the fever is remote.

    If just one person with an Ebola that's as fatal as Ebola Zaire and also airborne gets on a commercial jet flight anywhere in the world - ever - it's pretty much game over for civilization in about a month. 200 passengers and 14 crew infected, connecting flights, layovers, every person in every boarding area for each flight, then home to the family and not feeling well. I don't feel well but I've must-do's so off to work the next day on the train (sniff, sneeze) but I'm not feeling well (hack, cough) so early home, stopping at Safeway for some Theraflu, then Wal-Mart because Safeway was out. Oh, my that's a scary summer flu story on the news but I'm too tired to listen (hack, cough blood, seize, hemmorage out of every orifice, die). By the time the alert is raised the bus drivers on some route near one of those places have outplaced the virus so thoroughly that it's too late to do anything about it. Your only hope is that you're in Madagascar and they have Shut Down Everything. The only good news about Ebola Zaire is that it kills so many hosts so quickly that outbreaks tend to be self-limiting. In several cases so many died so quickly that the disease had no time to spread.

    The most recent new variant of Ebola virus, Bundibugyo is named after a district in Uganda where it was discovered in 2007. This one is less virulent, only killing 34% of the people infected or probably infected. It scares me more than a little that new variants are being discovered this frequently.

    Not that I want anybody to panic or anything...

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
  21. Whoa, man. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why do you keep fighting Mother Nature, dude?

  22. Re:This is how anti-terrorism funding should be sp by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    In Kansas they'd learn faith healing and Von Mises economics :P

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  23. "Antisense" by ascari · · Score: 1

    Antisense? Makes no sense at all...

    1. Re:"Antisense" by kid_wonder · · Score: 1

      I remember this "antisense" stuff from probably 15 years ago. It was the hot pharma back then and there were probably 5-10 companies that went public over the hype of this new drug "technology".

      I was actually a little shocked that someone had got it to work. From what I recall it is a targeted drug based on DNA of the target. It sounded very promising, but for some reason it never actually worked all that well. I think it was because you had to shove so much of the drug in that the side effects were pretty bad.

      --

      "Oh, you hate your job? There's a support group for that, it's called everyone, they meet at the bar."
    2. Re:"Antisense" by kid_wonder · · Score: 1

      Here is a good link describing how antisense works:

      Antisense Drug Discovery Platform

      --

      "Oh, you hate your job? There's a support group for that, it's called everyone, they meet at the bar."
  24. Re:This is how anti-terrorism funding should be sp by sjames · · Score: 1

    Fully agreed! First aid and some basic survival skills would do more to alleviate the effects of disasters, both natural and man made, than all of the expensive and dubious measures DHS wants to take.

    I don't expect people to know how to perform bypass surgery with a push pin and a bottle of whiskey or be able to skin a bear with their teeth, but knowing how to handle sprains, dislocations, broken bones, burns, lacerations etc including improvised antiseptic measures like honey dressings would go a very long way, especially if you add ways to distill water.

    It might also help the healthcare crisis if people learn a few common things that do not warrant a trip to the E.R. Apparently it's not as obvious as I always thought it was.

  25. Re:Germophobic? Psychosomatic? Don't read this. by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

    1946 Isaac Newton Square facility scheduled for demolition
    Daycare center at 1946 Isaac Newton Square .

    It's an amusing coincidence, nothing more. On the other hand, it could provide fodder for a horror film.

  26. Re:Cue Obama joke in 3.. 2.. 1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "antisense compounds" tested on primates. Too easy.

  27. Re:This is how anti-terrorism funding should be sp by mr_mischief · · Score: 1

    These days a medical card and the sniffles land many people in the ER, because nobody with access to public pursestrings seems to understand the benefits of prevention.

  28. "five of eight monkeys survived..." by cdtbqiot · · Score: 2, Insightful

    but what was the mortality in the control group?

  29. Uh... count me out... by rnturn · · Score: 1

    ... of the clinical trials.

    --
    CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
  30. This is already how many anti viral work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As far as I remember this is how AZT works (well there are two way, but reverse-transcriptase inhibition is similar as spoken here), and Oseltamivir block the enzyme used to go out of the cell for the influenza virus. In effect they both reduce the viral load to give a respite to the immune system (well in the case of HIV to prolongate the time before a full blown AIDS happen). I don#t see it as a NEW category of anti viral, but rather as the expansion of an existing category to new virus.

  31. Re:Germophobic? Psychosomatic? Don't read this. by Splab · · Score: 1

    Ebola Zaire is way too agressive for a total wipeout. Within 1 week of first infection everything would be shut down and within 2-3 weeks more it would have killed off itself (a long with millions of people).

    The perfect killer is something like the spanish flu, high incubation time, looks like normal flu (as you suggested, people go to work/supermarket) and then drop dead.

  32. Re:This is how anti-terrorism funding should be sp by roman_mir · · Score: 1

    Yes, that and history and logic.

    But who is interested in teaching those subjects to the plebes who are only useful as cannon fodder and as part of a crowd gathering to get some talking head talking points around without giving the content too much thought?

  33. Re:This is how anti-terrorism funding should be sp by Inda · · Score: 1

    I did something similar 20 years ago. Thank the FSM that I've never needed to use my first aid skills.

    I enquired recently to local childrens first aid club via their online contact form on behalf of my daughter. She loves playing with bandages (see internet photos of me wrapped up like a mummy). The reply I received was:

    WHO'S ASKING? WHY DO YOU WANT TO KNOW WHERE AND WHEN THE CLUB IS HELD? ARE YOU SOME SORT OF FUCKING PEADO SCUMBAG?

    OK, I made the last sentence up but it was the tone of the reply. What has the world become?

    --
    This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
  34. I believe the applicable phrase is by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    Force Protection. This is meant to keep the troopers in foreign lands healthy. Civilians need not bother to apply.

  35. Well, that's one way to get research funding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Frame it as a defense issue.

  36. Great, now we have another weapon! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Having a cure means we can use it as a weapon against others who do not have a cure.
    It's only bioterrorism if the bad guys do it otherwise it is biowarfare, isn't it?

  37. Then you take the taxes paid on the sales in the by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    US.

    Those taxes do not cover the NCI's expenses. So in effect the US government gave BMS a subsidy.

    It could be sold at $35 million as a down payment, with the agency expecting to recoup the investment only if the drug turns out to be viable to bring to market.

    As I already stated, and you replied to that post, the $35 Million was the royalty payment, stretching over years and years. If it had only been the royalties for the year 2000, BMS would have paid less than 3.5% in royalties. 35 divided by more than 1000. But it's not just 1 year. And that would have been just profits not the revenue on the drug. BMS had the rights to Taxol for more than 10 years.

    Figure out what they paid in taxes due to sales of that drug, then your argument is more convincing. They could have easily paid $400 million (or more) in taxes,

    It is impossible to calculate the taxes BMS paid on Taxol. Income taxes are not done that way, they are done by subtracting all expenses from all revenue. That includes marketing and research and development on all other drugs. And guess what?... Drug companies spend more on marketing than on R&D. And not all drug research leads to anything that can be sold. So $100 million spent on research for a dud drug is tax deductible.

    The rest of your post, not much though, is just as much rubbish and is addressed above.

    Falcon

  38. It's not socialism, if the money flows upwards, by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    Sure it is, it's corporate socialism, commonly called corporate welfare but also called fascism. El Duce, Benito Amilcare Andrea Mussolini, said "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power".

    Falcon

  39. Taxol and BMS by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    At what point was the drug bought,

    !988-89 after all the testing needed was done.

    how much did BMS pay for other compounds that didn't work out?

    That does not matter. It was BMS's choice to pay for those, and in return BMS wrote off those costs. They were tax deductible.

    These kinds of royalty payments aren't unusual if a compound is bought before it has gone through any kinds of trials.

    The NCI did all the research, paying with taxpayer dollars, to get FDA approval as a drug. That is after all those trials was done, with taxpayer money.

    The reason that compounds are cheap before trials is that most of them turn out not to work. Google for headlines about pharmaceutical companies buying the rights to drugs from small companies. Note how much is being paid for them. Note how many of them there are. Now, Google for drug approvals and see how many of those compounds that were licensed 8 years ago are on the market.

    And again all those costs are income tax deductible. Besides drug companies spend more on marketing than on R&D. Those expenses are tax deductible too.

    You repeat about companies buying pre-trial candidates however all trials for Taxol were already done by the NCI.

    Falcon

    1. Re:Taxol and BMS by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      You repeat about companies buying pre-trial candidates however all trials for Taxol were already done by the NCI.

      Ok, so I'll concede that Taxol is a travesty then (assuming you aren't missing some key element).

      However, most modern drug licensing deals (with the NIH or otherwise) are not for compounds that are already approved for market use. Usually these deals come very early in the life of a drug.

      And again all those costs are income tax deductible. Besides drug companies spend more on marketing than on R&D [eurekalert.org]. Those expenses are tax deductible too.

      I think you're missing my point.

      Suppose we start with a diamond that we can both agree is worth $1M. Now I place it in a box, and shuffle it on a table with 9 identical boxes that contain nothing. I select one box at random and offer it for auction. Most likely, the box will be purchased for maybe $90k or so - certainly less than $100k.

      Now suppose that box turns out to contain the diamond. You'll claim that I was ripped off, since I was offered less than 10% of its value.

      I'm pointing out that that box wasn't worth $1M until it was shown to contain the diamond. To be likely to get the diamond the buyer would have had to buy ten boxes (even then with no promise if I had a collection of 100 boxes of which 10 contained diamonds.

      Now, if I took a loss on those other nine boxes, sure I could tax deduct it (nothing really magical about that, really, taxes are paid on profits and so if I burn $100 in a furnace I can tax deduct it). However, that doesn't change the fact that a box that has a 10% chance of being worth $1M is really only worth $100k.

      Drugs are valued at the future value of profits, multiplied by their probability of success.

      The bit about companies spending more on marketing than R&D has nothing at all to do with anything. What does marketing expense have to do with the price paid for a drug? If your point is that companies have more money they could be spending, well, sure they do. I might have $100k in the bank but that doesn't mean that I'm going to spend $50k on a Honda Civic, just because I could. Would I like to see more spent on R&D - sure. Do I have a right to demand that companies spend even a dime on R&D? Well, no, except to the degree that one of my mutual funds might own their stock...

  40. The NIH is all bad by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    I agree with most of what you say, but I take issue with the above. The NIH is not all bad. Because of the NIH we have good drugs like Taxol. I've written about this before, saying stuff like all the data should have been open sourced, so any company could manufacture Taxol. Or license Taxol to all companies who wanted to make and sell it. With a 5% royalty on it and sells of a billion dollars a year for 4 year would have generated $200 Million. In 10 $500 Million, enough to pay for the research.

    Falcon

  41. I think you're missing my point. by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    No, You missed my point. That I do not want this Ebola treatment, to like Taxol, to become more corporate welfare, a hand out of taxpayer money.

    Falcon

    1. Re:I think you're missing my point. by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Well, sure, I don't want that either.

      Now, I'm fine with the government either developing it into a drug and licensing out the manufacture (perhaps for free if it is manufactured in the US), or selling it off in an open auction without spending further money on development. I wouldn't really consider either of those corporate welfare - it just is a matter of who takes on the risk and manages the project...