Slashdot Mirror


Leaked Documents Reveal Behind-the-Scenes Ebola Vaccine Issues

sciencehabit writes Extensive background documents from a meeting that took place today at the World Health Organization (WHO) have provided new details about exactly what it will take to test, produce, and bankroll Ebola vaccines, which could be a potential game changer in the epidemic. ScienceInsider obtained materials that vaccinemakers, governments, and WHO provided to the 100 or so participants at a meeting on 'access and financing' of Ebola vaccines. The documents put hard numbers on what until now have been somewhat fuzzy academic discussions. And they make clear to the attendees—who include representatives from governments, industry, philanthropies, and nongovernmental organizations—that although testing and production are moving forward at record speed, knotty issues remain.

124 comments

  1. So 1 x F35 = 60 million x vaccinations? by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If an F35 costs $337M* and "27 million doses of vaccine" would cost $151 million (half to produce and half to deliver as per TFA), then one F35 would be worth about 60 million doses of vaccine? * (https://medium.com/war-is-boring/how-much-does-an-f-35-actually-cost-21f95d239398)

    1. Re:So 1 x F35 = 60 million x vaccinations? by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      We could also redirect some of that 85 billion a month going to Wall Street right now.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    2. Re:So 1 x F35 = 60 million x vaccinations? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      85B / 337M = 252.22 (ebola-cost-units-per-wall-street-month)
      252.22 / 30 = 8.41 (ebola-cost-units-per-wall-street-day, assumes 30-day month)
      1440 / 8.41 = 171.22 (wall-street-minutes-per-ebola-cost-unit)
      171.22 / 60 = 2.85 (wall-street-hours-per-ebola-cost-unit)

      Yeah. A whole whopping 2 hours and 51 minutes of it.

      Wall Street needs to take a long, unpaid lunch, basically. That will provide a cure for Ebola. We'll even let them brag about it.

    3. Re:So 1 x F35 = 60 million x vaccinations? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or ask Michelle to cancel her next couple of vacations.

    4. Re:So 1 x F35 = 60 million x vaccinations? by wronkiew · · Score: 1

      I appreciate the point you are trying to make, but you've fallen prey to the same fallacies that drove the F-35C cost to $337M in the first place.

    5. Re:So 1 x F35 = 60 million x vaccinations? by LordWabbit2 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You mean the money that is propping up your asset bubble? Do that and we will have yet another stock market crash. It's way past time when the bankers and dealers of wall street etc. should be dragged out into the street and shot. Why wasn't this done the first time round? Why were the regulations that were put into place after the first great depression to stop this exact same thing from happening removed, so that it all happened again? Why have the regulations not been put back into place and the guilty punished? The stock market is a fvck up, I am not saying we should return to a barter type system, but why the fvck can you sell sh!t you don't actually own? Why can you bundle up a bunch of debt and then resell it? Why would anyone buy that anyway? The traders all know that it's a house of cards, but they are making money hand over fist and don't give a fvck. Moving their money out of equities and into bonds so when the next bubble pops they can still drive around in their luxury cars and sleep in mansions while the rest of the world starves and sleeps in tents. A lot of blame was placed on Joe Public because he took a loan he could not afford to repay. Why was he given the loan in the first place? Where I live we were (mostly) protected from the first crash because of a consumer protection act that was (mostly) followed by the major banks. Lately however I have noticed that it's not being enforced and not being followed. I can walk into any bank, ask for a personal loan and get it at ridiculous interest rates, no questions asked. I am talking 35+ interest rates, higher than a fvcking credit card. They don't even ask for an expenditure list. All they want to know is if your full take home salary will cover the payment, if it can, you have the loan. If you default they garnish your salary for the payment amount. Then you're are really up shiit street. But you can go back to the bank and ask for ANOTHER loan, which they will give to you, even though you have bad debt (with them) and they are already garnishing your salary. The average man in the street is an idiot, if you give him a length of rope he will hang himself. Why are the people who are handing out lengths of rope not being punished? In most countries I cannot commit euthanasia, but I can give you a loan which will make you jump off a bridge.

      --
      There are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third is statistics.
    6. Re:So 1 x F35 = 60 million x vaccinations? by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      We could also redirect some of that 85 billion a month going to Wall Street right now.

      Are you talking about $$ from private investors into private/public businesses?

      Who is it to decide to take money from private individuals and companies in the US???

      I don't mind the govt giving money...but I don't see it in the US constitution for the govt to start taking money from its citizens to do this type thing??

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    7. Re:So 1 x F35 = 60 million x vaccinations? by sjames · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I really don't think debt should be transferable at all without consent of the debtor. I may take out a loan with a community bank reasoning that if I have trouble, they have a friendly reputation to maintain (let's face it, anyone can find themselves unable to pay a debt if bad things happen, no matter the intent). That doesn't mean I agreed to owe Snidely Whiplash and his robosigning minions money.

      Let's apply a transitive test. I take out a loan after the bank examines every facet of my life for ability to pay. I then get a homeless man to accept my debt for a fifth of Jack. No problem, right? The bank will definitely not try to deny that the transfer happened and come after me, right?!?

    8. Re:So 1 x F35 = 60 million x vaccinations? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      The government has the power and the right to do as it wishes with its currency, but they have turned that power over to a bunch of counterfeiters in the name of "privatization", which means floating it on the commodities markets. The "gold standard" now is the petro-dollar. That is the global currency of today. No matter, it is trivial for them to divert the bits over to people developing a vaccine, they know exactly where to take them from. But... the power of derivatives prevails, and we all know who pays. For this issue, like all the other manufactured crises of the new (and old) millennium, there are plenty of scandals to go around, and most, if not all of them point to finance.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    9. Re:So 1 x F35 = 60 million x vaccinations? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In fact, the $337M is a Republican lie that's grown to eat its origin. The Republicans decided to destroy some program (I forgot which) by lying about the cost. So, they wrapped up all of the development cost in to the first prototypes, so that they could claim that a $100,000'ish project cost $20M.

    10. Re:So 1 x F35 = 60 million x vaccinations? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      The vaccine probably wouldn't go to everyone, it would go to high-risk people, such as nurses, doctors, and people traveling to west africa (much like visitors to some countries get vaccines for yellow fever).

      In my case, I would be more likely to die driving to the hospital for the vaccine, than I would be of Ebola.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    11. Re:So 1 x F35 = 60 million x vaccinations? by LordWabbit2 · · Score: 1

      I think you are misunderstanding this. The debt is all yours. It doesn't change. You still owe the 20k for your car/house/horse. That does not change, and not you or anyone else can change it because you are the recorded debtor. (Well not entirely true, the exceptions are not part of this discussion and are generally reserved for corporations).
      You can't just hand over debt like it was a fvcking coupon, it's legally binding, which is why you have to sign all the fvcking papers. To get the homeless person to accept the debt for a fifth of jack would require a lot of legal paperwork and the bank vetting him, which as a homeless unemployed person he would not pass, so you would not be able to pass anything to him except his free fifth of Jack.

      The bank is no longer valuating you on the amount of FREE money you have, ie. the amount you would otherwise save or spluge on a playstation game, they are evaluating you on the amount of money you have after you are taxed. Regardless of other expenses, like paying rent, utilities, groceries, school fees etc. They know that if/when you default they can simply garnish your salary and TAKE the money from you before it touches your bank account, fvck whether you can live and survive after that. You owe them, they take.

      The best advice I can give to all.
      Stop living off credit
      If you have to buy it on credit, it means you can't fvcken afford it.
      If you can't buy it cash - Don't buy it

      What amazes me are the morons who argue this one simple lesson.
      If you could not save enough money to buy the PSX4 or XBOX1 then why do you think getting into debt with an additional interest rate would make life easier?
      You will pay almost three times as much for your console

      Don't be another idiot, the world is full of idiots.

      --
      There are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third is statistics.
    12. Re:So 1 x F35 = 60 million x vaccinations? by sjames · · Score: 2

      Yes, and by the same token, I never accepted being in debt to Snidely. I don't get the opportunity to vet his character to make sure he is the sort of person I am willing to be indebted to. I never met him, he never gave me a dime. I am claiming the opposite of what you understood, that I should have the opportunity to vet the party my loan might be sold to.

      As for credit, I was speaking primarily of mortgages (since those are the loans that are typically bought and sold. Few if any can afford to buy at least their first house with cash.

      Note that the crazy financial instruments that precipitated the big crash were based on buying and selling time bomb mortgages. I argue that CDOs never should have existed because mortgages shouldn't be so liquid in the first place.

      In general though I agree that avoidable debt should be avoided.

    13. Re:So 1 x F35 = 60 million x vaccinations? by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

      The best advice I can give to all.
      Stop living off credit
      If you have to buy it on credit, it means you can't fvcken afford it.
      If you can't buy it cash - Don't buy it

      In most cases I agree. There is a caveat though: sometimes it is cheaper in the long run to buy something on credit than the alternative.
      Example: I just bought an apartment with a mortgage. The alternative was to rent. However, houses are cheap to buy at the moment while renting is slowly going up. After careful calculation it turned out it was cheaper pay the mortgage to the apartment than to rent it.

      An XBOX or PlayStation is not in that category. The alternative is free (not buy it) so it can't be cheaper to buy on credit.

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
    14. Re:So 1 x F35 = 60 million x vaccinations? by u38cg · · Score: 2

      Yeah, maybe read up on the law of contract and then read your loan terms and conditions. If you can assign your debt, you're free to do so. Don't want your creditor to assign your debt, don't sign a loan deal that allows them to.

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    15. Re:So 1 x F35 = 60 million x vaccinations? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, you did. When you signed the loan papers, there was a clause that made the debt transferrable. There was probably also a clause that allowed you to transfer the loan to someone. If you didn't want it to be transferrable, you should have negotiated different loan terms. You would probably have paid a higher interest rate, but you could have done it. I know I did.

    16. Re:So 1 x F35 = 60 million x vaccinations? by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      The government has the power and the right to do as it wishes with its currency,

      REally? Where exactly is THAT power listed in the constitution that enumerates the limited powers and responsibilities of the US Govt?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    17. Re:So 1 x F35 = 60 million x vaccinations? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Article 1 Section 8 clause 5:

      The Congress shall have Power...To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof...

      Spells it out pretty clearly, don't you think?. Is there anything else I can assist you with while I'm here?

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    18. Re:So 1 x F35 = 60 million x vaccinations? by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      they have the power to print more money... that's about it. they don't have the power to confiscate it.

    19. Re:So 1 x F35 = 60 million x vaccinations? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      It's not a "confiscation", it's a recovery of stolen goods acquired by fraud. And the power to regulate the value says it's all okay. They can just print new money and render the old worthless. This is one of those little things a government is authorized to do by default. And the fact that the law is there in black and white, on the supreme document of the land, makes it all the easier.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    20. Re:So 1 x F35 = 60 million x vaccinations? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      And how is that going to get additional BSL-2 sterile bottling capacity built in under a year just how?

      Oh, sorry, I disturbed your political posturing with a relevant question. I'll let you get back to grandstanding without reading the fucking article. Meanwhile, I've got friends in the area, trying to do their jobs. But don't let the real world disturb your political ranting.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    21. Re:So 1 x F35 = 60 million x vaccinations? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      much like visitors to some countries get vaccines for yellow fever

      Every West African country I've been to, they won't let you in unless you've got an in-date vaccination certificate for Yellow Fever. That's every such country.

      (They actually changed the required vaccine booklet for new issues to have a yellow cover, as a flag of the main disease they look for in it. My older one is grandfathered in though.)

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  2. The Cult Leader will solve the problem! by damn_registrars · · Score: 1, Troll

    I keep seeing bits on google news about Ron Paul telling us how everything we are doing is wrong in this matter. I'm sure the world's most average Ob/Gyn - and most successful living American cult leader - is also a highly qualified expert on Ebola.

    And yes, I know I will be moderated straight down to hell for this one.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:The Cult Leader will solve the problem! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      I keep seeing bits on google news about Ron Paul telling us how everything we are doing is wrong in this matter. I'm sure the world's most average Ob/Gyn - and most successful living American cult leader - is also a highly qualified expert on Ebola.

      So, right. He should defer to the judgement of a highly trained law clerk

    2. Re:The Cult Leader will solve the problem! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does his solution involve colloidal silver in any way?

    3. Re:The Cult Leader will solve the problem! by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      There's a rapid diagnostic test that is developed and can be at West African airport departure gates in less than three months if the FDA gets out of the way. I know, it's only nutters like the NPR health sciences correspondent going on about this - was Dr. Paul also saying crazy things like the government is making the situation worse? Instead, they should totally go ahead and implement a travel ban so people sneak into the country with ebola instead of coming through the airports.

      Meanwhile nobody in the US is infected with ebola and cattle are still far more dangerous, right? Wait - fear, fear, fear! Give us power and ... fear! Talk about cult leaders.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    4. Re:The Cult Leader will solve the problem! by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm sure the world's most average Ob/Gyn [Ron Paul] - and most successful living American cult leader - is also a highly qualified expert on Ebola.

      That sounds suspiciously like an ad-hominem argument. "Most average" Ob/Gyn? What does that even mean, other than to convey dark undertones?

      Shouldn't we be debating the things he says? Shouldn't we be considering the merits of his argument, rather than his background?

      Obama's Ebola czar (Ron Klain) is a lawyer and former chief-of-staff. Do you think *he's* qualified to tell us what we're doing wrong?

      What the heck are you getting at? What's your purpose in posting this? Is there some way in which you gain by posting such drivel?

      You're right about being modded down - your post does nothing to inform the discussion.

    5. Re:The Cult Leader will solve the problem! by damn_registrars · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That sounds suspiciously like an ad-hominem argument. "Most average" Ob/Gyn? What does that even mean, other than to convey dark undertones?

      I am using that because his followers make a huge deal about the number of babies he has delivered. However considering how long he was a practicing Ob/Gyn, that number is actually not particularly impressive - particularly if he was the main or only practicing Ob for a moderately populated area.

      Shouldn't we be considering the merits of his argument, rather than his background?

      From what I have seen, so far all he has been saying is that we're doing it wrong. I haven't seen anything from him about how to do it right. Naturally, his followers jump all over it as gospel.

      Obama's Ebola czar (Ron Klain) is a lawyer and former chief-of-staff. Do you think *he's* qualified to tell us what we're doing wrong?

      The Ebola czar is supposed to help manage the response. Just as the Surgeon General does not perform surgeries while a member of the cabinet, the Ebola czar is just a manager.

      What the heck are you getting at? What's your purpose in posting this?

      My point is that there are a lot of people - including one particular cult leader / politician / retired physician - telling us that we're doing it wrong. I have not seen any of these people do anything other than bitch and moan about it being done wrong; I most certainly have not seen them propose anything other than what we are doing.

      Hell any proposal for the government to do anything would be automatically rejected as "the wrong thing" by Ron Paul as he is against all forms of government spending, regardless of how many lives are at stake (excluding, of course, his own).

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    6. Re:The Cult Leader will solve the problem! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you don't think any of Ron Paul's ideas on the topic are good, then why did you bring him up? He wasn't part of the original story.

      If you want to discuss whether his ideas are right or wrong, you could have at least posted some. Instead, you just said that they were wrong, without saying why (or even what they are).

      If you get modded down, it's because your post looks like anti-Ron Paul trolling.

    7. Re:The Cult Leader will solve the problem! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yes, I know I will be moderated straight down to hell for this one.

      Shows what you know.

    8. Re:The Cult Leader will solve the problem! by halfEvilTech · · Score: 0

      Hell any proposal for the government to do anything would be automatically rejected as "the wrong thing" by Ron Paul as he is against all forms of government spending, regardless of how many lives are at stake (excluding, of course, his own).

      So if he is against all government spending he should return his paychecks then.

      Oh wait that is ok?

    9. Re:The Cult Leader will solve the problem! by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Ebola czar is just a manager.

      Exactly. And the man should have an idea of what he is managing, unless he's just handling lawsuits. I would give the benefit of the doubt to a real medical doctor. But, hey, troll on, dude.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    10. Re:The Cult Leader will solve the problem! by Nimey · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's kind of hilarious that a bunch of self-styled libertarians need to have a leader cult, isn't it?

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    11. Re:The Cult Leader will solve the problem! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You hire a manager to manage people and a biological chemist to biologically chemise.

    12. Re:The Cult Leader will solve the problem! by Livius · · Score: 1

      An "average Ob/Gyn" is a fully qualified and licensed medical doctor and far better informed about Ebola than 99% of SlashDot users.

    13. Re:The Cult Leader will solve the problem! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I would give the benefit of the doubt to a real medical doctor. But, hey, troll on, dude.

      Said the troll.

    14. Re:The Cult Leader will solve the problem! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That sounds suspiciously like an ad-hominem argument. "Most average" Ob/Gyn? What does that even mean, other than to convey dark undertones?

      It means he's seen more than Wilt Chamberlain.

    15. Re:The Cult Leader will solve the problem! by Nimey · · Score: 1

      No, see, you're supposed to make it *hard* for us to spot the cultists. Saying something stupid like that makes it too obvious.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    16. Re:The Cult Leader will solve the problem! by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Holy shit you're a fucking moron.

    17. Re:The Cult Leader will solve the problem! by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      Ron would certainly know more than the empty suit bureaurocrats you seem to idolize. By the way, most polled doctors argree a travel ban is a good idea.

    18. Re:The Cult Leader will solve the problem! by damn_registrars · · Score: 0, Troll

      It's kind of hilarious that a bunch of self-styled libertarians need to have a leader cult, isn't it?

      Almost as hilarious as the fact that the leader who wants to bring about the greatest (in scope) fascist revolution in this country is pretending to do it in the name of "liberty".

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    19. Re:The Cult Leader will solve the problem! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'Anonymous Coward' - October 2014:

      They, and anyone else in the country, WILL have infected another three people by november 1.

      sexconker - October 2014:

      Holy shit you're a fucking moron.

      If you say so, sexconker.

    20. Re:The Cult Leader will solve the problem! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure the world's most average Ob/Gyn

      The puts him way above both the current and the previous President.

    21. Re:The Cult Leader will solve the problem! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ron Paul didn't accept Medicare/Medicaid (he will offer services for free) and he forfeited his government pension.

      So yes, it is ok.

    22. Re:The Cult Leader will solve the problem! by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Where did this off-topic verbal diarrhea come from? Who was talking about politicians? The topic here is ebola. WTF?

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    23. Re:The Cult Leader will solve the problem! by tlambert · · Score: 1

      Instead, they should totally go ahead and implement a travel ban so people sneak into the country with ebola instead of coming through the airports.

      How exactly is coming in through the airports with ebola, where you have a nice vector to spread the virus both nationally and internationally, superior to people sneaking into the country with ebola?

    24. Re:The Cult Leader will solve the problem! by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      By that reasoning, I should listen to everything Dr. Oz says because he's a fully licensed and trained medical doctor (cardiologist), right?

      Or maybe being in one medical field doesn't make you an expert in all medical fields?

      (Even more so if you have a political agenda to advance and thus reason to ignore evidence that doesn't agree with your views.)

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    25. Re:The Cult Leader will solve the problem! by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      There's about a half-dozen such piss-in-a-pot tests in development - which is good! - but that means that each of the drug testing agencies in their distinct countries of origin need to confirm their effectiveness (false positive rates versus false negative rates), and that is going to take cases and time.

      The design purpose of these is not to test people arriving in western countries, but to test people suspected of infection in the outbreak countries, which is a far more effective way of keeping the disease from getting out of those countries. Secondarily, the test kits might be used to screen people going into airport departure lounges (typically, they take 10-15 minutes, which is not disastrous in a security/ departure setting ; in an arrivals hall, there would be riots. And you've already had the exposure on board.)

      I heard Ron Paul's name mentioned. Who is he, and what relevance does he have to the issue (IANA-American)?

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    26. Re:The Cult Leader will solve the problem! by Nimey · · Score: 1

      Liberty for him and those like him, but not for people whose concept of liberty involves not starving if you can't work, or not being discriminated against because they're part of some despised minority.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
  3. Summary by KeensMustard · · Score: 5, Insightful
    In summary, GSK (who makes the most promising vaccine) don't have enough manufacturing capacity to make this vaccine and other vaccines at the same time.

    And the ethics around live human trials are tricky, because some participants in the trial will die from ebola.

    Which isn't surprising. If someone can think of alternative which delivers a better result, then I'm all ears. The framing of this as if the documents reveal some sort of 'scandal' is a bit troubling.

    1. Re:Summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Which isn't surprising. If someone can think of alternative which delivers a better result, then I'm all ears.

      I'll give it a try. So many people are executed every year in various countries (even the US). Why not allocate them for research purposes? Instead of electrocuting someone, give him Ebola and try to cure him. You could even give them the option: Do you want a lethal ejection with 100% mortality or Ebola with treatment with projected 30% mortality?

    2. Re:Summary by Vellmont · · Score: 1


        If someone can think of alternative which delivers a better result, then I'm all ears

      Simple. Use a portion of the 24,000 doses (a few thousand?) to spot vaccinate anyone who's had close contact with someone with Ebola, say all immediate family members. Those peoople are arguably at risk or at greater risk than health care workers. That's how polio is being eradicated. The WHO comes in and vaccinates an entire community when a poliio case is detected.

      --
      AccountKiller
    3. Re:Summary by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      The scandal is the financing, and legal issues, like patenting. This whole thing sounds like somebody is trying to drum up business, and create a distraction during election season. And if one company can't make enough, then others can take up the slack. Boeing didn't build all its airplanes during the war, GM and Ford helped, and made a pretty penny from it.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    4. Re:Summary by ISoldat53 · · Score: 1

      They have to test it. They don't want them to become Reavers.

    5. Re:Summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      right why don't you sign up as democrat and try to explain this tonight on fox news. Go ahead and defend it with the ticker "Ebola czar to release disease in U.S. prisons"

    6. Re:Summary by Threni · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but clickety click. Click. Click. Race. Shock. Money. Lives. Click click. Life or death. Click. Choice. Kerching! We have a winner! Kerching!

    7. Re:Summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are correct.
      Sometimes vaccines (I think there was an RSV vaccine that did this in the past) or previous exposure to a different strain (Dengae hemmoragic fever is caused by this) can make things worse for a patient when they encounter the real thing.

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

      It's deeply unethical.

      Even if you're going to execute someone, it's considered a violation of their human rights to make them suffer. It's even considered unethical to give someone a lethal injection with a needle that's not medically sterile.

      Worse of all, it provide financial incentive to convict people and give them death sentences. (Crooked company pays crooked judge to give people the chair so there are more fresh bodies to do medical experiments on)

    9. Re:Summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Do you want a lethal ejection with 100% mortality or Ebola with treatment with projected 30% mortality?

      Because they were sentenced to death. Letting some of those people live (30% chance...I'll pass) is a crime unto itself.

    10. Re:Summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's what you do if you already have a proven vaccine, yes.

      But if you gave a hypothetical ebola vaccine to all 100-odd people in the US who'd plausibly been exposed by Duncan, you'd conclude it was 98% effective because only 2 infections resulted. Except you could've given them sugar pills and saline injections to the exact same effect.

      Doing this doesn't tell you what trials need to tell you: "Does this vaccine/treatment have partial or complete preventative/curative powers without unreasonable side effects?" It's such a sticky ethical issue because performing such a test requires that you know if person X got the real thing or not, which (in the case of ebola) requires that you sentence those you know didn't get it to probably die.

    11. Re:Summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually the problems are the potential side effects of new vaccines, and not if it works or not...

    12. Re:Summary by cosmin_c · · Score: 2

      I like it how people realise that human experimentation means that people are going to die only when it concerns aggressive diseases that make the headlines in popular press (be it online or offline). Let me shed some light on this - a lot of people died of heart disease whilst heart medication was tested simply because the studies needed to be "double-blind" to ensure statistics' accuracy - thus medication that otherwise would've saved their lives was withheld. You can dress it anyway you like, but dying from Ebola during trials is the same as dying of heart disease during a heart drug trial, it's only slower and more painful in the latter case. Death is death, no matter how you look at it. And let's not go into details of other diseases, I picked heart disease since it's one of the most common killers in nowadays' society. And this is what makes drug development in itself a noble endeavour, but trials are always walking a dark grey line. And this is coming from someone who is a doctor and realises that trials are mandatory since we can't (at least nowadays) quantify the efficiency of a drug.

    13. Re:Summary by Vellmont · · Score: 1


      That's what you do if you already have a proven vaccine, yes.

      And also what you should consider doing when you have a worldwide pandemic in a country that threatens to kill millions of people.

      Doing this doesn't tell you what trials need to tell you:

      That's why you do it with a small amount of the available vaccine. Note I said use a portion, not abandon the clinical trial. There's absolutely no reason why you can't use SOME of the vaccine to combait the disease. It might not work at all, but it's a decent gamble.

      --
      AccountKiller
    14. Re:Summary by Vellmont · · Score: 1


      Actually the problems are the potential side effects of new vaccines, and not if it works or not...

      If they're comfortable enough to give it to 10s of thousands of health care workers, who are wearing protective clothing, trained to deal with the exposure, and are highly monitored and controlled who they come into contact with, why wouldn't they give it to people at high risk of developing ebola?

      If the risk is so high from the vaccine, then you sure as hell shouldn't expose 24,000 healthy people to it.

      --
      AccountKiller
    15. Re:Summary by KeensMustard · · Score: 1

      I don't disagree.

    16. Re:Summary by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Most of the high risk people will resist or outright refuse the vaccine, they don't trust healthcare workers and they especially don't trust 1st world healthcare workers and a lot firmly believe that drug companies are actively trying to poison them.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    17. Re:Summary by z0idberg · · Score: 2

      So you are suggesting that if a death row inmate agrees to be a guinea pig, then actually survives whatever nasties they are injected with, then they should be allowed to live?

      Does your master plan include releasing the survivors from jail completely then? or just downgraded from death row to life in prison?

      The alternative is they keep getting tested with nasties until they do eventualy die.

      Which of these do you think is going to be an acceptable outcome to everyone?

    18. Re:Summary by steelfood · · Score: 1

      And the ethics around live human trials are tricky, because some participants in the trial will die from ebola.

      At this point, there's no use for a control group. There's also no point in artificially introducing test subjects to the virus, since there are so many people at risk already. Inject everybody already infected with the vaccine/cure and see what happens. The likely worst case is that people die from side effects of the drug, but without the cure, most people are going to die from the disease anyway. The absolute but unlikely worst case is that one strain has mutated to the point where the cure is no longer effective (e.g. entry under a secondary pathway). But that's even more likely to happen if we don't get the outbreak under control and soon.

      As for manufacturing capability, many governments have been known to seize drug patents in times of crisis and take on the bulk of manufacturing and distributing responsibilities. The real issue is the time needed for them to ramp up, which would be a similar issue for GSK as well.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    19. Re:Summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In contrast to some vaccines, the Ebola vaccine is unlikely to help people already infected. Their immune system is already working on developing immunity and the vaccine won't accelerate that. It is meant to be used in "ring vaccination" to protect those not yet infected who come in close contact with infected people.

    20. Re:Summary by pak9rabid · · Score: 1

      I don't think that would sit too well with the Eighth Amendment.

    21. Re:Summary by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      So many people are executed every year in various countries (even the US). Why not allocate them for research purposes?

      I'll put my statistician's hat on to answer your fucking stupid scenario.

      Are the immune systems of overweight drug-addicted white guys living on a high fat diet directly comparable to the immune systems of subsistence farmers who work a 12-14 hour day and are significantly malnourished, and also have several types of intestinal worms and other chronic infections? (And malaria too, active or passive.)

      This is why you test your vaccine (or any other treatment) on a population as closely comparable as possible to your target population.

      That leads to another problem with such a testing regime : a significant number of your target population are going to be pregnant or menstruating women, so how are you going to recruit pregnant death-row inmates to your trial? (This is actually a general problem with drug design and testing - there is an understandable reluctance to test drugs for safety and efficacy on pregnant women and unborn foetuses. Breast-feeding women and babies too ; same problem.)

      Do people on Slashdot actually try to think through problems before spouting politically-motivated bullshit? Oh, sorry, I just noticed that you're an anonymous coward (with the emphasis on the "coward" part of that).

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    22. Re:Summary by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Simple. Use a portion of the 24,000 doses (a few thousand?) to spot vaccinate anyone who's had close contact with someone with Ebola, say all immediate family members.

      OK, that's the first 100,000 doses of your 24,000 used. What are you going to do with the next -76,000 doses?

      Most (not all) people in this area live in fairly extended families - mum, dad, several kids, one or several grandparents, maybe a cousin from the country. 6 to 8 per household might be a reasonable average.

      Infections are running at about 1,000 cases per week, accelerating by about 40% per week. So this week, you'll need about 7,000 doses. Next week, you'll need another 9,800 (16,800 used so far), the week after another 13,720 (you're 6000 doses short already), the week after another 19,000 doses which you don't have. And now you're getting into the infections that may or may not result from your initial round of vaccinations, so maybe you'll stop having quite so many cases. But 3 weeks further down the line you're seeing cases from the 6,000 people you couldn't vaccinate.

      All of which assumes that the vaccine is 100% effective. If it's 90% effective (which is pretty good, for a first generation vaccine), then you've still got a long way to go.

      Simple?

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    23. Re:Summary by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Let me shed some light on this - a lot of people died of heart disease whilst heart medication was tested simply because the studies needed to be "double-blind" to ensure statistics' accuracy - thus medication that otherwise would've saved their lives was withheld

      Properly designed and conducted double-blinded trials result in fewer deaths overall than badly conducted trials, if the drugs are any good. If the drugs are not any good (which is something you do not know until after you're at least part way into the trials), then people still die. But since you don't have an effective treatment, people are still going to die.

      I did a reasonable chunk of medical statistics in my first year of university, and the department thought I was good enough that they wanted me to change to doing stats full time ; I didn't go into statistics because I couldn't stand the idea of my day job being to decided (in a cold-hearted, randomised, impersonal way) on people's life and death. Even when I knew - through having worked through the mathematics and having done the experimental design myself - that this was the way to minimise the number of deaths.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  4. clinical trials. by nblender · · Score: 1

    I still emotionally struggle with the clinical trial approach of giving half the participants a placebo to see how many of them die vs. the ones who were given the drug under study... I understand that it's statistically necessary but that doesn't make it easier to digest.

    1. Re:clinical trials. by Fwipp · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I'd argue it doesn't need to be 50/50. Surely, assuming we could make enough vaccine for it, a 80/20 study would give us enough statistical significance, with less than half the number of needless deaths.

    2. Re:clinical trials. by queazocotal · · Score: 2

      What about:
      80/20 - with the remaining 20% monitored more closely - with daily temperature readings - and if temperature spikes - take a blood sample, and give a high dose of vaccine. (or monitor everyones temperature, if blinding is a concern)
      As I understood it - vacine - post infection is a moderately effective treatment

    3. Re:clinical trials. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can't they do the randomized trial with people who are at high risk of infection? Surely you can get some useful information based on what percentage contract the disease in the test vs. control groups.

      (Then you give it to 100% of the confirmed infections.)

      Maybe it would require too large a sample group, given how few healthcare workers actually get Ebola.

    4. Re:clinical trials. by kaiser423 · · Score: 1

      Are we sure that they're planning a true 50/50 or standard clinical trial?

      In situations like this, you usually see a study that tries to use a "time as a placebo group" mechanism. Essentially, you give the damn vaccine to everyone, and see how mortality rates compare against what was happening before the vaccine. Obviously this is a bit complicated by improved public health awareness, improved standards of care, improved procedures, etc. It definitely muddies the study up somewhat, but you can still get the information needed about effectiveness of different candidate vaccines while still doing the morally correct thing.

      I'd be surprised if using a time-based placebo concept or something very similar wasn't their plan.

    5. Re:clinical trials. by ericloewe · · Score: 1

      It's easier to digest than potentially wasting money and resources (that could be used for alternative vaccines) and giving people false hope with something that ends up the same as a placebo.

    6. Re:clinical trials. by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      We desperately need a more ethical, and faster, approach to drug development than the double-blind trial. Build a supercomputer cluster that models the human body, and keep iteratively improving the model over time. Meanwhile, we use the model to directly assess the effects of new medications. Yes, developing such a model would be costly and at first risky. But compared to the ethics of giving half your population of ebola victims a placebo and watching them die in ways I wouldn't wish on anyone not working for ISIS, the problems in developing a model are trivial.

    7. Re:clinical trials. by iotaborg · · Score: 1

      Can't we use some already known Ebola fataility rate, i.e. 50%? Then use this as a baseline to determine the effect of a vaccine without a placebo group, i.e. if vaccine A results in 90% survival, and vaccine B gives 55% survival, we can already draw some conclusions..

    8. Re:clinical trials. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      ...

      Said the guy who's completely unaware of the inner complexities of the human body.

    9. Re:clinical trials. by slew · · Score: 2

      If your study was 100 folks and you gave 80 the vaccine and 20 placebo, you would only have a sample size of 20 to test the null-effect (e.g. how many folks naturally get better w/o the new fangled vaccine to see if the vaccine statistically helped the 80 folks or not).

      To increase the placebo sample size to the same statistically significant level (e.g, 50 folks) you would now have to give your untested vaccine which may have potential side effects to 200 people (+120 more folks). Which would be more ethical?

      You are assuming that the vaccine probably works and the side-effects are probably minimal. That bias has gotten many researchers in trouble throughout vaccine history. There is a reason for protocols.

    10. Re:clinical trials. by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Well, at least you have enough rational outlook to recognize it is necessary. Not doing this right will cause a lot more death and suffering.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    11. Re:clinical trials. by u38cg · · Score: 1

      Well, let me help you. We give a placebo because we DON'T KNOW whether the drug being tested helps or harms. Just because you know it has active effects on the disease process in question does NOT mean that you know giving it to the patient is better for them.

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    12. Re:clinical trials. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless vaccine A was given to people who were healthier, or from a population that has unknowingly seen Ebola or related diseases before.

    13. Re:clinical trials. by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      I still emotionally struggle with the clinical trial approach of giving half the participants a placebo to see how many of them die vs. the ones who were given the drug under study

      You don't, generally, give the patients a placebo ; you give them the standard treatment. Generally, you're not interested in comparing whether your new treatment is better than nothing ; you're interested in finding out if your new treatment is better than the standard treatment.

      And as your results (deaths, or whatever other end state you've defined, for example a 20% reduction in tumour size) come in, you assess the likelihood of the test treatment being better than the standard. If you reach a pre-defined level of confidence one way or the other then you switch people to the better treatment, but not until you reach that level of confidence.

      Unfortunately, for Ebola, the best treatment at the moment is supportive care (fluids, essentially), with about a 30-40% survival rate.

      Struggle with it emotionally. It's hard. That's why I gave that career path a body swerve when offered it (plus I hate working in offices).

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    14. Re:clinical trials. by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      As I understood it - vacine - post infection is a moderately effective treatment

      We don't know that for this disease. It is the case for some diseases, but ... I'll spell it out :
      W_E
      D_O
      N_O_T
      K_N_O_W
      T_H_A_T ...
      And that is one of the things that we need to find out.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    15. Re:clinical trials. by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      It definitely muddies the study up somewhat,

      I'll translate that into statistician speak : more patients die than absolutely necessary.

      I'm not trying to make you feel bad - it's just a nasty situation.

      Try one of the standard psychological tests : there is a run-away train on a line running towards a car with a family of five children in a car stuck on the tracks ; there is a set of points (errr, EN_US : switch??) which you can use to divert the runaway train into a siding where it will impact a wheelchair-bound man stuck in the crossing there. This is your situation. What do you do?

      Nature doesn't care about how uncomfortable it makes you feel.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    16. Re:clinical trials. by Fwipp · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but their study size is 12000, not 100.

  5. So... by Ecuador · · Score: 2

    WHO held a meeting?

    --
    Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
    1. Re:So... by excelsior_gr · · Score: 1

      The doctors. At WHO.

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

      At WHOM.

    3. Re:So... by sexconker · · Score: 0

      From WHENCE.

  6. Summary reveals nothing by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

    If there was ever a reason for @SavedYouAClick, this summary is it.

    --
    There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    1. Re:Summary reveals nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I honestly felt more confused after reading it than before.

  7. Not the money: politics by Corporate+T00l · · Score: 4, Informative

    $151M or $337M is not such a large sum of money that the US, UK, or French government couldn't unilaterally pick it up. The issue is with the politics. Voters and politicians in a single country are more okay with joining an international effort than seeing that they're the only ones footing a big bill.

    In this regard, the UK's strategy shows a lot of leadership combined with practical politics:

    "As far as financing, the U.K. government contends that a “multi-donor club” should pay for the vaccine development in “the medium term.” But for now, the United Kingdom says it will “unilaterally” cover the costs for purchasing vaccines in Sierra Leone, and it asks the governments of the United States and France to make the same commitment for Liberia and Guinea, respectively."

    It's a good play that let's the more xenophobic groups feel that the UK isn't propping up the whole world, but also allows hawks to see this as the UK exercising leadership/dominance internationally.

    1. Re:Not the money: politics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If it lets us save lives, I can live with that.

  8. Money, money, money... by X-Ray+Artist · · Score: 2

    It seems that this all about the financial bottom line. I understand things cost money, but it would nice if there was, for once, more concern about human lives.

    At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist, I think this particular outbreak is being publicized to create FUD.
    There have been outbreaks in the past that weren't nearly so well publicized. I think a few companies are close to having a cure/preventative and are using this FUD to get around a few regulations (we have a cure, but the rotten regulators won't let us use it and you could die because of the red-tape). I am not a fan of red tape, but to try to circumvent it for purely pecuniary reasons is not good, either.

    --
    I would have a sig but I am too busy updating programs and restarting my computer
    1. Re:Money, money, money... by X-Ray+Artist · · Score: 1

      Here is a link that seems to support my previous comments: http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/...

      --
      I would have a sig but I am too busy updating programs and restarting my computer
    2. Re:Money, money, money... by LordWabbit2 · · Score: 1

      Damn, posted before I read your comment. I agree with you completely.

      --
      There are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third is statistics.
    3. Re:Money, money, money... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule of working for no pay in public health to enlighten us with your post.

      Oh, I'm sorry. I must have confused you with someone who lives up to the same ideals they expect of others.

    4. Re:Money, money, money... by tlambert · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It seems that this all about the financial bottom line. I understand things cost money, but it would nice if there was, for once, more concern about human lives.

      Actually, it's not.

      Glaxo Smith Klein has said that even if they relax the bio safety level 2 requirements for filling the vaccine vials, after a certain (short) point, they will be converting their production of other vaccines from such diseases as rotavirus, measles, mumps, and rubella.

      At that point, we are talking about trading American lives to benefit Liberian lives.

      Note that the NewLink vaccine donated by Canada has demonstrated Ebola-like symptoms in many of the people who've been inoculated in Phase I trials, so it's entirely possible Canada Health has been giving those people either the virus or a weakened strain of the virus, and is actually infecting people. Apart from that, they also have the fill rate problem that GSK was complaining about, which would short-sheet supplies of other vaccines.

    5. Re: Money, money, money... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rad up about the vaccine before you jump to conclusions and spread misinformation. The vaccine is a VSV vector that carries part of Ebola. Many Ebola-like symptoms are common to any type of immune response (headache, fever, muscle pain, etc.), which is exactly what you want a vaccine to stimulate or it won't be protective.

    6. Re:Money, money, money... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "At that point, we are talking about trading American lives to benefit Liberian lives."

      Well, not exactly.

      You see, if we don't benefit the lives of those currently in the hotzone, then the hotzone will expand VERY rapidly, and we'll lose a shitload more of those precious American lives to boot when the virus really hits the USA.
      Really, it's in EVERYONE's interest that as much money gets funded to handle this outbreak as soon as possible.
      It's not a zero-sum game.
      If we don't stop this thing fast, we all be royally fucked.
      You might not personally die from the virus, but you'll lose dozens of friends and family at a minimum.
      No one wants that.

    7. Re:Money, money, money... by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Note that the NewLink vaccine donated by Canada has demonstrated Ebola-like symptoms in many of the people who've been inoculated in Phase I trials, so it's entirely possible Canada Health has been giving those people

      Hmmm, I wonder if, after vaccination with this (or one of the other in-development vaccines and treatments), the patient will then always return positive on the piss-in-a-pot type tests for Ebola which are also under development?

      Of course, if they do return positive because of the vaccination, then they'll not be prevented from travelling on that basis - they show positive because of the vaccination, and the vaccination is reported in their vaccination passport (do you carry your vaccination passport along with your identification passport? I do, in the same wallet.). So they'll just get waved through any security check for perfectly good reasons.

      Will this vaccine against this strain of Ebola protect against the 6 or 7 other strains of Ebola? Oh, now that's a question whose answer would be really quite important to know.

      But Slashdot demands immediate action now, regardless of unimportant questions like that. Oh Noes!

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  9. USA To Weaponize Ebola by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With the Texas Nurse in the hands of the NIH and a short drive to the US Army's Bio-weapons Labs in Maryland the Army will probably impregnate her to harvest the fetus and weaponize it to use against Eurasia and Central-South America and the legal citizens of the USA.

    1. Re: USA To Weaponize Ebola by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ebola is a perfect example of why you shouldn't weaponize any virus. It would eventually make its way back to you. Playing the game of "who to infect first" doesn't do a damn bit of good if it wipes out your nation too. An then there's the mutation aspect; the ultimate wildcard of fate!

    2. Re: USA To Weaponize Ebola by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      Why? The attacking nation would of course have vacines for those of the preferred segments of their society.

    3. Re: USA To Weaponize Ebola by tlambert · · Score: 1

      Why? The attacking nation would of course have vacines for those of the preferred segments of their society.

      It mutates as it reproduces. It's like the rolling codes on your car alarm or garage door opener: vaccination against the previous code won't prevent you getting infected with the new one. This same effect is why you can have the cold or flu more than once in your life.

    4. Re: USA To Weaponize Ebola by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      Many diseases are not like that, and vaccines offer "cross protection" against mutated strains

  10. Paul Allen just donated $100M to the cause by peter303 · · Score: 1

    Mark Z. and Bill G. gave 8 figures too. Tehse would fill in gaps around government agencies. A good start!

  11. Colour me Suspicious by LordWabbit2 · · Score: 1

    I find it a bit suspicious that Africa has handled many Ebola outbreaks before this just fine. Sure there were deaths, it's Ebola, but they handled it. Now we have 20+ medical companies with untested human trials of Ebola vaccines/cures all rushing in to "save" the day by testing the drug on humans without a controlled environment and with no legal liability. If a survivor's next fetus grows a third eye and has an IQ of a sweet potato in a drought are they going to take responsibility? I doubt it. How about getting the right gear and help to the health workers instead of pumping them full of crap you could not test legally in your own country. Stop using Africa as a petri dish. Makes me wonder if they didn't start and help spread the epidemic in the first place. But then again maybe I have played/watched too much resident evil.

    --
    There are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third is statistics.
    1. Re:Colour me Suspicious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Past outbreaks have been in rural areas, and the outbreak has burned itself out after killing a village or two. This one started in a major city, and natural "burn out" is likely to leave millions dead.

    2. Re:Colour me Suspicious by cnettel · · Score: 1

      I find it a bit suspicious that Africa has handled many Ebola outbreaks before this just fine. Sure there were deaths, it's Ebola, but they handled it. Now we have 20+ medical companies with untested human trials of Ebola vaccines/cures all rushing in to "save" the day by testing the drug on humans without a controlled environment and with no legal liability. If a survivor's next fetus grows a third eye and has an IQ of a sweet potato in a drought are they going to take responsibility? I doubt it. How about getting the right gear and help to the health workers instead of pumping them full of crap you could not test legally in your own country. Stop using Africa as a petri dish. Makes me wonder if they didn't start and help spread the epidemic in the first place. But then again maybe I have played/watched too much resident evil.

      Proper help to the health workes would include vaccine. In an early phase, there won't be enough vaccine doses for the general population anyway, but currently health workers are at high risk and the number of doctors is dwindling. Not because they leave their posts, but because they die. If you have protective gear and practices that reduce the risk of infection by 99 %, that's still a high risk scenario if you are at a treatment center with multiple patient encounters a day. For any similar infection where there is some kind of vaccine or prophylaxis, health workers get it. The side effects could be quite dire and still be worth it, assuming they are going to do their job at all.

    3. Re:Colour me Suspicious by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      maybe I have played/watched too much resident evil

      Maybe you have. (What's "resident evil"?) Unfortunately, this is not a game, and people are at risk. I've a colleague working in the area at the moment, and I'm due to be going back there in about April ; my neighbour's husband is worried about relatives who live in Ghana and his colleagues in Senegal.

      I really think your concern about your conspiracy theories are a bit over-blown.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  12. more truth than fact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Onion, quoting Tulane University pathologist Gregory Wensmann “While all measures are being taken to contain the spread of the contagion, an effective, safe, and reliable Ebola inoculation unfortunately remains roughly 50 to 60 white people away, if not more,”

    http://www.theonion.com/articles/experts-ebola-vaccine-at-least-50-white-people-awa,36580/

  13. How to Look a Gift Horse in the Mouth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    TLDR, so maybe I'm way off....
    This is amazing that there;s anything to criticize here. That there is a potential vaccine at all is amazing. It is a mercy drug and has no value for a pharmaceutical company's bottom line. It's just to help humanity

  14. Cheap Insurance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even a small outbreak in a western country would cripple the airlines and other businesses, never mind the potential for political destabilization in Africa. $150 million is chump change.

    1. Re:Cheap Insurance by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      ... what's there to destabilize?

  15. Re:More fun with mortgages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If I buy your house, I pay sales tax. If bank buys your mortgage from another bank, NO SALES TAX!.
    They pass mortgages around like chips in a poker game.
    Let them pay 5% on each transaction.

    If I buy a company, I pay sales tax. If stock broker buys stocks, NO SALES TAX! They do BEEELLLIIONS of transactions with no sales tax.
    They do charge their customers for the transactions. Let them pay a sales tax. That will stop the high frequency traders that bring NO VALUE to the table.

  16. So 1 x F35 = 60 million x vaccinations? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are not even comparing a hammer with nails, and if you were you would still be missing the point that one is a tool the other a consumable.

    Perhaps you can do the maths again, this time in Decaf Lite Soy Lattes?