Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Ebola Nose Spray Vaccine Protects Monkeys

Posted by samzenpus on from the spray-away dept.

First time accepted submitter GeekyKhan writes A new needle-free vaccine has proven to be 100% effective at stopping the transmission of Ebola in monkeys, and it could spell a breakthrough in the battle against the disease. The vaccine is administered through a nasal spray using a common cold virus genetically engineered to carry Ebola DNA. From NBC: "The vaccine uses a common cold virus genetically engineered to carry a tiny piece of Ebola DNA. Sprayed up the nose, it saved all nine monkeys tested for infection. But now the research is dead in the water without funding, Maria Croyle of the University of Texas at Austin’s College of Pharmacy said. 'Now we are at the crossroads, trying to figure out where to get the funding and resources to continue,' Croyle told NBC News."

19 of 198 comments (clear)

  1. Where is by Bin_jammin · · Score: 5, Funny

    Jenny McCarthy to protest this? After all, who can really care for all those poor autistic monkeys this will create?

    1. Re:Where is by aliquis · · Score: 3, Funny

      And the vaccine contains GMOs!

      ALSO IT'S A VACCINE!!

      I don't trust science, I trust God! Theref<fell dead on the keyboard>

    2. Re:Where is by aliquis · · Score: 3, Funny

      ... <resurrected - haha!>

      What I really meant was:
      * I don't trust science! I trust God and conspiracy theories on the Internet! The bolder and #ff0000 text and the more apocalyptic video the better!

      They for sure are more trustworthy than the peer-reviewed content of scientific journals and work of researchers at universities! .. the Bible and the Quran tell us all we need to know!

  2. Technicalities by Translation+Error · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The vaccine uses a common cold virus genetically engineered to carry a tiny piece of Ebola DNA. Sprayed up the nose, it saved all nine monkeys tested for infection.

    Saved? I can believe that none of the vaccinated monkeys caught Ebola, but I'd hardly call that 'saving' them. I'd also think calling a vaccine 100% effective is a bit premature with only nine test subjects.

    --
    When someone says, "Any fool can see ..." they're usually exactly right.
    1. Re:Technicalities by cdrudge · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If the infection rate prior to being immunized was 100%, I'd say 9 of 9 not being infected is pretty fricking huge for something that kills 1/2 the people that catch it and no other known immunization technique.

    2. Re:Technicalities by Nikademus · · Score: 3, Funny

      That's true, it's know that you need 12 monkeys when a virus outbreak is there. :)

      --
      I gave up with the idea of an useful sig...
  3. Re:monkeys like us or monkeys like monkeys? by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Funny

    No no no ... monkeys like bananas, we like monkeys ... I'm sure some monkeys like us, and I'm pretty sure monkeys also like other monkeys or they'd have died out by now ... but we're talking, like, monkeys.

    Monkeys, like, us. Monkeys, like us. Monkeys like us.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  4. There are already ways to deliver vaccine by Crashmarik · · Score: 4, Insightful

    without a needle

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

    Seems if needleless vaccination is your goal, this would be the way to go. Speaking as someone who got a flu shot from one of these it's a pretty painless experience.

    1. Re:There are already ways to deliver vaccine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Those jet injectors are not painless. I was shot with those evil devices many times during boot camp back in the early 70's. They'd line us up and march us between rows of orderlies who would pop us in both arms simultaneously. It sucked, I'll take needles, thank you.

  5. Not to worry! by Xyrus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    With the republicans in charge, you won't be the only scientific group that doesn't have any funding! You'll have lots of company.

    --
    ~X~
    1. Re:Not to worry! by i+kan+reed · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're citing the cuts the republicans forced by threatening legislative innaction that would recrash the economy as evidence that Obama is complicit in anti-science behaviors?

      I mean, there's lots Obama has done, hasn't done, but the shit the republicans intentionally caused by threatening criminally irresponsible negligence as a condition of obeying their legislative agenda isn't "his".

  6. Money by fustakrakich · · Score: 5, Interesting

    God forbid that Wall Street cough up any of that free government money it got over the last 6 years.. No, no, we should never demand that. That would be communism!

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

      God forbid any of the African nations affected by this disease cough up any money.

      Considering that the cost to the U.S. of this ebola outbreak is going to be in the billions of dollars, it makes a lot of sense to fund research into vaccines to reduce the cost to us later on, regardless of what other countries are doing.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
  7. Re:This is safe? by Russ1642 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Science doesn't care what sounds scary to you.

  8. Re:This is safe? by reve_etrange · · Score: 4, Informative

    I have no understanding of the dangers, or lack thereof, of viral payloads

    Indeed. You see, biological information is partitioned into units called "genes," which are responsible for individual functions. A "viral payload" consists of the entire viral genome, usually containing at least several thousand genes. Here, just one (or perhaps a few) viral genes have been selected because they code for proteins which the immune system can use to identify infected cells.

    There is no danger in making a weakened cold virus (you simply invented the connection to bacteria) which contains these ebola-infected-cell-identifying genes. None of the genes which make ebola dangerous are present. The modified cold virus trains the immune system to kill cells which look like they have ebola. If ebola itself shows up later on, the vaccinated immune system is already prepared to identify and kill infected cells.

    --
    .: Semper Absurda :.
  9. Kickstarter by Rick+Richardson · · Score: 5, Funny

    https://www.kickstarter.com/

  10. ebola doesn't have DNA - it has RNA by cslewis2007 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Just saying. If the source article gets that fundamental fact wrong, what can we take away from the rest of it. Were they really monkeys?

    1. Re:ebola doesn't have DNA - it has RNA by RDW · · Score: 4, Informative

      The vaccine vector is an Adenovirus, a DNA virus. The recombinant Ebola virus gene it carries will be in the form of DNA, designed to encode the same protein as the original RNA gene in the Ebola virus. It's the protein that is important, since this what the immune system will raise its response against.

  11. Re:Privatization by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Oh come on. That's easy. The free market would solve this problem by selling hazmat suits, hermetically-sealed penthouse apartments, and lots and lots of guns and canned goods. Just like any decent zombie movie, the people who can afford this stuff will survive, and the people who can't won't. Problem solved once the latter people die off and stop transmitting the disease. Then the people who can manage things for themselves rather than accepting government vaccine handouts can go back to business as usual, such as investing in the stock market.