Ebola Vaccine 100% Successful In Guinea Trial

An anonymous reader writes: Doctors and researchers have been testing a vaccine to protect against Ebola in the west African nation of Guinea. Trials involving 4,000 people have now shown a 100% success rate in preventing infection. "When Ebola flared up in a village, researchers vaccinated all the contacts of the sick person who were willing — the family, friends and neighbors — and their immediate contacts. Children, adolescents and pregnant women were excluded because of an absence of safety data for them. In practice about 50% of people in these clusters were vaccinated. To test how well the vaccine protected people, the cluster outbreaks were randomly assigned either to receive the vaccine immediately or three weeks after Ebola was confirmed. Among the 2,014 people vaccinated immediately, there were no cases of Ebola from 10 days after vaccination — allowing time for immunity to develop — according to the results published online in the Lancet medical journal (PDF). In the clusters with delayed vaccination, there were 16 cases out of 2,380."

Comments

The Onion had it right

[mungtor]

Almost a year exactly.

http://www.theonion.com/articl...

Re:The Onion had it right

[SirSlud]

Here's to hoping that one day you pass into adulthood.

Re:The Onion had it right

[WillAffleckUW]

Ebola is highly correlated with Africa as it's mostly a vector disease from bats and is spread by human contact with bats in the search for profitable guano (bat poop) and mining (caves) and resource extraction (caves).

Until white people got it in the US and EU, nobody with money cared.

Does that answer your question?

It's like malaria and other diseases. When they infect US populations and rich EU nations, suddenly they get cured, because we spend money on a cure, instead of on useless weapons systems.

Re:The Onion had it right

[Nethemas the Great]

Until recently no one has bothered to invest in Africa (only now China). Western powers, particularly the US, actually found it to be a good place to dump farm commodity surplus (USAID). Since these are principally agrarian nations that was particularly helpful to the farmers whom have a hard time competing with free. To support their families the farmers turn to growing coffee for export. Not only does this NOT produce food for local consumption, but these farmers tend to get severely screwed by the middlemen (only weakly mitigated by the joke known as "Fair Trade" certification). The investment that did come (principally oil) went directly into the coffers of despotic leaders of whom are far more concerned with keeping their citizens' necks under their boot than with education, health, infrastructure, etc..

Don't over-estimate the "help" the western world provides to Africa. The principal goal of which is to make the west feel good about themselves not to bootstrap their entrance into the first world.

Re:The Onion had it right

[quantaman]

I'm sure that some people will still blame "colonialism", although that hasn't even been an issue for generations now.
  Even then, we've seen many other regions, like most of Europe, China, Japan, South Korea and even Vietnam, go from total devastation due to war to modern societies capable of producing such research, over roughly the same period of time. Why isn't Africa progressing when so many other nations, often with much fewer resources and far less support, and coming from a much worse situation, managed to turn things around?

Colonialism is still a huge issue because the colonial borders are still in place, the borders were designed to keep them weak by putting rival tribes in the same country.

In Europe and Asia a government can get reasonable levels of support across most of the country because they figure they're all on the same side, so you get investment in the future and a generally functional society.

But in Africa it's really hard to develop a country when a government can never get real support outside of their ethnic group, everyone ends up playing a zero-sum game and you end up with corruption and violence. All that's going to fix it is a lot of time until African's start thinking of themselves as primarily members of their country and not of a tribe.

Re:The Onion had it right

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's see, many RC folks worldwide kiss their dead whilst they are in coffins.

Bush meat? Have you ever heard of eating deer, rabbit, moose, etc. that you've hunted?

Respecting quarantine...no we just don'thave sensible health measures in the US. We have sick folks wandering all over infecting others.

Meh.

Re:The Onion had it right

[Penguinisto]

Fair cop, but consider that the same despots you cite are very active in absconding with any kind of aid that even smells like money. Outside of schools and hospitals (provided mostly by church-based charities, Catholic Relief Services chief among them)? You don't find much other types of aid reaching Africa, mostly because that shiz gets swiped by every corrupt pair of hands that can reach a piece of it.

So, unless you recommend that we re-establish colonial rule, or simply sweep through with a vast army to conquer and administer (most of) the continent as a collective UN-run organization, what exactly do you recommend?

Re:The Onion had it right

[quantaman]

So at the end of the day: if these populations wish to enter the first world, the first step to take is to assert their ownership of the land they occupy on the continent, decide on their own borders

Bad borders are bad, but trying to redraw borders? That can be much, much worse.

One of the big rules in Africa (and pretty much everywhere) is you don't change national borders because that introduces massive stakes and is a recipe for wars and rebellion since every group decides they want their own country comprising of every bit of land they think their group is entitled to.

or (like other countries in the first world), abandon tribal identity so they progress on to greater things like indoor plumbing and medical research.

That's the solution but I think it's far from simple. Look at the US, there are two parties sharing a white Christian base and the political system has been deadlocked and dysfunctional for half a decade.

What do you think would happen if half the country was Protestant and the other half Muslim, or New Jersey was 50+% Italian descent, Michigan 50+% Nigerian, Texas 50+% Mexican, etc. Getting people to cooperate in a political system is not simple.

Re:The Onion had it right

[quenda]

And people in the first world do stupid things like believing that vaccines cause autism

Unfortunately, sub-Saharan Africa goes *way* beyond that level. Its hard to explain to someone who has never been to Africa. We've had President Mbeki of South Africa, the most advanced economy in Africa, denying that HIV causes AIDS and treating victims with herbs instead of anti-retrovirals.
President Zuma thinks it is OK to rape an AIDS-infected woman if he showers afterwards. Yes, the US has some dumb people, and past presidents, but they are not really in the same league.

Re:The Onion had it right

[quenda]

Until recently no one has bothered to invest in Africa

What is "recent" ? Western powers were kept out for a long time because of malaria. Once that was controlled, the British invested heavily. But lack of reliable local labour forced then to bring in large numbers of Indian and Chinese, as well as Europeans, to get anything done. You cannot do that now, plus there are massive barriers with the local bureaucracy. Just getting spare parts into the country is extremely slow, even with bribes.

Guinea?

[meta-monkey]

So, you're saying they were guinea pigs?

How long and how varied

[gurps_npc]

Having a 100% proof vaccine for Ebola is nice, as long as it works for the majority of strains and also lasts for life. Not so good if it lasts for 1 year and you need another, and only for one specific variety of Ebola, not all.

Re:How long and how varied

[MightyMartian]

I'm really concerned that it might give children autism! I mean, imagine surviving an almost guaranteed fatal case of hemorrhagic fever, and the becoming autistic?

I think we have to ask ourselves "Would Jenny McCarthy give her ebola-stricken child this vaccine?"

Re:How long and how varied

[ceoyoyo]

Even an Ebola vaccine that was only effective for a short period of time would be wonderful. Ebola isn't a subtle disease, and outbreaks tend to start in fairly isolated villages, perhaps because the reservoir is an animal. When someone in a village starts bleeding out of every orifice, administer the vaccine to everyone in the village. That stops the outbreak in it's tracks.

Re:How long and how varied

[Firethorn]

Having a 100% proof vaccine for Ebola is nice, as long as it works for the majority of strains and also lasts for life.

Not necessarily. I'd say it remains 'nice' even if it only lasts for 6 months, so long as it works on 'most' strains, but said strains are identifiable.

The critical part here is that it works when given close to exposure. That makes it like the rabies vaccine. Ebola outbreak? You hit everybody in the village up with it, and it remains at 1-2 cases, not hundreds.

If it's 100% effective for life with 1 shot, it goes way beyond 'nice'. As such it would beat most vaccines today, as most vaccines are: Only about 90% effective, require multiple shots to reach that effectiveness, only last a limited period of time, etc...

Flu - annual(though that's for a wide number of varieties), Tetanus - 10 years, Hep A - 2 does, Hep B - 3 doses, Chickenpox - 2 doses, etc...

Re:How long and how varied

[phantomfive]

It's still good in that case, it gives nurses and doctors a chance to survive.

Re:How long and how varied

[Jason Levine]

You're going for funny, but too many people would say that 100% seriously. As the parent of a child with autism, I resent the implication those people make that a child is better off dead from measles than "damaged" with autism. Sadly, too many people have skewed risk-benefit calculations because they hear horror stories about vaccines and haven't seen first-hand the horrors of the diseases vaccines prevent. I guarantee that an Ebola vaccine would be greeted by long lines to get the vaccine and not questions about whether 1 case in 10,000 will have some minor side effect just like nobody said "Let's hold off on that polio vaccine until it is 100% safe" back when polio was raging.

Re:How long and how varied

[Jason Levine]

And, as another poster pointed out, aide workers/doctors/nurses could be vaccinated when they go into an infection zone to treat patients without risking infection themselves. Even if the immunity only lasted a few months, I think any doctor would take the occasional jab over risking Ebola because they were so hot and tired when taking the suit off that they made a small mistake and got exposed to the disease.

Re:Convenient

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that's the stupidest fucking comparison I've ever seen on Slashdot. And that's a pretty impressive feat.

How many infections...

[Bartles]

...in the unvaccinated control group?

Re:How many infections...

[bws111]

Only half the people were vaccinated the first time. The rest were the control group. Of the control group 16 got ebola. Then they vaccinated the rest, and nobody got ebola.

Re:Convenient

[kwiecmmm]

Really... is it that convenient or is it because cancer is caused by cell mutations and every cancer and victim has a slightly different mutation. And some people have been surviving Ebola, which means their bodies have created antibodies.

Cancer will probably take more than 100 years after this point to completely wipe out. With medicine these days we will probably see better treatments for it and more people will survive over time, but cancer will not be wiped out any time soon.

celebrate science and vaccines as a great good!

[circletimessquare]

news like this makes me so mad. because it demonstrates something wonderful we as a civilization have achieved time and again. something that should be applauded and celebrated and championed:

1. disease, unfair deaths

2. science, hard work by intelligent people

3. vaccine, innocent lives saved

it's obvious, straightforward, undeniable, a wonderful good

against that we have prideful ignorance, that continues to claim the lives of innocent children and others, simply because of their various paranoid conspiracy theories, lies, and petulant low iq

in a just world, those who don't vaccinate die from ebola

in the real world, those who do vaccinate protect those who do not, and when the herd immunity breaks down, because of the unvaccinated, the vulnerable innocent and the unlucky few who got a vaccine but it didn't take hold, also die

Re:LOL - there is no such thing as 'vaccination'..

[bobbied]

You cannot be serious.... Look they vaccinated using TWO techniques and it may be hard to follow, but they where not doing a placebo double blind study, but a comparative study of two populations, which has value.

First group where vaccinated right away after someone nearby had been confirmed to have Ebola.. In the group of people who got the vaccine, NOBODY got Ebola who was subsequently exposed after 10 days. Yes, some people got Ebola who either already had it before the vaccine or who where exposed to it during the 10 days after the vaccine, but after that, things where great.

Just to be sure this wasn't a fluke, they vaccinated other groups 3 weeks after the confirmed case of Ebola was found and noted that there where then 16 cases of Ebola in this test group after the 10 day wait, meaning they where previously exposed and got Ebola via the normal route, before the vaccine built immunity in 3 weeks + 10 days. This indicates that the vaccine DOES affect the Ebola infection rate, seemingly very well in that after 10 days, subsequent exposure didn't not produce Ebola.

The implication is that the immediate vaccination prevented Ebola after the 10 day period...

Re:Convenient

[Firethorn]

It is interesting that when there is a limited broad commercial viability, the "drug" designers and chemists are able to whip up a cure for something in under a year.

Problem: They've been working on the Ebola vaccine for a lot longer than a year. What really happened is that they had a vaccine in the early testing stages, with something like an estimated 5 years of testing left before it could be commercially deployed. Then we have a relatively huge ebola outbreak, panic sets in and they grant a waiver for the testing. Basically, they had enough information that 'We think this will probably help you survive exposure to Ebola. We're pretty sure it won't hurt you'. So they administer the vaccine in a sort of accelerated study, because it might save lives. Turns out it probably did.

Outside of an Ebola outbreak, the risks weren't worth it. During one? Worth it.

It actually reminds me of the first vaccination methods - Variolation. Fascinating history. Various versions around, but had a top end of 1% chance of death. Yes, the vaccination itself killed 1% of those treated. But it was against smallpox - with a death rate of 30% during epidemics. As long as the chances of catching smallpox was above 4%, it was 'worth it' to variate. And in Europe, the chances were a lot higher than 4%. Even royalty variolated their children.

As for cancer - apples and oranges dude. The problem with cancer is that it's actually lots of different problems, all under the same name. Causes, effects, treatments, all different.

We've developed lots of cures for various cancers, just not all of them yet.

Re:LOL - there is no such thing as 'vaccination'..

[thinkwaitfast]

You can be treated for rabies after you been infected. Pets are routinely given rabies shots after an encounter with a wild animal even when they are currently vaccinated.

Re:Thanks to MERCK

[Anonymous Coward]

From the article: "The rVSV-ZEBOV vaccine is sometimes known as the Canadian vaccine as it was originally developed by the Public Health Agency of Canada before being sold to Merck to conclude the testing."

Which is actually leaving out a step. Newlink Genetics bought it, sat on it for years, then sold it to Merck.

Re:Convenient

[circletimessquare]

thank you