Slashdot Mirror
Ebola Vaccine Gives 100 Percent Protection, Could Be Readily Available By 2018 (bbc.com)
According to a study published in the Lancet medical journal on Thursday, an experimental vaccine against the Ebola virus was found to be 100 percent effective. The results offer hope of better protection against the disease that ravaged West Africa in 2014, killing more than 11,000 people. From a report on BBC: A highly effective vaccine that guards against the deadly Ebola virus could be available by 2018, says the World Health Organization. Trials conducted in Guinea, one of the West African countries most affected by an outbreak of Ebola that ended this year, show it offers 100% protection. The vaccine is now being fast-tracked for regulatory approval. Manufacturer Merck has made 300,000 doses of the rVSV-ZEBOV vaccine available for use should Ebola strike.
GAVI, the global vaccine alliance, provided $5m for the stockpile.
Results, published in The Lancet medical journal, show of nearly 6,000 people receiving the vaccine, all were free of the virus 10 days later. In a group of the same size not vaccinated, 23 later developed Ebola. Only one person who was vaccinated had a serious side effect that the researchers think was caused by the jab.
...among anti-vaxxers :)
Know that Marburg and Reston are sometimes called Ebola but are not the same as Ebola Zebov. Still what ever trick was done to find a protective antigen can likely be repeated for these. The most important aspect of this is that it can protect health workers. Treating Ebola patients in hot climates is hard to do when you have to wear so much protective gear.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
So we had best wait a year before doing anything with it. Until it's ready for human use you don't have a vaccine, you have a hype train.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
Fixed in 4 years.
Disease stuck in the third world: still endemic.
Not racism. There's no money in selling drugs to poor people, and the owners of the drug companies are rich westerners who won't get dengue, but might get Ebola. Their lives are just a BIT more important than other peoples'.
How long until someone suggests that this is a scheme by Merck to profit or do "some horrible thing" to poor African villagers who would surely prefer to die of disease or malnutrition. "I can't believe they're selling this instead of giving it away for free!" "How do they know those villagers wouldn't have gotten better on their own!?"
What is the source of your assertion that waiting between vaccines has any effect at all? Your fever dream that you assume is reason does not count. This false compromise about "spacing" vaccination is merely a rationalization to make anti-vax proponents appear more reasonable.
No vax=>no public supported schooling for your spawn would fix this problem.
3. Before considering vaccination, research and educate yourself on other effective practices such as herbs and yoga.
I was going to comment on the first two ridiculous and unfounded suggestions, but this one actually made me snort. The suggestion that herbs and yoga (which is a great exercise) can replace a vaccine against Ebola is at the same time the funniest, scariest, and most ridiculous thing I've read all week. If this is done in jest, well done, very well done. If not, please get yourself checked into a clinic immediately.
Why #1? Unless your immune system is compromised, there's no danger. HOWEVER, if you need three injections, here are the problems:
1) It's more expensive to make. A triple is one product, three products cost more
2) It's more expensive to administer. Three operations, not one
3) You have to take more time off for three operations than just one. And that comes out of your USian 10 days leave, IF your boss will let you go.
4) Costs more, you have to take more time off and travel three times rather than just once
5) It's more stressful, since you now have three operations, each being uncomfortable at best, each abrading your immunity
6) You have three times as much chance of not being able to make the full protection (you don't go if you have a cold, etc)
7) You are unprotected for much longer, unless you have them close together, negating the "benefit" of not having a triple jab
And, for government funded health systems
8) Costs more on the taxpayer dime
For your #2, you're now going to be YEARS open up to infection, not a good move. As to your #3, there's fuck all that can be fixed by yoga that warrant a vaccine. And your #4 is bullshit. Mercury in many forms aren't absorbed by the human body chemistry and is flushed out, but the stuff is useful to keep the medicine safe to inject past your outer immune system defences, so refusing this is more liable to cause infection and precisely what you claim to want to avoid. There ARE alternatives to mercury based preservatives, but if there aren't, you should AT LEAST consider whether you want some bateria being injected straight into your bloodstream merely because mercury in some forms is dangerous. As far as lead, I have no idea whether that's even used, what for, and what its biological effects would be, only knowing tetraethyl lead.
replace a vaccine against Ebola
Also meant against (formerly) typical childhood diseases, such as those targeted by the MMR vaccine (measles, mumps, rubella).
Hey Jenny, aside from maybe some acting school, which is highly doubtful and barely passing high school, what qualifications and education do you have?
Too many people are being injured from bad vaccines and everyone needs to speak out have safeguards put into the system.
Citation required! Who, how many? Do you know any personally? Wait, I can answer that last one for you, you don't.
Pretty sure this is just a classic science journalism mistranslation. The actual scientific study says that the estimated efficacy from the experimental results, to a 95% confidence interval, is 100%. Because no one in the trial got the disease. That is not the same as the colloquial version of "100% effectiveness" that you are thinking of.
I might as well ask you what you've done to reduce your carbon footprint. Even IF I had sat on my arse eating cheetos and pizza, it still wouldn't change the fact that it takes 4 years for a disease that spread into the west and could infect wealthy people, but 40 years later and we're still dilly-dallying over treatments for more serious and widespread diseases in Africa, that merely don't affect people in the West. If I had organised Feed The World three times, it wouldn't change that fact either. And if you were driving an SUV and giggling at the warmer weather, STILL nothing would change there.
ALL you're trying to do is poison the well and deflect. You would have been better off not responding rather than give me a chance to point out how desperate you have to be to resort to this trick.
That is not the same as the colloquial version of "100% effectiveness" that you are thinking of.
And this is how we get "fake news", propaganda and mass spreading of deceit and lies.... blame the READER for the writers errors.
Again, cognitive dissonance, you can't attack the lie because it would require you to question your own beliefs or possibly draw the ire of the mob. So you choose to personally attack the questioner instead of standing up for the truth?
You can't claim science and propaganda at the same time. The truth must _always_ be presented with the science, and then defended, even if it's not popular.
I posted this story, not msmash.
Is this happening to other people too? For example, might there be someone other than BeauHD who posted a renewable energy story?
I'm not defending or attacking anyone, just explaining what happened. Chill out dude.
OK Sure. The "lie" is that journalists aren't scientists and aren't properly trained to read a scientific paper and realize that there's a difference between a 95% confidence interval or P-value and what people think of as "100%." That doesn't mean the science is lying. That means the science is reporting results accurately and truthfully. Unfortunately the average reader has no idea how to read a scientific journal and make heads or tails of it.
I'm not defending or attacking anyone, just explaining what happened. Chill out dude.
You saying "chill out" is accusing me of overreacting. You are now claiming (again) that I personally have an issue.
What about the scientifically provable false statement in the title? Just "explaining" how it could be a "mistake", is exactly how propaganda and "fake news" works.
Well, that'd be great... but who's going to fund the synthesis of a plane-load of vaccine, and the training for a plane-load of qualified staff to administer it, and then also fund the two plane flights to Africa? You're asking for a few tens of millions of dollars, minimum... and that's not even considering the logistics involved in ensuring that the vaccines aren't immediately seized upon landing, and used as leverage in a civil war.
Maybe you think that the lab techs, nurses, pilots, maintainers, security personnel and diplomats should all just volunteer their time. That's nice, but then who's going to volunteer to feed them as well? Maybe you think the pharmaceutical company should just pay for everything, but they already do a lot of that, and that's partly why American medicine prices are so high.
...or maybe you just have no idea how the world works, and just want to enrage Slashdot readers.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
That it's more important to fix diseases that can affect the affluent in the west than just the poor in Africa because the threat to them is important to them, and the money from poor people is low to nonexistent. Feel free to see how exceptional this claim is and whether we have enough anecdotal evidence of this being likely.
OR you could try wondering why this one took 4 years and only 11,000 deaths.
That doesn't mean the science is lying. That means the science is reporting results accurately and truthfully.
I didn't say the "science" was lying, I said the "title" was lying, and very obviously. The science says there's no such things as 100% protection.
This should mean that all those that value science and truth should be willing to point this error out.
Spelling and grammar errors are pointed out regularly, what about blatantly scientifically false titles?
If you want to be really pedantic, it is possibly a false statement but as of yet there is no proof that it is false. Every person that tried the vaccine is Ebola free. Maybe it actually is 100% effective? Who knows? Not you.
This vaccine was developed in Canada. See http://www.theglobeandmail.com/technology/science/canadian-vaccine-for-ebola-virus-proves-extremely-effective-in-clinical-trial/article33416753/
The article that I saw said that at this point the side effects preclude mass distribution. A risk that might be worth taking in the middle of an outbreak might be unacceptable for general use in the absence of the disease. It's not like vaccinating everyone is going to wipe out Ebola, since its reservoir is non-human species.
Is it finally time for the zombie apocalypse?
You are overreacting. Chill out.
You are making statements just as absolute as the one in the title.
This is false in the way that "the world is round" is false -- which is to say, not false at all, but somewhat nuanced.
Also false the way "the world is a sphere" is false.
Also the way "the world is an oblate spheroid" is false.
All of those being accurate approximations, useful in the real world, to varying levels of precision.
BeauHD and a couple other suspicious handles are submitting a lot of the same stories over on soylentnews.org and juggling up submission times on them so you will see one here 'early' then see the other the next day, or a couple days later, and sometimes you see them both simultaneously...
Are they maybe shilling for some news company or PR firm who wants these stories published, rather than for the benefit of the community?
Seems suspicious to me.
What is more telling is that it took for some white people to be infected to start research into making a vaccine
Take this with a great big block of salt, as this comes from the Great Vaccine Liar, Merck, which was caught red handed lying about the effectiveness and deadly side effects of its MMR vaccine.
staying as far away as possible from black people
no need to inject anything into you, just dont listen to hip hop and stay away from blacks
For that, you'd have to vaccinate the 6000 subjects, then give them all an Ebola shot, and if nobody gets it, then it is 100% effective.
If you had any shred of ethics you would give away all your material possessions a la San Francisco de Asís.
And i meant yours, not your mother's.
You are just a moron.