SARS Vaccine Developed 20
sbszine writes "Chinese scientists have successfully produced a SARS vaccine. In a clinical trial beginning in May, 36 volunteers were vaccinated. Most have now developed antibodies, and there have been no side effects reported. Slashdot covered the commencement of the clinical trial in an earlier story."
Medical research (Score:4, Insightful)
Am I being demeaningly sarcastic, or wistfully jealous? I'm not sure.
Re:Medical research (Score:2)
First, I assume you want to suggest that it is western ethics to do tests on animals before doing tests on humans.
And what makes you say, that? Do the article suggest anything like that?
Definitely Jealous (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Medical research (Score:4, Insightful)
On the other hand, China was much harder hit by SARS than North America was. In the United States, there were only about thirty cases. If they're afraid that the next outbreak will infect millions of Chinese instead of thousands (with a fatality rate of more than ten percent), then yes--I can see it being sound policy to expedite vaccine development and testing. If there had been an outbreak of a novel disease in the United States that infected seven thousand people and killed seven hundred, I can see the FDA being pressured to rapidly approve trials, too.
Besides--they weren't testing vaccine efficacy by exposing people to the virus. They just tested the volunteers' blood for antibodies to SARS. This gives a pretty good indication that their immune system will respond to the virus without actually risking their health.
Meanwhile, the vaccine is probably made from recombinant protein that mimics the SARS virus' protein coat. Lacking the virus' genetic material, the vaccine cannot cause disease. The worst that is likely to happen would be an allergic reaction, but you can't eliminate that risk with animal testing--eventually you have to put it into a human and see what happens.
Animal Testing (Score:2)
Animals and humans have some fundamental differences which mean they react differently to the same things. For example, arsenic [gettingwell.com] is fatal to humans, but is a basic nutrient for goats and rats. (Specifically, a 2kg baby goat requires 70mcg of arsenic daily for normal development, an amount lethal to adult humans). One can imagine a drug containing arsenic being tested on lab rats and found safe.
Something
"Volunteers"? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:"Volunteers"? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:"Volunteers"? (Score:1)
If you're happy with your life to some extent, I don't think you want to do this.
Re:"Volunteers"? (Score:2)
ah who am i kidding, they'd probly still demand a doctor's note...
Zombies (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Zombies (Score:1)
Perfect Timing (Score:2)
It felt just like a case of the common cold, but I'm also in a low risk category. (No resp. problems, good immune system, greater 20 years old and less than 50.)
But it only matters if... (Score:4, Informative)
SARS vs. HIV (Score:1)
Does anyone else share my curiosity?
I know that countries like China do not have the liability issues that drug companies here in the US have, so they are able to test canidates on humans far quicker. But I wonder if given their governments views if they are even looking at things like HIV.
Just my two cents.