Ebola Vaccine 100% Successful In Guinea Trial 118
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."
The Onion had it right (Score:5, Insightful)
Almost a year exactly.
http://www.theonion.com/articl... [theonion.com]
Re:The Onion had it right (Score:4, Insightful)
Here's to hoping that one day you pass into adulthood.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
You fail at being a shill for the stupid.
We have bats here too; we don't eat them. We know better, they are disease ridden.
Embalming kills pathogens, your observation about certain weird RC people is not relevant to stupid people's treatment of a diseased pathogen carrying corpse.
The USA places those with ebola into a very strict quarantine
Re: (Score:2)
You totally forgot the frustrating bit about actively avoiding medical personnel, because you know, the local village shaman said they were evil.
Some of it is understandable (e.g. bush meat - when you can't buy hamburger at the local grocer, you do what you have to in order to feed your family). Some of it is even semi-understandable with enough ignorance (e.g. fleeing to the US or EU because the infection you just got is a death sentence back home, but you at least have some chance of surviving it in the f
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to be ignoring how people in Africa do STUPID things that spread ebola, that a person in a first world country would never do. Eating bats as bush meat, fondling the dead, not respecting quarantine....Africa has huge problems because too many Africans are STUPID
And people in the first world do stupid things like believing that vaccines cause autism
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:1)
Yes, the US has some dumb people, and past presidents, but they are not really in the same league.
Aren't you forgetting GW Bush?
Re: (Score:2)
GW Bush had to addle his brain with cocaine and years of alcohol abuse to get one third the amount of stupid as those Africans who believe raping a virgin cures AIDS
Re: (Score:2)
Most don't, you are not describing the majority
Re:The Onion had it right (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure I have a good answer to that. I was answering the "why" posed above. Ultimately steps need to be taken that work towards the creation of sustainable goods and services industries. Without a healthy functioning economic engine little else matters. Certain of the African nations are more amenable to supporting their citizenry than others. Those would obviously be the best places to start with. In the course of doing so, perhaps the citizens of the other nations will facilitate a change in t
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The Onion had it right (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Genuinely curious, do you have a citation where this has been true on a large scale and is actually directly, factually, attributed to multiculturalism?
Re: (Score:2)
Plain crap. You know not what you are talking about. I've spent years there working as an aid worker and you assessment of the situation on the ground is laughable in its naivete. The reason it is hard to develop a country is because the governments are kleptocracies in almost every case. You analysis is typical lefty conspiracy thinking.
There are countries in Africa where all the citizens belong to the same tribe. And still there are problems.
I mean come on where do you get your information? The Onion?
In your experience why are the government kleptocracies? (not a rhetorical/combatitive question, I'm genuinely curious about your perspective)
Re: (Score:2)
Far less support? Marshall Plan? You need to at least pull Europe from that list.
And we fundamentally broke Africa over generations, hundreds of years. We kind of broke Europe over the course of decades. Europe had decades to recover. Africa, we kind of let free a lot more recently than that.
I hope you're asking earnestly and
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, the malaria vaccine that was proven safe and effective in the 90's just finally got out of UK regulatory hell last week. About a million kids a year die from malaria. In the time they were bickering about the typeface on the label about 330,000 kids died from malaria. But we need that kind of officiousness and palaces and such for "civility". Those kids weren't white anyway.
Now it goes WHO regulatory hell, but if we're "lucky" the bureaucrats there will only let a quarter million kids die while the
Re: (Score:1)
Things have improved greatly but not enough. The WHO decision to allow DDT use again was probably the most important factor while waiting for the vaccine. (There are some fairly unknown skeletons in the DDT closet, they are probably not what most think.) My most recent trip, Nigeria, was actually a lot tamer than it once was. Things are looking up there and this is a good thing. I am of African decent, partially at least, and I do donate what seems reasonable but a lot of that goes to waste as it ends up be
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, no one in their right mind would even consider the possibility that black people invest in research to stop a disease that is rampant in their own countries... Black people shouldn't have any kind of responsibility for their own lives. They _need_ white people to provide them with food, medicine, etc. And to think otherwise is racist.
While food and medicine is ok, please keep in mind that white people shouldn't attempt to provide free transportation and jobs. That's also racist.
Guinea? (Score:5, Funny)
So, you're saying they were guinea pigs?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have to say, looking at this chart made me chuckle:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
They moved from almost 4 people to almost 12 people! Perhaps they need some kind of label on the vertical axis.
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't received mod points in months now, so virtual +1 Funny to you, sir.
How long and how varied (Score:3)
Re:How long and how varied (Score:5, Funny)
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: (Score:3)
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 quest
Re:How long and how varied (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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 a
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Which is actually leaving out a step. Newlink Genetics bought it, sat on it for years, then sold it to Merck.
Re: (Score:1)
So it turns out the vaccine wasn't developed by a private organisation. But what were you attempting to prove anyway? A vaccine is developed by a private organisation, so... private organisations will always be better at something (or everyth
100% Success in trials... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Are you trolling? Did you even read the summary? The "trial" WAS the real world.
As an aside, the ethical implications of that are a little bit unfortunate. IE: Their "control" was to delay intervention for the control group by 3 weeks. As a consequence: 16 people were infected who could have received the vaccine...
Re: (Score:2)
Given the size of the trial, it's really unlikely that it prevents less than 90% of the cases of Ebola that would otherwise develop. So while I agree that 100% continuing is all that likely, especially if you start including immune suppressed people such as the HIV positive, those with cancer, transplants, young children, the elderly, etc... Still, if you vaccinate 100% of those eligible for it and it provides 95% immunity to Ebola, odds are the vulnerable won't be exposed at all, because you'll have some
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Serious question: are placebos normally used in a vaccine trial? Is there really such a thing as a placebo effect for something like ebola?
Re: (Score:2)
Ebola is not an airborne virus. Therefore if you detect it early enough in the first people you can vaccinate those around them.
And if you read about Ebola's normal course, it would normally take about a week for things to get very bad for patients (bleeding and diarrhea ). Yes, the vaccine might not work and 2,000 some people may have gotten lucky, or it could work for 90% of them and 200 of them got lucky. This does seem like a promising step forward, if people can put aside their disbelief and cynicis
Re: (Score:3)
How many infections... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:1)
Why isn't there funding? Probably spent on some beachfront property beach cleanup in the Hamptons as "shore protection".
Or maybe the $325B that people spent on snack foods last year
Or maybe the $182B that people gave to Apple computer last year
Or maybe the $11.4B that people spent on video games last year.
Or how about the $38B spent on movies?
Now, I am sure YOU don't spend any of YOUR money on those kinds of frivolous things, right? I mean, surely you live at a subsistance only level and contribute everything else to finding ebola solutions, right?
Re: (Score:1)
I own Apple stock. And have owned MSFT and Sony stock. How is this frivolous?
Beachfront shore protection - that's frivolous. Waste of time, too. Spends 95 percent of the funds on the richest 1 percent on land areas that will be under water by 2025 regardless. Better spent on Africa.
Re: (Score:1)
I stand by my assessment.
100% effective rate... (Score:2)
Wait I think I seen this movie some where, granted it was a cure for cancer but it doesn't end well for the humans unless of course you like zombies
celebrate science and vaccines as a great good! (Score:3)
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
Yea but how many of them ended up with autism? (Score:1)
Believe what you want... (Score:2)
Believe what you want. This is just bad statistics. Are there any real epidemiologists or statisticians in the study that claim it's 100% effective?
If there were only 16 cases in the delayed vaccination groups, you simply do not have enough information to calculate the real efficacy.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't say it is 100% effective, it says it had a 100% success rate IN THE TRIAL. Which it did. The TFA says that the actual effectiveness will be between 75 and 100%. But it is sooo much easier to just criticize than simply read, isn't it.
Malaria, Dengue, Chikungunya (Score:2)
Now if we can only get Malaria, Dengue and Chikungunya to US soil we're sure to cure those devastating third world epidemics as well!
Vaccine the reservoirs (Score:1)
Wouldn't it be a good idea to also develop a vaccine for bats, which act as a reservoir for the virus?
Re:Convenient (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
objectively, based on the content of what you just wrote, you are a moron. not a baseless insult, an accurate characterization of the content of your thoughts, to be someone who wrote what you just wrote
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
i'm not a nice person. and this is not couple's therapy
if someone says something stupefyingly dumb (on a "news for nerds" website no less), they deserve to be pilloried
i understand the concept of educating the ignorant patiently. but then there is stupidity so amazing there is no hope
prideful ignorance exists in this world. it resists logic reason and patience. such stupidity needs to be attacked for the cancer it is (irony intended). blind and dumb people actually cause real damage in this world
Re: (Score:2)
i'm not a nice person.
That's true.
Re: (Score:1)
usually, if someone is not nice to you, you avoid them. are you a masochist? do you crave social contact so badly abuse is acceptable?
if you see a comment of mine, don't read it. and don't respond to it. is this concept too complicated and confusing for you?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
good, glad to entertain, that's the right attitude
Re: (Score:1)
perhaps
and here you are, reading and responding
you are what you hate
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. We could blame it on ignorance if, for instance, he asked why it is possible to develop an ebola vaccine but not kill cancer. But he didn't do that, he claimed some kind of conspiracy that is stopping us from curing cancer.
Re: (Score:3)
thank you
Re:Convenient (Score:5, Informative)
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 [wikipedia.org]. 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: (Score:2)
To be fair to the idiot you replied to, there is a cancer vaccine for one type of cancer, HPV.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/hpv/... [cdc.gov]
However, trying to tie every cancer together as one cause is absurd. Implying someone is sitting on a cure for cancer is much worse.
Re: (Score:2)
HPV isn't cancer, it's a virus. It is the usual cause of cervical cancer, but maybe 10% of the cancers are not associated with HPV.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The governments in some of those countries are also thoroughly corrupt, which doesn't help things any.