Ebola Vaccine Gives 100 Percent Protection, Could Be Readily Available By 2018 (bbc.com) 72
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.
This will surely cause a spike in autism.... (Score:3, Informative)
...among anti-vaxxers :)
Re: (Score:2)
I predict that this is the beginning of the zombie apocalypse...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry. There's no money in this so it will never be made. And nobody cares about Africa.
Except people are very concerned that it will spread to the US. Also, there are NGOs that actually do care about Africa that plan on buying them and having a supply to prepare for an outbreak.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Merck has made 300,000 doses
Reston Marburg (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah but Ebola Reston doesn't transmit to humans.
Which is very fortunate, considering where the monkey outbreak occurred. (For the uninformed, it's named for Reston, Virginia.)
It's totally life saving! (Score:2)
Re:It's totally life saving! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The criticism is over the hype. It's totally life saving but we need another year to test that it really is life saving. So which is it, well understood enough to actually be life saving or not well understood enough and requiring more testing?
It's totally fine for it to be a promising idea and needing more refinement, don't release frankendrugs by all means. But if it needs work, testing or any other development stage where it could turn out to be a total bust, then quit hyping it as sine qua non of new
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Let's say we're 97% sure it's wonderful and has no adverse side effects. That's good enough to jump to conclusions, but not good enough to start giving it to millions of people. Does that make sense?
Re: (Score:2)
Let's say we're 97% sure it's wonderful and has no adverse side effects. That's good enough to jump to conclusions, but not good enough to start giving it to millions of people. Does that make sense?
This.
Also, going from small batches in lab reactors to large scale production doesn't happen overnight. Sourcing, production, packaging, shipment, etc.
When developing new meds we also do long(er) term safety data collection that you simply can't do without time. The testing isn't to figure out if it's life saving, the extra time is to make sure that to the best of our ability, reasonably, there isn't some safety item we're missing and to refine dosing and production to optimum levels.
If you'd seen a lot of
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The criticism is over the hype. It's totally life saving but we need another year to test that it really is life saving. So which is it, well understood enough to actually be life saving or not well understood enough and requiring more testing?
Both. It can be clearly life saving with regards to the disease it is meant to treat while at the same time not being studied enough to be given the stamp of approval. In pharmacology we talk about a Perfect Drug which would only do what you want, when you want it, and without any side effects. Perfect drugs pretty much don't exist...hence side effects. That doesn't mean they don't do the thing they're meant to do (e.g. Save Life) but it means they also do other things (e.g. Cause your eyes to change color)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It's totally life saving! (Score:4, Informative)
As I understand TFS, there's a lot of doses available now that could be used to cover an outbreak, but those are not covered by full regulatory approval, and manufacturing capability is also probably rather low right now.
Once full approval comes through, in about a year, the vaccine would be generally available, and I would expect it to become part of the recommended treatment for anyone going to a risky area, as is currently the case with the yellow fever vaccine.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Relax. This disease is not hitting the US, so Ebola-ravaged countries won't have to wait years for the vaccine or need to have half their Ebola at-risks given a placebo. The final testing is in progress now in the field.
Re: Vaccines (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
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
Re: (Score:1)
I'd like to see more data points before regarding your knee-jerk conclusion as even a proper hypothesis.
On the other hand we have counterexamples such as HIV, uncured despite Tim Cook being, well, a fag; and SARS, similarly without a targeted vaccine.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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'.
Far more Western people get dengue than ebola. Pretty much all the victims of ebola are poor people; the non-poor victims can be counted on the fingers of one, maybe two hands. In other words, there is no money to be made on ebola vaccins, and yet Western companies created one anyway. Would you care to adjust your prejudices?
I'm worried about the effectiveness of the vaccin. What if none of the vaccinated group even came into contact with the virus?
.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Given that it killed off Western health workers, who aren't exactly poor, and West Africa having plenty of rich people (given their income disparity), there's plenty of profit to be made in making this vaccine. Even Western countries might buy a bunch just because they're so terrified of Ebola. Besides, it's got good PR value.
The argument was that Western companies ignore the needs of poor countries because they are poor, and gave dengue as an example of an untreated disease. It's just bullshit: far more Western people get dengue than ever got ebola. Far more rich local people get dengue (and malaria and all those other fun tropical diseases) as well. Do you really think nobody is trying to find a cure? Of course they are - billions are spent each year on trying to find a malaria cure alone. But hey, surprise, it's actually a to
How long... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:1)
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.
Re:100% vs Science (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
PLEASE NOTE (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Vaccine is Canadian! (Score:1)
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/
Re: (Score:2)
Just great, so the recipients will not only get autism but cravings for beer and back bacon
What is more telling (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong, research on Ebola vaccine started over a decade ago after outbreak in the Congo.
Making up nonsense to justify an imagined chip on your shoulder is pathetic
Re: (Score:2)
Some of the methods being used are covered in this symposium. 7 hours and some dead air (starts about 14 minutes in) but if you're interested in the topic, well worth your time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Merck (Score:1)
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.