Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Antibody Cocktail Cures Monkeys of Ebola

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the there's-a-pill-for-that dept.

Biotech 101

ananyo writes "Monkeys infected with Ebola have been cured by a cocktail of three antibodies first administered 24 hours or more after exposure. The result raises hopes that a future treatment could improve the chances of humans surviving the disease caused by the deadly virus, which kills up to 90% of infected people and could potentially be used as a biological weapon. Most treatment regimes tested to date only improve chances of survival if administered within one hour of infection (abstract)."

cancel ×

101 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Ooooooook. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40329739)

Oooooook?

Re:Ooooooook. (3, Funny)

Farmer Tim (530755) | more than 2 years ago | (#40329951)

Why did this get modded down? Seems like a perfectly reasonable question from a concerned party.

Re:Ooooooook. (1)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 2 years ago | (#40332125)

It's not that the question was unreasonable, it was the accompaniment of flying poo.

Re:Ooooooook. (1)

Farmer Tim (530755) | more than 2 years ago | (#40332741)

But that's normal for Slashdot...

there's always room for snark: (1)

Thud457 (234763) | more than 2 years ago | (#40334203)

Oh good, now we can save monkeys from ebola. We were starting to run low on monkeys. /pro-robot

Re:Ooooooook. (5, Insightful)

Tailhook (98486) | more than 2 years ago | (#40330175)

Oooooook?

Yes, monkeys were deliberately exposed to Ebola in the name of medical research. Yes, they would have had to be euthanized if the experiment had failed. In fact, they'll likely be killed anyhow just to ensure containment of any form of the virus.

Sorry.

BTW mods; there is nothing wrong with the occasional question from our simian relatives. Just leave this sort of thing for those of us that understand Primate and spare the down-mods.

Re:Ooooooook. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40330713)

Are you sure you got that right? It looks more like "fr1st p0st?" to me.

Re:Ooooooook. (2, Funny)

couchslug (175151) | more than 2 years ago | (#40330779)

"BTW mods; there is nothing wrong with the occasional question from our simian relatives."

Questions from the subjects are prejudicial to good simian discipline.

Order requires credible threat of force, so I spank my monkey constantly.

Re:Ooooooook. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40332247)

Order requires credible threat of force, so I spank my monkey constantly.

You should mix it up a bit... perhaps you should try to shock the monkey sometimes.

Re:Ooooooook. (1)

Crag (18776) | more than 2 years ago | (#40334807)

"BTW mods; there is nothing wrong with the occasional question from our simian relatives."

Questions from the subjects are prejudicial to good simian discipline.

Order requires credible threat of force, so I spank my monkey constantly.

That's reasonable, but I exhort you to exercise caution to ensure you don't rustle your monkey's jimmies.

Re:Ooooooook. (1)

couchslug (175151) | more than 2 years ago | (#40334875)

"That's reasonable, but I exhort you to exercise caution to ensure you don't rustle your monkey's jimmies."

I grew up watching Westerns, and the moral there is that rustlers were hung.

Re:Ooooooook. (3, Insightful)

Scoldog (875927) | more than 2 years ago | (#40331525)

I'd be careful calling him a monkey if I was you. The Librarian is an orangutan, and will show his displeasure at being called a monkey by unscrewing your head!

Re:Ooooooook. (1)

AssholeMcGee (2521806) | more than 2 years ago | (#40332797)

Your post was not of any assurance, even if they are put down the virus still very active. Virus's have been notorious for mutating, around humans immune systems.. And this virus attacks and kills in 5-7 days, so you are only going to get to a few people before they die. Any kind of outbreak in large populations is not going get contained, to be honest we have been lucky it did not break out from the small villages it has been spotted in. I often wondered if this virus was a man made or government made, for biological war. This virus only appears in remote villages, you look at the other virus's through out history you can still find them just about anywhere, this virus only happens to pop up here and there. Maybe a biological weapon, that was something else but mutated into a monster. Wondered about the aids virus as well, I believe I read some where that both aids and ebola are the same, however aids takes years to kill you, ebola only needs a week.

Re:Ooooooook. (1)

opentunings (851734) | more than 2 years ago | (#40333801)

"they'll likely be killed anyhow"...

"Your post was not of any assurance..."

You seem to be assuming that they'd be killed...and then placed in a landfill, or ground up for fertilizer, or undergone some other non-destructive disposal. I would think that they'd be sent to a biohazard incinerator and burned at high temperature for a long time.

Re:Ooooooook. (1)

AssholeMcGee (2521806) | more than 2 years ago | (#40343401)

Yes I do know this, but the scientist seem to like playing with things that have proven to be something you cannot control.. How many outbreak have there been virus, or experiments that have accidentally gotten out. That is the concern..

Re:Ooooooook. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40331095)

You damn dirty ape!

Not Apes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40338869)

What? No! They used monkeys, sir, not fine apes such as yourself, and I'm quite sure the researchers involved are fully aware of the difference.

Bowling.. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40329779)

I guess my league name of Ebowla is on it's way out...

...it's the only way to be sure. (4, Funny)

History's Coming To (1059484) | more than 2 years ago | (#40329819)

Hit it hard and hit it fast, it's the same epidemiological solution to a zombie uprising. [uottawa.ca]

Re:...it's the only way to be sure. (1)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 2 years ago | (#40330119)

Hit it hard and hit it fast...

I'm way ahead [hornady.com] of you!

Re:...it's the only way to be sure. (2)

History's Coming To (1059484) | more than 2 years ago | (#40330177)

Ammunition isn't as effective against Ebola, however. In fact it makes things worse, what with the spattering and all.

Re:...it's the only way to be sure. (1)

Grog6 (85859) | more than 2 years ago | (#40331589)

Yes, exactly!

Remember, The spatter is highly infectious if breathed in; Gas masks are a great idea. (as well as nice fashion accessory, if done with class 3 dressout.)

Re:...it's the only way to be sure. (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#40330183)

Please, that model is severely flawed. Plus they show a lack of understanding of the movies they are using for their standard model.
And of course using a move where anyone who dies becomes a Zombie regardless off the reason the death is lame.

Not a lame as using any weak ass excuse to talk about zombies, but lame non the less.

Re:...it's the only way to be sure. (1)

Lurker2288 (995635) | more than 2 years ago | (#40333905)

I don't know--Romero's 'Night of the Living Dead,' which is arguably one of the most influential (if not the most influential) modern zombie film pretty strongly implied that anyone who died would rise. Zombie bites were still fatal, but any corpse with an intact brain would reanimate. I agree that this is more problematic from a 'scientific realist' standpoint (to the extent that an infectious disease turning people into brain-eating revnants is realistic), but it IS consistent with one of the foundational films of the genre.

Re:...it's the only way to be sure. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40330337)

....... 24 hours or more after exposure? WTF.

Ebola as a Bioweapon (2, Insightful)

bmo (77928) | more than 2 years ago | (#40329835)

Anyone who actively develops bioweapons is a criminal. He or she is a direct hazard to humanity and needs to be removed from society as soon as possible. We have seen what happens when a particularly virulent illness from MomNature herself wreaks havoc, like the 1918 flu or Bubonic Plague. To deliberately take something such as Ebola and weaponize it shocks the conscience. Unlike nuclear weapons which simply level cities and cause localised radioactive areas, bioweapons are the gift that keeps on giving and do indeed go wildly out of control once they are deployed. This is not idle speculation. We proved it with smallpox blankets.

If you develop bioweapons, you need to be in jail, or dead.

--
BMO

Problem will never go away. (1)

wierd_w (1375923) | more than 2 years ago | (#40330005)

This problem will never go away.

People don't learn the proper lesson from damocles. Instead of discovering that being in power is inexoribly linked to the threat of being cast down, and that the chair is so cursed, and should only be sat in as a necessity, they instead clamor for it, and seek to cut the sword hanging over their heads down by force, and remove those intrinsic threats by violence.

When you take a position of power, and realize that the general public can and will do you harm if you are a tyrant (the public is one manifestation of the sword above damocles, held aloft by but a single hair), you realize that the public is then your enemy, and must be eliminated.

The fear caused by getting into that chair, and the fear of being forced out of it by violence drives people and governments to fits of unparalleled paranoia, violence, and twisted crimes of passion.

The creation and deployment of biological weapons is inevitable, now that we know how to make and use them.

This will always be true as long as there is a big chair to sit in.

There will always be such a chair, as long as mankind makes cities and nations.

It is a crime that the simple civics lesson of this simple story is only given a passing footnote, if at all these days.

To kill anyone who would make and use these weapons, is to kill all ambitious world leaders.

Re:Problem will never go away. (4, Informative)

camperdave (969942) | more than 2 years ago | (#40330239)

Dionysius (II) was a fourth century B.C. tyrant of Syracuse, a city in Magna Graecia [about.com] , the Greek area of southern Italy. To all appearances Dionysius was very rich and comfortable, with all the luxuries money could buy, tasteful clothing and jewelry, and delectable food. He even had court flatterers (adsentatores) to inflate his ego. One of these ingratiators was the court sycophant, Damocles. Damocles used to make comments to the king about his wealth and luxurious life. One day when Damocles complimented the tyrant on his abundance and power, Dionysius turned to Damocles and said, "If you think I'm so lucky, how would you like to try out my life?"

Damocles readily agreed, and so Dionysius ordered everything to be prepared for Damocles to experience what life as Dionysius was like. Damocles was enjoying himself immensely... until he noticed a sharp sword hovering over his head, that was suspended from the ceiling by a horse hair. This, the tyrant explained to Damocles, was what life as ruler was really like.

Damocles, alarmed, quickly revised his idea of what made up a good life, and asked to be excused. He then eagerly returned to his poorer, but safer life.

... For those of us not up on our Classical stories.

Re:Problem will never go away. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40335745)

Don't you think the sword cuts both ways regarding questions of power? Doesn't the sense of urgency created by tenuousness of the protection from power and consequence add to the tension and suspense surrounding its use?

Thanks for the lesson on the origins of FUD.

Next time I run into a court jester or sycophantic fool, I'll be sure to remind him how lucky he is that someone else has to make all the tough decisions.

Transcending the bioweapons dilemma (1)

Paul Fernhout (109597) | more than 2 years ago | (#40330401)

Very insightful comment. For possible ways forward through a transformation of prespective, see my essay:
http://www.pdfernhout.net/recognizing-irony-is-a-key-to-transcending-militarism.html [pdfernhout.net]
"Biological weapons like genetically-engineered plagues are ironic because they are about using advanced life-altering biotechnology to fight over which old-fashioned humans get to occupy the planet. Why not just use advanced biotech to let people pick their skin color, or to create living arkologies and agricultural abundance for everyone everywhere? "

Re:Problem will never go away. (1)

bmo (77928) | more than 2 years ago | (#40330421)

>To kill anyone who would make and use these weapons, is to kill all ambitious world leaders.

Then maybe we should start polishing the blade on Dr. Guillotine's machine.

I could draw another literary allusion for you: the story of the priests (of science) and princes in "A Canticle for Liebowitz" when it came to unleashing the fires of Hell, twice.

It was said that God, in order to test mankind which had become swelled with pride as in the time of Noah, had commanded the wise men of that age, among them the Blessed Leibowitz, to devise great engines of war such as had never before been upon the Earth, weapons of such might that they contained the very fires of Hell, and that God had suffered these magi to place the weapons in the hands of princes, and to say to each prince, "Only because the enemies have such a thing have we devised this for thee, in order that they may know that thou hast it also, and fear to strike. See to it, m'Lord, that thou fearest them as much as they shall now fear thee, that none may unleash this dread thing which we have wrought."

But the princes, putting the words of their wise men to naught, thought each to himself, If I but strike quickly enough, and in secret, I shall destroy those others in their sleep, and there will be none to fight back; the earth shall be mine.

Such was the folly of princes, and there followed the Flame Deluge.

While it is probably inevitable, we shouldn't just throw up our hands and give up.

--
BMO

Re:Problem will never go away. (1)

DanTheStone (1212500) | more than 2 years ago | (#40336435)

I was going to make the Leibowitz connection, too. Thank you for saving me the trouble.

Re:Ebola as a Bioweapon (0)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#40330105)

Tell me, What is a 'bioweapon'? IS maintaining strains so you can develop treatments creating a bioweapon?

Re:Ebola as a Bioweapon (1)

bmo (77928) | more than 2 years ago | (#40330159)

>IS maintaining strains so you can develop treatments creating a bioweapon?

Does this really need to be answered? Really?

Oh fuck, I'll say it.

No, no it's not and I don't know how the fuck you read that into my message.

Christ on a toothpick.

--
BMO

Re:Ebola as a Bioweapon (2)

Lurker2288 (995635) | more than 2 years ago | (#40333979)

Contrary to your response, there's a substantial amount of research that could be classified as either bio-defense or biological weapon development depending on the perspective. Plenty of experts in the field (see Ken Alibek's 'Biohazard' or Judy Mikovits' 'Germs' for example) recognize this as a key difficult in trying to minimize proliferation. Other activities are a bit less ambiguous, of course: if you're studying the mechanical properties of anthrax spores in order to determine how to optimize aerosolization then it's hard to claim your purposes are purely peaceful.

Re:Ebola as a Bioweapon (2)

wierd_w (1375923) | more than 2 years ago | (#40330165)

No, that's catalogueing and preserving a research sample.

Production of a bioweapon is like what the USSR did with anthrax. Take ordinary soil microbes, and pressure them in lab conditions to take on characteristics that make them horrifically virulent and lethal to humans, produce them in bulk in a heated culture tank, carefully dry it so that it forms into spores, then load that into air-burst conventional warheads for military deployment.

USSR didn't weaponize Anthrax first. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40330657)

U.S. Department of Agriculture, under partnership with Department of Army, enriched sheep anthrax for weopons. Also this same facillity perfected Lyme Disease to be distributed on Ticks. Many more, all at everyone's expense.

read more about Lab 257 by Carrol, where Plum Island was so-mismanaged that it ruined the entire continent without one hint of blame.

Re:Ebola as a Bioweapon (1)

amRadioHed (463061) | more than 2 years ago | (#40330279)

No, it's not. Small pox is maintained in a few locations to be used for research and no one considers that to be a criminal act.

Re:Ebola as a Bioweapon (1)

JoshuaZ (1134087) | more than 2 years ago | (#40330313)

Actually the evidence at this point strongly suggests that the bubonic plague was so severe because there was poor sanitation and they didn't know how to do very basic care. http://scienceblogs.com/erv/2011/10/13/black-death-not-initiated-by-a/ [scienceblogs.com] . Simillarly, the 1918 flu was so devastating in part because it occurred at the end of World War I so basic infrastructure was severely damaged, and you had massive numbers of returning troops as well as refugees moving all over thus making it spread easily.

Re:Ebola as a Bioweapon (1)

bmo (77928) | more than 2 years ago | (#40330495)

While the sanitation part of Bubonic Plague is not as applicable today, the latter, the 1918 virus, is even more apropos.

People are so much more mobile than they were back in 1918, with so many more people on the move. Instead of the flu having to hitch a ride with a passenger on a steamship, taking a week to get across the Atlantic, we have people flying between continents in the matter of hours.

A 1918 flu epidemic could very well be much worse today.

--
BMO

Re:Ebola as a Bioweapon (2)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 2 years ago | (#40330579)

On the other hand, one could also argue that the ease of moving from place to place dramatically increases the probability that any given person anywhere on Earth has been exposed to a strain that is similar to any given strain that might reasonably mutate in a way that caused increased deaths. Thus, depending on how the pandemic starts (by mutation or by cross-species transmission), it might make things better or worse.

Re:Ebola as a Bioweapon (1)

JoshuaZ (1134087) | more than 2 years ago | (#40330699)

That's unlikely. For most of the nasty stuff like Ebola, or Marburg or Lassa fever, most humans haven't been exposed at all. Similarly, pretty much no one today has immunity to yellow fever. To some extent, I'm more worried about malaria or yellow fever spreading a lot after a general societal breakdown for some other cause. Without regular drainage programs, diseases which use insects as vectors have a fun time. There's an excellent section in Charles Mann's 1493 covering the effects of those diseases- without any precautions they both got shockingly far north, to the point where you had malaria as a regular problem in some parts of the UK.

Re:Ebola as a Bioweapon (1)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 2 years ago | (#40331961)

For most of the nasty stuff like Ebola, or Marburg or Lassa fever, most humans haven't been exposed at all.

Ultimately, it depends on whether the pandemic is caused by A. a new virus (in which case ease of movement makes it worse), B. an existing deadly virus that becomes more transmissible (in which case ease of movement makes it worse), or C. an existing non-deadly virus that becomes more virulent (in which case ease of movement can reduce the average virulence).

To some extent, I'm more worried about malaria or yellow fever spreading a lot after a general societal breakdown for some other cause.

If things break down badly enough for the first world to have no sewage treatment system and no ability to build leach fields for septic tanks, Malaria is likely to be the least of our worries. :-)

Re:Ebola as a Bioweapon (1)

Miamicanes (730264) | more than 2 years ago | (#40333911)

Ironically, ebola's virulence and swift death is what saves us from global pandemic. Basically, ebola (and Marburg) are viruses that are too virulent and deadly for their own good. They kill their victims too quickly to ever have time to spread. The viruses that "survive" and "thrive" (in quotes, because viruses aren't actually "alive" in the conventional sense) are the ones that don't kill their victims, and quietly simmer and spread forever. Herpes is the classic example. Lucky people get infected by HSV-1 by their parents or grandparents, and suffer occasional outbreaks of oral cold sores for the rest of their lives. Unlucky people make it through childhood, then get infected from their first blowjob and end up with de-facto genital herpes that's technically HSV-1 instead of HSV-2.

Ebola's main transmission vector is bodily fluids seeping from a corpse. Ebola is self-limiting PRECISELY because it's so deadly and acts so quickly. The moment people realize they're dealing with Ebola, they go hide from everyone else for a few days. Within a week, everyone who was infected is dead, and the survivors can cautiously come out of hiding to clean up the mess. In Africa, when Ebola breaks out in a village, people leave the infected individual (who's not particularly mobile at that point, anyway) to die in his or her hut, then burn the hut to the ground. Callous and harsh, but to a large extent... among primitive people without access to modern medicine that itself can barely deal with it... it works, and it's worked well for thousands of years to keep ebola contained.

Re:Ebola as a Bioweapon (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 2 years ago | (#40330583)

Anyone who actively develops bioweapons is a criminal. He or she is a direct hazard to humanity and needs to be removed from society as soon as possible.

Many Western countries still have offensive biochem programs, they just had to be rolled into the defensive programs in order to conform with international treaties.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if the military has or is working on weaponized Ebola.
Their logic is that they need to weaponize it so that they can anticipate threats and develop treatments.

Re:Ebola as a Bioweapon (1)

cheater512 (783349) | more than 2 years ago | (#40330759)

Like the US Government and Anthrax right?

Re:Ebola as a Bioweapon (1)

bmo (77928) | more than 2 years ago | (#40330801)

Did I stutter?

Of course I think so.

--
BMO

Re:Ebola as a Bioweapon (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 2 years ago | (#40336101)

Did I stutter?

Of course I think so.

Not disagreeing, but do you think we have any recourse at all, given the current system?

Re:Ebola as a Bioweapon (1)

bmo (77928) | more than 2 years ago | (#40336941)

>Not disagreeing, but do you think we have any recourse at all, given the current system?

So just give up? Don't hold up the mirror to the emperor to show he has no clothes?

--
BMO

Re:Ebola as a Bioweapon (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 2 years ago | (#40337055)

So just give up? Don't hold up the mirror to the emperor to show he has no clothes?

Don't give up , just focus energy on where it can do good. I don't think the current system is capable of giving up biological or nuclear weapons. It's a structural problem, an inherent consequence of the system. Not so much with biological, but there are people who have spent the past 65 years protesting nuclear weapons, and look where that's gotten them.

Replace the system with one that can behave in a non-psychopathic manner. Seems like a tall order, but reforming it has proven impossible, at least on the scale of a human lifetime.

Re:Ebola as a Bioweapon (1)

bmo (77928) | more than 2 years ago | (#40337143)

>Replace the system with one that can behave in a non-psychopathic manner

That's not going to happen without civil war.

--
BMO

Re:Ebola as a Bioweapon (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 2 years ago | (#40337189)

That's not going to happen without civil war.

I think the USSR experience has shown us otherwise, but let's assume it's true and you have to decide between a domestic civil war and the USG deploying biological agents around the world. What's the math on that?

Re:Ebola as a Bioweapon (1)

bmo (77928) | more than 2 years ago | (#40337667)

>>That's not going to happen without civil war.

>I think the USSR experience has shown us otherwise

I dunno, man, Yeltsin shelling Parliament sure looked like civil war to me. George Clinton unavailable for comment.

>but let's assume it's true and you have to decide between a domestic civil war and the USG deploying biological agents around the world. What's the math on that?

There is no math at that point except a measurement of entropy/chaos. At that point the US has become a rogue state.

The outcomes of civil wars aren't always predictable even if the incumbent side loses.

This may very well be intractable, but I find it unacceptable for people who have the ability to do something about it to do nothing, like the Media as a whole who have gone from actual reporting to repeating government press releases.

*grumble grumble*

--
BMO

Re:Ebola as a Bioweapon (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 2 years ago | (#40337997)

I dunno, man, Yeltsin shelling Parliament sure looked like civil war to me.

Doesn't it actually look more like a coup? 187 killed, and, what, two buildings assaulted?

Or you could look at the Velvet Revolution, with no casualties, or the Orange Revolution, where one man died (of a heart attack, hard to show causation).

Most civil wars don't look like that. But all three of these events fundamentally reformed governments. You make a good point that the outcome is indeterminate enough; so at some point we have to figure out if something like biological weapons is worth the downside potential.

At that point the US has become a rogue state.

Well, there are some who would argue that this has been true since 2003. Or 1950, depending how you measure. There's a news article today that Iraq has passed 1 million killed.

the Media as a whole who have gone from actual reporting to repeating government press releases

Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations. - George Orwell

At least we still have Glen Greenwald, Amy Goodwin, Ben Swann, and some alternate news channels like RT, Al Jazeera, BBC International, et. al. Not that any one of them is to be trusted implicitly but where they tend to agree there might be some truth.

Re:Ebola as a Bioweapon (1)

bmo (77928) | more than 2 years ago | (#40341895)

>At least we still have Glen Greenwald, Amy Goodwin, Ben Swann, and some alternate news channels like RT, Al Jazeera, BBC International, et. al. Not that any one of them is to be trusted implicitly but where they tend to agree there might be some truth.

I find GG shrill and high-pitched in his writing far too often even though he is right many times. It makes him difficult to read.

I too get much of my news from non-US sources. Al J English is top notch, they are all BBC alumni. I have listened to the BBC since I was a 13 year old kid with a shortwave radio. RT is good, most of the time, but sometimes it's just crap.

>velvet revolution, etc

If only all revolutions were that way.

--
BMO

Re:Ebola as a Bioweapon (1)

couchslug (175151) | more than 2 years ago | (#40330799)

The capability to protect against BW is similar to the capability required to weaponize it.

Be careful how laws are written.

Re:Ebola as a Bioweapon (1)

bmo (77928) | more than 2 years ago | (#40331189)

The capability will always be there. Everything has dual uses. I railed against people putting restrictions on basic science over dual use in the past if you have read any of it.

Metallurgy gives us the turf cutting plow and the machine gun.

I'm not against metallurgy.

Or in this case, researching dangerous microbes. Such research gives us not only insight into how to combat the other guy's bioweapons, but how to combat MomNature's dirty tricks.

I am against the development of bioweapons as they are a greater potential threat than nukes. Specifically and only the deliberate practical weaponization and practical manufacture of bioweapon distribution systems for deployment.

Going back to the quote I made about the scientific magi and the princes from "A Canticle for Liebowitz" there are those in the Military Industrial Complex, to quote Ike, who think that we could tailor bioweapons to attack a certain gene sequence. As if the only the residents of a geopolitical area have only that gene sequence and nobody outside. When I heard of this stupid fantasy decades ago during the Cold War, I was dumbstruck by the simplistic thinking taken seriously. As if things are ever that neat.

I have given this much thought over the past 30 years, from when I started giving it any thought, and I stick by my statement. The development of bioweapons should be outlawed by treaty and nobody should ever build them. Those who do would be war criminals due to their manufacture (and I'm including heads of state too) and should inhabit the equivalent of Spandau prison, or the gallows.

I'm not kidding.
--
BMO

Biological weapons are categorically insane. (4, Informative)

Benfea (1365845) | more than 2 years ago | (#40331051)

They're not just evil, they're insane. Once released, you can't control where they go, a lesson that should have been learned from the Bubonic Plague, but apparently neither Soviets nor Americans learned our lessons from history. :(

Re:Biological weapons are categorically insane. (1)

bmo (77928) | more than 2 years ago | (#40331251)

Someone here gets it.

Welcome to my friends list.

--
BMO

Re:Biological weapons are categorically insane. (1)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 2 years ago | (#40331795)

No, I think just about everyone gets it.

Even Nuclear should not really get off the hook. A few big ones go off and there would be environmental consequences affecting generations.

The most somebody can do here is rationalize a "defensive" weapons program, which does not excuse the weaponization (mass deployment) of a biological contagion.

What's insanity is rationalizing a biological weapons program in the first place. If that is not a clear threat to all of humanity, and our future generations, I don't know what it is. Very few actions cause me to condone killing the people involved, and this is one of them.

Re:Biological weapons are categorically insane. (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 2 years ago | (#40336159)

They're not just evil, they're insane. Once released, you can't control where they go, a lesson that should have been learned from the Bubonic Plague, but apparently neither Soviets nor Americans learned our lessons from history. :(

If you kill your enemies, it doesn't matter who else dies. Try to think more like a psychopath, Benfea, they're in charge. Ok, you can call it "political sophistication" if you prefer:

Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.

--60 Minutes (5/12/96)

the psychopaths love to use euphemisms like that.

Re:Ebola as a Bioweapon (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 2 years ago | (#40334651)

We proved it with smallpox blankets.

Well, no.

Last I looked into the subject, smallpox blankets were unlikely to have done much of anything.

Much more likely that smallpox spread to the Indians the old-fahioned way - from a white guy with smallpox.

Re:Ebola as a Bioweapon (1)

Rijnzael (1294596) | more than 2 years ago | (#40336421)

Smallpox blankets didn't happen. It's just another part of Ward Churchill's academic misconduct.

See here [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Ebola as a Bioweapon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40343169)

So Russia and the USA are criminal terrorists? They both have bioweapons and refuse to destroy them...

Far more important (3, Insightful)

Grayhand (2610049) | more than 2 years ago | (#40329967)

The odds of weaponized Ebola are fairly small. Viruses are inherently hard to treat so this would have the potential for treating that entire class of virus. A similar approach may even be potentially an option for AIDs since a small percentage of the population produces the antibodies for AIDs. There is reason to think it might work on AIDs since one man was cured when he received a bone marrow transplant from some one that has the natural immunity. The trick is producing enough of the right antibodies.

All virus is fungus, a bioweapon of nature. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40330591)

If you geg in contact to any virus, make yourself like the people of Ukraine when Baxter Laboritories was linked to the arrival of H5N1 that killed faster than EBola (and Marburg) because the entire line of H5 virus is all a bioweapon scam; drink water after soaking bruised peeled garlic and the virus cannot penetrate because substrate PH is too alkaline and Immune System is too effecive.

Case closed, garlic is the remedy or every virus.

Re:All virus is fungus, a bioweapon of nature. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40332571)

I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Re:Far more important (2)

dunezone (899268) | more than 2 years ago | (#40331111)

There is reason to think it might work on AIDs since one man was cured when he received a bone marrow transplant from some one that has the natural immunity. The trick is producing enough of the right antibodies.

Actually almost everyone produces an antibody for HIV the problem is that only a handful of people can keep up with producing the antibody to fight off the virus or that's the going theory right now. As for the man that was cured, that is more of a long shot treatment, we can keep people alive for a long time now just with anti-virals that the risk of a bone marrow transplant is not worth it.

Re:Far more important (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40331213)

Weaponizing Ebola is doable.

Biopreparat managed this back in the bad old days. Of course, that outfit weaponized damned near everything.

They didn't like what they got, though. Too fragile.

They also had fairly huge amounts of money and political protection to throw at problems like this.

And at the end of the day, the only people the Soviet program actually killed were soviet citizens Look up the Sverdlovsk incident of 1979. Or Nikolai Ustinov, who was killed in a lab accident in 1988.

So (i) things like this aren't practical unless you're a nation-state, and (ii) they're more damned trouble than they're worth if you have a nuclear deterrent already in being.

Re:Far more important (1)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | more than 2 years ago | (#40332991)

There is reason to think it might work on AIDs since one man was cured when he received a bone marrow transplant from some one that has the natural immunity. The trick is producing enough of the right antibodies.

No, the trick is to have an immune system where the receptor that the HIV virus uses for its backdoor exploit is defective (in a way that doesn't just break the immune system.) Then the virus either can't propagate at all or propagates slowly enough that the immune system can get ahead of the virus and kill it off, rather than being killed off by the virus.

The normal immune system produces antibodies to HIV just fine. But HIV mutates VERY rapidly. (Like a couple changes EVERY GENERATION, due to a transcription enzyme that makes errors easily - and it uses a redundant chromosome system to survive this high error rate.) And it re-writes itself into the immune system cells' DNA, so an infected cell becomes a "sleeper agent", turning into an HIV factory when triggered to produce antibodies to the new variant it recognizes. So the virus sticks around until, eventually, enough of the immune system cells are booby-trapped that the response to the new HIV variants is to make more HIV rather than enough antibodies to kill it off.

If it weren't targeting the guts of the immune system, HIV would just be "another cold".

Interestingly, the thing that made the Black Plague so deadly, rather than "just another bacterial infection", is that it also attacked an immune system receptor, using it to hitch a ride to the sites (like lymph nodes and the spleen) where activated immune system cells go to reproduce into the clone armies that form the counter-attack. By infecting these sites early the bug retards the immune response to itself.

Those people with a particular "defect" to both copies of the receptor gene were immune to the plague. To them it was just a minor infection that was quickly beaten off. And with one normal and one "defective" gene they got very sick but tended to survive and recover.

And it happens that HIV and Plague both target the SAME RECEPTOR. And the SAME "DEFECT" to that receptor makes a person resistant or immune both to HIV and Plauge.

Monkeys (2)

Soporific (595477) | more than 2 years ago | (#40330101)

I really didn't think they would have live monkeys running around being infected with Ebola. I realize it's at a lab or something, but aren't they kind of difficult to contain or isolate biologically?

~S

Hot Zone (2)

jbeaupre (752124) | more than 2 years ago | (#40330301)

Check out the book The Hot Zone, by Richard Preston. It reads like fiction, but is non-fiction about several ebola outbreaks. Including one at a primate facility in Reston Virginia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hot_Zone [wikipedia.org]

Re:Monkeys (3, Informative)

JoshuaZ (1134087) | more than 2 years ago | (#40330395)

Ebola is deadly but it isn't that great at spreading. The vast majority of Ebola spread occurs through bodily fluids. This is a problem in less sanitary or hygenic environments- if you don't know the person who is vomiting has Ebola you aren't going to be as careful. Avoiding direct contact works for most purposes and so Ebola research generally occurs in a Biosafety-4 lab http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosafety_level [wikipedia.org] . This generally means that one has a pressure suit on at all times when working with the agent or infected lab animals. One goes through an ultraviolet scan and a shower system on exiting. But in the case of Ebola most of this is arguably overkill (in comparison most level 4 critters are ones that can spread through the air or through very small droplets). When doctors and nurses are working with Ebola they often just use full face masks without pressure suits (although that is to some extent for the practical reason that bringing pressure suits out to isolated areas would be very tough, and you certainly can't bring the whole lab environment out).

Re:Monkeys (1)

bmo (77928) | more than 2 years ago | (#40330613)

The vast majority of Ebola spread occurs through bodily fluids.

But that's the thing about Ebola - it's a haemorrhagic (I spelled that right on the first try!) fever, where the patient leaks bodily fluids everywhere, and a weaponised version of Ebola, if unleashed, would overwhelm any kind of equipped first responders due to sheer numbers of victims should an actual attack actually happen.

--
BMO

Re:Monkeys (1)

JoshuaZ (1134087) | more than 2 years ago | (#40330665)

Um, you may want to look at what I was responding to. Soporific's question was about lab containment not about use for an attack. In the context of a lab where the concern is spreading from lab animals the hemorrhagic (spelling varies depending on which side of the pond you are on) is not that bad because the environment is well contained.

Re:Monkeys (1)

bmo (77928) | more than 2 years ago | (#40330755)

Oh, well, nevermind then. I've been in a thread about weaponization and got confused.

--
BMO

Re:Monkeys (1)

MickLinux (579158) | more than 2 years ago | (#40339787)

Lab safety measures are violated all the time at US biohazard research universities. The people involved are extremely callous about safety, compared to what they nominally ought to be.

As a result, every so often, you do get a researcher who dies.

It is bad enough that my brother, who makes predictions each new year (and the year of Katrina, predicted that a hurricane would wipe out a major US city) predicted about 1 1/2 years ago that a weaponized disease would break out at a major US university -- and would be blamed on terrorists, but would in actuality be a containment leak by researchers.

I don't think he hit on that one... yes, there were a few deaths here and there, but nothing major that year. But he tends to try to only predict things that are already in motion. He works at a research university, and knows what he sees.

Re:Monkeys (4, Informative)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 2 years ago | (#40330489)

Ebola research, at least in the US and Europe, can *only* be performed at Biosafety Level 4 labs - literally the highest there is.

The labs are fully isolated. Any air or water going in or out will be subjected to enough UV light to kill any virus, followed by extreme heat and powerful chemicals. The lab areas are kept at a lower atmospheric pressure, so if there *is* a leak, air flows in, not out.

Humans going in require multiple chemical showers, going through several airlocks including a vacuum chamber, and wearing a full positive-pressure suit with an *isolated* air supply, not filtered. And even then, all work is done inside Class II or III biosafety cabinets (the boxes with gloves in them).

There are less than fifty active BSL-4 labs in the entire planet, and only fifteen in the United States. These are specifically designed for the worst of the worst - Smallpox, Ebola, Lassa, and the like.

In the United States, BSL-4 labs that contain potential biological weapons, such as the smallpox lab, are guarded by the US Army. I believe Ebola is one of those diseases.

Trust me. They know how to keep diseases contained.

Re:Monkeys (1)

dutchwhizzman (817898) | more than 2 years ago | (#40332129)

"Trust me. They know how to keep diseases contained."

Yeah right. Every terrorist and enemy nation can find those diseases in the wild or buy them on the "free market". Even things like the bubonic plague (rodents in California and Oregon) and Nile fever can be found in the USA in the wild. Powder letters with Anthrax have been sent by terrorists after 9/11 and the world has seen outbreaks of several deadly diseases like bird flu the last 10 years. Ebola and Lassa roam free in Africa and are only contained by their own deadliness. Dengue and even Monkey Pox (2003 outbreak) are found in the USA. In case you don't know, even with the best medical care, Dengue still has a mortality rate. If less than perfect medical care is given on time, it's not uncommon to have a mortality rate of 10%, even in more or less civilized countries with proper organized medical care. People that aren't insured are not likely to go visit the doctor in time for what appears to be a nasty flu in the first stages. Once they get beyond that and find out they are in the minority group that reacts strongly to the virus, there's a significant chance they might not make it, even with proper medical care. Yes, the US army obviously does a fine job at keeping biological-weapons-grade diseases contained to BSL-4 labs.

Re:Monkeys (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40332695)

Powder letters with Anthrax have been sent by a disgruntled scientist after 9/11

Not that your point doesn't stand - it does. This shit is everywhere.

But the way you were carrying on just there makes it sound like some nebulous "terrorists" have a big bag of Anthrax and a bunch of Forever stamps, and they're not afraid to use them.

Re:Monkeys (1)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 2 years ago | (#40333843)

Bubonic plague really isn't weaponizeable - it's transmitted by *fleas*, and curable with modern antibiotics. West Nile also wouldn't work well as a weapon - almost all infections are asymptomatic. You could have it right now and not know. Of those who do develop symptoms, most suffer only a pretty bad flu - it's only in the 1% of cases where it enters the brain that it's really dangerous.

The anthrax letters? They were sent by an anthrax researcher who feared his job was about to be lost.

Ebola, Lassa and Dengue, at least in their natural forms, make for poor bioweapons as well. They simply cannot transmit well enough - one of the most common causes of Ebola infection is *eating* an infected carcass. The best bioweapons are air-transmittable or aerosol-transmittable. Now, there's a definite risk that a weapons researcher could breed a more transmittable hemorrhagic fever, but the wild cases? You'd *maybe* get a few infections, cause a massive media panic, but you'd see a death toll in the single digits, not in the millions.

Methinks you have been reading too many Clancy novels.

Re:Monkeys (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40332803)

BS.
Any of these diseases are found in nature, in the WILD. All you need is to culture a large enough sample. That is the difficult part.

Re:Monkeys (1)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 2 years ago | (#40334389)

You're missing the point.

The point isn't to keep the "terrorists" from getting access to Ebola. Hell, that might be a good thing - given how many suicide bombers manage to kill no-one but themselves, I'd laugh to think how badly they'd handle biological safety. They'd probably just kill themselves.

No, the point is to keep the diseases from escaping back into the wild. As it turns out, Ebola is not native to the United States. Neither is Lassa, or Marburg, or Q, or any of the other BSL-4 diseases. Hell, smallpox is now native to nowhere. The point of these measures is to keep it that way.

Re:Monkeys (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40333311)

Trust me. They know how to keep diseases contained.

They may contain it until the Umbrella Corporation screws up

Politics (1)

ThatsNotPudding (1045640) | more than 2 years ago | (#40333515)

Trust me. They know how to keep diseases contained.

Except when craven, arrogant, ignorant politicians overule the smart people and move an animal disease center from an isolated island to the edge of a large university campus - in eyesight of the stadium, coliseum, rec center, *and* the vet/med emergency room. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Bio_and_Agro-Defense_Facility [wikipedia.org]

WHAT COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG?

Re:Monkeys (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40334137)

See the table here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebola_virus_disease#Epidemiology

Far right column, instances of "laboratory accident"...

Re:Monkeys (1)

manaway (53637) | more than 2 years ago | (#40334977)

This comment:

Trust me. They know how to keep diseases contained.

is at odds with this comment [slashdot.org] :

There's even a new strain which broke out in a medical research facility in Reston, VA in 1998 which was contagious only to monkeys.

Re:Monkeys (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40334295)

The research was done at the National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg, a BSL-4 containment laboratory. RTFM.

Not exactly 90%.... (5, Interesting)

RobinEggs (1453925) | more than 2 years ago | (#40330275)

That "kills up to 90% of infected people" comment is something of an exaggeration. From reading Richard Preston's "The Hot Zone", I recall that the dominant families of Ebola virus are the Sudan strain(s) and the Zaire strain(s). The Zaire strain will really fuck you up; that's the one which kills up to 90%. The Sudan strain is much less dangerous (statistically speaking), and kills something like 40-50%. There's even a new strain which broke out in a medical research facility in Reston, VA in 1998 which was contagious only to monkeys.

It sounds pedantic and insensitive to point out that some strains kill only 50% when even that number is horrific, and sounds totally incidental to mention a non-lethal strain, but actually the Reston and Sudan strains are more concerning in many ways than the extremely lethal Zaire varieties.

Extremely contagious, quick, and deadly diseases like Ebola Zaire often go too quickly for their own good. They can kill everyone so fast that even if the victims travel or meet an ignorant medical response, outbreaks wind up limiting themselves because the incubation isn't really that long and you certainly aren't moving around to spread the disease anymore once you're dead. Several times major outbreaks in African villages burnt themselves out with only the most rudimentary quarantine measures, and there were some major scares when people with Zaire strain took international plane rides that should have lead to global devastation if the disease were really that efficient in spreading. (It is astonishingly contagious in certain circumstances and certain phases of infection, but its contagiousness to people in the immediate area is only correlated to it's potential global virulence, not explicitly and solely causal to said potential.)

On the other hand, diseases like Sudan and Reston Ebola might become much worse health threats than the exceptionally deadly types of Ebola. Something like Ebola Sudan, which kills slower and kills relatively fewer people, could travel much farther and wider than the Zaire types. There could be longer periods in which people are shedding virus while they're still largely pre-symptomatic, longer periods of disease and recovery where they're extremely contagious but still require medical care and community to some degree, etc. I don't recall whether it applies to Hemorrhagic fevers, but there are also viruses people carry and periodically shed for life, as well, like herpes viruses. So a disease that kills a smaller percentage and presents less quickly/dramatically can be far more dangerous than the quicker, more brutal members of its pathogenic family

Along the same lines, the Reston variety of Ebola could be the freakiest of all, given some bad cosmic luck. Something very closely related to a lethal human illness can spread in birds, monkeys, pigs, etc. until it's downright common, and then suddenly re-develop the qualities to infect and kill humans. Now you have something which can be unpredictably spread by a population of carriers which can't be quarantined or predicted even half as well as you could manage human beings. That's why they follow the development of flu strains in birds, pigs, monkeys, and ruminants every year; you never know when something will show up that could make the Spanish flu look like a weekend with the sniffles.

So in summary, the headline makes Hemorrhagic fevers look worse than they really are (although even the 'nicest' ones are fucking terrifying), and it's actually the gentler varieties that are most likely to fuck up humanity one day.

Re:Not exactly 90%.... (2)

Kjella (173770) | more than 2 years ago | (#40330941)

Of course if you were researching a bio-weapon you can get an "all of the above" virus and ground zero could be the departure hall of a major international airport instead of some remote village in Nowhere, Africa. Who'd like to try "basic quarantine measures" on cities with millions of people? Not to mention all the commuters and such we didn't have during the Spanish Flu, chances are good your quarantine is broken even before you can even set it. That's really the scary thing about a bioweapon, you can bootstrap it on such an intensity that it will be practically impossible to contain.

Re:Not exactly 90%.... (2)

RivenAleem (1590553) | more than 2 years ago | (#40333313)

A gun is a very good weapon because you can, with practice, chose the person you want killed. A virus is not a weapon, but instead a Doomsday device. If a nation decided it wanted to attack America by deploying the bio-weapon in JFK, they will kill their own country too, as the virus spreads back home. They could try to close their borders, but something WILL get through, especially a retaliatory strike. Even if you defended yourself, you would kill or doom the rest of the world.

No, if you are creating a virus, you want it to be a tactical weapon, one that can target just the people you want dead, and not you, your allies and countries you rely on for export/import.

Re:Not exactly 90%.... (2)

catmistake (814204) | more than 2 years ago | (#40332323)

Extremely contagious, quick, and deadly diseases like Ebola Zaire often go too quickly for their own good. They can kill everyone so fast...

I don't understand how such deadly diseases can evolve... kill everything, including itself, and then outbreaks can reoccur once this has happened.

While fascinating, I find biology far too complicated to ever get my head around completely because it seems too difficult to reduce to the simpler underlying systems, like one can get away with only knowing a few trigonometry equations and derive the rest from those when needed. There is far too much information for me to memorize it all. I am thankful that there are those that have the biological knack, that understand it and think biology is simple, and are readily available to dumb-it-up for people like me. Thx for posting.

Re:Not exactly 90%.... (2)

smellsofbikes (890263) | more than 2 years ago | (#40335633)

Extremely contagious, quick, and deadly diseases like Ebola Zaire often go too quickly for their own good. They can kill everyone so fast...

I don't understand how such deadly diseases can evolve... kill everything, including itself, and then outbreaks can reoccur once this has happened.

I'm skipping over a lot of material here, but diseases that infect within a species tend to get less virulent over time because they spread more that way, like colds. The ideal within-species disease would be unnoticeable because then you'd go wandering around spreading it everywhere. It's likely thousands of these exist and we've never bothered to discover them.

Diseases between species are different. Diseases that need two species to complete their lifestyle, like malaria, want you as nearly dead as possible so you're lying there for days on end while mosquitos work you over and catch the disease, so it can go on to its next host. There's a bit of pressure to keep the host alive, but not a lot, and there's lots of pressure to immobilize the host, so you get these awful things that leave you incapacitated.

And the worst is diseases that are accidentally in humans: they come visiting, so to speak. They don't care about us because they probably can't use us in their lifecycle. We're a dead end. Those diseases have extremely high mortality, and ebola is one of those diseases. There's no pressure to moderate lethality since there's no mechanism to select for survival over time.

There are diseases like cholera that spread person-to-person in some situations, and are by-mistake-in-people-mostly-in-snails in other situations, and we see evolution occurring: cholera in the people-to-people scenario gets less lethal over time, while the estuary/snail-based cholera keeps just obliterating its human victims.

And, by the way, nobody thinks biology is simple. If there's a Moore's Law for biological research, the doubling time is probably in the dozen year range rather than the 18 month range, which is why we've seen computers progress so vastly much faster than medicine and genetic engineering.

Re:Not exactly 90%.... (1)

eris0xff (1871826) | more than 2 years ago | (#40337145)

I've been following Ebola for a while now. Richard Preston's "The Hot Zone" covers a number of attempts, expeditions by CDC and USAMRIID to track down the source of Ebola -- to no avail at the time of publication. However since it's publication the following has occurred:
  1. Scientists have found where Ebola lurks -- almost exclusively in fruit bats. As man has traveled and settled further and further up the Ebola river region he has come in contact with the life cycle of the Ebola virus in these bats. The bats have antibodies to the disease and are mostly resistant to it. They nest in trees and when they defecate in them the virus is transmitted onto to surface of the fruit which is eaten by monkeys. These monkeys contract the disease and die rapidly from it. If they bite another monkey they can transmit the disease to others in their troop, but they can also bite humans. The people of the area also eat monkey meat, so that's another vector for the disease.
  2. While Marburg, Lassa and Ebola are all very deadly diseases the strain that burned through Zaire in the book was particularly lethal for two reasons:
  3. The main story centers around a strain called "Ebola Zaire Mayinga" -- named after a nurse that contracted it trying to save someone else's life. For whatever reasons this is an insanely fast strain (90% lethal). It also almost killed the first doctor trying to treat it. He survived after going through many blood transfusions. USAMRIID has samples of Mayinga in cold storage.
  4. Mayinga's original method of infection was from Belgian nuns who had setup a center for malaria injections. They kept re-using the same needles and it's likely that one of the original people infected thought they had malaria and got an injection from the nuns. After that the ebola virus was being actively spread by the nuns to every single person getting an injection. More people who just came there to avoid malaria came down with Ebola. They spread the infection to their relatives who went to the mission for a malaria shot. The extreme amplification of the virus at the mission devastated the region. Within a week or so the entire mission (including the nuns) was totally destroyed.
  5. As you said, the Reston virus really had the potential to destroy the world. It broke out in experimental monkeys in a lab Reston VA imported from a region near the Phillipines IIRC. Unlike other Ebola strains it was transmitted not only by bodily fluids, but through the labs ventilation system (airborne). The only thing that saved humanity was blind luck that the variant probably had a single mutation that prevented it from infecting humans. Imagine a significant percentage of the DC area coming down with a 50-90% lethal flu and various diplomats catching it and flying it to their populations throughout the world. Given enough time Reston could have jumped over to humans, but quick action by USAMRIID, CDC and other military personnel stopped it there.
  6. More importantly regarding the posted article, there has been an experimental vaccine for Ebola for about the last 8-10 years. It saved the life of a lab worker in 2009 as has been shown to be effective in lab tests.

eris

Yay for monkeys! (1)

bryan1945 (301828) | more than 2 years ago | (#40330351)

Oh, and I guess humans, too.

Doesn't this make weaponization easier? (1)

DMJC (682799) | more than 2 years ago | (#40330517)

Doesn't this make it easier to Weaponize Ebola? You'd be pretty stupid to release ebola on your enemy if you weren't sure your own population wouldn't get infected. But if there's a cure, you can mass produce it for your own people and unleash the virus on your enemies...

Re:Doesn't this make weaponization easier? (1)

symbolset (646467) | more than 2 years ago | (#40331493)

Ebola disables and kills too fast to make an effective bioweapon.

Re:Doesn't this make weaponization easier? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40335297)

Ebola disables and kills too fast to make an effective bioweapon.

No, not at all. I think they call it 'surgical attack'. Like dropping a bomb on an enemy headquarter. A bomb disables and kills fast too. Now, if only it can be contained after the desired goal has been reached, then....

Cheers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40331597)

I'll drink to that.

Burp~ :D

Finally! (1)

PJ6 (1151747) | more than 2 years ago | (#40337119)

Now I don't have to worry about my monkey getting Ebola any more.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>