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!

"Secret Serum" Used To Treat Americans With Ebola

Unknown Lamer posted about a month and a half ago | from the illuminati-controlled-anti-virals-of-course dept.

Medicine 390

mrspoonsi (2955715) writes with news that the two Americans infected with Ebola in Liberia and transported to Atlanta for treatment were given an experimental drug, and their conditions appear to be improving. From the article: While some people do fight off the disease on their own, in the case of the two Americans, an experimental serum may have saved their lives. As Dr. Kent Brantly and missionary Nancy Writebol waited in a Liberian hospital, someone from the National Institutes of Health reached out to Samaritan's Purse, one of the two North Carolina-based Christian relief groups the two were working with, and offered to have vials of an experimental drug called ZMapp sent to Liberia, according to CNN's unnamed source. Although the Food and Drug Administration does allow experimental drugs to occasionally be distributed in life-threatening circumstances without approval under the expanded access or "compassionate use" conditions. It's not yet clear whether that approval was granted in this case or not. ... Brantly, who had been sick for nine days already ... [received] the first dose ... within an hour, he was able to breathe better and a rash on his body started to fade. The next day he was able to shower without help before boarding the air ambulance that flew him to Atlanta.

cancel ×

390 comments

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

When the patients awoke (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47603333)

Their lives were forever changed. One developed incredible muscles, which he used to fight crime. The other's brain was equally enhanced, but her turned to a life of crime.

Expert:Ebola Vaccine At Least 50 White People Away (4, Funny)

recoiledsnake (879048) | about a month and a half ago | (#47603475)

Experts: Ebola Vaccine At Least 50 White People Away

http://www.theonion.com/articl... [theonion.com]

Re:Expert:Ebola Vaccine At Least 50 White People A (2)

preaction (1526109) | about a month and a half ago | (#47603535)

Oh god. I'm laughing so hard I'm crying. Or am I crying so hard I'm laughing?

Re:Expert:Ebola Vaccine At Least 50 White People A (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47603565)

All joking aside, why is it that out of the more than 1 billion people and the 50 or so nations in Africa, none of them have been able to do any useful research into an effective treatment on their own?

Ebola isn't a new problem, of course. Africa has suffered from these outbreaks for some time now. And while many of its people and countries are not well off at all, there are some nations that are doing quite well financially, and should be able to create the infrastructure (including organizations and facilities) necessary for such research.

So instead of taking some initiative on their own, why do they have to let America and Americans sort this problem out for them? Why can't they at least try to find a real treatment or cure on their own?

Re:Expert:Ebola Vaccine At Least 50 White People A (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47603665)

The same reason the US funds a vast majority of drug research in general (at least as of now): It has the money, universities, companies, the property right protection, and other laws that enable people to spend decades working on something and then eventually getting a payday for it.

And much of the rest of the world piggy-backs on US research money and then demands that they get it at a discount or will just ignore the patents anyway. It is part of the reason drugs are so expensive in the US - the US subsidizes the rest of the world.

It would be great if there were 5 or 6 (or more) areas all working on the problems instead of very few. Europe certainly does some, but even with European contributions, their percentages are still quite small.

Re:Expert:Ebola Vaccine At Least 50 White People A (4, Interesting)

Applehu Akbar (2968043) | about a month and a half ago | (#47603859)

The rest of the world does not "get US drugs at a discount." Rather, American consumers are forced to pay a lot more for each branded medication than anyone else in the world. It is illegal for us to even shop around for a better deal.

Bust those American patents, world. We need to get affordable medications out there for all.

Re:Expert:Ebola Vaccine At Least 50 White People A (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47603817)

Difficulties faced in attempting to contain the outbreak include the outbreak's multiple locations across country borders, inadequate equipment given to medical personnel,[68] local funeral practices, and public reluctance to follow preventive practices, including "freeing" suspected Ebola patients from isolation, and suspicion that the disease is caused by witchcraft, or that doctors are killing patients. In late July, the former Liberian health minister Peter Coleman stated that "people don't seem to believe anything the government now says."

There was also an attack on aid workers who were hurrying to retrieve "freed" patients and did not explain to villagers who they were, and the Red Cross were forced to suspend operations in Guinea after staff were threatened by a group of men armed with knives.

source [wikipedia.org]

Re:Expert:Ebola Vaccine At Least 50 White People A (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47603647)

Experts: Ebola Vaccine At Least 50 White People Away

http://www.theonion.com/articl... [theonion.com]

While this is very pogniant and funny, why does nobody ever complain that a cure to something or the other is 50 dead Chinese or Indians away from being developed? It's not like those countries don't have the means or a pharmaseutical industry capable of coming up with an Ebola vaccine. It seems to me they are sitting on their collective hands and ignoring the problem just like Europe and the USA are. It's in everybody's interest to develop an Ebola vaccine before we get a serious pandemic but it's nevertheless getting bloody tiring to have this problem laid at the door of the US/EU all the time. The Chinese and their traditional medicine mafia are well on their way toward rotting out large portions of the African fauna, perhaps they can pay Africa back by developing an Ebola vaccine?

Re:Expert:Ebola Vaccine At Least 50 White People A (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47603689)

Funny? Insightful? Predicts the future?

Confused as to how to moderate this. Considering how right Onion was in the past on those issues...

(Those who don't know what I'm talking about: http://www.theonion.com/articl... [theonion.com]
Note the date).

Re:Expert:Ebola Vaccine At Least 50 White People A (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47603821)

Even if there was a vaccine, lots of people would refuse to get it because they're scared of catching teh autism.

Re:Expert:Ebola Vaccine At Least 50 White People A (1)

Applehu Akbar (2968043) | about a month and a half ago | (#47603875)

This will be Uncle Chuck's way of getting Luddites out of the gene pool.

Re: When the patients awoke (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47603851)

Lol

zombies (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47603335)

uh oh

Re:zombies (0)

Noah Haders (3621429) | about a month and a half ago | (#47603861)

srsly. I'm just finishing Last of Us on PS4, so this is perfect timing.

Other uses for secret serum (2)

coolmanxx (150620) | about a month and a half ago | (#47603349)

Mix with one part rum, two parts vodka, and top off with pineapple juice -- a great love tonic and cure for horrible plague.

Re:Other uses for secret serum (1)

msauve (701917) | about a month and a half ago | (#47603459)

You put the lime in the coconut....

Re:Other uses for secret serum (0)

budgenator (254554) | about a month and a half ago | (#47603889)

I'd have thought your UID number too high to know about that one.

Stupid FDA (-1, Troll)

javilon (99157) | about a month and a half ago | (#47603355)

It is clear that if the treatment has been illegal, the two patients should be executed so to return things to their normal course.

ROI for drug development (5, Interesting)

mrspoonsi (2955715) | about a month and a half ago | (#47603359)

Given that Ebola is currently confined to Africa, and that a relatively small number of people have caught it (less than 4000)...and these outbreaks seem to only come along once every 20 years, where was the incentive for the drug company to create this drug? Was it good timing that it has something ready to go just now. Will each dose be prohibitively expensive to administer in Africa, or it remains to be seen if WHO will foot the bill to the tune of 10's of millions $$.

Re:ROI for drug development (3, Insightful)

Chuckstar (799005) | about a month and a half ago | (#47603399)

There are government grants available for such research. Not all research is done by people looking for billion dollar paydays. Some people just want enough funding to get the research done and draw a salary.

Re:ROI for drug development (2)

silfen (3720385) | about a month and a half ago | (#47603549)

The researchers' salaries isn't where the money is going primarily; it's going into infrastructure, animal testing, support, testing, insurance, etc.

Re:ROI for drug development (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47603567)

Yes, like every person who works at a pharmaceutical for a salary.People don't get billion dollar paydays. Companies with 50,000 employees get that much money and pay salaries with it.

Re:ROI for drug development (2)

rmdingler (1955220) | about a month and a half ago | (#47603419)

The CDC has had access to ebola strains for a goodly amount of time.

If you're in the business of possessing a cure during an outbreak, rudimentary requirements like FDA approval are moot.

The 64,000 dollar question is can they gear up manufacturing facilities to make enough for all of us, or just enough for the privileged.... and yes, at that point, any recipient of the vaccine is privileged.

Re:ROI for drug development (1)

timeOday (582209) | about a month and a half ago | (#47603481)

Of course, ideally "all of us" will never need it, because any outbreaks are carpet-bombed with whatever this stuff is, before it becomes a pandemic. (Then again, in prevention-mode, the market is a few thousand poverty-stricken people, whereas in disaster recovery mode it includes a few billion people with money... I'm not alleging conspiracy, more like market failure. Maybe health insurers should pay for this?)

Re:ROI for drug development (1)

geekoid (135745) | about a month and a half ago | (#47603495)

Well, it needs to be tested, we don't know how hard it is to make, we don't know if it is successful, but it seems to be, how long can it be stored? IS the rick of outbreak worth the cost of maintaining millions of ready to go treatments?
Ebola can e contained. If/when it mutates to be airborne that's going to be an issue. Of course, since it hasn't, we don't know if the vaccines would work at all.

Re:ROI for drug development (1)

rmdingler (1955220) | about a month and a half ago | (#47603605)

Ebola Reston (VA) is presumed to have evolved to airborne transmission, but it was only deadly for the simians.

The ease with which it seems to capture the attention of the masses with any threat of worldwide pandemic leads me to believe the folks that really have a lot to live for are making sure there's an option after infection.

If you have more money than your grandchildren can spend, you purchase insurance. Lots and lots of it.

Re:ROI for drug development (-1)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | about a month and a half ago | (#47603639)

Tripple nonsense.
Ebola is not airborn.
Ebola is not deadly, surprise, surprise for semians/apes.
Conspiracy theory ... oO!

Re:ROI for drug development (2)

geekoid (135745) | about a month and a half ago | (#47603765)

Ebola went from pigs to macaws via an airborn vector.
There was one for simians as well.

"Ebola is not deadly, surprise, surprise for semians/apes."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R... [wikipedia.org]

Re:ROI for drug development (1)

antifoidulus (807088) | about a month and a half ago | (#47603781)

Actually ebola is quite deadly for non-human primates as well, in fact they have successfully created a vaccine that prevents the disease in non-human primates, it just hasn't been developed for humans as of yet. Also, fwiw the most likely reservoir for the disease is bats, bats apparently can carry the disease without suffering any ill effects.

Re:ROI for drug development (5, Informative)

Artifakt (700173) | about a month and a half ago | (#47603847)

Here's a good, reliable page on Ebola, Reston variant: (this assumes you don't think Stanford is a cheesy school, or in on the vast conspiracy to supress all conspiracy theories, or whatever).
http://virus.stanford.edu/filo... [stanford.edu]

from this page
"twelve of the 186 people tested had serological evidence of infection with EBO-R. 22% of the workers at Ferlite Farms had positive IFAT (indirect fluorescent antibody test) titers, which was significantly higher than at the other three export facilities."
              Those infection mumbers are low for a virus that normally attacks humans, like Ebola Marburg, in a setting with no precautions at all and lots of hosts, but the fact that humans have no significant symptoms from it says that the Reston variant virus does not colonize humans at all well, and so are at least marginal support for it being exceptionally likely to survive in the environment, compared to the more human lethal types. This just might indicate that Reston is airborne, but probably just indicates it survives a bit longer on surfaces or takes a little more exposure to some disinfectants to destroy than the commoner Ebola virus types. So you're halfway right about that - Reston is not presumed to have become air vectorable, it's just been raised as a possibility in discussion, and is still rated as less likely than some alternatives.

this particular shipment of nonhuman primates had a far larger number of deaths in Room F than would normally have been expected.
              And there goes your record - Reston is deadly to simians, at least to cynomolgus macaques. Unless you want to stand on your obvious spelling error (yeah, it doesn't kill "semians" - I hear not even Kryptonite kills them), the poster you are "correcting" was correct.

      Given a 25% accuracy rating and four spelling errors and two grammer errors in four sentences you would have a hard time persuading people to reject the conspiracy theory that Donald Trump's hairpiece is an Venusion Brainslug invader.

Re:ROI for drug development (1)

geekoid (135745) | about a month and a half ago | (#47603733)

You are correct, I should have specified for humans. In my defense, that was the context.

Re:ROI for drug development (1)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about a month and a half ago | (#47603701)

rudimentary requirements like FDA approval are moot.

FDA approval was not needed, because the serum was administered in Liberia, where the FDA has no jurisdiction.

Re:ROI for drug development (2)

xevioso (598654) | about a month and a half ago | (#47603425)

What is the incentive for the doctors in Africa treating Ebola? Are they doing it for money? Or perhaps they are doing it out of a sense of goodwill towards their fellow human beings (that and the fact that many Christians believe God commands them to do these sorts of things).

Perhaps an "incentive" for Pharmaceutical companies who are making money hand over fist with other drugs would be to make a drug that would cure or vaccinate against a horrible disease because, i don't know...it's the right thing to do?

Re:ROI for drug development (1)

geekoid (135745) | about a month and a half ago | (#47603513)

It's all the phat loots Africa has. We all know those doctors are driving around in Ferrari and drinking champagne.

Re:ROI for drug development (1)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | about a month and a half ago | (#47603757)

Oddly enough I know a doctor in Botswana who's doing pretty damn well for herself.

Re:ROI for drug development (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47603609)

Despite what Romney may tell you, pharmaceuticals are not people. However, they are made up of people who could often get paid better doing other things. They went into science in order to help people, and they get a salary to try to create drugs to do that.

People who work in research labs are also people who went into science in order to help people. They also get a salary, which happens to be paid by the government instead of a company.

I have done both. In industry, people got paid a little bit more. They ate at their desks while they worked. At the government lab, people took 1 1/2 hour lunches together and got 15 extra days of vacation. They got paid a little less.

Pharmaceutical companies can not pay their employees if they do things that don't make money. Government employees can work on those things. Both are important, and they are both staffed by the same type of people who talk with each other and switch between jobs.

Re:ROI for drug development (1)

ganjadude (952775) | about a month and a half ago | (#47603745)

Any citation for when romney said pharmaceuticals are people? If you dont have any citation for thar, stfu and make your point and the the bs politics out of it

Re:ROI for drug development (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47603799)

"Corporations are people, my friend", Mitt Romney. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2h8ujX6T0A

Re:ROI for drug development (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47603923)

And how are corporations and pharmaceuticals, ie drugs, related? Some corporations produce pharmaceuticals, but they are far from the same thing.

Re:ROI for drug development (1)

ganjadude (952775) | about a month and a half ago | (#47603931)

Well fist off all you didnt say that, you said pharmaceuticals if I wanna go lawyerspeak on you. Second, context matters to some people, corps are people != (corperations = people) when taken in context. But you knew that

Re:ROI for drug development (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47603891)

Why did it get so quiet in here all of the sudden, ganjadude?

Re:ROI for drug development (2)

s.petry (762400) | about a month and a half ago | (#47603911)

Perhaps an "incentive" for Pharmaceutical companies who are making money hand over fist with other drugs would be to make a drug that would cure or vaccinate against a horrible disease because, i don't know...it's the right thing to do?

Ha ha, that is hilarious! Seriously, the reason they have massive profits is because they don't care about society as much as themselves. Why on earth would they suddenly become altruistic, when they are not altruistic about any other opportunity to "SELL" medicine to make lots of profits? Think really really hard about that for a minute and you will glean why your comment is so funny.

The doctors treating patients has nothing to do with big pharmaceutical companies that view a plague as an opportunity to cash in. That's like comparing soldiers to politicians. Soldiers would not lie to start a war, and would not fight very hard if they knew the cause was unjust. Politicians on the other hand.. well study up on Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, etc.. etc..

Re:ROI for drug development (0)

Artifakt (700173) | about a month and a half ago | (#47603951)

You do understand that many Christians believe that God is good,and if he commands them to do good things for other people it's because He has that sort of goodwill, and wants them to learn to feel goodwill too if they don't instinctively feel it, or express it if they already do. You make it sound like non-Christians doing this sort of charity actually feel goodwill, and the Christians don't, but do it for fear of punishment or displeasing an arbitrary source of commands. I know some Christians who are mostly driven by fear of an angry God, but I'd bet that most of the doctors, nurses, and other volunteers in a program like this are driven by a genuine desire to do good, and when they have moments of fear it's more about the risk of death than anything else. That goes regardless of belief systems, Christian, Islamic, or Secular Humanist.

Re:ROI for drug development (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about a month and a half ago | (#47603437)

Government funding, apparently from the NIH and the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, which is charged with coming up with defenses to WMDs likely to be used by terrorists.

Re: ROI for drug development (1)

alen (225700) | about a month and a half ago | (#47603447)

The USA almost always has plans for crazy just in case situations. Including developing drugs no one may need for years

Re: ROI for drug development (2)

preaction (1526109) | about a month and a half ago | (#47603545)

That's what the Government should be for, doing things that are necessary but not profitable. What happens when government is privatized for efficiency?

Re: ROI for drug development (4, Interesting)

geekoid (135745) | about a month and a half ago | (#47603717)

That question has been answered many times.
The middle class fades away, Large projects stop and the society collapse.
People act like the government just appeared and hasn't been developed over time.

Also we know that the government is more efficient then the ;private industry most of the time. That's the private sectors little secret.

You can confirm that be simply looking at the federal project and see how many of them where completed on time and within budget. well of 80.
The private sector is lucky to get 30% project dun, and less then 20% within budget.

The Public sector/Private sector 80/20 has been written about many times.

Re: ROI for drug development (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47603945)

That conflicts with my political beliefs, so it can't be true.

Re:ROI for drug development (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47603463)

Odds are.they were not treated with a drug...but with a serum extract made from blood donated by one of the survivors.

This has been done before...survivors carry antibodies that fight the infection, once a patient has some of these antibodies, his system can make more of them - and fight off the infection.

For more information...you might want to read "The Coming Plague" by Laurie Garrett...

Re:ROI for drug development (5, Informative)

slew (2918) | about a month and a half ago | (#47603709)

Odds are the so-called "secret-serum" is called ZMapp manufactured by a small biotech company called Mapp Biopharmaceutical [mappbio.com] ...

Odds are this treatment is an optimized cocktail combining the best components of MB-003 [mappbio.com] and ZMAb [defyrus.com] (both appear to be three-mouse monoclonal antibody produced by exposing mice to fragments of the Ebola virus and extracting antibodies from their blood)...

Odds are these particular antibodies are actually manufactured in a plants, specifically Nicotiana, not extracted from animal blood.

Odds are you could find this information on this internet in less than 1 minute w/o suggesting or consulting a poorly researched, highly politicized book written in alarmist form.

Unfortunately, odds are many people are unable to use the internet effectively...

Re:ROI for drug development (1)

Wycliffe (116160) | about a month and a half ago | (#47603473)

A large part of the cost of developing a drug is getting it approved as safe for human use. For instance you can buy a vaccine for
lyme disease for both your dog and your horse but there is no such legal vaccine for humans. The beginning stages of testing are
relatively cheap and you can afford to have several of them in the works if for no other reason than to pad your patent portfolio.
Many of the very early beginning stages also tend to cost nothing (i.e. A researcher happened to notice that drug X had this
side effect while working on something else) It doesn't mean it's effective, it really doesn't mean anything but if you
(or one of your coworkers) is faced with almost certain death then you will try it on the off chance that it might work.

Re:ROI for drug development (3, Interesting)

ewibble (1655195) | about a month and a half ago | (#47603505)

My particular unsupported conspiracy theory is that they have weaponized Ebola, and as a result they have had a cure for a while, just now they are using it.

Re:ROI for drug development (1)

AHuxley (892839) | about a month and a half ago | (#47603581)

Yes the race was on in the for all aspects of aerosol dissemination over a wide variety of options.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Considering how hard the US and Soviet Union looked at all kinds of weapons systems, serum, collected samples.
So something was collected, stored, offered this time to get some good news out.

I'm sure you meant to say testing it. (2)

rmdingler (1955220) | about a month and a half ago | (#47603641)

It doesn't take a boy with a 1600 SAT score to see that weaponizing a virus capable of mutation to something you cannot cure in the lifespan of a fruit fly is stupid crazy.

Granted, it's not mutually assured destruction.

It's only plausibly mutually assured destruction. That should be quite enough.

Re:ROI for drug development (1)

silfen (3720385) | about a month and a half ago | (#47603539)

Viruses like these are potential bioterrorism agents, that's why the US funds research into treating them. It's also useful basic research.

Down the road, it may lead to effective treatments for Africans, but the current treatments are too expensive.

Re:ROI for drug development (2)

Bite The Pillow (3087109) | about a month and a half ago | (#47603599)

http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/r... [cdc.gov]

Once every 20 years my ass. Average numbers don't convey a lot of information.

Averages about 1 outbreak per year if you want to define "outbreak" as "outbreak", unless you want to define it some other way. The current lab-confirmed numbers for this one are 953, with a death rate about 60%. 953 out of your "less than 4000 so far" number seems to be a hefty chunk of corpses.

People study this in federal labs, with little chance of financial gain, in order to prevent it from spreading further. Not as drug researchers for a big pharma company hoping for a giant bonus. And they die sometimes, as that link shows.

The incentive is not dying of Ebola. It seems coincidental that a drug is ready now. There have been drugs in the past, but didn't seem to do so well. I suppose it was a coincidence they happened to be ready at that time, other than they didn't do so well. So now we have something that responded to exactly 1 patient.

Sure looks like a conspiracy to me.

Re:ROI for drug development (1)

ganjadude (952775) | about a month and a half ago | (#47603773)

956 on the global scale of some 7 billion or whatever we are at now on the other hand hardly is an outbreak. Thats prob less than die daily in car crashes around the world

Re:ROI for drug development (5, Insightful)

rahvin112 (446269) | about a month and a half ago | (#47603855)

The drug is NOT ready. That's the whole point of this. They were given experimental "serum" which had not even reached Human trials (years away from them in fact, they had just recently reached simian trials after the mouse models which is essentially the very first step towards human trials). This stuff could have outright killed them. These two people subjected themselves to essentially untested experimentation in the hope of a miracle. They got lucky.

Had they tested this stuff on a bunch of Africans and they died can you imagine the bad press it would have generated? I can see the headlines now. "America tests drugs on poor Africans in unethical medical experimentation".

Re:ROI for drug development (2)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | about a month and a half ago | (#47603631)

Ebola is the main bio weapon research topic of the USA since roughly 1956. As similarily was Antrax for the British.

It is not 'that' surprising that they in fact have a cure.
Surprising is, that it get published so nonchalant, considering that anti bio weapons treaties are up since 30 years or longer.

The real surprise, and hence the dubiousity of this news: a cure that is effective in a day or even in hours ... very uncommon.

Re:ROI for drug development (2)

MikeMo (521697) | about a month and a half ago | (#47603635)

It's not just ROI. Other viruses cause way more death - like HIV - and should receive the bulk of our research money and attention because of that simple fact. Compare the death rate from HIV in Africa to that of Ebola and you can see it just makes sense to put resources on HIV.

Re:ROI for drug development (2)

niftymitch (1625721) | about a month and a half ago | (#47603753)

Given that Ebola is currently confined to Africa, and that a relatively small number of people have caught it (less than 4000)...and these outbreaks seem to only come along once every 20 years, where was the incentive for the drug company to create this drug? Was it good timing that it has something ready to go just now.

Will each dose be prohibitively expensive to administer in Africa, or it remains to be seen if WHO will foot the bill to the tune of 10's of millions $$.

Not once in 20. Every two years... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ebola_outbreaks
Yes the number of inflicted individuals is too small \ to trigger major financial investment.
Yes the inflicted individuals are mostly too poor to trigger major financial investment!
Yes global risk is so large most research is department of defense funded.

This is so serious and so bad a global risk I dislike thinking about it except that
the world needs to pay attention. Today the context for disease is big $$ pharma
and big $$ agriculture. This has risks so large none with $$ want to touch it
outside of some rarified well funded well secured facilities (a good thing IMO).

Re:ROI for drug development (1)

Noah Haders (3621429) | about a month and a half ago | (#47603873)

you do it on a speculative basis so if this thing goes big then you have a product ready to go. there's a little bit of money in curing people, a lot of money in treating people for a lifetime (like aids) and a shit ton of money in a vaccine if you control the supply.

media.. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47603361)

secret serum? what is this, scooby doo?

Re:media.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47603673)

Turns out that Ebola was actually old man Marchant wearing a mask. He wanted to scare off villagers so he could harvest the gold mine for himself. And he would've gotten away with it too, if it weren't for those rotten teenagers.

Re:media.. (2)

ScentCone (795499) | about a month and a half ago | (#47603737)

And he would've gotten away with it too, if it weren't for those rotten teenagers.

Meddling kids. The phrase you're looking for is, "meddling kids."

hmmmmm (3, Interesting)

BigDukeSix (832501) | about a month and a half ago | (#47603385)

It seems possible that a monoclonal antibody might have a dramatic effect on virus replication. Since Ebola makes one ill by direct cell destruction it might even make one feel better quickly. But the rash comes from bleeding under the skin (it's the same as any big bruise you might have had). It makes no sense that it should fade immediately from the administration of a monoclonal against the virus. I hope this drug is successful in a trial, but at least that part of the article is suspicious.

Re:hmmmmm (0)

rmdingler (1955220) | about a month and a half ago | (#47603655)

I have no idea if your position is correct,

but it really sounds like you know what the fuck you're talking about.

Are you in sales or can I trust you?

Re:hmmmmm (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47603695)

Rashes are not bruises; most rashes are just dilated capillaries, often due to immune system activation. Of course, eventually, Ebola does cause bleeding from capillaries, but it may not have had progressed to that point. It's possible that a serum like this acts fairly quickly on a rash.

Re:hmmmmm (1)

sjames (1099) | about a month and a half ago | (#47603803)

I don't imagine the rash actually disappeared, but with the active bleeding stopped, it would look much better in short order. Of course, once the bruising develops, they'll look like hell again for a few days.

FDA? (1)

msauve (701917) | about a month and a half ago | (#47603403)

What's the FDA got to do with this? The drug was administered in Liberia.

Re:FDA? (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about a month and a half ago | (#47603501)

Ever hear of ethics?

Re:FDA? (1)

ganjadude (952775) | about a month and a half ago | (#47603787)

If I have a rare disease with no "known" cure...give me anything it cant get any worse. Ethical is trying when your odds are "well you are most likely gonna die, we worked on this, might work , might not... but you are dead if we do nothing" giving someone a chance (with consent of the patient of course)

Re:FDA? (1)

msauve (701917) | about a month and a half ago | (#47603913)

Ever heard of a non-sequitur?

Re:FDA? (1)

rubycodez (864176) | about a month and a half ago | (#47603927)

what does the FDA have to do with ethics? you are really funny.

Re:FDA? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47603517)

Yes, but the company that supplied the drugs is in the US. Or do want to allow drugs companies to be able get around those "pesky" impediments to performing human testing by doing it in international waters. Then, only provide the data to the FDA so that they can get the permission to sell it in the US?

Re:FDA? (0)

rubycodez (864176) | about a month and a half ago | (#47603939)

the FDA are just big pharmy suckdicks

T.A.H.I.T.I. (1)

Macrat (638047) | about a month and a half ago | (#47603405)

It worked for Agent Coulson.

Re:T.A.H.I.T.I. (1)

mythosaz (572040) | about a month and a half ago | (#47603591)

And Sloan.

...or did it? [Evil Laugh]

secret? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47603417)

I guess the secret is out. Serum is no longer hidden. lol

"Secret" (5, Informative)

TubeSteak (669689) | about a month and a half ago | (#47603423)

It's only "secret" in the sense that almost all pharmaceutical research is completely ignored by the media.

If you dig around you'll find some articles about ZMAPP in no-name low-impact journals like PNAS and Science.
"Secret"

Re:"Secret" (2)

geekoid (135745) | about a month and a half ago | (#47603507)

Yeah, the media is trying to create a media storm by making people think there are hidden cures.
It's really annoying.,

Re:"Secret" (1)

Rinikusu (28164) | about a month and a half ago | (#47603669)

TIN FOIL HAT TIME:

1) The .mil has been experimenting with ebola for decades. What biological weapons program wouldn't? In the process of experimenting, they've also developed countermeasure in case the Ruskies (or other enemy agents) are doing the same.
2) These countermeasures have been sitting in secret in secret .gov labs for awhile, awaiting for weaponized ebola.
3) Bunches of Africans die from the disease. Who cares?
4) Two white Americans get it, and suddenly "Oh, right, we have a cure."

Linux users... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47603453)

They like "secret serum" injected into their faggot asses.

Re:Linux users... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47603749)

Sounds like fun. Can I dose you?

Who cares about the FDA? (0)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about a month and a half ago | (#47603455)

This was done in Liberia.

..but we won't give any more doses to anyone else (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47603491)

To quote TFA:

"It is important to keep in mind that a large-scale provision of treatments and vaccines that are in very early stages of development has a series of scientific and ethical implications," the organization said in a statement.

Which means, we haven't figured (worked) out yet the costs and payment plans for this drug, so we aren't going to use it to help those people already suffering who otherwise have no chance of survival. Let's just say they are "expendable", in the name of commerce, of course.

If anyone believes that hogwash about ensuring safety and efficacy and yada yada...well the mighty dollar beats all that.

Re:..but we won't give any more doses to anyone el (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47603575)

Then you can pay for it, since price is no object for you. Or does it only not matter when it's other peoples money?

Re:..but we won't give any more doses to anyone el (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47603691)

1. Infect someone with deadly disease.
2. Offer cure for extortionate price.
3. Profit.

Re:..but we won't give any more doses to anyone el (1)

antifoidulus (807088) | about a month and a half ago | (#47603839)

Yeah, because the dude was there volunteering in Africa because he just hates black people. And of course, drug manufacturing is just SOOOOOOO simple that anyone can do it, it's just those greedy bastards(who cares who they are, anyone but you is a greedy bastard, right?) who are preventing it. Here is a clue dipshit, if developing drugs is so easy, why don't you be the hero and do it? Or would that interrupt your self-righteousness time?

Re:..but we won't give any more doses to anyone el (4, Informative)

nbauman (624611) | about a month and a half ago | (#47603865)

To quote TFA:

"It is important to keep in mind that a large-scale provision of treatments and vaccines that are in very early stages of development has a series of scientific and ethical implications," the organization said in a statement.

Which means, we haven't figured (worked) out yet the costs and payment plans for this drug, so we aren't going to use it to help those people already suffering who otherwise have no chance of survival. Let's just say they are "expendable", in the name of commerce, of course.

If anyone believes that hogwash about ensuring safety and efficacy and yada yada...well the mighty dollar beats all that.

No, what it means is that if they inject somebody with a large therapeutic dose of a drug that has only been tested in mice, they're liable to have life-threatening adverse reactions, like anaphylactic shock from the mouse antibodies, and it's much easier to keep the adverse reactions from killing them in a state-of-the-art western hospital than it is in the field, where they have trouble maintaining refrigeration, and don't have x-ray machines (much less CAT scans), among many other problems.

I can't find the quote, but a researcher told Science that things work great in mice, well in monkeys, passably well in phase I trials, poorly in phase II trials, and not at all in phase III trials.

Actually, it's the pharmaceutical companies that want to speed up drug approvals in order to increase their profits, and the Clinton and Bush administrations gave them their wish. According to a few articles in the New England Journal of Medicine, every time the FDA sped up drug approvals, they wound up approving drugs that had fatal adverse effects and had to be withdrawn from the market, like that Merck COX inhibitor.

You can't make a baby in 1 month by getting 9 women pregnant.

Why the need to Euphemize? (1)

sundarvenkata (1214396) | about a month and a half ago | (#47603587)

Why not just say sperm and get it over with!

Made by Umbrella corporation ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47603613)

It is starting folks...

are they now inivited to recuperate (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47603633)

At that chicken shit Donald trump's house?

Some scale (4, Insightful)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about a month and a half ago | (#47603681)

There's a lot of hype on this Ebola topic in the media.

Lets have some scale:

The population of Africa: 1 billion
http://worldpopulationreview.c... [worldpopul...review.com]

Number of people to die of Ebola in the past year: 887
http://www.usatoday.com/story/... [usatoday.com]

The number of deaths in Liberia alone during the last flu outbreak: 5,561
http://www.worldlifeexpectancy... [worldlifeexpectancy.com]

Roundup of Ebola drugs and vaccines in Science (4, Informative)

nbauman (624611) | about a month and a half ago | (#47603743)

Science magazine had a good article about the drugs being developed for Ebola. One drug, TKM-Ebola, is in Phase I trials, but the FDA put them on hold because they wanted to change the protocol to protect participants' safety.

One researcher, Erica Ollmann Saphire, said that, because of the high case fatality rate, if she were exposed to Ebola, "I'd run for the freezer and ask for forgiveness instead of permission." But in cases like this, they usually can get FDA permission, under compassionate use. One German researcher got a needlestick, and they rushed the VSV-vaccine to her. But those were individual cases, in western hospitals, and they can't give an untested drug to a population in Africa (although some American pharmaceutical companies have tried that, and it didn't go too well).

http://www.sciencemag.org/cont... [sciencemag.org]
Science 25 July 2014:
Vol. 345 no. 6195 pp. 364-365
DOI: 10.1126/science.345.6195.364
Infectious Diseases
Ebola drugs still stuck in lab
Martin Enserink

For you suckers who are stuck behind the paywall, it had a good table that summed it all up:

VACCINES

VSV-based vaccines. Profectus BioSciences; Public Health Agency of Canada

Adenovirus-based vaccines. At least three different labs/companies

DRUGS

TKM-Ebola (RNAi-based). Tekmira Pharmaceuticals Corp. In phase I trials, but the FDA put a hold

Nucleoside analog. U.S.Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases

Monoclonal antibodies. Many labs/companies

AVI-7537 (antisense-based). Sarepta Therapeutics.

Everybody who does clinical research knows that most of the drugs that work great in mice, work reasonably well in monkeys, passably well in Phase I trials, poorly in Phase II trials, and not at all in Phase III trials.

There were a few articles in the New England Journal of Medicine on the FDA's fast track approvals. They found that when the FDA started speeding up drug approvals, they started approving more drugs with life-threatening side effects that had to be withdrawn from the market.

Of course, if you're dying of a disease now, the calculus is different.

"It's Just the Flu" (1)

gelfling (6534) | about a month and a half ago | (#47603751)

Was the original title of the short story eventually expanded to "The Stand".

Secret, my ass (4, Informative)

Calibax (151875) | about a month and a half ago | (#47603771)

Mapp Biopharmaceutical have been publishing articles about their ebola research in scientific journals since 2011. They seem to be a very secretive at all.

Maybe CNN thinks it's a secret because it hasn't been covered in the mainstream press - TMZ and Entertainment Weekly have completely ignored the company.

Secret for how long? (0)

manu0601 (2221348) | about a month and a half ago | (#47603881)

So US had an Ebola cure waiting for US patients? For how long had this being available, and why was it kept secret?

Mouse studies (2)

nbauman (624611) | about a month and a half ago | (#47603921)

I found the quote:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cont... [sciencemag.org]
Science 18 July 2014:
Vol. 345 no. 6194 pp. 252-257
DOI: 10.1126/science.345.6194.252
The elusive heart fix
Jennifer Couzin-Frankel

“In mouse studies there's always dramatic improvement,” says Joseph Wu, a cardiologist studying stem cells at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California. “Once you go to a large animal study, it's moderate improvement, once you go to a phase I trial, it's decent improvement, and once you go to phase II, phase III, there's no improvement. This happens again and again and again. It's the entire field of biological research.”

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>