Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ebola: Experimental drug ZMapp is '100% effective' in animal trials

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 50 posts

Re: Ebola: Experimental drug ZMapp is '100% effective' in animal trials

#31

Post by colanderman »

kvb wrote: post #17
trhway wrote: post #2

why we still test effectiveness on animals when there are several thousands of people who has no downside and only upside for the drug to be tested on them? Ethics? It would be a strange ethics that had worked only until an American needed the cure. Something isn't right that this drug got out of shadow only when there was a need to cure an American. I mean, of course, thanks God, that i have real chance of soon beco…

Why do you say there is no downside? As Jonathan Kaplan points out in the comments of the article Crito links to, Ebola is not 100% fatal and several drugs that have worked in animals have proven to have catastrophic effects when administered to humans (see e.g. TGN1412 [1]). [1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TGN1412

several drugs that have worked in animals have proven to have catastrophic effects when administered to humans

This is an argument for animal testing?

Re: Ebola: Experimental drug ZMapp is '100% effective' in animal trials

#32

Post by trhway »

colanderman wrote: post #23
trhway wrote: post #2

why we still test effectiveness on animals when there are several thousands of people who has no downside and only upside for the drug to be tested on them? Ethics? It would be a strange ethics that had worked only until an American needed the cure. Something isn't right that this drug got out of shadow only when there was a need to cure an American. I mean, of course, thanks God, that i have real chance of soon beco…

Because only humans are made in God's image. Therefore it's ethical to test drugs on enslaved non-human sentients incapable of acknowledging consent. EDIT: Very curious whether the downvoters (a) don't get the sarcasm, (b) get the sarcasm and are offended that I question their religious tenets, (c) think animal testing is justifiable beyond reproach, (d) disagree that monkeys are sentient, (e) think that monkeys cons…

opponents of animal testing in particular or anthropocentrism (like in "humans are the top of the God's creation and the Earth is given to humans into their dominion to be [ab]used as they wish") in general don't fair well on this much more conservative than one might expect site.

Re: Ebola: Experimental drug ZMapp is '100% effective' in animal trials

#33

Post by Crito »

colanderman wrote: post #31
kvb wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you say there is no downside? As Jonathan Kaplan points out in the comments of the article Crito links to, Ebola is not 100% fatal and several drugs that have worked in animals have proven to have catastrophic effects when administered to humans (see e.g. TGN1412 [1]). [1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TGN1412

several drugs that have worked in animals have proven to have catastrophic effects when administered to humans This is an argument for animal testing?

The argument for animal testing would be that several drugs have had catastrophic effects on animals, and would have had those same catastrophic effects on humans had we not tested first on animals.

Not all drugs effective for humans will be safe for animals, and not all drugs effective for animals will be safe for humans. Animal testing aims to operate in the middle-ground between the two, where things work similarly in both animals and humans.

Re: Ebola: Experimental drug ZMapp is '100% effective' in animal trials

#34

Post by makomk »

Crito wrote: post #5
trhway wrote: post #2

why we still test effectiveness on animals when there are several thousands of people who has no downside and only upside for the drug to be tested on them? Ethics? It would be a strange ethics that had worked only until an American needed the cure. Something isn't right that this drug got out of shadow only when there was a need to cure an American. I mean, of course, thanks God, that i have real chance of soon beco…

http://scientiasalon.wordpress.com/2014/08/14/on-the-science... (related HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8189528 ) The second paragraph does a good job of summing up ethical concerns related to this particular outbreak (standard ethical concerns also apply): "The first two patients to be treated were Americans. Prior to this came the old (and historically justified) fear of testing potentially dan…

One would hope that African doctors would be reasonably capable of assessing the risks and benefits of taking experimental new treatments themselves. I seem to recall the trials that people have been concerned about involved large-scale testing on poorly-educated members of the general population. (Also, I think that kind of testing still happens even now!)

Re: Ebola: Experimental drug ZMapp is '100% effective' in animal trials

#35

Post by anigbrowl »

state wrote: post #8

I'm surprised that so much of the coverage of ZMapp doesn't include the fact that the drug is produced in tobacco plants. To me, this is the single most interesting and impressive fact. It's also likely the main reason why "the limited supplies will not help the 20,000 people predicted to be infected during the outbreak in West Africa." Scaling production of antibodies grown in plants can't possibly be straightforwar…

I've seen it widely mentioned, but most of the commentary on it went along the lines of 'take that, health Nazis!', as if this was the culmination of a years-long effort by Smokers Against Ebola.

Re: Ebola: Experimental drug ZMapp is '100% effective' in animal trials

#36

Post by selectodude »

roywiggins wrote: post #22
xtrumanx wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ..makes a sub-optimal situation much worse. I guess the OP's point was how much more sub-optimal can the situation get if the alternative to not trying the experimental drug is the death of the patient.

The alternative is a about a 40% chance of survival without the drug. With the drug, maybe it will be higher, but maybe it will be lower. We don't actually know (though this new trial is very encouraging). A bad drug could also cause suffering beyond what Ebola causes: even if the patient was going to die anyway, it could make their death even more painful.

I guess that's when you hope you're not in the US, and get someone to inject you with a fatal dose of morphine.

Re: Ebola: Experimental drug ZMapp is '100% effective' in animal trials

#37

Post by colanderman »

Crito wrote: post #33
colanderman wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

several drugs that have worked in animals have proven to have catastrophic effects when administered to humans This is an argument for animal testing?

The argument for animal testing would be that several drugs have had catastrophic effects on animals, and would have had those same catastrophic effects on humans had we not tested first on animals. Not all drugs effective for humans will be safe for animals, and not all drugs effective for animals will be safe for humans. Animal testing aims to operate in the middle-ground between the two, where things work similarl…

Ya, too bad humans with terminal diseases can't give consent to receive experimental treatments. Better to forcibly test on a being that can't say "no".

Re: Ebola: Experimental drug ZMapp is '100% effective' in animal trials

#38

Post by Alex3917 »

anigbrowl wrote: post #35
state wrote: post #8

I'm surprised that so much of the coverage of ZMapp doesn't include the fact that the drug is produced in tobacco plants. To me, this is the single most interesting and impressive fact. It's also likely the main reason why "the limited supplies will not help the 20,000 people predicted to be infected during the outbreak in West Africa." Scaling production of antibodies grown in plants can't possibly be straightforwar…

I've seen it widely mentioned, but most of the commentary on it went along the lines of 'take that, health Nazis!', as if this was the culmination of a years-long effort by Smokers Against Ebola.

> as if this was the culmination of a years-long effort by Smokers Against Ebola.

In some ways it is though. Research using marijuana is currently illegal, even if it gets FDA approval. And if tobacco were similarly illegal, then this research also could have never happened.

Re: Ebola: Experimental drug ZMapp is '100% effective' in animal trials

#39

Post by Crito »

colanderman wrote: post #37
Crito wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The argument for animal testing would be that several drugs have had catastrophic effects on animals, and would have had those same catastrophic effects on humans had we not tested first on animals. Not all drugs effective for humans will be safe for animals, and not all drugs effective for animals will be safe for humans. Animal testing aims to operate in the middle-ground between the two, where things work similarl…

Ya, too bad humans with terminal diseases can't give consent to receive experimental treatments. Better to forcibly test on a being that can't say "no".

Even if the established/widely accepted standards of ethics made human testing in lieu of any animal testing the clear ethical choice, it still would not be practical.

Think about it, how would you work on potential cures of ebola in the (several times many year long: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ebola_outbreaks) gaps between ebola outbreaks? Deliberately infect humans to be used as test subjects? Put all research on hold until the next outbreak came around?

You'd be able to find plenty of human test subjects for diseases like malaria or HIV, but for many diseases you would rapidly exhaust your supply of sick humans.

Re: Ebola: Experimental drug ZMapp is '100% effective' in animal trials

#40

Post by colanderman »

trhway wrote: post #32
colanderman wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because only humans are made in God's image. Therefore it's ethical to test drugs on enslaved non-human sentients incapable of acknowledging consent. EDIT: Very curious whether the downvoters (a) don't get the sarcasm, (b) get the sarcasm and are offended that I question their religious tenets, (c) think animal testing is justifiable beyond reproach, (d) disagree that monkeys are sentient, (e) think that monkeys cons…

opponents of animal testing in particular or anthropocentrism (like in "humans are the top of the God's creation and the Earth is given to humans into their dominion to be [ab]used as they wish") in general don't fair well on this much more conservative than one might expect site.

Ya, unfortunately, humans don't react well when you question their worldview.
Post reply on HN