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

The Ebola Wars

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 129 posts

Re: The Ebola Wars

#81

Post by micro_cam »

trhway wrote: post #51
dnautics wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's even more fascinating. (biochemist here) I think the immunosuppressive regions is a small protein called sGP which ebola causes the cell to produce a ton of. It's not attached to ebola virions, so in a way it's a DDOS on the immune system, by creating a foreign component that the immune system gets distracted by instead of going after ebola.

following the doc link for 524..2671 /gene="NP" /note="Ebola nucleoprotein; Region: Ebola_NP; pfam05505" /db_xref="CDD:147601" " http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9657001?dopt=Abstract" "DNA vaccines expressing the envelope glycoprotein (GP) or nucleocapsid protein (NP) genes of Ebola virus were evaluated in adult, immunocompetent mice. The vaccines were delivered into the skin by particle bombardment of DNA-coated…

There are a few vaccines that work in animals, they just haven't been funded to go through the trials needed to be widely used in humans. There is a good interview on Montana public radio with one of the leading researchers that touches on this:

http://mtpr.org/post/getting-closer-ebola-vaccine

(Rocky Mountain Lab in Montana is where a large portion of the ebola research in the nation if not world the world happens and mtpr had gotten some really good interviews as a result.)

Re: The Ebola Wars

#82

Post by learc83 »

kazinator wrote: post #74
psychometry wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no evidence that Ebola can't evolve into a sharknado, destroying flying 747s with a whirlwind of teeth. Should we also be concerned with this possible evolution? Ebola has been researched extensively for 40 years. We know pretty much exactly how it spreads. It's not airborne. We also know why certain viruses are airborne and that Ebola is not such a virus nor could its structure evolve so that it becomes one.…

> It's not airborne The article informs us that there is no evidence that it is airborne which is a slightly different statement. > There's no evidence that Ebola can't evolve into a sharknado I hope you aren't invoking these nonsensical examples to try to attack the firm principle that nonexistence of evidence isn't evidence of nonexistence. How this examples is different is that is no reason to suspect that ebola c…

>Any such small particle will turn into a floating dust when the droplet which contains it dries out. The only question is, can they survive in that form (and over what distances), such that they can land on a host and infect.

Not only does the virus have to survive drying out, but it has to be able to make it past the mucous protecting your upper respiratory tract and and infect cells there. Viruses that have evolved this capable are very specialized--most viruses are not transmitted this way.

There has never been a recorded case of a virus evolving a completely new transmission mode. We have never seen a virus that wasn't previously airborne "go airborne", and we have have no evidence that Ebola can be transmitted this way right now. In fact we have plenty evidence that it can't be transmitted this way--if it could be, there would already be millions of cases not thousands.

If Ebola were capable of the same kind of airborne transmission as measles and smallpox, previous outbreaks would already have spread around the globe and killed millions or billions of people.

There are so many things that could wipe out civilization: super volcanoes, comet impacts, nuclear war. Why should we worry about a hypothetical scenario for which there is absolutely no evidence? That doesn't mean we shouldn't do everything we can to contain the outbreak, just that we shouldn't spend our time engaging in existential hand-wringing over unlikely, hypothetical threats.

Re: The Ebola Wars

#83

Post by alexbecker »

hga wrote: post #47
throwaway5752 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not trying to be difficult, but I don't understand your point. Ebola is a vanishingly unimportant concern as far as infectious diseases go. This current "outbreak" has resulted in 2 transmissions in the US to date. The reason it appears that the system failed is that the system correctly reacted to a low value threat, but it was amplified into a hysteria because of dynamics in media economics and US political cy…

OK, I'll down vote you and explain why: your studied inability or unwillingness to do math, to whit, what a disease like Ebola can do in a 3rd World urban environment (or village/small town ones different than the former locations of outbreaks), specifically double the number of infections approximately every 3 weeks. Right now this Ebola outbreak gives every sign of having the potential to be the most significant pu…

You seem to be talking past each other. He/she is saying that Ebola is not a threat to the US, which is the scope of the legal mandate of the CDC.

Re: The Ebola Wars

#84

Post by 1457389 »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #42
ghkbrew wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I liken DNA to a paper tape containing one of two punches: MAN or MOUSE I don't think that really captures it. Yes, it requires external machinery to actually do anything, but DNA is much more information dense and carries much more of an exact definition of the organism to be produced. Personally, I prefer the analogy of compiler source code. Sure, it can't do anything on its own. But it defines how an working ext…

Yet the dynamic biochemistry of the cell is orders of magnitude larger and more complex than DNA. So its larger than a paper tape, sure, but the comparison is pretty good really.

Paper tapes can't catalyze their own creation and modification. DNA can with the addition of ribonucleotides.

Re: The Ebola Wars

#85

Post by monsterix »

Steuard wrote: post #59
monsterix wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder who were the people that took the decision to not give ZMapp to Dr. Khan. What were their reasons to take the drug away for what seems like treating white patients first while we can come back to Khan later (sorry but there is no better way to put this). A full enquiry and reportage on that side of story will be helpful I think.

One issue that I've seen raised before is that there's a bit of a Catch-22 in public perception in Africa. As you point out, withholding the experimental drug has nasty overtones of "saving the cure for the white folks". But there's also a real risk that if they gave the first experimental treatment to Dr. Khan, the narrative would be "using the black folks as guinea pigs". Both of these concerns are based on actual…

Hm. I agree that it'd be hard for anyone to decide on a thing that affects public perception in Africa. And in that pressure, I believe, probably the worst decision was taken in the case of Dr. Khan.

If they had tried the third vial (extra bottle) of drug on Dr. Khan, and so close he was to the medicines!, and had he survived (given that others did) the public perception would have certainly changed. Don't you think?

SIDENOTE to downvoters:

Very interesting behavior of what I believe is a small set of users on HN.

I know Steuard, above, had not down-voted my parent comment on the top until about an hour ago. And then came a sudden barrage of negative votes from a few users.

It'd be really interesting to find out the correlation between the users who down-voted and the color of their skin. I am pretty sure about the outcome.

Also I have a strong feeling (could be unfounded though) that the committee that withdrew the drug from Dr. Khan in Africa had racial bias too. And that they took the most selfish option available at the time - without caring much about a precious human life or public perception both.

Most of the pointers indicate that the names of those individuals should come out in public, and their reasoning be brought out too.

We had a similar situation earlier where the potentially nasty hid behind a committee / organizational name - remember? - when Aaron Swartz happened and the people in the bureaucracy had to be called out.

Re: The Ebola Wars

#86

Post by azernik »

monsterix wrote: post #55
throwaway5752 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am profoundly moved by the heroism Dr Khan and his nurses showed and the example they've set for future generations of medical professionals. I hope it's publicized when Dr. Khan's family finishes setting up the foundation in his name http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-67...

I wonder who were the people that took the decision to not give ZMapp to Dr. Khan. What were their reasons to take the drug away for what seems like treating white patients first while we can come back to Khan later (sorry but there is no better way to put this). A full enquiry and reportage on that side of story will be helpful I think.

There was quite a bit of reportage (both in this article and in the wider news media). For reference:

"If something went wrong with the drug, there was no intensive-care unit in Kailahun. The population of Sierra Leone would be furious if the West was seen to have killed Khan, an African scientist and a national hero, with an experimental drug. But if he wasn’t given the ZMapp, and he died, people might say that the West had withheld a miracle drug from him. “I was making sure my tone of voice stayed neutral,” Kobinger recalled. The debate and the calls went on for three days."

Re: The Ebola Wars

#87

Post by [deleted] »

azernik wrote: post #86
monsterix wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder who were the people that took the decision to not give ZMapp to Dr. Khan. What were their reasons to take the drug away for what seems like treating white patients first while we can come back to Khan later (sorry but there is no better way to put this). A full enquiry and reportage on that side of story will be helpful I think.

There was quite a bit of reportage (both in this article and in the wider news media). For reference: "If something went wrong with the drug, there was no intensive-care unit in Kailahun. The population of Sierra Leone would be furious if the West was seen to have killed Khan, an African scientist and a national hero, with an experimental drug. But if he wasn’t given the ZMapp, and he died, people might say that the…

[deleted]

Re: The Ebola Wars

#88

Post by monsterix »

azernik wrote: post #86
monsterix wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder who were the people that took the decision to not give ZMapp to Dr. Khan. What were their reasons to take the drug away for what seems like treating white patients first while we can come back to Khan later (sorry but there is no better way to put this). A full enquiry and reportage on that side of story will be helpful I think.

There was quite a bit of reportage (both in this article and in the wider news media). For reference: "If something went wrong with the drug, there was no intensive-care unit in Kailahun. The population of Sierra Leone would be furious if the West was seen to have killed Khan, an African scientist and a national hero, with an experimental drug. But if he wasn’t given the ZMapp, and he died, people might say that the…

So why not share the names and reasoning the doctors had which perceptibly led to withholding (rather taking it away) from Dr. Khan?

Public perception makes it hard I can understand, but not giving the drug simply to manage public perception is incredibly selfish and stupid no matter how you choose to see or read all the reportage.

> Debates and the call went on for three days?

Lol, sure. Does that even make any sense? Groupthink as a proxy for effort? Seen that before!

Re: The Ebola Wars

#89

Post by throwaway5752 »

monsterix wrote: post #85
Steuard wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One issue that I've seen raised before is that there's a bit of a Catch-22 in public perception in Africa. As you point out, withholding the experimental drug has nasty overtones of "saving the cure for the white folks". But there's also a real risk that if they gave the first experimental treatment to Dr. Khan, the narrative would be "using the black folks as guinea pigs". Both of these concerns are based on actual…

Hm. I agree that it'd be hard for anyone to decide on a thing that affects public perception in Africa. And in that pressure, I believe, probably the worst decision was taken in the case of Dr. Khan. If they had tried the third vial (extra bottle) of drug on Dr. Khan, and so close he was to the medicines!, and had he survived (given that others did) the public perception would have certainly changed. Don't you think?…

It is absurd and conspiratorial to think that someone would volunteer or work with MSF at great personal cost and risk and then do something so terrible because of racism.

Had you tried to research it, you might have found some of your answer articles like http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/dying-sierra-leone-dr-sheik-um... that talk about some of the details behind the decision.

You make a really vile accusation with very poor reasoning against people doing very good, noble work (and calling for them to be named publicly). I didn't downvote you, but I don't have any sympathy.

Re: The Ebola Wars

#90

Post by monsterix »

throwaway5752 wrote: post #89
monsterix wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hm. I agree that it'd be hard for anyone to decide on a thing that affects public perception in Africa. And in that pressure, I believe, probably the worst decision was taken in the case of Dr. Khan. If they had tried the third vial (extra bottle) of drug on Dr. Khan, and so close he was to the medicines!, and had he survived (given that others did) the public perception would have certainly changed. Don't you think?…

It is absurd and conspiratorial to think that someone would volunteer or work with MSF at great personal cost and risk and then do something so terrible because of racism. Had you tried to research it, you might have found some of your answer articles like http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/dying-sierra-leone-dr-sheik-um... that talk about some of the details behind the decision. You make a really vile accusation with ver…

It is rather more absurd to withhold the medicine from a dying patient simply to manage "public perception" sir. You can go ahead and give a negative vote too, it wouldn't mean a thing.

Yes, people are doing very good, noble work -- Dr Khan was one of them too -- I seek to know the thoughts and names of those who chose to withhold the medicine from him, and give it to others the very next day.

The world should know. And thanks for the article, I did read it before and therefore, I ask for reasons that led to their unfortunate decision.

Post reply on HN