Scientists have found a vaccine that protects monkeys from the Ebola and Marburg viruses! These are two of the most deadly diseases in the world. The Ebola virus frequently has mortality rates over 50%, while the Marburg virus (the first known filovirus) has mortality rates that sometimes rise to 100%.
"The data would suggest that instead of 100 percent chance of dying, they would have an 80 percent chance of survival," Jones said.
Aside from that amazing statistic, there is also other good news:
It is a live vaccine that grows inside the recipient for a short period of time, generating a rapid and strong immune response, Geisbert said.
"You wouldn't necessarily have to revaccinate or boost individuals every year or two," he said, noting the effects could last for five years or more.
Good news, but the mutation capabilities, as Xixax said, are terrifying. I pray this'll turn into some form of relief in the fight against these viruses, but after awhile, I'm wondering if it'll become obsolete.
ParoxysmicLove said:
Good news, but the mutation capabilities, as Xixax said, are terrifying. I pray this'll turn into some form of relief in the fight against these viruses, but after awhile, I'm wondering if it'll become obsolete.
Perhaps. But in theory, if it is a live vaccine like the article says, wouldn't it be fairly easy to adapt to match the current threat?
its classy cos it happened in my city. we may not get any cool bands passing through on tour, but we do have a level 4 biosafety lab for infectious disease.
and in vaccinating against the virus, perhaps we can prevent the spread of the viewing of "Outbreak". oh dustin hoffman, will you never learn........
Actually, vaccinating the population where the virus is most prevalent will just allow the virus to be carried into new areas of susceptible population by the vaccinated hosts.
This could help cause an outbreak instead of prevent it.
naja_haje said:
Actually, vaccinating the population where the virus is most prevalent will just allow the virus to be carried into new areas of susceptible population by the vaccinated hosts.
This could help cause an outbreak instead of prevent it.
i'll be the first to admit that i have no idea what i'm talking about, but if these people are supposed to be the "experts", wouldn't they know this already and do something about it or know its not an issue? i mean, it seems sort of obvious to anyone who knows anything about disease that vaccinated hosts spreading the disease could be a problem. so wouldn't a group of researchers have thought of this?
furthermore, as stated in the article, the primary use of the vaccine is for doctors and family members of victims. if these people are vaccinated and exposed to the virus and it is a possibility that they are now hosts for the virus, don't you think that anyone who is vaccinated will also be required to be tested to see whether they're carrying the disease?
jholtsnider
I'm lost
February 2004
JUN 05, 2005 03:11 PM