I'd expect that if there is a drug effective - ZMapp, for example - it will get to "market" a lot faster than the HCV drugs have. The gravity of the situation demands it - in my opinion.
The Dallas situation really has been a cluster f&%k so far so I am not inclined to trust the government much myself. We have looked pretty incompetent thus far.
From what I understand the 2 healthcare workers that were brought here, got the last two experimental doses of the only thing we had to treat ebola with. They said at that time that it would take a long time to reproduce it, much less mass produce it, so no. we currently have nothing other than our good quality health support care to offer. The survival rate is 50 percent, and depends on the patients immune system.....
And they said it could only spread thru bodily fluids, yet they have been tracing about a 100 people this victim came in contact with, and those include the ER staff and others where he was seen the first time among others, so that to me? is a little contradictory....Bodily fluids like sweat,, snot, tears, saliva etc, do not contain huge amounts of the virus like blood does, but they also said it can live on surfaces for up to three days and in a mans semen for up to 3 months....
I remember back when we had the anthrax scare and at that time the only treatment known to work for that was cipro. Everyone was stockpiling cipro. But in the case of ebola, the drug companies are rushing to try to be the first to develop a cure.
They better hurry up imo.
"The world has known about Ebola for almost 40 years, yet there's no cure or vaccine on the market.
That could change amid worldwide attention to the ongoing outbreak of the virus in West Africa, which has claimed more than 3,000 lives already, and the first diagnosis of a patient with the disease in the United States. But not for a few more years -- at least.
Why have the scientific community, the pharmaceutical industry and world governments failed so far to come up with a way to treat or prevent this ghastly illness? Because the scientific and economics challenges are stark, and the experimental medicines available, even those already being used to treat Ebola patients, haven't been proved to be effective or safe.
Drug and vaccine development is characterized by failure, a fact that's easy to forget when so many miracle cures exist.
And despite gruesome symptoms including bleeding from the eyes, ears and mouth, and the fact that most Ebola patients die, 33 outbreaks of the virus had killed just over 1,500 people since 1976 before the current crisis, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
This not only means that other diseases with broader reaches, such as HIV and AIDS, take precedence in scientific research, but that drug companies have had virtually no financial incentive to spend millions of dollars on medicines and inoculations for so few people -- especially people who lack the means to pay for it.
"There's nothing magical about getting a drug or a vaccine for Ebola. We likely would've had it years ago if there were major investments on the part of a company," said Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland. "The scientific challenges are not profound."
The scale and horrors of Ebola in West Africa, combined with diagnoses in Western countries such as the U.S., will spur greater interest among drug developers and speed possible treatments to market, Fauci predicted.
"What you'll see now is that this dramatic, highly publicized outbreak of Ebola is going to catalyze a lot of interest in the field of making antivirals for these types of diseases," Fauci said.
A handful of pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies already were working on medicines, vaccinations and tests for Ebola, many of which received funding from the National Institutes of Health.
ZMapp, under development by a California firm called Mapp Biopharmaceutical, has garnered attention since the African outbreak began and the company depleted its stock by shipping medicine overseas. The U.S. government, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Wellcome Trust are working with the company and another firm to boost production of the experimental treatment, The New York Times reported.
In addition, a Massachusetts company, Sarepta Therapeutics, is working on another drug, as are Canada's Tekmira Pharmaceuticals and North Carolina's BioCryst Pharmaceuticals. A unit of British pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline is researching a vaccine, and Japan's Fujifilm is eyeing an existing flu medicine as an Ebola treatment.
In spite of these efforts and the intensified push from Western governments -- not to mention newly vigorous interest from investors -- experts cautioned against expecting the kind of quick turnaround of a cure or vaccine performed by scientists in the movies.
"We are certainly not at the beginning of these developments, but we're probably still realistically somewhere between five and 10 years away from having something that's on the market," said Ted Ross, program director for vaccines and viral immunity at the Vaccine and Gene Therapy Institute of Florida in Port Saint Lucie.
The timeline could be shortened to three or four years with a concerted push by governments, amplified by the efforts of wealthy charities and other nongovernmental organizations, Ross said.
Governments have a lot of weight, and money, to throw around, which has enabled scientists and pharmaceutical companies to make relatively rapid strides when the focus is there.
Fauci cited two significant examples as precedent. The massive global push to study HIV and AIDS led not only to treatments for that ailment, but to progress in developing drugs for other diseases, such as Hepatitis C, he said. More recently, concern about new, unpreventable strains of influenza spurred advances in flu research that may lead to the creation of a single shot that can protect against all forms of the virus, he said.
That doesn't mean it's easy, even with all possible support from governments, pharmaceutical companies or anyone else. Inventing medicines and vaccines and diagnostic tests is difficult, takes time and is more likely to fail than succeed, Ross said.
"It really takes almost a decade from concept to finally put the drug into a vial that you're ready to hand to a physician or a nurse," Ross said. "Very few drugs ever make it to market."
Scientists must follow a basic set of procedures throughout that can take an unknown amount of time and pose challenges all along, any one of which could scuttle the entire enterprise, Ross said.
It starts out with the basic, fundamental research of understanding what the disease is, how it works and how it might be counteracted. If those stages are successful and researchers have an idea of a way to attack the disease, they have to test it on animals to see whether it works at all, and whether it's safe.
Before a treatment or vaccine can be tested on living humans, scientists must conduct two rounds of research on human cells and tissue, first for safety and then for effectiveness. If all of that is successful, a drug company then has to get approval from the Food and Drug Administration and regulators in other countries to sell the product, which can take years.
During those painstaking steps, researchers and drugmakers always have to think about money. "It costs millions of dollars to do human trials," Ross said.
"Even if you have a drug that is effective, it really sometimes comes down to the economics of it. If it's going to cost you way more than what a person can afford, they're not going to be able to manufacture it," Ross said. "There won't be a market for it."
So, it’s all about the Money.
“This not only means that other diseases with broader reaches, such as HIV and AIDS, take precedence in scientific research, but that drug companies have had virtually no financial incentive to spend millions of dollars on medicines and inoculations for so few people -- especially people who lack the means to pay for it.
"There's nothing magical about getting a drug or a vaccine for Ebola. We likely would've had it years ago if there were major investments on the part of a company,"
Now let’s Fast Forward-
“not to mention newly vigorous interest from investors –“
I’m not buying in to this either. How could they possibly know how many people have died from Ebola in Africa?
“the virus had killed just over 1,500 people since 1976 before the current crisis”
For some reason it wouldn’t let me copy it but according to this article, it was traced back to him from helping a Pregnant woman in a Taxi. Within weeks everyone that helped her that day is either sick or dead from Ebola.
Generally, I’m the first one that calls people “Chicken Little” but this Ebola has my attention.
Yes, and I thought I heard he lived with someone who was sick as well. Regardless, it seems he had to kno he was at risk before coming here, and he denied it and is how he got in to begin with. They are saying if he lied on the forms (which he seems to have done), they will prosecute