FAUXTON posted:Define "hands on it" - like, the patent? Or a stockpile of doses to go distributing via missionary? None of those- a couple Christian aid workers came back with Ebola and asked for, and received, the remaining doses of ZMapp. At a minimum the developers saw it as a useful way to build a narrative of the drug working. I'm not sure that there was anything inappropriate about the clinical use of the drug prior to approval-I'd need to review how the law works on that area, but it was unlikely to be illegal. At the tinfoil hat level of evil drug company paranoia, the aid workers weren't infected and it was a falsified stunt to promote the use of the drug in the current crisis. vvvv I haven't heard anything like that- do you have a source? Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 00:09 on Oct 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 00:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 02:39 |
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Define "hands on it" - like, the patent? Or a stockpile of doses to go distributing via missionary? The reporting that I saw is just that the charity showed up with the ZMapp in Africa with no explanation as to how they got it, it wouldn't completely surprise me to find out the CIA or something had a hand in it but there is just something that seems so off at how a Christian charity was able to procure what little amount there was of not particularly well known drug in very early experimental trials. It just seems like Mapp probably had a more proactive role into putting it in their hands than just responding to some random request.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 00:06
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Does fostering hope while reducing probability of international spread make a worse situation? The region is already on the path to become Somalia redux: Chocolate Fever, and soon. The mistake in this line of thinking is that you are only considering two options: the treatment works, or the treatment is ineffective and benign. You ignore the third possibility: the treatment may or may not work, but has serious side effects. We are just starting to gain trust and involvement from the population. Introducing an untested treatment with unknown side effects could ruin that trust. It's the worst thing to do right now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 00:12
|
|
|
Three Olives posted:The reporting that I saw is just that the charity showed up with the ZMapp in Africa with no explanation as to how they got it, it wouldn't completely surprise me to find out the CIA or something had a hand in it but there is just something that seems so off at how a Christian charity was able to procure what little amount there was of not particularly well known drug in very early experimental trials. I looked into some of these issues when William Pooley was infected. DoD anti-bioterrorism grants were awarded to some experimental EVD drugs. ZMapp may have been one of them; certainly, some of the rapid testing methods in development have proactive, if covert, state support. E: Vox, could you do a LexisNexis pull on ZMapp's owner-company's filings? I'd be interested to see who sits on their board. E2: Johnny Cache Hit posted:The mistake in this line of thinking is that you are only considering two options: the treatment works, or the treatment is ineffective and benign. You ignore the third possibility: the treatment may or may not work, but has serious side effects. I do consider the third possibility: its better than governments and non-state actors in outbreak areas continuing practices which reduce the ability to contain this epidemic. Which is more effective for containing this outbreak: an isolation facility saying 'come here, we have an experimental treatment' or a traditional healer saying 'come here, I have a traditional treatment'? My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 00:19 on Oct 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 00:15
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:This is a total war situation, and in total war situations, ethical considerations must be relaxed to survive the immediate future. ZMapp does give us time to prepare, as it reduces the risk of international case travel by increasing HCW willingness to deploy. It may be a placebo, I fully admit. Sometimes, a placebo is more comforting than the reality of the situation.  How can anything going on right now be described as total war? And you're saying tricking HCWs into volunteering is a good idea?It would be kindof cool for humans to be united in purpose against something like ebola, but that's nothing like the reality of today.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 00:16
|
|
|
All the public money being thrown at ZMapp so rapidly with no hard evidence of its efficacy is definitely a concern, but given the potential consequences if this things gets further out of hand, I'd be willing to let poo poo fly for now and point fingers later on if it turns out to be worthless or some sort of giant sham.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 00:18
|
|
|
I will say this, from a totally emotional and irrational place, if I had Ebola Virus Disease and thought I had somewhere between 30% and 70% chance of dying, and the people giving me care offered me an experimental drug with the totally not statistically significant information that 5 of the 7 people treated with said drug survived, I would say "give it to me" without a second thought.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 00:31
|
|
|
MariusLecter posted:Mom just called me up to tell me she doesn't want me traveling to Cali this November cause she gets super secret TSA briefings and its BAD and she doesn't want me to catch ebola at the airports. Uhh..how valid is this?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 00:33
|
|
ReidRansom posted:All the public money being thrown at ZMapp so rapidly with no hard evidence of its efficacy is definitely a concern, but given the potential consequences if this things gets further out of hand, I'd be willing to let poo poo fly for now and point fingers later on if it turns out to be worthless or some sort of giant sham. It's not public money- Gates and Wellcome are private nonprofits. ZombieLenin posted:I will say this, from a totally emotional and irrational place, if I had Ebola Virus Disease and thought I had somewhere between 30% and 70% chance of dying, and the people giving me care offered me an experimental drug with the totally not statistically significant information that 5 of the 7 people treated with said drug survived, I would say "give it to me" without a second thought. You've summarizing why we try to not do this sort of thing. It's an excellent way to kill a lot of people. My Imaginary GF posted:Vox, could you do a LexisNexis pull on ZMapp's owner-company's filings? I'd be interested to see who sits on their board. I don't have LN access these days, but I'll see what I can find. Answer #1 is that Mapp Biopharma is privately held. According to an FAQ on their website they have no external investors. As far as I can tell they're a typical primary researcher-owned spinoff. I've just found an excellent article from Forbes summarizing the development of the Mapp company that also answers a bunch of other questions raised in the thread about the drug. It appears relatively unlikely that there's anything particularly nefarious coming from the drug developer, although optimistic and action biases are definitely still a role. edit: Some really nice caveating information: David Kroll posted:The emergency access to these antibodies has been granted with the acknowledgement and informed consent of Brantly and Writebol that the cocktail has not been tested in humans and carries no assurance of efficacy or safety. In this case, the patients and the medical treatment team have gauged that the potential benefit of the therapy is likely to outweigh the unknown risks. I think I've read Kroll before for my research. If this is the same guy I remember, he does really solid work. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 00:43 on Oct 14, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 00:33
|
|
|
Dicendo Vox, We've disagreed on some aspects of trial design and of course I must bow my head to you on the aspects of ethics, so I am wondering what to you would be the ideal, ethical but still practical way of handling the upcoming trials for the various upcoming drugs? Honestly curious about your viewpoint and not looking for an argument. To me and my crude grasp on ethics, using the absolutely limited supply available of a potentially dangerous drug such as ZMAPP on healthy volunteers in a phase I trial would be a tough sell to my local medical ethics board. It invokes both the idea of a triage setting, wherein you need to effectively distribute the limited resources including time, and the idea of primum nil nocere wherein a potential risk of the treatment must weigh heavier for healthy volunteers then for EVD patients who are facing a 50-70% case fatality rate using current best practice. For me, this echo's the situation of cancer patients in phase I trials: quote:Phase I trials represent the first application of a new drug or drug combination to humans and as such are the foundation of a successful clinical drug development process. Because the early clinical development of a novel agent may unduly influence its ultimate fate, a careful and thoughtful approach to the design of phase I trials is essential. Phase I clinical trials in oncology are typically small, single-arm, open-label, sequential studies that include patients with a good performance status whose cancers have progressed despite standard treatments. A principal goal of such trials is to establish the recommended dose and/or schedule of an experimental drug or drug combination for efficacy testing in phase II trials. Considering the above mentioned constraints for a drug such as ZMAPP and that there is no added scientific benefit of performing these phase I trials in healthy adults, what are your thoughts on a Phase I trial in African patients? ZombieLenin posted:
The vaccines will not "transform" the virus to become more dangerous in the way antibiotics can make bacteria treatment resistant, no, because they act through the same mechanism that viruses already have to adapt to: the human humoral immune system producing specific antibodies. At the risk of sounding like a new age oaf, most vaccines work by enabling your body to get this "natural" defense underway and ready before the actual infection occurs, limiting the time needed for your body to respond and fight of the disease when you do get infected. The risk of infecting someone with Ebola by giving them one of the vaccines currently under investigation is zero, as the actual Ebola virus is not used, only the bits your immune system needs to recognize them by. In the polio vaccine, a severely weakened polio virus is used in the vaccine, sometimes in third world countries the kids are so malnourished and sick that they can actually fail to control this weak virus and catch polio from the vaccine. Luckily incredibly rare. A potential risk is that treatment with the vaccine may somehow make the disease course more dangerous for those vaccinated, a danger with dengue, or make people more susceptible to infection: the fear of the latest failed HIV vaccine trial.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 00:34
|
|
|
Dreadite posted:Uhh..how valid is this? This mom found one WEIRD SECRET the TSA HATES!!!
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 00:46
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:It's not public money- Gates and Wellcome are private nonprofits. I thought a bunch of NIH etc money was going into it also, but maybe that was just at some earlier point in its development. quote:I don't have LN access these days, but I'll see what I can find.  But just academic, so maybe it doesn't have what you two are looking for anyhow.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 00:53
|
|
|
I'm not sure why people are so paranoid about the zmapp thing. Yes it was used on a number of patients but its far from the only thing that has been attempted, Tekmira's treatment and a number of others have also been used. The fda has given conditional approval for experimental use to several candidates. I think ZMAPP was the first attempted on a westerner and this combined with a strong marketing push plus it being available for large scale production has brought it to the forefront of peoples attention. Wellcome trust also seems to be of the opinion its our best shot and they have a few of the right ears when they need them. The vaccine situation is loving hilarious in a dark way, basically everyone who ever looked at a VHF, like ever, is tearing through their fridges to turn up years old vials of proteins and see if they can slap together a prospective candidate to make it rain with that sweet sweet emergency $£€.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 00:54
|
|
|
tehllama posted:Those are all potential complications of chronic alcoholism. It's possible he had a comorbidity like hepatitis, otherwise yes 30 would be pretty young (though probably not unheard of). It's not rare. Most people with end stage liver disease in their late 20s / early 30s drank a ton of alcohol on top of an underlying predisposition for liver disease. Also, if someone were to have a viral infection with liver disease, aspirin would not be a good choice to lower temperature. Aspirin increases bleeding time. If someone has bad liver disease and they take aspirin, they will have significant problems with clotting their blood. NSAIDs and aspirin have similar risks for stomach ulcers as well. Also in undeveloped countries, you can get end stage liver disease from Hepatitis A which is endemic or any of the other Hepatitis viruses, which are also endemic. Lote fucked around with this message at 01:12 on Oct 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 01:03
|
|
|
With all the vaccine chat, I'm surprised no one has talked about Ebola testing. Science Friday recently had a guest talking about the development of a rapid result Ebola test. Obviously this would be a huge benefit, since you wouldn't have to wait for symptoms to determine who is infected. http://sciencefriday.com/segment/10/10/2014/the-race-to-contain-rather-than-cure-ebola.html
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 01:13
|
|
|
Lote posted:It's not rare. Most people with end stage liver disease in their late 20s / early 30s drank a ton of alcohol on top of an underlying predisposition for liver disease. Also, if someone were to have a viral infection with liver disease, aspirin would not be a good choice to lower temperature. Aspirin increases bleeding time. If someone has bad liver disease and they take aspirin, they will have significant problems with clotting their blood. NSAIDs and aspirin have similar risks for stomach ulcers as well. I'm not sure what the aspirin is in reference to, we were talking about it in the context of Ebola specifically. Acute renal failure seems to be a common complication, so NSAIDs are probably a poor choice, but since DIC is frequently a complication I wondered if aspirin would be useful for dual purpose or if it would just complicate things more. It's depressing to know that cirrhosis can set in that early, is that generally assuming they started drinking heavily and chronically in their teens?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 01:16
|
|
|
ZombieLenin posted:Yay! Medical literature! That's what I thought I had medical goons for. Papers aren't that hard to read you big baby
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 01:17
|
|
IAMNOTADOCTOR posted:Dicendo Vox, So there's a lot going on here. With the caveat that my bioethics focus is in scientific research ethics on the writing and publication side, not the design side, here are a few things (just my opinion, ask your doctor before licking eboladogs): First, IAMNOTADOCTOR posted:there is no added scientific benefit of performing these phase I trials in healthy adults Second, for conversation's sake, the article you're quoting is at this location. A factor distinguishing the Zmapp medication and cancer treatments is that cancer treatments are understood to be seriously harmful to the patient from the beginning. ZMapp isn't supposed to have that effect. The whole dosage calculus being described in oncology research settings is done with the understanding that you're causing some degree of permanent damage to other parts of the patient's systems. From an abstract perspective, take a look at the diffusion effect chart on page 710 of the article. Toxicity follows immediately on the heels of the intervention in a way that's not theorized for ZMapp. This changes the whole calculus for both dose calculation, and is the basis for the approach the article describes. (Let me note that I'm least certain about this point because I have no background inoncology research.) Third, So let's say there are three hypothesized approaches here- 1. Phase I in healthy individuals, 2. Phase I in infected HCWs, and 3. Phase I in infected African non-HCWs. I'm comfortable with 1 or 2 on this list. 1 would be ideal, but the exigency means that the CDC and NIH are going to 2 with medications and vaccines that aren't ZMapp, which is understandable. Nancy Kass, who is by my understanding the big kahuna of clinical ethics at this time, was the one supporting the original use of ZMapp in infected aid workers. The problems with approach 3 are, in my view, data and consent problems. A hypothetical Phase I trial in African patients is that it's not going to be controlled in any of the ways that you can perform controls for patients in US hospitals. The cohort of African individuals infected with Ebola are also going to be more likely to have other illnesses or infections at the same time. This can cause difficulties for actually collecting valid information. Most of these folks won't have clear medical histories. The desperate need individuals have for treatment will also play a role- individuals being screened for potential trial participation are much more likely to be dishonest if they think it will get them in a trial (as would we, given the circumstances). There are also cultural and straight-up linguistic communication obstacles to informed consent with an African cohort that aren't present with HCWs. The African population at large will also have literacy problems- by this I don't mean "those primitives can't read," but that, as was mentioned early in the thread, basic medical knowledge isn't as widespread in Africa. To put this in perspective, the research meeting I was in today reviewed, among other things, social media involving ebola in the effected regions from a few weeks ago. One of the trending bigrams the researchers couldn't figure out at first was "salt water". It turns out that a rumor was spreading that drinking salt water would cure the infection. The researchers found reports of two individuals dying from following through on this. This is the information environment a trial would have to pursue informed consent in. ReidRansom posted:I thought a bunch of NIH etc money was going into it also, but maybe that was just at some earlier point in its development. Bear in mind the drug is a cocktail- there are a few funding sources. The big ones during early development (before the company was founded, if I understand the chain of events properly) were NIAID (part of NIH) and a couple DARPA acronyms.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 01:20
|
|
|
tehllama posted:I'm not sure what the aspirin is in reference to, we were talking about it in the context of Ebola specifically. Acute renal failure seems to be a common complication, so NSAIDs are probably a poor choice, but since DIC is frequently a complication I wondered if aspirin would be useful for dual purpose or if it would just complicate things more. It's depressing to know that cirrhosis can set in that early, is that generally assuming they started drinking heavily and chronically in their teens? If you're trying to use aspirin as an anticoagulant, there's much better alternatives in a hospital. Aspirin irreversibly disables platelets. You'd want something like heparin or LMWH (low-molecular-weight-heparin) that's easily reversible and adjustable instead. There's simply no use for aspirin in treating a hemorrhagic fever, and I'd go so far as to call it contraindicated.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 01:20
|
|
|
Citrus Sky posted:With all the vaccine chat, I'm surprised no one has talked about Ebola testing. Science Friday recently had a guest talking about the development of a rapid result Ebola test. Obviously this would be a huge benefit, since you wouldn't have to wait for symptoms to determine who is infected. There are lots of good reasons to a rapid result Ebola test, costs, speed, training but considering the current test is PCR I don't think earlier detection is one of them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 01:21
|
|
|
tehllama posted:I'm not sure what the aspirin is in reference to, we were talking about it in the context of Ebola specifically. Acute renal failure seems to be a common complication, so NSAIDs are probably a poor choice, but since DIC is frequently a complication I wondered if aspirin would be useful for dual purpose or if it would just complicate things more. It's depressing to know that cirrhosis can set in that early, is that generally assuming they started drinking heavily and chronically in their teens? He was advocating aspirin over aceatminophen in general. Aspirin has really fallen out of favor as a fever reducer in favor of acetaminophen or NSAIDs. If you're predisposed to liver disease, 5-10 years of 1-1.75L of hard liqour per day can kill your liver pretty well. Treatment of DIC is platelets and plasma to replace everything getting chewed up by the coagulation and correct the driving cause of the DIC. Heparin is used for anti-coagulation but the evidence for its use is fair at best.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 01:28
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:It's not public money- Gates and Wellcome are private nonprofits. Discendo Vox posted:
Let me be clear. I'm certainly not advocating mass Zmapp treatment. I leave the policy advocacy, at least when it comes to fighting communicable disease, to the experts. I am offering the choice I would make as a caveat I suppose. Since the social organization of human life and politics is my area of expertise, I feel comfortable saying this: There comes a point in a crisis on this scale where the best practices put forward by the experts do not matter. When that emotional response I describe becomes a social demand, unless you have an alarmingly loyal military and authoritarian leadership with the wherewithal to listen to the experts, the miracle "cure" will be distributed and used. That's just the way it is. We are far, far away from that point in the United States, but something tells me we aren't that far away from it in West Africa. You are already risking social and state collapse as it is. God forbid you tell the Africans that the miracle drug used on the white doctors--and make no mistake that's how they will see it--is "too dangerous" to give to sick Africans. You think there is a problem controlling Ebola now? Wait until the plague riots and total collapse of government and social order sets in. Edit It occurred to me I am catastrophizing here. I don't want to be accused of doomsaying, God knows I've warned people enough about that. And I'm certainly not predicting the end of the world in the devolved world, or even West Africa; however, if worst case scenarios for Africa pan out, it might look like the end of the world there for awhile. Also, in that event, don't kid yourself about the economic effects that will be felt here. It will be tough times. Here's hoping that the worst case scenario is as unlikely as I'd like it to be. Edit Typed on a phone. Minor corrections. ZombieLenin fucked around with this message at 01:40 on Oct 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 01:28
|
|
|
I totally get your point here, and I knew you weren't advocating for the ZMapp intervention- the difference in opinions is that I think the ZMapp intervention will actually accelerate and guarantee the same socially destructive process you're describing.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 02:02
|
|
|
Three Olives posted:There are lots of good reasons to a rapid result Ebola test, costs, speed, training but considering the current test is PCR I don't think earlier detection is one of them. Early detection is what DoD is funding due to the implications of filoviridae use in bioterrorism. It also enables you to do much more efficient entry-screening and isolation, if you're able to detect ebola during asymptomatic presentation, or even during symptomatic presentation. E: ZombieLenin posted:Let me be clear. I'm certainly not advocating mass Zmapp treatment. I leave the policy advocacy, at least when it comes to fighting communicable disease, to the experts. I completely agree with your post, and you've expressed the ethics point I was attempting to get across on ZMapp: In West Africa, this is the apocalypse and we have lost control of the situation's development. My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 02:09 on Oct 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 02:06
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Early detection is what DoD is funding due to the implications of filoviridae use in bioterrorism. It also enables you to do much more efficient entry-screening and isolation, if you're able to detect ebola during asymptomatic presentation, or even during symptomatic presentation. How much more early can you detect Ebola than searching a bunch of amplified DNA fragments? This is way out of my wheel house but I thought PCR was pretty much as good as it gets if you know what you are looking for.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 02:14
|
|
|
Haven't seen this posted yet. There is a possible case in Kansas. Low to moderate risk officially.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 03:58
|
|
|
Dreadite posted:Uhh..how valid is this? Mom probably gets her super secret briefings from newsmax or naturenews or some poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 04:26
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Mom probably gets her super secret briefings from newsmax or naturenews or some poo poo. Well my mom told me that her Fortune 500 company has decided Ebola is so not an issue... I guess we are at a mom's conjecture from work impasse.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 04:32
|
|
|
Three Olives posted:How much more early can you detect Ebola than searching a bunch of amplified DNA fragments? This is way out of my wheel house but I thought PCR was pretty much as good as it gets if you know what you are looking for. Probably not much earlier since the virus hides in the human cells before going into reproductive overdrive. I believe most of the test like PCR are based on looking for the signs that Ebola has started to hijack the normal processes of the body.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 04:40
|
|
|
I imagine the benefit of a fast test is that you could walk people into a tent and give them a blood test, then clear them off in 10-20 minutes (or isolate the infected) rather than having to run all that poo poo up to the lab.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 04:41
|
|
|
Nessus posted:I imagine the benefit of a fast test is that you could walk people into a tent and give them a blood test, then clear them off in 10-20 minutes (or isolate the infected) rather than having to run all that poo poo up to the lab. Yup, plus maybe the test you develop isn't an aerosol-generating procedure. So I'm reading this ECDC brief on entrance screenings and things don't look good.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 04:44
|
|
|
Isn't the issue with rapid tests is that they have higher rates of false positives and negatives?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 04:46
|
|
|
Ebola Roulette posted:Isn't the issue with rapid tests is that they have higher rates of false positives and negatives? Well due to the whole Ebola crisis lots of places have looked at alternative screening techniques. Also doesn't help that in African cultures getting a blood test is seen as stealing the patient's vitality. Oxford medicine had a interesting article on using oral samples to screen for antigen response but in the end it had a pretty miserable batting average.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 04:51
|
|
|
Ebola Roulette posted:Isn't the issue with rapid tests is that they have higher rates of false positives and negatives? That goes for anything and everything - yes. There's always going to be gently caress-ups along the way occasionally if you take shortcuts, especially when it comes to medicine.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 04:51
|
|
|
I'd read that rapid flu tests could be prone to inaccuracy so I got curious about Ebola. Found this study that answers my question http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC374287/ quote:However, the data presented here also illustrate the drawback of the reliance on any single diagnostic assay alone, including the RT-PCR assay, for EHF diagnosis. The most serious shortcoming of the RT-PCR assay is the greater ease with which false positives and false negatives can be generated. A nested assay is especially prone to template contamination because there is the extra high-risk step of physically opening the first-round reactions, thus increasing the potential exposure to high concentrations of DNA amplicons. This risk may increase as the outbreak continues, as more and more positive samples are analyzed. In this outbreak, there were three PCR+ Ag− samples that by analysis of duplicate samples were later shown to be falsely positive by PCR. Most of the potentially false-positive samples occurred in the later stages of the outbreak. The individuals from whom the 10 unresolved samples were taken were unavailable for subsequent sampling to verify or disprove the initial results. While a false positive can clearly put an individual at unnecessary risk by causing the person to be placed in a high-risk environment (e.g., an Ebola isolation ward), more serious consequences can occur from false negatives. With a false-negative result, a person may be released into the community with the understanding that they do not have EHF, when in fact they have the potential to become highly contagious and, at least initially, assume their symptoms are not due to EHF.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 04:57
|
|
|
ZombieLenin posted:Well my mom told me that her Fortune 500 company has decided Ebola is so not an issue... My girlfriend is a doc student in the UNMC and she doesn't give two shits about Ebola when of all people she should know to the microgram how much of a poo poo to give. To boot, my mother is in the labor and delivery department in the "poor people ghetto" hospital closer to downtown called Alegent Creighton or CHI Health or whatever it is this week and she's neck deep in West African immigrants and doesn't give two shits about Ebola. The fact is that unless you're playing in their blood, vomit, sweat, drool, or poo poo, you are not at a high risk of contracting Ebola. If you do play in their blood, vomit, sweat, drool, or poo poo, and follow BCP you're not at a high risk. Treat it like loving pink eye and you'll be 95% of the way there. For the other 5% it doesn't apply unless you're a care provider but you already have training for that poo poo anyway. People have been freaking the gently caress out when I tell them my girlfriend is a scientist at UNMC and I'm venting a little about that, sorry in advance. She isn't even in the same building as the isolation unit and doesn't do clinical studies (she's getting a PhD in neuroscience/experimental pharmacology, and works with HIV in brains - not even close to Ebola) but holy poo poo she works at the hospital complex where they bring Ebola patients so I'd better listen to how they know more than her years of research when it comes to biocontainment. loving hell. I'm just a financial investigator, I don't know poo poo about bio containment but guess what, I'm inclined to listen to the actual scientist I live with over some coderat's browser rolodex of conspiracy sites. FAUXTON fucked around with this message at 05:15 on Oct 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 05:09
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Yup, plus maybe the test you develop isn't an aerosol-generating procedure. Doesn't matter, with PCR you just need the raw DNA, the sample itself can be rendered completely harmless well before testing as long as you don't destroy the RNA. etalian posted:I believe most of the test like PCR are based on looking for the signs that Ebola has started to hijack the normal processes of the body. PCR should be able to detect any viral RNA floating around directly, it's highly accurate and sensitive, I think if you are looking for a virus it is about as sensitive as you can possibly get. It's also slow and expensive which is it's own major problems but I don't think even in theory anything should detect a virus any quicker than PCR.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 05:16
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:So I'm reading this ECDC brief on entrance screenings and things don't look good. How do you mean?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 05:17
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:The fact is that unless you're playing in their blood, vomit, sweat, drool, or poo poo, you are not at a high risk of contracting Ebola. If you do play in their blood, vomit, sweat, drool, or poo poo, and follow BCP you're not at a high risk. Treat it like loving pink eye and you'll be 95% of the way there. For the other 5% it doesn't apply unless you're a care provider but you already have training for that poo poo anyway. This just isn't true. Ebola is highly infectious and the slightest bit of infected bodily fluid (including sweat) coming in contact with the tiniest of cuts, nose, eyes, mouth, etc will pretty much infect you. The whole "you have to basically roll around in their vomit" meme is bullshit. Sheng-Ji Yang fucked around with this message at 05:30 on Oct 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 05:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 02:39 |
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:This just isn't true. Ebola is highly infectious and the slightest bit of infected bodily fluid (including sweat) coming in contact with the tiniest of cuts, nose, eyes, mouth, etc will pretty much infect you. The whole "you have to basically roll around in their vomit" meme is bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 05:30
|
|