

New Vaccines Prevent Ebola and Marburg in Monkeys (2005) - denzil_correa
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/06/health/06virus.html?emc=eta1

======
hga
In partial response to a dead comment, this vaccine is "known" and at least in
theory is likely to be safe. It takes an existing, well understood virus that
mostly affects animals. From memory, it knocks out one gene that makes it
pathogenic, and adds (or replaces?) genes to express surface Ebola virus
surface proteins.

------
denzil_correa
The vaccine did not take off and sat of the shelf because Ebola was "rare". It
would have been ready for licensing by 2010-11.

[http://nytimes.com/2014/10/24/health/without-lucrative-
marke...](http://nytimes.com/2014/10/24/health/without-lucrative-market-
potential-ebola-vaccine-was-shelved-for-years.html?referrer=&_r=2)

~~~
ams6110
Ebola was (and still is, compared to e.g. malaria) rare, no scare quotes
needed. Until the latest outbreak in west Africa, Ebola infections were
limited to handfuls of people. Not surprising that the developers of this
vaccine did not take it through the gauntlet of expensive approvals, clinical
trials, etc. that would be required to get it on the market.

~~~
hga
Not quite "handfuls", but the official outbreak numbers for the Zaire strain,
the one causing the current epidemic, never went higher than 318.

It should be noted that clinical trials for vaccines are the most rigorous,
because they are for healthy people.

