

On the science and ethics of Ebola treatments - quantisan
http://scientiasalon.wordpress.com/2014/08/14/on-the-science-and-ethics-of-ebola-treatments/

======
carbocation
This is a full-throated and compelling defense of double-blinded, randomized,
controlled trials even - and especially - in resource-constrained situations
with a terrible disease like Ebola.

It is far more interesting and historical than the title suggests, and if you
have not yet done so I encourage you to read the article.

------
dnautics
incidentally the way Zmapp is made (it's made in tobacco plants) it's
unsurprising there is a shortage. Interestingly, there is in the last year
commercialized technology (humanized yeast) that would make manufacture much
much simpler.

The second issue, of course, is patents, which are undoubtedly getting in the
way here.

------
anthracis417
"But if there were ever a disease for which this is not a big deal, it is
Ebola. It seems extraordinarily unlikely that the drug could make matters any
worse for an Ebola patient than they are already."

It can increase the mortality from 50%-60% to 100%. It can protract death,
make it more painful, instill false hope.

~~~
dnautics
_It can increase the mortality from 50%-60% to 100%. It can protract death,
make it more painful._

That is true for any drug. What are the odds of that, though? one in 100? one
in 50,000? one in a million?

~~~
XorNot
That's the point: these are experimental treatments. We _don 't_ know. And
experimental human treatments have gone bad for no reason at all ->
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TGN1412](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TGN1412)

