WHO asks for Ebola anti-body from Bangkok's Siriraj for lab test

[bangon04]

It'll be a party bag of painkillers and anti-inflammatories. That's the usual cure for everything around here.

you forgot the multi-coloured selection of antibiotics.....

[louse1953]

Oops, they asked for a sample. Now what?

I would say,if true,patents are being arranged,once it's gone to the USA,it's gone.

[louse1953]

So we have to prove it works now?

We all known it works but WHO which is control by big EU and US drug companies and they will steal it and claim the stuff from Bangkok's Siriraj doesn't work

Are you trolling or just plain stupid?

Harry is spot on,you are naive if you think that it doesn't happen.

[jakobvarming]

So we have to prove it works now?

We all known it works but WHO which is control by big EU and US drug companies and they will steal it and claim the stuff from Bangkok's Siriraj doesn't work

Are you trolling or just plain stupid?

Harry is spot on,you are naive if you think that it doesn't happen.

Quote: "We all known it works"

I don't thing so....

[dunque]

From WHO website...

Two promising candidate vaccines

Given the public health need for safe and effective Ebola interventions, WHO regards the expedited evaluation of all Ebola vaccines with clinical grade material as a high priority.

Two candidate vaccines have clinical-grade vials available for phase 1 pre-licensure clinical trials.

One (cAd3-ZEBOV) has been developed by GlaxoSmithKline in collaboration with the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. It uses a chimpanzee-derived adenovirus vector with an Ebola virus gene inserted.

The second (rVSV-ZEBOV) was developed by the Public Health Agency of Canada in Winnipeg. The license for commercialization of the Canadian vaccine is held by an American company, the NewLink Genetics company, located in Ames, Iowa. The vaccine uses an attenuated or weakened vesicular stomatitis virus, a pathogen found in livestock; one of its genes has been replaced by an Ebola virus gene.

Thanks for that, but the original story is not about a vaccine.

[peterbkk9]

"Thai research scientists at Mahidol University's Siriraj Hospital, Thursday said they developed the world's first antibody treatment for Ebola, despite not having access to the virus."

They might well have some interesting finding, to be further investigated.

But it is way too early to claim they found a "cure" for Ebola.

How can you claim to have a cure when you don't have access to the virus?

[chooka]

So we have to prove it works now?

We all known it works but WHO which is control by big EU and US drug companies and they will steal it and claim the stuff from Bangkok's Siriraj doesn't work

I don't know it works. Have they tried it on a person with Ebola, how many patients did they import for the trials?

[harryfrompattaya]

So we have to prove it works now?

We all known it works but WHO which is control by big EU and US drug companies and they will steal it and claim the stuff from Bangkok's Siriraj doesn't work

Are you trolling or just plain stupid?

I guess you did not about Who and Drug Companies

[atyclb]

Unfortunately, there is no cure; as to why Thailand would work on such a cure is a question to be answered

Perhaps one of the 60 million geniuses decided to make thailand the "ebola hub" ?

[Chanthaburi]

No big news about this?

Go Thailand!!!!!

[MikeENZ]

Does anyone actually believe for a second that the Thai's even have their hand on the Ebola virus to experiment on, and that they are experimenting on it in the very same hospital that the people who we cannot legally discuss often receive treatment, let alone have developed a cure.

I simply cannot believe that the Thais would keep one of the most feared viruses in the world, even for experimentation and study, in the same building as two of the most sacred people in their culture.

[MJP]

Does anyone actually believe for a second that the Thai's even have their hand on the Ebola virus to experiment on, and that they are experimenting on it in the very same hospital that the people who we cannot legally discuss often receive treatment, let alone have developed a cure.

I simply cannot believe that the Thais would keep one of the most feared viruses in the world, even for experimentation and study, in the same building as two of the most sacred people in their culture.

The reported anti-body discovery is not based on trials with the Ebola virus.

Doctors at the hospital told the Indian news website NDTV that researchers did not import the Ebola virus into Thailand to develop the treatment, but instead used less-virulent viruses that produce similar haemorrhagic fevers.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/ebola-outbreak-thailands-siriraj-hospital-creates-antibody-treatment-deadly-virus-1467727

[englishoak]

Does anyone actually believe for a second that the Thai's even have their hand on the Ebola virus to experiment on, and that they are experimenting on it in the very same hospital that the people who we cannot legally discuss often receive treatment, let alone have developed a cure.

I simply cannot believe that the Thais would keep one of the most feared viruses in the world, even for experimentation and study, in the same building as two of the most sacred people in their culture.

If given half the chance, kids with matches, bravado and all that.

And its not tested on the Ebola virus as MJP says.............. just more Thai bunk

[MJP]

Does anyone actually believe for a second that the Thai's even have their hand on the Ebola virus to experiment on, and that they are experimenting on it in the very same hospital that the people who we cannot legally discuss often receive treatment, let alone have developed a cure.

I simply cannot believe that the Thais would keep one of the most feared viruses in the world, even for experimentation and study, in the same building as two of the most sacred people in their culture.

If given half the chance, kids with matches, bravado and all that.

And its not tested on the Ebola virus as MJP says.............. just more Thai bunk

Interesting read . . .

http://www.npr.org/blogs/goatsandsoda/2014/08/26/342451672/how-ebola-kills-you-its-not-the-virus

But when you look at the nitty-gritty details of an Ebola infection, a surprising fact surfaces: The virus isn't what ends up killing you. It's your own immune system.

[hawker9000]

Nothing to do with the Thai anti-body thing, but...

Have just heard on the news that a vaccine (yes, a vaccine, not an antibody treatment) has just begun human (yes, human) testing in the U.S. Some number of test subjects (19, I think) were injected with it this morning at Walter Reed (Maryland). The vaccine was developed in Canada (Winnipeg), and is called VSV-EBOV. Reportedly, the vaccine was 100% successful in the animals tested.

How they test a vaccine in humans without actually exposing subjects to the corresponding virus I don't know. Maybe someone else knows how that works.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/ebola-outbreak-1st-human-trials-of-canadian-vaccine-start-in-u-s-1.2796859

[Yme]

Nothing to do with the Thai anti-body thing, but...

Have just heard on the news that a vaccine (yes, a vaccine, not an antibody treatment) has just begun human (yes, human) testing in the U.S. Some number of test subjects (19, I think) were injected with it this morning at Walter Reed (Maryland). The vaccine was developed in Canada (Winnipeg), and is called VSV-EBOV. Reportedly, the vaccine was 100% successful in the animals tested.

How they test a vaccine in humans without actually exposing subjects to the corresponding virus I don't know. Maybe someone else knows how that works.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/ebola-outbreak-1st-human-trials-of-canadian-vaccine-start-in-u-s-1.2796859

I imagine the first step will be to inject the people with the trial vaccine and see if that delivers any unwanted side effects and then draw blood from those people and see what happens when they expose that blood to the Ebola virus in a BSA 4 lab.

But that' a guess

[hawker9000]

Nothing to do with the Thai anti-body thing, but...

Have just heard on the news that a vaccine (yes, a vaccine, not an antibody treatment) has just begun human (yes, human) testing in the U.S. Some number of test subjects (19, I think) were injected with it this morning at Walter Reed (Maryland). The vaccine was developed in Canada (Winnipeg), and is called VSV-EBOV. Reportedly, the vaccine was 100% successful in the animals tested.

How they test a vaccine in humans without actually exposing subjects to the corresponding virus I don't know. Maybe someone else knows how that works.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/ebola-outbreak-1st-human-trials-of-canadian-vaccine-start-in-u-s-1.2796859

I imagine the first step will be to inject the people with the trial vaccine and see if that delivers any unwanted side effects and then draw blood from those people and see what happens when they expose that blood to the Ebola virus in a BSA 4 lab.

But that' a guess

'Don't know anything about immunology. Understand the checking for side effects, but how does a small sample of blood react, successfully or otherwise, to a live virus after vaccination and give us an indicator of effectiveness? I always thought immune response was a systemic thing, and depended on processes in other parts of the body, like bone marrow, to fight foreign invaders.

I know my questions reflect almost total ignorance, but I suspect that more & more people are going to be asking them...

[partington]

Nothing to do with the Thai anti-body thing, but...

Have just heard on the news that a vaccine (yes, a vaccine, not an antibody treatment) has just begun human (yes, human) testing in the U.S. Some number of test subjects (19, I think) were injected with it this morning at Walter Reed (Maryland). The vaccine was developed in Canada (Winnipeg), and is called VSV-EBOV. Reportedly, the vaccine was 100% successful in the animals tested.

How they test a vaccine in humans without actually exposing subjects to the corresponding virus I don't know. Maybe someone else knows how that works.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/ebola-outbreak-1st-human-trials-of-canadian-vaccine-start-in-u-s-1.2796859

I imagine the first step will be to inject the people with the trial vaccine and see if that delivers any unwanted side effects and then draw blood from those people and see what happens when they expose that blood to the Ebola virus in a BSA 4 lab.

But that' a guess

'Don't know anything about immunology. Understand the checking for side effects, but how does a small sample of blood react, successfully or otherwise, to a live virus after vaccination and give us an indicator of effectiveness? I always thought immune response was a systemic thing, and depended on processes in other parts of the body, like bone marrow, to fight foreign invaders.

I know my questions reflect almost total ignorance, but I suspect that more & more people are going to be asking them...

A vaccine is designed to raise antibodies to a disease pathogen (virus, bacteria etc) without you catching the disease. You are therefore injected with a small piece of the pathogen that is too small or incomplete to cause the disease or an inactivated (unable to cause disease) pathogen.

So the first question that you need to ask is: does this vaccine really and effectively raise antibodies against the virus when injected into humans?

You do this by taking blood from human volunteers a suitable time after being injected with the vaccine, and simply checking by easy lab tests whether the blood contains antibodies that cross react with (stick onto) the virus. If there are no antibodies then the vaccine hasn't worked so you would not proceed.

If there are antibodies you don't know how protective they are (do they prevent you catching the disease). The only way to test this is to vaccinate large numbers in a disease-affected area and see if this group are protected from catching the disease compared to a control group. It would obviously not be ethical to expose people deliberately to a virus.

Edited October 16, 2014 by partington

[hawker9000]

'Makes sense. So, after a subject who's been vaccinated has had a chance to develop these antibodies, there'll actually be enough of them present constantly in even a small blood sample, to be detected in the lab.

('Implies we're always carrying around with us in our blood active antibodies for every pathogen we're immune to. Is that correct? I had a misconception that antibodies were generated in real time by the body in response to an infection, and not simply present in the blood at all times.)

[partington]

'Makes sense. So, after a subject who's been vaccinated has had a chance to develop these antibodies, there'll actually be enough of them present constantly in even a small blood sample, to be detected in the lab.

('Implies we're always carrying around with us in our blood active antibodies for every pathogen we're immune to. Is that correct? I had a misconception that antibodies were generated in real time by the body in response to an infection, and not simply present in the blood at all times.)

Once you are infected by a disease (or given a vaccine) the body develops antibodies to it as a response, and these rise to high concentrations in the blood.

Once the infection is gone or after a course of vaccination is ended, the blood concentration of the antibodies can fall to very low levels, but the ability to make the antibody rapidly if you meet the infective agent again is preserved by "memory cells" which make the antibody. When you get infected again this small reservoir of cells rapidly multiplies in response and makes the antibody in huge quantities very fast.

This is "acquired immunity" - this is why if you catch measles when you're young you are immune to it afterwards-your body has a small store of cells that make measles antibodies that can be triggered to multiply to huge numbers when the pathogen is detected again.

Edited October 16, 2014 by partington

[hawker9000]

'Makes sense. So, after a subject who's been vaccinated has had a chance to develop these antibodies, there'll actually be enough of them present constantly in even a small blood sample, to be detected in the lab.

('Implies we're always carrying around with us in our blood active antibodies for every pathogen we're immune to. Is that correct? I had a misconception that antibodies were generated in real time by the body in response to an infection, and not simply present in the blood at all times.)

Once you are infected by a disease (or given a vaccine) the body develops antibodies to it as a response, and these rise to high concentrations in the blood.

Once the infection is gone or after a course of vaccination is ended, the blood concentration of the antibodies can fall to very low levels, but the ability to make the antibody rapidly if you meet the infective agent again is preserved by "memory cells" which make the antibody. When you get infected again this small reservoir of cells rapidly multiplies in response and makes the antibody in huge quantities very fast.

This is "acquired immunity" - this is why if you catch measles when you're young you are immune to it afterwards-your body has a small store of cells that make measles antibodies that can be triggered to multiply to huge numbers when the pathogen is detected again.

Thanks. Very informative. Probably learned this in HS health classes, but that's been, emm, awhile...