Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Anything to get this crap spread the fastest they can......
THIER ATTEMPT FAILED THE FIRST TIME SO NOW THEY ARE TRYING AGAIN!!
I assume you're talking about those trying to spread Ebola panic? Although I perosnally think they did a pretty good job of spreading fear among the ignorant the first time around.
The trial in question is to see whether the vaccine actually produces adequate antibody levels to Ebola; it cannot determine whether it is actually effective against the disease. It is done to justify doing a larger trial to confirm that the vaccine is effective. That would need to be done in an area with a risk of contracting the disease.
Such a study has been done with a different vaccine in Guinea and confirmed high efficacy of that product:
As the epidemic in West Africa winds down, vaccine testing will be directed at areas where there is risk of acquiring the disease, but until future outbreaks happen, gauging effectiveness will be more difficult.
So I was reading on how I could get the new Ebola vaccine here in the united states still not sure if my family and friends would want to get live Ebola virus injected into them or not what do you say?
There is no live Ebola virus in the vaccine, by the way.
I believe the reason Fargo was chosen is because there is very little likelihood any one here has been exposed to Ebola, Since the vaccine is experimental and being tested, they wany to be able to demonstrate it will not cause ebola.
Vaccines can be a bit tricky they use a weakened or dead form of the pathogen and the person's own body forms the antibodies that give immunity. In order to show the vaccine is safe, requires test subjects to demonstrate it does cause the disease in some people.
If they were to try to test in an area where there is a possibility of exposure to the disease testing would be inconclusive, as the test subject might already have the disease but had not yet shown symptoms when vaccinated.
All these Pro Vaccine idiots should jump on this one! Hurry, before you get ebola!
I suspect that people who like facts and numbers with their medical information would tend to know that first-world countries just aren't friendly places for hemorrhagic fevers - like Ebola.
I believe the reason Fargo was chosen is because there is very little likelihood any one here has been exposed to Ebola, Since the vaccine is experimental and being tested, they wany to be able to demonstrate it will not cause ebola.
Vaccines can be a bit tricky they use a weakened or dead form of the pathogen and the person's own body forms the antibodies that give immunity. In order to show the vaccine is safe, requires test subjects to demonstrate it does cause the disease in some people.
If they were to try to test in an area where there is a possibility of exposure to the disease testing would be inconclusive, as the test subject might already have the disease but had not yet shown symptoms when vaccinated.
The vaccine being tested contains no live Ebola virus. It cannot cause Ebola.
The study is being done to see if the vaccine induces antibodies against Ebola. If it does, additional studies will need to be done to see if it actually prevents disease. those will need to be done in areas where people can actually get Ebola.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.