Ebola outbreak

[ellabelle]

CNN is saying that he was NOT seeing patients, so I don't know what his status was - was there a hospital policy prohibiting him from seeing patients or did he volunteer to take vacation time or unpaid leave or something or did Doctors Without Borders have a protocol for him to follow upon return? I really don't know. No, I don't think he should be seeing patients for 21 days after last known exposure (whether that's in the US or elsewhere), but IF Ebola is not airborne and not spread through casual contact, then I'm not sure why he'd have to be under strict quarantine and unable to leave his home.

I was admittedly more panicked before with the Dallas outbreak, but now that Thomas Eric Duncan's family is out of quarantine and didn't contract the disease despite living with him and being stuck for days in an apartment with soiled bedding and clothes he'd used, I'm now less worried about transmission for the general public.

[JaneAusten]

Yeah I am in agreement with you.

And another piece of positive news is that Nina Pham, the first nurse diagnosed with Ebola, is Ebola free and is being released today. I guess demonstrating that early detection and quick treatment does increase the likelihood of one surviving significantly.

[marceline]

Honestly, I fear for her safety. There's just so much ignorance and paranoia. I'll be happily surprised if she isn't harassed or harmed.

[JaneAusten]

It's a given she will be harassed. Sad isn't it.

[ellabelle]

Per CNN - http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/24/health/ebola-up-to-speed/index.html?hpt=hp_t1 -

"Three-week monitoring for some travelers

All travelers coming to the United States from Ebola-affected areas will be actively monitored for 21 days. Also, all U.S.-bound passengers from Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea must land in one of the five U.S. airports with enhanced screening for Ebola: New York's John F. Kennedy International, Washington Dulles, New Jersey's Newark Liberty International, Chicago's O'Hare International and Hartsfield-Jackson International in Atlanta.

U.S. considers mandatory quarantine

The United States is considering a mandatory quarantine for all returning health care workers from West Africa, an Obama administration official said Friday. Officials do not believe there is a risk of transmission from someone not exhibiting Ebola-like symptoms, but they want to reassure the public, the administration official said."

I understand why they're considering a mandatory quarantine for health care workers, but I hope that doesn't result in people declining to go over there because it sounds like west Africa needs all the help it can get.

[Juliajms]

I'm really torn on this. To me the question is how much would it have cost? Its just not reasonable to expect publicly owned American companies to spend huge amounts of money on drugs that will not turn a profit. I'm a pretty liberal person, but it just wouldn't make any sense and might not even be legal. Companies have a fiduciary duty to maximize investor profits. What investor wants to put their money in a company that will not give back maximize returns on the money they risked in the first place?

The governments and universities of most western countries spend billions on research too, why didn't any of them develop a vaccine? I'm guessing there is only so much money and a disease that until recently had only killed hundreds at a time didn't seem like a priority. In a perfect world that wouldn't be the case, but it's hard for me to call it unfair. There are plenty of diseases out there that only affect hundreds of people of a year and that don't get research dollars.

It turns out his fever was 100.3. This is another botched situation, but at least the doctor doesn't look quite as bad now.

[JaneAusten]

JuliaMS we know the pharmacy companies have us specifically in the US at the throat. I can understand and appreciate the need for generating a profit but someone got to the point of developing and testing a vaccine. That costs money. So exactly why expend the time on it if it wasn't going anywhere, unless it's being suggested that those efforts are not funded or at least partially funded by the pharmacy companies.

I wonder when people are going to open their eyes to Big Pharma in this country and realize that our own politicians are in bed with these people. Do people remember years ago when many people were ordering their prescriptions from places like Canada and Mexico. My mom at the time was one of those because her blood pressure medication was available in Canada by mail at 1/4 the cost even the generic version in the US was available for. Then Bush Jr. introduced his prescription drug program and they started tightening up on these cases, specifically citing the fact that quality was an issue and the meds available from Canada and Mexico, Australia were not as high a quality. Well tell that to veterans. At the same time my dad was getting one of his prescriptions through the VA. Guess where the meds he was on came from? A US Pharma company? Nope from New Zealand. Of course the VA would get meds from outside of the US because they were cheaper and Bush was also cutting VA benefits. So I guess those drugs weren't so terrible after all or are we to believe that BS about the US's drugs being so much better than those made in places like Canada, New Zealand, or Australia?

It's just an example of how many of our own government are in the pockets of Big Pharma.

[Juliajms]

If our government is in the pocket of big pharma (and I'll agree they are in the pocket of all of corporate America) that's a problem with government. I'm not opposed to fixing that, but I'm not sure people would like some of the unintended consequences, such as fewer drugs coming to market in the first place. Like I said, few investors are going to put their private funds in companies that give away the store. Are we going to trust the government to fund all research? I surely don't. Half the people in our government don't even believe in evolution. Sure, let's let those bastards decide where research money goes and how much scientists get.

As to why a vaccine was developed and not brought to market, do you even know if the drug went to trial? That's an expensive process as is manufacturing drugs. I doubt it was all ready to go and they just let it sit there without trying to sell it to the government or writing it off as a donation to charity. There are so many rumors swirling, I take it all with a grain of salt.

[marceline]

Back when Dennis Kucinich was in office here, he used to organize bus trips for people - mainly senior citizens - to go to Canada and buy their meds cheaper. (For those who have ever wondered why Kucinich kept getting re-elected, it was stuff like that.) I bought drugs from Canadian and overseas pharmacies for years depending on what I was looking for and my employment status at the time. When you see how much cheaper drugs are everywhere else in the world, it's hard not to see pharmaceutical companies as corrupt. (And don't get me started on abortion drugs. Grrrr...)

I've seen a lot of discussion - some of it reasonable, much of it batshit crazy - about the various reasons the Ebola vaccine didn't come to market. I wish there was a reliable news outlet that could look into that.

[Max]

From everything I've heard and read (including from Republicans), Dennis Kucinich is one of the most caring and genuine people in politics, and most definitely not a John Edwards type of phony.

[Juliajms]

I'd sooner agree to greedy than corrupt, but isn't making the most money possible what companies are for? It's hard for me to blame them when they have a legal duty to do that exact thing.

I think one thing the government could do is shorten the amount of time that a drug company can hold that patent for particular medications. IDK, greater minds than mine would have to come up with the solutions. None of this really points to the notion that American companies owe the world an Ebola vaccine though. If they had a workable vaccine sitting on the shelves and they simply chose to deny it to the people of Africa because they couldn't pay, that would piss me off. I doubt that's true. The government or an aid agency would have bought it.

[DramatistDreamer]

http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACPLKh239P3pgJmYtjiMYLnd7Kws1ZX+P2vNiILCt8nFeK/9Ya85gRVZZ62DmeDN0KIFS4/VOxF1wu3aT4dBV6rzlGGyNzQalrWIeSGYKc57QYWlKjp70HMFVGAjvQ+qkRmzXi1VU9xZil7XXOWbHuirPBL30b00ipkZXKmiQ5jYGEIU6DkTiAcLV9AUsR7QHBQ==&campaign_id=129&instance_id=48280&segment_id=64581&user_id=5082fbe815e6ec912cf191e049f334da&regi_id=15118680

[DramatistDreamer]

But American pharmaceuticals companies should also stop blocking other countries who have already made cheaper generics and want to sell on the open market, yet they do, often citing the old 'quality control' excuse to sell their high priced drugs exclusively in other (often poor) countries.

And while they are at it, if they don't owe anyone anything, how about giving up the generous, corporate welfare, I mean tax breaks that they get from the U.S. tax payer, especially since many of these American companies have shifted their headquarters to other countries to avoid taxes. Including some U.S. pharmaceuticals.

And don't get me started on the games they play with patents...

Juliajms, I think, if they give up all the tax breaks and monopoly they exert in various parts of the world, I would agree that they don't owe anyone anything but as it stands now, that is not the case.

[Juliajms]

I will certainly agree that we should end laws that favor big pharma at the expense of the people. I see the problem as one of corrupt politicians though. Why are they giving corporate welfare? Does it benefit the people or is it because of lobbying and campaign contributions? I'm all for cleaning things up, but I'm not all that hopeful it will happen. The electorate is too easily fooled and politicians are too easily corrupted by big money. Most of this has very little too do with coming up with an Ebola cure or vaccine though. And on that score, I only hope that whoever does come up with the vaccine is damn sure it's safe before we stick it into the arm of millions of people.

[DramatistDreamer]

The thing about vaccines is there is no 100% guarantee. There will always be the 1 or 2% that are either allergic or experience weird side effects (I have a friend who had a bad reaction to the flu vaccine) but for the most part if it works the majority, it will be a success.

The thing about the Ebola vaccine is that the time to do thorough human trials was 10 Years Ago, when it was ready for them. Now, with people dying every day, about 1/2 the people who became infected in total, they are trying to rush. At best, it will be an evolving thing. There are even less 100% guarantees when you are up against it. And guess what? 10 Years Later, it's even more expensive to produce and mass distribute. My mother calls that penny-wise and pound foolish. By the way, many of the drugs big pharma produce--they are not absolutely safe. Ever read the Recall list of some of those products? Look up Wellbutrin, for starters...

That is why many of us say that so many of these big Pharmaceutical companies are not interested in Wellness in any way, but profit margins. I also had a co-worker who worked for Pfizer and you wouldn't believe the machinations within that company! Someone needs to write a George Orwell type novel about that place!

I do agree though, that Big Pharma has many politicians in their pocket, like the Cable/Telecommunications industries do. Guess what though, the people (who last I remembered were the government, at least that's what the civics' lessons say) are driving change with the Cable & Tele. companies and when/if they wake up, we might realize we can drive change with Big Pharma. As a collective, we're only as good as the people we choose to represent us.