It seems like the treatment that is working best is early serum/blood transfusions.

[Anonymous]

ZMAPP did not help the Spanish priest. Perhaps the dose was too small.
The Antivirals did not help Eric Duncan.
The survivors all seemed to have received EARLY transfusions from survivors.
Sadly, that would be such a huge task in Liberia. They would have to get together hundreds of survivors, rule out diseases like HIV. Draw a lot of blood, and store it. Do blood typing on the new infections and give blood or serum....

[Anonymous]

Sounds good, if hard to implement.

I have to say between ebola and HIV, I'd rather get the latter. You can live with the latter. So if they don't prescreen the blood for HIV and other illnesses and give it to people that way, there'd probably still be some takers.

[Anonymous]

Well keep in mind that people survive without any of this if they have fluid support. In Africa the survival rate is 30% and most of those 30% didn't receive transfusions or anything else. People have always survived Ebola, even before these interventions.

But this does seem like a promising avenue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well keep in mind that people survive without any of this if they have fluid support. In Africa the survival rate is 30% and most of those 30% didn't receive transfusions or anything else. People have always survived Ebola, even before these interventions.

But this does seem like a promising avenue.

Yes, and the 30% got poor care too. Duncan had relatively better care and still died. My sense is that the reason they aren't rushing for more ZMAPP is that they suspect that the transfusions work better and are more readily available in the US.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sounds good, if hard to implement.

I have to say between ebola and HIV, I'd rather get the latter. You can live with the latter. So if they don't prescreen the blood for HIV and other illnesses and give it to people that way, there'd probably still be some takers.

I would take Ebola any day, better to die quickly or recover and live, than have a chronic condition. Plus, I believe that people treated with serum early in the course in the USA might have a high survival rate.

All we need is one nasty WWIII making access to meds difficult and HIV positive people will drop. The HIV causes 99% of its victims to die.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:ZMAPP did not help the Spanish priest. Perhaps the dose was too small.
The Antivirals did not help Eric Duncan.
The survivors all seemed to have received EARLY transfusions from survivors.
Sadly, that would be such a huge task in Liberia. They would have to get together hundreds of survivors, rule out diseases like HIV. Draw a lot of blood, and store it. Do blood typing on the new infections and give blood or serum....

The priest received the zMapp much farther into the course of the disease than others did. And remember that Nancy Writebol never received a transfusion (at least, not that I've seen reported). In research studies with monkeys, ZMapp was far more effective when administered early on. I'm not sure I'd agree that blood transfusions are the "best" course of treatment, although they do seem to help if given early on.

Bottom line -- the timing of the intervention (whether it's a transfusion or experimental drugs) seems like the most important factor.

[Anonymous]

You can't risk giving people HIV with blood transfusions, even if it cures their Ebola. Those people (now HIV positive who weren't before) would go on to infect other people with HIV, and you've just replaced one problem with another. In any case, Liberia doesn't have the capacity to get everyone suffering from Ebola a bed and Tylenol, so getting them all serum isn't going to happen, either, unfortunately.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds good, if hard to implement.

I have to say between ebola and HIV, I'd rather get the latter. You can live with the latter. So if they don't prescreen the blood for HIV and other illnesses and give it to people that way, there'd probably still be some takers.

I would take Ebola any day, better to die quickly or recover and live, than have a chronic condition. Plus, I believe that people treated with serum early in the course in the USA might have a high survival rate.

All we need is one nasty WWIII making access to meds difficult and HIV positive people will drop. The HIV causes 99% of its victims to die.

100% of people without HIV die . HIV is now a chronic condition in this country and people go on to live long and healthy lives. We have medication to treat it. Many have shown almost complete remission with almost no detectable virus in their system.

Have fun having your organs melt, bleeding out of every orfice, shaking, severe pain....good lord..the stupid sh*t I read on this forum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You can't risk giving people HIV with blood transfusions, even if it cures their Ebola. Those people (now HIV positive who weren't before) would go on to infect other people with HIV, and you've just replaced one problem with another. In any case, Liberia doesn't have the capacity to get everyone suffering from Ebola a bed and Tylenol, so getting them all serum isn't going to happen, either, unfortunately.

For crying out loud. Many Africans are encouraged to breastfeed even with HIV, because it's less risky than feeding infants formula made with contaminated water. HIV is a terrible disease, but there are worse things (well, more rapidly fatal things) out there.

[Anonymous]

Giving people HIV would automatically make them more susceptible to dying from Ebola because their immune system would take. And hiv antivirals are not easily accessible in Africa.

[Anonymous]

^^immune system would *tank*

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Giving people HIV would automatically make them more susceptible to dying from Ebola because their immune system would take. And hiv antivirals are not easily accessible in Africa.

Uh, no. You think it lowers your immune system immediately?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Giving people HIV would automatically make them more susceptible to dying from Ebola because their immune system would take. And hiv antivirals are not easily accessible in Africa.

Uh, no. You think it lowers your immune system immediately?

It would if you had Ebola.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well keep in mind that people survive without any of this if they have fluid support. In Africa the survival rate is 30% and most of those 30% didn't receive transfusions or anything else. People have always survived Ebola, even before these interventions.

But this does seem like a promising avenue.

Yes, and the 30% got poor care too. Duncan had relatively better care and still died. My sense is that the reason they aren't rushing for more ZMAPP is that they suspect that the transfusions work better and are more readily available in the US.

Don't know about this, heard ZMAPP just takes a really long time to produce.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can't risk giving people HIV with blood transfusions, even if it cures their Ebola. Those people (now HIV positive who weren't before) would go on to infect other people with HIV, and you've just replaced one problem with another. In any case, Liberia doesn't have the capacity to get everyone suffering from Ebola a bed and Tylenol, so getting them all serum isn't going to happen, either, unfortunately.

For crying out loud. Many Africans are encouraged to breastfeed even with HIV, because it's less risky than feeding infants formula made with contaminated water. HIV is a terrible disease, but there are worse things (well, more rapidly fatal things) out there.

Breast is best only if mom is treated for HIV. Transfer is high in untreated mothers.