I wonder if Brantly has now immunity or resistance and can help fight the disease without worry of reinfection. How does that work? Can you be reinfected with ebola if you survive?
I don't remember which newspaper I read this in (I believe New York Times?) but apparently there are ~5 known varieties of Ebola, and recovering from an infection only grants immunity to that one variety.
So, in general, no, but if this outbreak involves only one strain they might be immune to that particular one.
According to the blood samples on 20 patients throughout West Africa, the current outbreak is a new strain. It is closely related to Ebola Zaire, but appears to have involved a different trans-species transmission event than the Zaire strain.
Survivors are believed to be more resistant but I think immunity is unlikely. Surely if he returns to risky areas he'll take the same precautions that anyone else would, it's not worth the risk and I'm sure those precautions are meant to protect from a number of tropical illnesses that are a risk in addition to Ebola.
According to the mashable article [1] linked in the comments one component of the serum had some extended protection in a series of tests:
"A November 2013 Defyrus study showed that ZMAb offered extended protection against the virus. Scientists reinfected surviving monkeys 10 weeks after their first infection, and 100% survived. What's more, four out of the six monkeys reinfected 13 weeks after initial exposure survived."
That's actually an interesting question- were you to theoretically be able to initial effect of Ebola infection, would the immune system eventually be able to create effective antibodies for it? I don't know if it would work the same way if you're introducing antibodies for treatment.
Ebola is a viral infection, so in theory, he should be immune or at least, strongly resistant to reinfection. According to wikipedia, there are four variant viruses that are thought to be disease causing in humans. I suspect that he would be much less resistant to the other three.
Right. But since the current outbreak is limited to a single strain, he should have an acquired immunity. However, he's probably more useful contributing as a research subject state-side, than a treatment specialist in West Africa, to say nothing of the physical and psychological health issues he's most likely still facing.
There is a lot of litterature on what makes a hero -- somehone whose tale is worthy to be told and who should be admired for it. A Hero's journey has to be the classic few have actually read, but many know well enough to refer to:
* ideal world, left or destroyed (no matter the reason): he was living a confortable life in a developed country; whether you consider the catastrophy to be his departure or his discovery of the epidemic, both match;
* his actions have to be taxing, unexpected, foster his personal qualities and changed the hero's perspective: taking care of patients with a hemoragic fever is very daunting; he didn't come for that and had to learn how (from what would be the 'Fairy godmother' secondary charater, presumably an expert either local doctor or on hemoragic fevers); he didn't go there to catch the fever anyway;
* his goal must be clear and positive (aka the Princess, or the Treasure) and be slightly different than expected, to match the hero's own change: cure Ebola, or reach good health in the area; maybe have people die in dignity; he ended up being not a carer but a patient, too; might need a little more detail, but that part is pretty well covered;
* resolution must be positive (not necesarily for the hero who may die, but for the world): we have a known process to adress Ebola (with Western-grade medecine) and still the story not over (the 'and had many children' part, obviously 90% of the story, one where being a hero but not part of the narrow frame that makes a hero): we still need to eradicate the desease.
I would say his experience fits squarely within the heroic framework.
I just wanted to say that I really enjoyed this comment. It took me back to High School English class, in a good way. There's so much dumb discussion online, about these people and many others, about who deserves to be called a "hero". You're the first one I've seen to actually lay it out in a sensible and reasonably objective manner.
If he was a doctor in AIDS ward, and got infected with HIV while caring for other sick patients, wouldn't he be considered a hero? He is a missionary doctor oversea, working in some of the poorest countries in the world, clearly not doing for the money. Believe it or not, people have been called heroes for doing a lot less than that.
> If he was a doctor in AIDS ward, and got infected with HIV while caring for other sick patients, wouldn't he be considered a hero?
Why is contraction of the virus implied as a necessary condition for being a hero? Clearly the heroic act is the treatement of others; that the hypothetical AIDS doctor or these ebola doctors contracted the disease they were treating in others should not be a necessary condition for considering them heroes.
It isn't; it's the risk of doing so that one willingly runs which makes one a hero. Since we don't see these peole at work the fact of contracting it is an indirect proof of hands-on activity.
> [Brantly] said Ebola "was not on the radar" when he and his family moved to Liberia in October.
I wouldn't have been in Liberia in the first place, but if I had been, I would've been on the first plane out as soon as I even heard a rumor about an Ebola outbreak. He could have--the U.S. is aggressive in helping American citizens evacuate from situations like that. The fact he stayed and helped is what makes him a hero.
No offense but this is pretty common. Also, "in the field" you'd have a hard time differentiating a fairly-stochastic chance outcome (or 'luck') from a loaded die without a bit of infrastructure in place for your benefit. The two are probably related and nothing to get worked up about, IMHO.
I can't reconcile that men of science (internet atheists) can't comprehend other people (non-atheists) for being able to have seemingly contradictory beliefs. Do you think you're above cognitive dissonance yourself, dude?
There are a million things that had to go right for him to take the drug (no transportation problems, no attack, hospital didn't catch on fire, medicine didn't get compromised) science and Man control none of them. So it makes since that he thanked God.
He probably also credits his doctors with enabling his recovery. And the drugs he took. And his own decision not to just give up and die. How can he possibly handle all these crazy contradictions?
Is this just poor writing, or poor representation of the science? This article contradicts itself.
> said in a statement that she was free of the virus but was significantly weakened.
> There is no cure for Ebola, ...
> But both Dr Brantly and Mrs Writebol received an experimental treatment known as ZMapp.
> ...it remains unclear if [ZMapp] is responsible for their recovery.
Is the virus in remission, or has it been eradicated from Writebol? If there is no cure, then it cannot have been eradicated. Maybe there's no _proven_ cure, in the sense of full medical trials?
In the 'poor writing' department (but unrelated to the above), the article also doesn't tell us who Franklin Graham is. This appears to be the only reference to the name:
There is not cure for Ebola like there is for other diseases. Ebola is a acute infection, meaning that if the body can fight it off, it leaves the body. Think of it like influenza. There is no cure, but once you get over it, there is no more influenza virus in your system.
They were given ZMapp, but they can't tell if that worked or not. Perhaps they would have overcome their illness without it.
They likely didn't say that the male was free of the virus because it has been shown that Ebola can be transmitted through semen of men for up to 7 weeks.
At the very least, it seems like better coverage than I've encountered elsewhere.
I heard on the radio this morning, for instance, that "two people were cured of Ebola." "Cured" is a problematic statement for many reasons. First, because we don't really know to what degree the experimental treatment Brantly and Writebol received is responsible for their recovery. Second, because using the word "cured" implies that there is now a known remedy for the virus. There is not.
"If there is no cure, then it cannot have been eradicated."
Not necessarily. Brantly's DNA might carry some mutation or variant that provides him better natural defense against Ebola, for reasons we don't yet know. Perhaps the treatment he received worked in some way, directly or indirectly, in concert with another factor (or several). Perhaps he is just statistically lucky. What we do know is that Brantly received a course of treatment with ZMapp, and that Brantly recovered from the virus. In between those two facts are potentially dozens of confounding or hidden variables.
If anything, I give this writer a lot of credit for going through the trouble to point out that "it remains unclear if [ZMapp] is responsible for their recovery." Some other writers and outlets have not been as careful.
The virus has a 60% mortality rate. According to the article, ZMapp has been given to 6 people, two of whom have recovered, 1 of whom has died, and 3 of whom may recover. Even if the remaining 3 recover, it's still too small a sample size to draw any conclusions.
“Nancy is free of the virus, but the lingering effects of the battle have left her in a significantly weakened condition,” her husband, David Writebol, said in a written statement. “Thus, we decided it would be best to leave the hospital privately to be able to give her the rest and recuperation she needs at this time.”
It sounds like she's weakened from not only fighting off the illness, but being bedridded etc for several weeks. The drugs may have also had side effects (that they don't want to publicise for PR purposes).
And, lest you think I'm daft, my _guess_ is that they mean the son of Billy Graham, but then perhaps the author should mention his tie to Samaritan's Purse.
I've been wondering about treating ebola with iodine. It's antimicrobial and antiviral. The Red Cross uses it to clean the skin before taking blood donations because it is superior to alcohol for cleaning. It is also useful to promote healing, among many other things (It seem to be helpful to the mitochondria which means wide-ranging benefit). But just due to the use for cleaning, and the aid in healing, I wonder if a few drops of Lugol's solution in a glass of water several times a day would help an ebola patient. That would hit right in the gut where the infection goes wild and does the most damage.
I'm not advocating concentrated iodine. A few drops of Lugol's mixed in a glass of water isn't going to damage anything - lots of people take that exact amount on a regular basis. We could argue about long term effects of that, but I'm talking about doing it for a week or two to help with something that is killing half the people it infects.
Where is the guy with iodine user id when you need them?
To be clear, I don't think there's any value whatsoever in trying.
There's zero scientific evidence I've seen that supports a claim that iodine has antiviral properties. It's germicidal properties are because it's an oxidizer - the presence of organic matter (the contents of the stomach, not to mention the stomach itself) would quickly render it ineffective at that.
Lots of people are advocating colloidal silver to treat Ebola virus disease right now. Other claimed cures are drinking saltwater, strong tea and coffee mixtures, and kola nuts. These people are also misinformed.
EDIT: Because I don't think the above comment carries the tenor of what I'm looking for...
The response I predict from you is along the lines of "well, with all the human misery, why aren't we trying (...)". It's a common statement with this outbreak.
Here's why we aren't: there are significant ethical quandaries involving giving an undereducated, desperate population experimental drugs that we think might work (ZMapp, TKM-Ebola). The population as it stands is extremely mistrusting of the intentions of aid workers, as evidenced by beliefs that range from "Ebola doesn't exist" to "They're taking you there to kill you!" Some MSF EVD treatment facilities have started showing the bodies of deceased victims to their relatives to prove there isn't an organ harvesting conspiracy occurring.
The absolute worst thing you could do in the middle of a public health disaster is to advocate treatments that make no sense whatsoever. This will accomplish nothing but spreading further distrust of the local and foreign aid groups that are almost overwhelmed as it is.
I think I can agree with the idea that experimenting during the present situation could be damaging for all the reasons you point to. It seem standard treatment like keeping hydrated and isolated are not accepted, we must add confusion with experimentation.
BTW, I have read the advocacy of colloidal silver and the damage it does - I think those guys are nuts. I understand that people will view my iodine advocacy the same way - I face this every time I take kelp in front of my wife...
Iodine works as a disinfectant due to it's oxidizing capability. If you take iodine orally, it'll be reduced pretty quickly to iodide (which has no disinfectant properties), then taken up by the body to form various iodine containing hormones related to the thyroid.
Taken up by all cells with a sodium/iodide symporter. From wikipedia: Apart from thyroid cells NIS can also be found, although less expressed, in other tissues such as the salivary glands, the gastric mucosa, the kidney, the placenta, the ovaries and the mammary glands during pregnancy and lactation. It also occurs is in the lungs.
So it's concentrated in the gut and kidneys - 2 places strongly effected by ebola. And there is a plausible link to slowing viral infection through destruction of infected cells. It was just a suggestion.
The standard responses occured - 1) that stuff will burn tissue. and 2) it's only good for your thyroid. Both of these statements are false. Well sure #1 with concentrated iodine will do that, but that's not relevant to my original suggestion.
