Cypress hospital monitoring patient for Ebola, calls it 'extremely low risk' http://abc13.com/news/cypress-hospital-monitoring-patient-for-ebola/339306/
The dallas ebola guy is getting experimental drug for ebola. http://www.ibtimes.com/ebola-outbre...eated-brincidofovir-experimental-drug-1700054 I guess once it became clear he was gonna die they decided that it might be a bad look to not give him anything.
I disagree with using the drug on that guy, who knowingly exposed many unexposed people, while his own more innocent friends and family have no access to the drug in Africa. But I was not consulted, as usual. It seems to send the wrong message: sneak over to America, lie to customs, and we will bend over backwards to save you from ebola.
Well, maybe they're using him as a test subject to see if the experimental drug will work?? What's the harm?
Ebola Zombie Have you seen this article? http://bigamericannews.com/2014/09/30/africa-confirms-3rd-ebola-victim-rises-from-the-dead-releases-picture-of-first-ebola-zombie-captured/
While it does seem unfair and the guy definitely does not deserve mercy, hospitals are obligated to stabilize patients and administer care. Some might feel he doesn't even deserve our healthcare, but it's being done for the greater good. He likely has no health insurance either, so his hospital bill will be enormous with the round-the-clock care, quarantine procedure, and being given an experimental drug. Plus, like Lady_Di said, he's a human test subject that can give good data for the success of the drug. If he does survive, Liberia is going to prosecute him. He's the world's public enemy. He will be financially ruined. But at least he'll have his life.
It won't give any data. The CDC has already said this is not how human trials are done when the two americans were given ZMapp. The results are worthless. If you think about it, it is easy to poke holes though any study where the guy was sent home with antibiotics for two days, then treated for a week without the drug, then given the drug. This is about appearances because this guy is gonna die like I said several days ago.
So you'd kill him basically. Fair enough. But you do it then. You kill him. Instead of wanting "the system" to kill him.
they gave this guy an experimental drug that hasn't even been tested in animals yet. Test tube only. I guess if you have to push a bunch of ebola experimental drugs through the FDA w/out human or animal testing... an outbreak would be the way to do it.
That is some weird logic. These drugs are priceless. They are out of ZMapp. They don't cook them up in a big pot, they have to be grown in individual cells. You can't possibly equate not giving him a drug that 99.999% of people with ebola won't get with killing him.
It does give data. It's not hard data in a well-controlled study that's applicable to when this drug does go through its trials, but it does give an idea of how the drug works, positively and negatively. There are scientific benefits to test the drug on him.
If you don't have a clinical trial protocol, you just have a story. You don't have to take my word for it.
It's now unclear if he actually knew he might have ebola. It was reported somewhere that he was told the woman he was helping had pregnancy complications as opposed to ebola. We may never know the reality of what he knew and what his mindset as. Everything that's been reported suggested this was a long-planned trip. So if he didn't know he had ebola or that he was exposed to ebola patients, he may not have lied about anything. You also have to ask - if he DID know about it, why on earth would he visit his family and kids and expose them to it? You may be right that he lied and committed fraud and all that - but are you willing to bet his life on it with a real chance that you're wrong? Keep in mind, Liberia also has an incentive here to make him look like a rogue bad guy to keep good relations with the US. There has been so much incorrect information reported in this case on everything from the patient himself to the hospital's response and later decisions, that it's impossible to know what the real story is at this point.
When you have an outbreak that threatens to become a massive health disaster (at least in Africa), you may have to take less-than-ideal data and work with what you have. People developed and tested drugs long before there was an FDA and clinical trials and the like. If you start giving the drug to a bunch of dying people and they all start living, it doesn't really matter that it wasn't an organized clinical trial - you just go with it and assume it might work to stop a humanitarian crisis until you have evidence otherwise. Sometimes, an imperfect solution is better than no solution at all.
Logic isn't weird. You have something available to help him. You chose not to administer it, he probably dies. So be the guy, be the guy that pulls the trigger.
The reason he was given this drug is because they wanted to appear to be "treating him". He also looked like he wouldn't recover without it so the reasons for not giving him the shot went away. They won't be giving this drug to "a bunch of people", your post is basically nonsense. You have had over five thousand deaths with this outbreak. A "system" isn't killing him, the horrible disease he caught in his own country is. He has had WAY better care than any previous Liberian with ebola in history has.
That's complete speculation on your part. Umm, lots of people will be looking like they won't recover without it. It's very likely that this drug will be tested on others during this crisis, especially if it has a notable impact on this guy. This is no different than ZMapp or others - the key will be which ones show results and which can be put into mass production quickly.
I think you are the one speculating. I just reporting speech really. http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/06/us-health-ebola-experimental-idUSKCN0HV1S020141006
You're the one that is completely misinterpreting those words to your own beliefs. In medicine, you follow standard of care. When that doesn't work, experimental treatments are back on the table. They aren't considered in the beginning because there are not enough controlled clinical trials for those procedures to say they are beneficial or safe. So, when Duncan is going to die through standard ebola protocol, they are giving him the experimental treatment because it has a chance of working. If it doesn't work, he dies. If he doesn't receive experimental treatments, he dies. The only con to testing the experimental drug is wasting it. They are not testing this drug on him just to give the perception of treatment. If they were, they'd tell him family it was a placebo and not tell the media about it. You're stuck in your own fantasy.
