Two aid workers infected with the Ebola virus have been discharged from hospital
bbc.co.uk
bbc.co.uk
So, in general, no, but if this outbreak involves only one strain they might be immune to that particular one.
"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."
Also, this would make a great movie.
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.
Sure. It seems in the U.S. that all you have to do to be a "hero" is enlist in the army.
> [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.
* 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.
> 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:
> ...Franklin Graham said in a statement.
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.
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).
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.
Where is the guy with iodine user id when you need them?
Ebola virus disease is not like c. difficile. It attacks endothelial cells, liver cells, phagocytes... it's as systemic as they come.
As are the benefits of iodine. But to be clear, you don't think it's worth even trying right?
We also see that viral infection can trigger apoptosis here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10547702
And that iodine is critical to some of the pathways leading to apoptosis, which may explain its helpfulness in some cancers: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16120321
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.
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.
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...
Ebola goes wild and does the most damage in blood vessels, not the gut.