And, in fact, GSK stopped work on this "Sudan" version -- one that uses a chimp adenovirus container, to deliver the glycoprotein of the Sudan variant, into the patient (and provoke an immune response) -- after the 2016 successes of the Merck version (for Zaire Ebola).
So, GSK then donated the vaccine stocks and all tech / know-how to the Sabine Vaccine Institute, a global health charity, with HQ in DC. It may be the one most rapidly able to deploy, with over 10,000 doses already in vials, for field trials. All that is needed now is a final green light, from Ugandan authorities.
With now 36 cases, already (and 25 dead), here is the latest from Helen Branswell's fine reporting this morning, for STAT+ -- and a bit:
. . .“We are working with Uganda and WHO to determine the best way to use these doses in the current outbreak,” Richard Koup, acting director of the VCR, told STAT in an email. “The Sabin Vaccine Institute has bulk drug substance for thousands of vaccine doses that must be vialed; they are currently working through the timeline for those activities.”
There are six candidate vaccines, as experimental vaccines are called, that target Ebola Sudan. But only three have advanced to the stage where human clinical trials have begun.
In all three cases, the human trials have been the small initial trials that determine how much vaccine should be given in a dose. Those trials also generate enough safety and immunogenicity data to show that a candidate vaccine appears to be safe enough to proceed with testing, and provide enough evidence of potential benefit to pursue larger trials aimed at determining whether thevaccine actually works. . . .
And -- shifting into the inky nights ahead, we should start seeing ice encrusted Europa close-ups (raw images at least), into the coming weekend, out of Juno's recent flyby. Smile. . . that's some happier news, indeed.
नमस्ते
Seems Cannon is not quite contrite: https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-judge-says-trump-not-200345914.html
ReplyDeleteShe. . . is. . . a piece of work.
ReplyDeleteBut once again, it won't matter much, as by mid-October Tangerine must (even according to her -- on T.'s claim of 200,000 pages!):
". . .[Trump’s] designations shall be on a document-by-document basis.
For any document that [Trump] designates as privileged and/or personal, [Trump] shall include a statement adequately explaining the precise basis for the designation, including, as relevant to any possible assertions of executive privilege, a sufficient description of the rationale and scope of the assertion from which to evaluate the merits of the assertion. . . ."
He won't be able to do this -- ever.
But it is nuttier than nutty. . . that she thinks a plaintiff in civil court, who is suing the US Government, making wild claims of planted evidence, should NOT have to put forth at least some facial evidence (to stay in court) that at least one piece of "evidence" was planted.
Any other USDC Judge would never have let him IN the door without it. He has no. . . standing, without it (as we've long said).
S H E E S H!
Great find though -- will write on it tomorrow -- dinner guests tonight!
Namaste. . . .