Archive for November 13th, 2014

Ethical dilemma for Ebola drug trials

13 November, 2014

Public-health officials split on use of control groups in tests of experimental treatments.

With clinical trials of experimental Ebola treatments set to begin in December, public-health officials face a major ethical quandary: should some participants be placed in a control group that receives only standard symptomatic treatment, despite a mortality rate of around 70% for Ebola in West Africa?

Two groups planning trials in Guinea and Liberia are diverging on this point, and key decisions for both are likely to come this week. US researchers meet on 11 November at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in Bethesda, Maryland, to discuss US-government sponsored trials. A separate group is gathering at the World Health Organization (WHO) in Geneva, Switzerland, on 11 and 12 November to confer on both the US effort and trials organized by the WHO with help from African and European researchers and funded by the Wellcome Trust and the European Union.


I have to say – faced with a deadly disease, I think it is UNethical to have control / placebo arms of any trial.

Seriously: what about comparing ZMapp and immune serum, for example, with historical records of previous standard of care outcomes rather than directly?

I know if I were an Ebola patient, and I saw someone else getting the experimental therapy and I didn’t, that I would have a few things to say.

It’s not as if these therapies have not been tested in primates, after all – in fact, both the ChAd3 and MVA-based vaccines and ZMapp have been thoroughly tested in macaques, as have the other therapeutics, with no adverse events there.

I say if people say clearly that they want an experimental intervention, that they should get one: after all, the first use of immune serum was not done in a clinical trial, but rather as a last-ditch let’s-see-if-this-works intervention – yet its use does not seem controversial?

See on Scoop.itVirology News

Genetic Data Clarify Insect Evolution

13 November, 2014

Researchers create a phylogenetic tree of insects by comparing the sequences of 1,478 protein-coding genes among species.

Using an unprecedented quantity of genetic sequence information from insects, researchers have assembled a new phylogenetic tree showing when these invertebrates evolved and how they are related to each other. The tree suggests that insects evolved approximately 479 million years ago, around the time when plants colonized land, and that insects are most closely related to cave-dwelling crustaceans. The new study, published today (November 6) in Science, also confirms some previously suspected family groupings.



This bolsters my contention that it was the coevolution of insects and plants – because what else were insects going to eat? – that has driven much of viral evolution as well.

Because what else was there to infect? Basically, the only terrestrial organisms around some 450 million years ago were primitive green plants, insects, fungi and bacteria. So insects ate plants, fungi infected plants, viruses in insects entered plants and vice-versa; fungi got involved as well, and possibly even bacteria.

I have speculated on the possibilities here (, but it is pleasing to see new science that reinforces some of what I have been spreading about for some years now B-)

See on Scoop.itVirology and Bioinformatics from