It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

ZMapp (Ebola Vaccine) is all gone....but company won't tell how many doses were released....

page: 2
11
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 13 2014 @ 01:17 PM
link   
Honestly, my first guess would be this is all part of the grand plan, that there in fact is no cure and they just wan't to give the people the idea that there is a cure while Ebola rages on.

I don't know, or maybe the drug exist and they just locked it up somewhere until the Ebola virus reaches apocalyptic proportions... I don't know.

Either way, the company doesn't make sense. Good thread, will follow with interest.
edit on thAmerica/Chicago813uk2014 by MessageforAll because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 13 2014 @ 01:24 PM
link   
Interesting....the connections just got even more strange...DARPA and MB-003 (MappBio)

So it seems that DARPA and DTRA have been involved for over a decade with MappBio and MB-003, which is the main component of ZMapp.



MB-003 was developed through a decade-long collaborative effort between private
industry and the U.S. government, with funding from the Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency (DARPA), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the Defense Threat Reduction
Agency (DTRA).
“With no vaccines or therapeutics currently licensed to treat or prevent Ebola virus, MB-
003 is a promising candidate for continued development,” said collaborator Larry Zeitlin, Ph.D.,
president of Mapp Biopharmaceutical in San Diego, California.


Source PDF



posted on Aug, 13 2014 @ 01:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

I take it you haven't made it over to the "conjecture thread" to see this post I made:


On August 22–23, 2013, agencies within the United States Department of Defense (DoD) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) sponsored the Filovirus Medical Countermeasures (MCMs) Workshop as an extension of the activities of the Filovirus Animal Non-clinical Group (FANG). The FANG is a federally-recognized multi-Agency group established in 2011 to coordinate and facilitate U.S. government (USG) efforts to develop filovirus MCMs. The workshop brought together government, academic and industry experts to consider the needs for filovirus MCMs and evaluate the status of the product development pipeline. This report summarizes speaker presentations and highlights progress and challenges remaining in the field.


Meeting Report

Challenges, Progress, and Opportunities: Proceedings of the Filovirus Medical Countermeasures Workshop


So, there's a symposium and a few months later an outbreak?

And they named this group FANG?!

Really?



posted on Aug, 13 2014 @ 02:38 PM
link   
Another interesting article from 2012 on Larry Zeitlin. The article states early on:



A new Ebola virus study has shown promising preliminary results, preventing disease in infected nonhuman primates using monoclonal antibodies. The report recently available in the online edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), describes the use of a “cocktail” of monoclonal antibodies, or mAbs, to prevent lethal disease in rhesus macaques.1

All animals survived when the compound, known as MB-003, was administered one hour after infection, and two-thirds of them were protected, even when the treatment was administered 48 hours after infection.


ALL ANIMALS SURVIVED.

Then Larry Zeitlin, head of MappBio, states:



“We were pleased to see how well the humanized mAbs of MB-003 performed,” said Larry Zeitlin, PhD, president of Mapp Biopharmaceutical and senior author on the study. “We also were pleasantly surprised by the superiority of the plant-derived mAbs compared to the same mAbs produced in traditional mammalian cell culture.”

The process is both cost- and time-efficient, according to the report.

“Our GMP facility can generate a new antibody lot in two weeks to rapidly address new threats and new outbreaks,” said Barry Bratcher, chief operating officer of Kentucky BioProcessing and co-author on the PNAS study.


Source

So as early as 2012 they had a humanized version that had been tested and was impressive, AND they can rapidly generate a new antibody lot in 2 weeks.

Why are they now saying they are out and can't produce anymore for a while?



posted on Aug, 13 2014 @ 03:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

So as early as 2012 they had a humanized version that had been tested and was impressive, AND they can rapidly generate a new antibody lot in 2 weeks.

Why are they now saying they are out and can't produce anymore for a while?



Without knowing the process it's difficult to say. To take another example - a CNC mill might be able to churn out thousands of gadgets in a hour, but it still might take a few hours to change the tooling and setups from the last product before you can begin. Also, you still need the raw materials to hand in the first place.

For the drug, it might be a two week turnaround when everything is set up and ready, machines programmed to do what they need to do, and with all the necessary supplies stockpiled and supply chain are in place. Would they be that prepared for a drug that still wasn't approved for human use? Doesn't sound like a sensible business decision to me. Sure, have the plans and procedures in place, it's important for investors to see that there is a properly defined plan for actually making the product, but once you start buying materials and dedicating machines you're paying money for them, even if they're not being used yet.

My reading of the documents was that they had identified partners for production and a production method was agreed, probably even used for small batches for experimental purposes, not necessarily that a dedicated production line was configured, supplied, and ready to go at a moment's notice.

There are lots of interesting connections and timing questions here, but the difficulty in getting production running is not something in itself that would cause me to feel suspicious.

Oh, and while the drug works on test subjects, one of the first humans given it died anyway. Whether that was because the patient was too far advanced in the illness, or the drug is not as effective on humans... no idea. Working on apes does not automatically mean working on humans, otherwise there would be no need for clinical trials with humans.



posted on Aug, 13 2014 @ 07:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe


Figure 4 shows the dynamics of the population age for 1% and 5% w/v inoculum sizes and the subsequent prediction of antibody r14D9 accumulation. According to the model, we assumed that proliferating cells produce the recombinant protein. Expression of r14D9 began on the fourth day, when cell proliferation ends, continued up to the tenth day (1% inoculum size) or eighth day (5% inoculum size), and then abruptly decayed.


Mathematical Model for Production of Recombinant Antibody 14D9 By Nicotiana tabacum Cell Suspension Batch Culture

If I'm reading this right, the tobacco stops producing the antibodies after 8 to 10 days and I would presume harvested. Afterall, after the anibodies are no longer produced, why allow the plant grow further?

Someone tell me I'm wrong.



posted on Aug, 13 2014 @ 07:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Really? You can't see why the THREAT REDUCTION agency is working with companies that are working on the vaccine for a disease that could potentially be weaponized?

Just think about that for a second.



posted on Aug, 13 2014 @ 08:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

How many people have died because this company did not release the vaccine...what a load of crap...I suspect it has been around for a while but then again I have no proof...sounds like a good stock to invest in if they are public..



posted on Aug, 13 2014 @ 08:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: chrismarco
a reply to: Vasa Croe

How many people have died because this company did not release the vaccine...what a load of crap...I suspect it has been around for a while but then again I have no proof...sounds like a good stock to invest in if they are public..



And how do you propose they release a new drug that hasn't be officially approved?

Everything I've seen so far has stated that it this an experimental drug that has so far only completed the animal phase of testing.

Nobody wants to responsible for the next Thalidomide crisis. Rushing that drug to market without adequate testing killed more people than Ebola has killed in the last 40 years.



posted on Aug, 13 2014 @ 09:57 PM
link   
a reply to: EvillerBob

Seriously? You have Ebola, how worse can it get?

And all kidding aside, half of the drugs we use today have horrible side effects such as suicide, depression, death...you can hear them on commercials every day..don't see those pulled...because it's easy money..saving an ebola victim is a one shot deal and as a pharmaceutical company they rely on repeat customers..




edit on 13-8-2014 by chrismarco because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2014 @ 10:24 PM
link   
This isn't a vaccine, it's a serum to help someone who already has Ebola. Taking this does not reduce your chances of getting it.

Which is important.. because there is a big difference between creating a vaccine.. and creating a cure to help people already infected. If their objective was to help cure folks during an outbreak, this seems more like a development against a bio weapon attack. A vaccine would be a more humanitarian / preventative approach.



posted on Aug, 13 2014 @ 11:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe
Of course there are free samples. It's good advertising.

They said they couldn't make much more that quickly. Besides it didn't work on the Spanish priest. He died. It's not been tested or approved by the FDA

Sounds like they will suddenly have more if they are paid for it.WHO is bankrupt.

edit on 13-8-2014 by violet because: (no reason given)


It's just a treatment, not a cure. Some people need several doses
edit on 13-8-2014 by violet because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2014 @ 11:14 PM
link   
If it's about the money, and it probably is. They aren't about to send it all to Africa and eradicate the disease. Then, making more is of no use. There stocks will fall if that happens.

Unless anybody believes these pharmacy companies actually give a #
edit on 13-8-2014 by violet because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2014 @ 11:17 PM
link   
a reply to: chrismarco

If they give it all to Africa, I wouldn't invest. They need victims who need it. Victims in rich countries not Africa

It's sad it's this way.



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 08:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Really? You can't see why the THREAT REDUCTION agency is working with companies that are working on the vaccine for a disease that could potentially be weaponized?

Just think about that for a second.


Yeah...I think it is odd that a company like this is working on an Ebola serum. From their own page they state:



DTRA is the U.S. Department of Defense’s official Combat Support Agency for countering weapons of mass destruction. Our people are Subject Matter Experts on WMD, and we address the entire spectrum of chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and high yield explosive threats


All that we have been told is that Ebola in any form has no potential to wipe out a large population based on the rates of transmission and manner of transmission. Everyone keeps saying it is no big deal and will die out on its own. So why would a government agency such as DTRA even be involved in this at all? Why is DARPA involved at all? This makes me think there is a LOT they are not telling us about the current situation and possible the mode of transmission of the current Ebola strain.

It has been stated that it must be by contact with bodily fluid of some sort....so how does that equate to a WMD? I just don't get the connection to a company that specializes in WMD's being involved in a serum for Ebola with the agencies reporting how low of a risk something like this is currently....doesn't add up.



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 08:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

It didn't have to "wipe out a population". They brought back TWO PATIENTS to the US and look at the reaction it generated. If it was to get out there would be rioting to get food or supplies, and people going nuts over anyone they even THOUGHT had it.

A WMD doesn't have to be super uber destructive. All it has to do is create the FEAR that it is and people will do the rest. A high body count is great, but not necessary.

A dirty bomb is considered a WMD and it's not nearly as destructive as people think.



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 08:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Well considering outbreaks are usually a few hundred and they are few and far between.. I would guess they only had a bit on hand.

Not like this was something expected.



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 08:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Vasa Croe

It didn't have to "wipe out a population". They brought back TWO PATIENTS to the US and look at the reaction it generated. If it was to get out there would be rioting to get food or supplies, and people going nuts over anyone they even THOUGHT had it.

A WMD doesn't have to be super uber destructive. All it has to do is create the FEAR that it is and people will do the rest. A high body count is great, but not necessary.

A dirty bomb is considered a WMD and it's not nearly as destructive as people think.


Why the involvement for over a decade in this then? My point is there has to be more to this story than what we are hearing. Such as a definitive threat from somewhere at some point that Ebola has been weaponized. They have spent over a decade on this....that is not something the government would do for a non-threat. There would have to be a real possibility or even some evidence of this being weaponized I would think. Has there been in the past somewhere? I mean I know the government throws money at things, but typically it is for a credible reason. For this virus to have only killed the number of victims it has killed, their involvement seems like overkill to me.



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 09:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Because it has the potential to be used as a bio weapon even without being modified. Guess what bio weapons are. They're doing their damn mission.

And if it was used as a weapon people would be screaming if they WEREN'T working on a treatment. Jesus, talk about damned if you do, damned if you don't.
edit on 8/14/2014 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 09:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Because it has the potential to be used as a bio weapon even without being modified. Guess what bio weapons are. They're doing they're damn mission.

And if it was used as a weapon people would be screaming if they WEREN'T working on a treatment. Jesus, talk about damned if you do, damned if you don't.


I get that, but what I am wondering is why they have been so heavily vested in this particular virus for so long when it has killed so few people versus any other virus on the planet? I know how bio-weapons work, but as far as the public is concerned they are saying it has to be through bodily fluid contact.....that hardly seems like a WMD unless it can be made an aerosol of some sort and released. Or they infect 1000 people and release them into a few large cities at the same time. This involvement seems as if they already have knowledge of something of an aerosol threat being credible. That is the only way this could be considered a WMD.

The death toll from Ebola in all it's years in the human population could not possibly constitute a WMD classification requiring involvement from the US government and funding from multiple high profile entities within.



new topics




 
11
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join