Posted on 11/13/2019 1:34:36 PM PST by Valpal1
Prof Daniel Bausch, director of the UK Public Health Rapid Support Team, is one of the scientists leading the trial.
He said there was "no contest" between the two vaccines, and both had their advantages and disadvantages.
Merck's, which is given to those who come into direct and indirect contact with an Ebola patient, could be best used in the middle of an outbreak - while the J&J vaccine could be used to protect people not yet exposed to Ebola.
Prof Bausch said: "The J&J vaccine is not ideally suited to an outbreak setting, primarily because it requires two doses to provide the optimal immunity."
But he said the vaccine "may provide longer-term immunity, and may be associated with fewer side-effects than a live virus vaccine, like the Merck one".
(Excerpt) Read more at bbc.com ...
Of course, everyone hates the profits of pharmaceutical companies......who would never develop vaccines like this if their profits were taken away.
No kidding, it’s okay for farmers and car companies to make money, but God forbid somebody cash in on filling serious medical science needs.
Wouldn’t be keen on testing this.
Airports will go broke if people no longer have to rush to the airport every time they get ebola
People living in the Congo may feel otherwise.
Oh, sure. I agree.
I gave up going to Africa when I had to take a malaria preventative that turned my urine blue. Scared me to death.
What about Obola vaccine? This country needs a good vaccination
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.