Did you see this about the "secret serum" for ebola?

I don't think things are perfect but I don't think drug companies are all bad. I have had to deal with very expensive medications and so have people in my family. It's not easy.

But I also know how much work and time and sheer brilliance goes into developing drugs. It costs over 1 billion dollars, on average, and over 10 years to develop one drug. There needs to be motivation to do that.

I do think, in general, companies and heads of companies (ALL companies, not just pharma) do make way too much money, but I don't think the answer is limiting profits or placing other restrictions on drug companies.

Sorry for linking extra verbiage...

The CDC spokesperson didn't say they didn't know about it. They said no proven treatments. That's something else entirely. This serum had never before been given to a human. They did not know if it would work, it was not a finalized experiment, rather a last chance effort to help.

BTW I totally agree with previous statements about nefarious acts and poor decsions (especially during 1980s) with HIV/ Aids. Unfortunately many sources are to blame, not just one company, government, or society.

I think there are several reasons that so many people over the age of 60 are on many meds. It is a complicated issue for sure. Not saying that drug companies don't have something to do with it, but diet, longer life spans, lifestyle factors, etc all play a part.

It looks like our government is helping to fund the research. Which is probably a good thing.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

Drug development is a very expensive process. The intense screening process of the FDA contributes to the cost as well. My Mom is on a very expensive drug for Afib. It is a fairly new drug. I had to explain to her just why the new drugs are so expensive.

Hopefully, these two Americans will continue to improve and their treatment will help get this drug approved as a cure for Ebola.

I haven't read every post yet, but I think "secret" is a little over the top. I think whichever company is working on it wasn't sharing data because they wanted to test, market and profit. That is their business.

As for why the two Americans were offered the drug? I wondered if the drug company is American? I don't think that makes it right. I hope this company has a real treatment and can get it through testing and start helping people as soon as possible.

Pfizer actually did fly a team Africa to conduct a trial of a new drug for meningitis a decade or so ago. I believe it was in Nigeria and they gave it to a few hundred children during an outbreak that killed ten thousand. Despite the drug working relatively well - a handful of children died. It was a nightmare for health care workers in Africa as misinformation spread and people were sure all shots were a conspiracy to sterilize Muslims. They had to actually suspend the polio vaccination program for a time as several health care workers were killed for "continuing the conspiracy". Polio rates soared. Pfizer ended up settling, and I'm sure they did a lot wrong during that trial - but one thing is for sure, no drug company is going to inject a totally experimental drug into people in Africa. Even if saved lives of those suffering from Ebola, the ramifications are much much greater for the ability to effectively treat people in a whole host of medical issues.

This is just a side post to the whole drug company thing. DH takes a biological. In the early Spring it went up $300/month...it just went up another $400/month...do I think the drug company's cost increased that much in a few short months? No, I don't. Can you say "rip-off"?

Same here. It's BS.

Darcy that is the situation I couldn't quite remember the details of, but is exactly why using an American victim of the disease was a possibility. Not because anyone (and I am no fan of big pharma) wants to see Africans die. It's a volatile situation.

My thoughts exactly.

I was coming here to post just this!

Since the drug is new, untested, and never on a human, I am sure that they want to have the first ones in a controlled environment where they can monitor every single aspect.

I had also read that the drug needs to be kept really cold too--so this could be a factor as well as it is not even FDA approved.

I don't believe that this was a conspiracy, preferential treatment or a case if US only serving an American.

I also believe in free enterprise--the pharm companies who invent these meds should be entitled to earn the money for them, considering what goes into their development.

This is a first for the US--in having a person set foot on American soil with the Ebola disease, so I would hope that the research to be continued will be vital to the development of this drug.

If that was the case Ashley then I would have thought that Dr Sheik Humarr Khan who, by all reports, was a leading Dr in the fight against this in Sierra Leone would have know about it.He died last week without been given the option of taking this drug.

That is why some people are asking questions! This sounds harsh, but if he was dying anyway he had nothing to lose by being given this untested drug. He might have had everything to gain though as things have turned out. But for him, sadly, it's too late.

He was due to give a presentation at Harvard in June but had to cancel because he was too busy dealing with the outbreak.



The Sierra Leone government has declared Kahn a national hero, crediting him with saving more than 100 lives.

The family says he cancelled a presentation at Harvard in June to stay in his country.

LINK