4 ms·

and the fallout if an untested experimental drug, one that has not even reached clinical trials, killed a non white non American... really there is no please y

and the fallout if an untested experimental drug, one that has not even reached clinical trials, killed a non white non American... really there is no please your type. damned if we do, damned if we don't. What saddens me, unlike the OP about Doctors getting it, is that far too many are looking to take offense or worse, take offense for someone else who may not actually be offended, for nearly any event which occurs. Two people already volunteering to do work I bet over ninety nine percent of us here would never volunteer to do in a place we would certainly not volunteer to go to took a drug that just as likely could have not even worked, I am more than happy it worked out for them I am betting if allowed the will go back

nknighthb 12y ago
> really there is no please your type What "type" would that be, exactly? I agree the deciding factor is that they were white Americans. So obviously you must think I'm of some "type" who would be part of some "fallout" if it had killed a non-white non-American. And you would be 100% wrong. I'll accept your apology now. Actually, scratch that, I won't. I don't want an apology from your type.
- victorhooi 12y ago
  Gosh, all the crazies crawl our of the woodwork now... Look, unless you have some actual proof, speculating that because they were white, that's why they got it is just conspiracy theory wackiness. The drug company was an American company, perhaps for legal or whatever reasons, they thought it better to test on their own citizens first? And Shivetya has a point - if they had picked some random chump from Africa to use as their guinea pig and things had gone south, I bet there would be a s*itstorm of moral outrage that we'd used those poor foreigners as our test subjects. As others have pointed out, one of the victims was a doctor, the other some type of nursing staff, who flew over to Africa from the US, of their own volition, to help look after Ebola victims. Have you done something like that recently? If I was risking my life every day, to try to help Ebola victims, I'd want to think that I'd at least be covered. I have neither their raw courage or medical skillset, but I tip my hat off to them. I don't think we just begrudge that an American company was ok to use them as guinea pigs for an experimental drug that had never been tested in humans. And hey, look, if these people get cured, maybe they'll head back over to Africa again, to continue helping people.
  - mcherm 12y ago
    > Gosh, all the crazies crawl our of the woodwork now... Please stop with the name-calling. We at Hacker News should be better than that. > Look, unless you have some actual proof, speculating that because they were white, that's why they got it is just conspiracy theory wackiness. No, it is speculation, but it is not "conspiracy theory wackiness". An extremely plausible theory is that these two received the drug while others did not because they were American. Your own posting suggests that. floody-berry posted three links to other health care professionals who happen to be African, who had died in this outbreak. > As others have pointed out, one of the victims was a doctor, the other some type of nursing staff, who flew over to Africa from the US, of their own volition, to help look after Ebola victims. Have you done something like that recently? > > If I was risking my life every day, to try to help Ebola victims, I'd want to think that I'd at least be covered. Indeed. So what about Dr. Sheik Humarr Khan? He was lauded by news services and governments around the world for the enormous difference he had made in the treatment of Ebola in Sierra Leone. I would want someone like him to be covered too. But he wasn't. Why not? Is it, as you suggest, because the company decided "perhaps for legal or whatever reasons" (your words) that they should only provide the experimental drug for Americans? Because if so, I think that is TERRIBLE -- and I think that the laws (or "whatever reasons") should be changed. Because it is unethical to say that only American lives are important enough to save with an experimental treatment.
    - victorhooi 12y ago
      I suspect you perhaps didn't actually read my post that carefully. As I pointed out, this was a drug from an American pharmaceutical company. And the trial was overseen by the CDC, which last time I checked, was an American federal body. So it's perfectly reasonable, whether for legal, jurisdictional, or whatever reasons, that they would pick American citizens as their first guinea pigs. This has nothing to do with "only saving American lives". You could replace American with any other country, and it would probably be exactly the same. For example - Bayer, a German drug company, has in tandem with the Bundesinstitut für risikobewertung decided to run a trial on two local volunteer. Would you be just as outraged then? Yet, you seem to see this as some grand conspiracy to protect American lives... Further, you seem to have completely overlooked the fact that we have American citizens flying over to Africa, and putting themselves at risk to look after Ebola victims. I'm not even from America, and I don't really see the huge moral outrage here. The drugs hasn't even hit human clinical trials yet, so I don't see how you can even draw conclusions on who it might or might not be offered to.
- darkmagnus 12y ago
  The tin-foil hat, overly sensitive type....
  - webXL 12y ago
    And the type who has no clue what predominately white Americans spend on predominately black Africans to help them fight AIDS. It's 2014. You can drop the race baiting and nationalism. http://www.avert.org/funding-hiv-and-aids.htm http://www.avert.org/funding-hiv-and-aids.htm
mcherm 12y ago
Actually, I could support a policy that said: When we have an experimental treatment for which there are not enough doses for all victims, medical personnel go to the front of the line. I could also support a policy that said: When we have an experimental treatment which has not been proven safe in humans, it may only be given to those who have given informed consent. But what if someone told you that our actual policy is this: When we have an experimental treatment it is made available only to Americans and Europeans, never Africans. I could never support a policy like that. I would consider it deeply unethical. And if that is the policy being implemented, then there is something deeply wrong. You are criticizing floody-berry's post, saying things like "there is no please [sic] your type". But in fact, floody-berry is providing actual evidence (albeit circumstantial) that the actual practice implements that third possibility. And if that is true, then I want to know about it -- because I want to change the behavior of my country.
- krschultz 12y ago
  From the perspective of society as a whole, the most important thing is whether or not this drug works. There are limited doses, it has potential to save many lives, but we need good data on it. That means we can't just take the handful of doses and use them willy-nilly, the patients need to be brought to a lab for observation (and to see what happens if given the best medical care available). Given that the research for the drugs is happening in the US and the US's CDC is really responsible for all of it, that means the patients need to come to the US. Given that there is not a snowballs chance in hell of a bringing a non-US citizen to the US when they are known to have Ebola (many didn't even want to let a US citizen back in), it has to be a US citizen. The 3rd outcome is a result of multiple factors, not some insane racist conspiracy.

nknighthb 12y ago

> really there is no please your type What "type" would that be, exactly? I agree the deciding factor is that they were white Americans. So obviously you must think I'm of some "type" who would be part of some "fallout" if it had killed a non-white non-American. And you would be 100% wrong. I'll accept your apology now. Actually, scratch that, I won't. I don't want an apology from your type.

victorhooi 12y ago
Gosh, all the crazies crawl our of the woodwork now... Look, unless you have some actual proof, speculating that because they were white, that's why they got it is just conspiracy theory wackiness. The drug company was an American company, perhaps for legal or whatever reasons, they thought it better to test on their own citizens first? And Shivetya has a point - if they had picked some random chump from Africa to use as their guinea pig and things had gone south, I bet there would be a s*itstorm of moral outrage that we'd used those poor foreigners as our test subjects. As others have pointed out, one of the victims was a doctor, the other some type of nursing staff, who flew over to Africa from the US, of their own volition, to help look after Ebola victims. Have you done something like that recently? If I was risking my life every day, to try to help Ebola victims, I'd want to think that I'd at least be covered. I have neither their raw courage or medical skillset, but I tip my hat off to them. I don't think we just begrudge that an American company was ok to use them as guinea pigs for an experimental drug that had never been tested in humans. And hey, look, if these people get cured, maybe they'll head back over to Africa again, to continue helping people.
- mcherm 12y ago
  > Gosh, all the crazies crawl our of the woodwork now... Please stop with the name-calling. We at Hacker News should be better than that. > Look, unless you have some actual proof, speculating that because they were white, that's why they got it is just conspiracy theory wackiness. No, it is speculation, but it is not "conspiracy theory wackiness". An extremely plausible theory is that these two received the drug while others did not because they were American. Your own posting suggests that. floody-berry posted three links to other health care professionals who happen to be African, who had died in this outbreak. > As others have pointed out, one of the victims was a doctor, the other some type of nursing staff, who flew over to Africa from the US, of their own volition, to help look after Ebola victims. Have you done something like that recently? > > If I was risking my life every day, to try to help Ebola victims, I'd want to think that I'd at least be covered. Indeed. So what about Dr. Sheik Humarr Khan? He was lauded by news services and governments around the world for the enormous difference he had made in the treatment of Ebola in Sierra Leone. I would want someone like him to be covered too. But he wasn't. Why not? Is it, as you suggest, because the company decided "perhaps for legal or whatever reasons" (your words) that they should only provide the experimental drug for Americans? Because if so, I think that is TERRIBLE -- and I think that the laws (or "whatever reasons") should be changed. Because it is unethical to say that only American lives are important enough to save with an experimental treatment.
  - victorhooi 12y ago
    I suspect you perhaps didn't actually read my post that carefully. As I pointed out, this was a drug from an American pharmaceutical company. And the trial was overseen by the CDC, which last time I checked, was an American federal body. So it's perfectly reasonable, whether for legal, jurisdictional, or whatever reasons, that they would pick American citizens as their first guinea pigs. This has nothing to do with "only saving American lives". You could replace American with any other country, and it would probably be exactly the same. For example - Bayer, a German drug company, has in tandem with the Bundesinstitut für risikobewertung decided to run a trial on two local volunteer. Would you be just as outraged then? Yet, you seem to see this as some grand conspiracy to protect American lives... Further, you seem to have completely overlooked the fact that we have American citizens flying over to Africa, and putting themselves at risk to look after Ebola victims. I'm not even from America, and I don't really see the huge moral outrage here. The drugs hasn't even hit human clinical trials yet, so I don't see how you can even draw conclusions on who it might or might not be offered to.
darkmagnus 12y ago
The tin-foil hat, overly sensitive type....
- webXL 12y ago
  And the type who has no clue what predominately white Americans spend on predominately black Africans to help them fight AIDS. It's 2014. You can drop the race baiting and nationalism. http://www.avert.org/funding-hiv-and-aids.htm http://www.avert.org/funding-hiv-and-aids.htm

mcherm 12y ago

Actually, I could support a policy that said: When we have an experimental treatment for which there are not enough doses for all victims, medical personnel go to the front of the line. I could also support a policy that said: When we have an experimental treatment which has not been proven safe in humans, it may only be given to those who have given informed consent. But what if someone told you that our actual policy is this: When we have an experimental treatment it is made available only to Americans and Europeans, never Africans. I could never support a policy like that. I would consider it deeply unethical. And if that is the policy being implemented, then there is something deeply wrong. You are criticizing floody-berry's post, saying things like "there is no please [sic] your type". But in fact, floody-berry is providing actual evidence (albeit circumstantial) that the actual practice implements that third possibility. And if that is true, then I want to know about it -- because I want to change the behavior of my country.

krschultz 12y ago
From the perspective of society as a whole, the most important thing is whether or not this drug works. There are limited doses, it has potential to save many lives, but we need good data on it. That means we can't just take the handful of doses and use them willy-nilly, the patients need to be brought to a lab for observation (and to see what happens if given the best medical care available). Given that the research for the drugs is happening in the US and the US's CDC is really responsible for all of it, that means the patients need to come to the US. Given that there is not a snowballs chance in hell of a bringing a non-US citizen to the US when they are known to have Ebola (many didn't even want to let a US citizen back in), it has to be a US citizen. The 3rd outcome is a result of multiple factors, not some insane racist conspiracy.