4 ms·

That wasn't the point. The point was that the drug was very experimental, produced in a country that's not trustworthy, with an unknown chance of success. Succ

That wasn't the point. The point was that the drug was very experimental, produced in a country that's not trustworthy, with an unknown chance of success. Success would generate, at best, faint praise. Failure would generate a shitstorm and a half. Given our rep over there, it could well generate one anyway.

ars 12y ago
> produced in a country that's not trustworthy Wasn't it made in the US?
- pgeorgi 12y ago
  Exactly. Guinea's health minister said something along the lines of "If the WHO thinks that our citizens should serve as test subjects for these drugs, that's something we'll need to debate with them". That's how the use of these drugs is perceived over there. Liberia is historically close to the US and as such more willing to work with unproven western technology in critical times. Others are suspicious even if the things they get is tried and proven for a century.
  - k-mcgrady 12y ago
    >> "That's how the use of these drugs is perceived over there." I really wouldn't put it past big pharma to have discussed that they could use these people as test subjects and get minimal bad press if it fails.
- andyjohnson0 12y ago
  Tangential, but Wikipedia has an interesting but brief description [1] of how the drug is produced. Its a rather complex process involving infected mice, lab-work, and generation of antibodies in tobacco plants. It is understandable that the drug is expensive and only available in small quantities. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZMapp#Production http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZMapp#Production
cmdkeen 12y ago
It's not even "our rep" that's the issue. One or two people die of a horrific disease, western doctors in spacesuits show up and spray the village and tell the locals to ignore their traditional burial rituals. Then loads more people get sick. To a populace who don't understand what is happening and whose education is not that advanced it's easy to see how they could assume the westerners caused the disease to spread.

ars 12y ago

> produced in a country that's not trustworthy Wasn't it made in the US?

pgeorgi 12y ago
Exactly. Guinea's health minister said something along the lines of "If the WHO thinks that our citizens should serve as test subjects for these drugs, that's something we'll need to debate with them". That's how the use of these drugs is perceived over there. Liberia is historically close to the US and as such more willing to work with unproven western technology in critical times. Others are suspicious even if the things they get is tried and proven for a century.
- k-mcgrady 12y ago
  >> "That's how the use of these drugs is perceived over there." I really wouldn't put it past big pharma to have discussed that they could use these people as test subjects and get minimal bad press if it fails.
andyjohnson0 12y ago
Tangential, but Wikipedia has an interesting but brief description [1] of how the drug is produced. Its a rather complex process involving infected mice, lab-work, and generation of antibodies in tobacco plants. It is understandable that the drug is expensive and only available in small quantities. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZMapp#Production http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZMapp#Production

cmdkeen 12y ago

It's not even "our rep" that's the issue. One or two people die of a horrific disease, western doctors in spacesuits show up and spray the village and tell the locals to ignore their traditional burial rituals. Then loads more people get sick. To a populace who don't understand what is happening and whose education is not that advanced it's easy to see how they could assume the westerners caused the disease to spread.