Is this just poor writing, or poor representation of the science? This article contradicts itself.
said in a statement that she was free of the virus but was significantly weakened.
There is no cure for Ebola, ...
But both Dr Brantly and Mrs Writebol received an experimental treatment known as ZMapp.
...it remains unclear if [ZMapp] is responsible for their recovery.
Is the virus in remission, or has it been eradicated from Writebol? If there is no cure, then it cannot have been eradicated. Maybe there's no _proven_ cure, in the sense of full medical trials?
In the 'poor writing' department (but unrelated to the above), the article also doesn't tell us who Franklin Graham is. This appears to be the only reference to the name:
There is not cure for Ebola like there is for other diseases. Ebola is a acute infection, meaning that if the body can fight it off, it leaves the body. Think of it like influenza. There is no cure, but once you get over it, there is no more influenza virus in your system.
They were given ZMapp, but they can't tell if that worked or not. Perhaps they would have overcome their illness without it.
They likely didn't say that the male was free of the virus because it has been shown that Ebola can be transmitted through semen of men for up to 7 weeks.
At the very least, it seems like better coverage than I've encountered elsewhere.
I heard on the radio this morning, for instance, that "two people were cured of Ebola." "Cured" is a problematic statement for many reasons. First, because we don't really know to what degree the experimental treatment Brantly and Writebol received is responsible for their recovery. Second, because using the word "cured" implies that there is now a known remedy for the virus. There is not.
"If there is no cure, then it cannot have been eradicated."
Not necessarily. Brantly's DNA might carry some mutation or variant that provides him better natural defense against Ebola, for reasons we don't yet know. Perhaps the treatment he received worked in some way, directly or indirectly, in concert with another factor (or several). Perhaps he is just statistically lucky. What we do know is that Brantly received a course of treatment with ZMapp, and that Brantly recovered from the virus. In between those two facts are potentially dozens of confounding or hidden variables.
If anything, I give this writer a lot of credit for going through the trouble to point out that "it remains unclear if [ZMapp] is responsible for their recovery." Some other writers and outlets have not been as careful.
The virus has a 60% mortality rate. According to the article, ZMapp has been given to 6 people, two of whom have recovered, 1 of whom has died, and 3 of whom may recover. Even if the remaining 3 recover, it's still too small a sample size to draw any conclusions.
“Nancy is free of the virus, but the lingering effects of the battle have left her in a significantly weakened condition,” her husband, David Writebol, said in a written statement. “Thus, we decided it would be best to leave the hospital privately to be able to give her the rest and recuperation she needs at this time.”
It sounds like she's weakened from not only fighting off the illness, but being bedridded etc for several weeks. The drugs may have also had side effects (that they don't want to publicise for PR purposes).
And, lest you think I'm daft, my _guess_ is that they mean the son of Billy Graham, but then perhaps the author should mention his tie to Samaritan's Purse.
Comments
Is this just poor writing, or poor representation of the science? This article contradicts itself.
Is the virus in remission, or has it been eradicated from Writebol? If there is no cure, then it cannot have been eradicated. Maybe there's no _proven_ cure, in the sense of full medical trials?
In the 'poor writing' department (but unrelated to the above), the article also doesn't tell us who Franklin Graham is. This appears to be the only reference to the name:
There is not cure for Ebola like there is for other diseases. Ebola is a acute infection, meaning that if the body can fight it off, it leaves the body. Think of it like influenza. There is no cure, but once you get over it, there is no more influenza virus in your system.
They were given ZMapp, but they can't tell if that worked or not. Perhaps they would have overcome their illness without it.
They likely didn't say that the male was free of the virus because it has been shown that Ebola can be transmitted through semen of men for up to 7 weeks.
At the very least, it seems like better coverage than I've encountered elsewhere.
I heard on the radio this morning, for instance, that "two people were cured of Ebola." "Cured" is a problematic statement for many reasons. First, because we don't really know to what degree the experimental treatment Brantly and Writebol received is responsible for their recovery. Second, because using the word "cured" implies that there is now a known remedy for the virus. There is not.
"If there is no cure, then it cannot have been eradicated."
Not necessarily. Brantly's DNA might carry some mutation or variant that provides him better natural defense against Ebola, for reasons we don't yet know. Perhaps the treatment he received worked in some way, directly or indirectly, in concert with another factor (or several). Perhaps he is just statistically lucky. What we do know is that Brantly received a course of treatment with ZMapp, and that Brantly recovered from the virus. In between those two facts are potentially dozens of confounding or hidden variables.
If anything, I give this writer a lot of credit for going through the trouble to point out that "it remains unclear if [ZMapp] is responsible for their recovery." Some other writers and outlets have not been as careful.
The virus has a 60% mortality rate. According to the article, ZMapp has been given to 6 people, two of whom have recovered, 1 of whom has died, and 3 of whom may recover. Even if the remaining 3 recover, it's still too small a sample size to draw any conclusions.
“Nancy is free of the virus, but the lingering effects of the battle have left her in a significantly weakened condition,” her husband, David Writebol, said in a written statement. “Thus, we decided it would be best to leave the hospital privately to be able to give her the rest and recuperation she needs at this time.”
It sounds like she's weakened from not only fighting off the illness, but being bedridded etc for several weeks. The drugs may have also had side effects (that they don't want to publicise for PR purposes).
And, lest you think I'm daft, my _guess_ is that they mean the son of Billy Graham, but then perhaps the author should mention his tie to Samaritan's Purse.
Downvotes are nice. Feedback is nicer.