Ebola was (and still is, compared to e.g. malaria) rare, no scare quotes needed. Until the latest outbreak in west Africa, Ebola infections were limited to handfuls of people. Not surprising that the developers of this vaccine did not take it through the gauntlet of expensive approvals, clinical trials, etc. that would be required to get it on the market.
Considering the effects of the various "vaccines" we've seen recently - I think we're better off not letting the state inject us with things we don't know about, yes?
In partial response to a dead comment, this vaccine is "known" and at least in theory is likely to be safe. It takes an existing, well understood virus that mostly affects animals. From memory, it knocks out one gene that makes it pathogenic, and adds (or replaces?) genes to express surface Ebola virus surface proteins.
5 comments
[ 4.4 ms ] story [ 24.2 ms ] threadhttp://nytimes.com/2014/10/24/health/without-lucrative-marke...
It should be noted that clinical trials for vaccines are the most rigorous, because they are for healthy people.