Re Ebola, it looks like ZMapp drove some interest in monoclonal antibody therapies. I'm a huge fan of using current events to steer people towards understanding of general solutions, and I think encyclopedias should try to leverage that effect when possible. During the 2001 anthrax scare, general public interest in Cipro got government agencies to focus on supporting some antibiotics which had been phased out because they were no longer profitable compared to newer in-patent medicines. One of them turned out to be effective against a previously drug-resistant form of streptococcal infection that was an issue in several hospitals. On the other hand, after China beat Novartis to the H5N9 bird flu vaccine by a few weeks last year, Novartis sold their entire vaccine unit, believing that there would never be any money in it since it was no longer a market they could corner. Pharmaceutical companies' market abuses kill more people than Ebola ever will, and mostly in developed countries. (See Pharmaceutical industry#Controversies, [1], [2], [3], etc.) EllenCT (talk) 20:43, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I think the ebola article is an excellent article - far better summary that any of the single event-driven news stories out there from traditional news providers. I understood what is going on through this article much more than any news website coverage. Wikipedia at our best! AndrewRT(Talk) 22:39, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
