US army spent close to m on untested snakebite drugs:
The US Army spent nearly $ 1m last year on two drugs that appear to have undergone no independent testing for safety or effectiveness, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism (TBIJ) can reveal.
The TBIJ has tested the civilian version of one of the drugs and found it to be alarmingly weak. Neither the army nor the government agency that recommended the military drug has tested it to verify the manufacturer’s claims.
The drugs are not among those that have been assessed and recommended by the World Health Organisation (WHO) and because they are not intended for use in the US, they have not been fully assessed by the Food and Drug Administration.
Both drugs are versions of a snakebite antivenom called Polyserp and cost the army a combined $ 880,000 last year. One covers Middle Eastern, North African and Central Asian regions, and the other covers sub-Saharan Africa — where a recent TBIJ investigation found a “wild west” of antivenoms that are badly made, marketed and regulated.
The company promoting the sub-Saharan African version of Polyserp (called Polyserp-P) demonstrates the drug’s credentials with studies relating to another drug, Inoserp Pan-Africa. Both drugs are from the same manufacturer.
But Inoserp is itself hugely problematic. The sub-Saharan African version of that drug featured in the TBIJ’s recent investigation into useless antivenom, where testing revealed that, compared to its competitors, a vial of Inoserp contained a fraction of the active ingredient needed. Test results suggested that more than 70 vials would be needed to treat bites from certain snakes.
One Kenyan doctor with more than two decades’ experience treating snakebite told the TBIJ he refuses to use Inoserp. The drug failed in a bid to get WHO approval in 2017.
A spokesperson from Inosan Biopharma, which produces both drugs, and Polyserp Therapeutics, which markets Polyserp, said the companies questioned the validity of the testing done by the TBIJ. (The testing methodology follows WHO guidelines for test tube assessment of snake antivenoms.)
The spokesperson said: “Polyserp-P is an updated version of Inoserp with higher potency and expanded indication exclusively produced and approved for distribution to US military customers.”
Inosan Biopharma and Polyserp Therapeutics also said that “both Inoserp and Polyserp have proven effectiveness in robust pre-clinical and clinical trials” and that a panel of independent experts reviewed the clinical, preclinical and safety data.
But neither company responded to the TBIJ’s repeated requests to provide evidence to back up these claims.
The lack of clarity raises questions. If the two drugs are effectively the same, then the army is buying something shown to be poor quality. If Polyserp is a different and more potent product, why are ordinary people in sub-Saharan Africa not able to access it?
Unanswered questions
Antivenom experts have described the purchase as “naive” and “surprising”. The findings raise questions about the military’s protocols for evaluating critical medicine before deploying it to troops.
Juan Calvete, of the Instituto de Biomedicina de Valencia, whose lab conducts antivenom tests for the WHO, was denied access to Polyserp-P when he tried to obtain samples in 2021. He was told by Polyserp Therapeutics that it was “only available to US military customers”.
Instead, he was sent three studies that purported to show the “safety and efficacy” of Polyserp but in fact related to the other drug, Inoserp.
David Williams, a leading snakebite expert at the WHO, said extrapolating data from one product to another “is not consistent with the WHO guidance”.
He said some manufacturers might use broad claims about the effectiveness of its antivenom “as a marketing tool” but that “it is essential that any such claims be supported by data”.
Only three antivenoms for sub-Saharan Africa carry a WHO recommendation. Ten more are undergoing assessment, of which Inoserp is one. But Polyserp has never been assessed by the WHO.
David Lalloo, a clinical researcher at the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, said the regulation of antivenoms “has just not been as tight as it should be” for patients around the world.
He said any new version of an antivenom should, by any normal standards, be tested in proper clinical studies. Speaking generally, he added: “You cannot rely on previous studies, and particularly previous studies that relate to safety, to assure yourself of this being a safe and efficacious antivenom.”
Both Inosan Biopharma and Polyserp Therapeutics did not respond to the TBIJ’s questions about why they had used clinical study data for one drug to promote the safety and effectiveness of another.
A US Army spokesperson told the TBIJ that the army “does not conduct independent testing of medical products and does not have a third-party testing for snake antivenom”.
Different products?
Polyserp-P was recommended by the US Defence Health Agency’s Joint Trauma System (JTS) in 2020. The JTS told the TBIJ: “The recommendations were based off subject matter experts who evaluated peer-reviewed medical literature and the manufacturer’s recommendations.”
The literature it references does not mention Polyserp but did test Inoserp. The companies did not provide the TBIJ with any evidence that Polyserp had been part of this research.
The JTS said it “will always do our best with best evidence and [expert] input”, and added that it will review the relevant guidelines and update them as necessary.
It remains unclear exactly how comparable Inoserp and Polyserp are. Certainly the prices that have been disclosed suggest two very different products. Calvete was initially quoted $ 6,300 for six vials of Polyserp-P in 2021, while a TBIJ reporter bought a single vial of Inoserp-P for $ 66 (£50) in Tanzania in 2024.
The US Army did not respond to TBIJ’s requests for comment or to make samples available to test. In response to previous questions, it said it “was not aware of any uses” of Inosan by army personnel.
This article was produced by The Bureau of Investigative Journalism.
In defence of academic freedom and scientific method:
Recent inquisitions of, and injunctions to, vice-chancellors — an emerging pastime in this country — beg some debate. Leaving inquisitions for another day, Dr Marcia Socikwa’s recent principal-like injunction to vice-chancellors to the effect that universities must stop analysing data produced by the department of higher education and training on research outputs is my focus in this article. It is not inconceivable that this ban is on all department-produced data.
Might her injunction be, at best, an ignorant, benign and inadvertent infringement on the scientific method? Might it be a flagrant violation of academic freedom, at worst? If department-produced data cannot be used like academics would find it appropriate using the scientific method and their academic freedom, why are they produced in the first place? Could funds used to produce these data be deemed wasteful expenditure, then?
Let us leave the apparent wasteful expenditure for another day. Substantively, Dr Socikwa considers certain permutations of variables for truth and excellence, and thus outputs, outcomes and effects as in rankings, improbable, if not impossible. In her view, the data are incapable of germinating any credible information about slices of truth and excellence.
Truth and excellence are measured using quantitative and qualitative data the scientific method requires. Well defined and -determined variables and slices of data aligned with them — proxies for these — are the building blocks. I least expected the (il)logic that permeates her injunction, especially from somebody with a doctorate. To start with, her doctoral research is likely to have been based on the scientific method and data from various sources. Let me rather take her (il)logic to its logical conclusion, using at least three salient and horrifying aspects of it.
First, there is an existential (il)logic in her injunction and arguments. Axiomatically, the scientific method allows a researcher to choose an imperfect and a non-maximal permutation of variables in order to get a slice of truth or excellence. So, in her argument, truth, excellence and rankings can only be determinate if they derive from a perfect and a maximal permutation of variables. They are, otherwise, indeterminate. Assuming this axiom, no information nor conclusions could ever germinate from data derived from an imperfect and a non-maximal permutation of variables. Perhaps, her doctorate deserves to be withdrawn. It is likely to have been based on imperfect and a non maximal permutation of variables; something incredulous to her, to say the least.
Second, her assertions suggest that data produced somehow — even though they cannot really be produced because they are indeterminate as argued above — are just meaningless, if not vacuous. Nothing could possibly be imputed, interpolated or extrapolated from something meaningless and/or vacuous. Her doctoral thesis must surely show she could not impute, interpolate nor extrapolate anything from a data vacuity arising from an imperfect and a non-maximal permutation of variables.
Third, with whatever authority she usurps from whatever higher authority and the Constitution, perhaps, in one fell swoop, she just prohibits universities from analysing any data from the department’s chosen permutation of variables. No descriptive nor diagnostic analysis, let alone predictive and prescriptive analysis shall be permitted. Consequently, all research must stop because it is always likely to be based on imperfect and non-maximal permutations of variables. Academic freedom, which allows academia to make hypotheses and back them up with data associated with imperfect and non-maximal permutations of variables, can only be a farce. Perhaps, it is or will be treasonous soon.
The higher education sector must be appalled that a deputy director general for higher education instructs universities to cease data analysis, an integral part of the scientific method? In an unequal society like South Africa’s, which is in stupefying dalliance with egalitarianism, proponents thereof of Dr Socikwa’s ilk, aver that everyone’s performance and under-performance are equally impressive. This society must shun truth, excellence, data and all their proxies because they reveal personal and institutional levels of achievement that differentiate them according to ability and competence. No child will be deemed to be in first or last position in a class, a form of ranking. Even when a 30% pass is not a pass in any subject at any university, it must get any young person qualified for university entry, nogal. This is how far our dear country has plumbed the lows.
Invariably and intrinsically, human beings and organisations will always use whatever proxies for truth and excellence and establish some pecking order in whatever space. Whether John Soap likes it or not, ranking and some pecking order human beings are wont to create, rightly or wrongly, are consequential and inevitable once there is data available and it gets analysed.
Inasmuch as some could wish to be considered Einsteins of sorts in their fields, they are and will not. Simply, their intellectual outputs, outcomes and impacts in those fields pale against Einstein’s in his. And, If I may use a religious analogy, as much as some could wish to be considered disciples of Christ and apostles, only a few were or could possibly be. In this respect, most Christians are somewhere, though, in the religious and life’s pyramid; many at its base.
Even egalitarians, socialists and communists have so far failed dismally to make everything equal. Whether we are in dalliance with egalitarianism or not, whether we like rankings or not, the world continues to judge and rank us.
South Africa is one of the world’s worst performing educational systems. International surveys like TIMSS (Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study) and PIRLS (Progress in International Reading Literacy Study), among many, provide incontrovertible proof. As intimated earlier, excellence is pyramidal. Consequent rankings in academia, rightly or wrongly, with or without maximal permutations of variables are pyramidal, too. Individuals, institutions and countries are at different rungs of the pyramid; many at its base.
Chairman Mao had stupefying dalliance with egalitarianism in China’s cultural revolution of the 1960s and 1970s. This era kept China under-developed and poor. Deng Xiaoping’s philosophy and a system of meritocracy he introduced in the late 1970s began to extricate China from under-development and poverty. Unwavering focus on scientific and technological advancement as the basis for economic development in China was made inviolable. No wonder, this era produced Jiang Zemin, an electrical engineer, Hu Jintao, a hydraulic engineer, and Xi Jinping, a chemical engineer, as China’s successive presidents over the last 36 years, catapulting China to the second best economy in the world today. By the way, even though the UA is the largest economy, as of 2024, the US owed China — and not the other way round — about $ 760 billion.
If South Africa hopes to achieve scientific and technological advancement and leadership in Africa, something it already has a comparative and a competitive advantage on, academic freedom, the scientific method, meritocracy and excellence cannot be dimmed. The stupefying dalliance with egalitarianism the assault against these emanates from and injunctions towards this end, must be treated with the disdain and contempt they deserve.
Professor Thandwa Mthembu is the vice-chancellor and principal of Durban University of Technology. He writes in his personal capacity.
Only 12% of SA gamblers have asked for help, despite rising financial strain:
A recent gambling trends report by InfoQuest paints a troubling picture of South Africa’s evolving gambling culture. While overall participation has declined slightly, the financial pressure and psychological toll on active gamblers is growing, and few are seeking help.
According to the April 2025 survey, 63% of gamblers use money meant for essentials such as food, rent or savings. Gambling, for many, has become a routine monthly expense, treated no differently from paying bills. Half of those surveyed said they actively budget for it. This shift in mindset — from entertainment to obligation — is cause for concern.
Even more striking is the emotional and behavioural strain. About 15% of gamblers admitted they couldn’t control their desire to gamble, even when they had no money. Among younger adults aged 18 to 34, this loss of control was more common. These same individuals are also more likely to chase wins — one in three gamblers said they use their winnings to keep playing, increasing the risk of falling into a cycle of loss and debt.
Borrowing money to gamble isn’t uncommon either; 16% of gamblers surveyed said they’ve done it. But that number is likely an understatement. Shame, denial and stigma often prevent people from reporting this kind of behaviour honestly. These financial red flags, taken together, point to a growing dependence on gambling to cope, escape or simply feel in control.
Despite the warning signs, very few are getting the help they need. Only 12% have ever asked for help. Just 7% are currently seeking it. Another 10% have thought about it but haven’t taken any steps. That leaves 67% — the overwhelming majority — who have never considered reaching out. Those who did seek support mostly turned to family or friends, not professionals.
This silence around help-seeking isn’t just a personal issue, it’s a cultural one. In South Africa, mental health and behavioural support services still carry stigma, especially when tied to gambling. Many don’t know where to go, others don’t think they need help, and some believe nothing will actually change. It’s not just a lack of services, it’s a lack of belief in what those services can offer.
To understand how people view the available tools, I ran a poll on LinkedIn asking: What’s the most effective way to promote responsible gambling? Out of 49 votes, 39% chose in-game messaging and spending limits. Educational content followed with 29%. Regulation came in at 24%, and only 8% of respondents selected player self-exclusion tools.
That 8% is telling. It reveals something deeper than preference; it reflects disbelief. A lack of faith in self-control. A sense that gamblers either won’t help themselves or can’t. That belief, to me, is the most alarming finding of all.
When most people don’t trust the effectiveness of self-exclusion, and when nearly seven in 10 gamblers never seek help, we’re not just dealing with risky behaviour, we’re dealing with a silent crisis. One that isn’t just financial, but also psychological and cultural.
Internationally, the picture isn’t that different. In the United Kingdom, for example, the Gambling Commission’s 2025 research found that many gamblers perceive operator-provided responsible gambling tools as lacking credibility, with some viewing them merely as “PR exercises” rather than genuine support mechanisms.
This scepticism is rooted in the belief that operators’ commercial interests may conflict with the provision of effective support tools. Building full trust in support options available will be key to supporting those who have experienced adverse consequences to access help.
So, where does that leave us? If people don’t trust the tools, don’t seek help and continue gambling with money they don’t have, then it’s time to ask whether we’re doing enough, not just in terms of regulation, but in terms of empathy, visibility and practicality.
We can’t rely on people to hit rock bottom before they’re offered support. Nor can we assume that existing tools are enough. Responsible gambling messaging, often tucked away in fine print or footnotes, won’t make a difference on its own. And self-exclusion programmes that are hard to find, confusing to use or emotionally overwhelming will remain underused.
What’s needed is a reset in how we work with gamblers. Support needs to be visible, normalised and easy to access — not something people feel ashamed to consider. The systems we put in place should be judged by how many people actually use them, not just how well they’re designed on paper.
Education can help, but only if it’s relevant and honest. Telling people to gamble responsibly without showing them how, or without giving them meaningful tools to do so, just sounds like lip service. We need more real-world conversations, more lived experience stories and more practical interventions that meet people where they are, not where we expect them to be.
The numbers don’t lie — but they’re not just statistics. They’re a signal that we’re failing to support people before they reach their breaking point.
Mduduzi Mbiza is the founder and director of Izmu, an online platform promoting responsible gambling education in South Africa.
Submit and get free exposure here: Showcase Your Business | Advertise Your Special Offers.
