The probability of being seropositive for at least two antigens after 36 months was 53·6% (95% CI 51·6–55·6) in participants who received ansuvimab (m114 mAb), 73·5% (71·5–75·5) in participants who received REGN-EB3 (a mix of three mAbs), 78·5% (76·5–80·5) in participants who received ZMapp, and 76·8% (74·8–78·8) in participants who received remdesivir. ...the authors concluded that these results raise questions about the potential negative effect of treatment with monoclonal antibodies in survivors who might be at risk for Ebola virus disease reactivation or reinfection. At this stage, the interpretation of analysed data on the effect of mAbs on the reduction of antibodies in survivors of Ebola virus disease are associated with measured correlations, but have not yet been experimentally proven. ...to move from speculation to a conclusion, it would be important to increase the sample size of studies including survivors, but also to do comparative in-vivo studies testing viral reduction in survivors treated with ansuvimab, REGN-B3 (WHO recommended treatment for Ebola virus disease), and remdesivir, and studies of antigen presentation, antibody production, and associated cell signalling pathways. Passive immunotherapy using horse polyclonal antibodies is the oldest historical tool to mitigate pathologies associated with viral infections such as rabies.4 Horse polyclonal anti-Ebola virus-Zaire F(ab’)2 product has been successfully assayed in vivo.5 The polyclonal approach would have numerous advantages, including large spectrum of neutralising efficacy as demonstrated against avian flu viruses,6 and the absence of both induction of antibody-dependent infection enhancement, and antigenic drift. Since the objective of Ebola virus disease mitigation is to maximise the number of survivors along with their quality of life, and the security and wellbeing of the community, we need to improve antiviral strategies and improve drugs to markedly reduce the deleterious inflammatory consequences of Ebola virus disease.