Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Saturday July 04 2020, @01:02AM   Printer-friendly
from the sign-of-the-times dept.

Derek Lowe over at Science has a roundup of the status of current (article published 29 June 2020) Coronavirus vaccine trials/research.

This roundup of current vaccine research/trials includes information about many vaccine trials, broken down by vaccine types. These types include (quotes are all from TFA:

  • Viral Vectors

This class uses some other infectious virus, but with its original genetic material removed. In its place goes genetic instructions to make coronavirus proteins, and when your infected cells do that, it will set off an immune response.

Number of trials (per TFA): 9

  • Genetic Vaccines

These take DNA or RNA coding for coronavirus proteins and inject that directly into the bloodstream. "Directly" isn't quite the right word, though – for these things to work, they have to be formulated and modified to survive destruction in the blood, to be taken up through cell membranes, and to be used for protein production once they're inside.

Number of trials (per TFA): 8

  • Recombinant protein vaccines

Here we get to a technique that really is used for human vaccines. The previous two categories force your own cells to make viral antigen proteins, but here you're making them industrially and just injecting them directly. The advantage can be that such protein production can be accomplished in many different ways and is already done on a large scale. That said, every new protein is a new project, with its own idiosyncrasies.

Number of trials (per TFA): 6

  • Attenuated Virus Vaccines

This is another well-precedented vaccination technique. It involves producing a weakened form of the actual infectious virus, one that is not capable of causing damage but can still set off the immune system. There are several ways to do this, and it's a bit of an art form involving taking the virus through a huge number of replications in living cells as you select for variants that are less and less harmful.

Number of trials (per TFA): (None listed)

  • Inactivated Virus Vaccines

This is also one that's also been used in medical practice for many years, and it's another inactivation step beyond the attenuated viruses. Heat or chemical agents are used to damage the virus to the point that it can no longer infect cells at all, but the plan is for there to be enough of the viral material left unaltered to still raise an immune response.

Number of trials (per TFA): 4


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by RS3 on Saturday July 04 2020, @02:25AM (19 children)

    by RS3 (6367) on Saturday July 04 2020, @02:25AM (#1015967)

    Generic drug versions may be introduced once the patent for the brand-name drug expires. The patent protection for a brand-name drug is usually 20 years from the date of submission of the patent.

    https://hmsa.com/help-center/when-does-a-drug-become-generic/ [hmsa.com]

    I agree with you and I need to take notes on some ideas I've had regarding patents. I think the biggest problem is that no matter what I or anyone proposes, it will irritate and trigger someone. I think most people would agree it's fair for a company to make money on a patent, but somehow it needs to be reasonable, and other companies need to be licensed to make it as well. My fear is that the whole pharmaceutical research and manufacturing world is so used (addicted) to huge profits, that without the potential for huge profits, there might be (much?) less investment.

    But to the point I really wanted to make: that hydroxychloroquine study, and many others like the recent one in Britain where they used dexamethasone on COVID-19 patients and had remarkable results, is more about "off-label" drug use. Which sadly, in the US particularly, doctors are reticent to do due to FDA regulations and lawsuits.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 04 2020, @03:08AM (18 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 04 2020, @03:08AM (#1015981)

    " I think most people would agree it's fair for a company to make money on a patent"

    Patents should never be about what's 'fair'. To the extent that their existence is to serve what's 'fair' they should absolutely be abolished.

    Per the constitution they are to promote the progress of the sciences and useful arts. They should only exist to serve a public interest. No one is entitled to a monopoly, IP is a privilege and should only exist to the extent it serves the public interest.

    • (Score: 2) by RS3 on Saturday July 04 2020, @04:00AM (17 children)

      by RS3 (6367) on Saturday July 04 2020, @04:00AM (#1015994)

      I agree with you. I just don't see how to fix it. Maybe I stayed out of these Internet forum / blog discussions too long. I love philosophy, but I'd rather (everyone) put effort into reality. I think capitalism has gone too far, especially in the medical world. I think tough price / profit controls are in order like was was done with food production during and after the Great Depression. But it's late and I'm tired and tomorrow I'll wish I could erase this because I might have a different inspiration.

      That a Martin Shkreli can do what he did and get away with it shows how crippled our govt. is. (crippled by greed and love of money, and/or maybe fear of the "too big to fail"...)

      • (Score: 2, Interesting) by fustakrakich on Saturday July 04 2020, @04:26AM (3 children)

        by fustakrakich (6150) on Saturday July 04 2020, @04:26AM (#1016004) Journal

        I just don't see how to fix it.

        Start with compulsory licensing

        --
        La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
        • (Score: 2) by RS3 on Saturday July 04 2020, @03:07PM (2 children)

          by RS3 (6367) on Saturday July 04 2020, @03:07PM (#1016131)

          I'm intrigued. How would that work?

          • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Saturday July 04 2020, @04:46PM (1 child)

            by fustakrakich (6150) on Saturday July 04 2020, @04:46PM (#1016168) Journal

            Government tells the license holder they shall grant a license to people who want to produce and sell the product. I would presume the government will assign proper compensation. It's a little like eminent domain, but you still get to collect royalties. It is something we need very badly, so necessary inventions, like medicine, don't sit on the shelf waiting for the right buyer with the right price. Without compulsory licensing patents and copyrights on medicines and such are more like extortion.

            --
            La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
            • (Score: 2) by RS3 on Saturday July 04 2020, @07:08PM

              by RS3 (6367) on Saturday July 04 2020, @07:08PM (#1016191)

              Agreed, and it's what I wrote several layers up. Thanks.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 04 2020, @04:44AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 04 2020, @04:44AM (#1016008)

        "I think capitalism has gone too far"

        Patents are not capitalism. That's not to say they shouldn't exist but they are not capitalism and should only be used with caution.

        • (Score: 3, Informative) by RS3 on Saturday July 04 2020, @07:05PM

          by RS3 (6367) on Saturday July 04 2020, @07:05PM (#1016190)

          "Patents are not capitalism."

          I never said they were. In fact, I made no direct interconnection or causation between them.

          Not willing to discuss the philosophical definition of "capitalism" here, but I'll say that patents damage the free-market mechanism that could/should/would otherwise bring drug prices down to earth.

          BTW, don't know if you caught it, but one of the news shows (60 minutes maybe?) did a segment on drug companies, patents, pricing, etc., maybe a year ago. Anyway, one of the things that came out: some drugs are no longer being manufactured because there's not enough profit, and some people are sick and dying and/or dead because they can't get that drug anymore. Some antibiotics were examples. Badly broken system due to systematic greed.

      • (Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Saturday July 04 2020, @06:35AM (4 children)

        by PiMuNu (3823) on Saturday July 04 2020, @06:35AM (#1016020)

        > I think capitalism has gone too far, especially in the medical world.

        Most countries have a state-run health service; drug prices are negotiated at a national level.

        • (Score: 2) by RS3 on Saturday July 04 2020, @02:58PM (3 children)

          by RS3 (6367) on Saturday July 04 2020, @02:58PM (#1016126)

          Actually Medicare, the US's federal semi-socialized medical system for age 65+, really does have great power and sets many sort of standard prices. However, medical care providers and drug companies can still try to charge whatever they feel like charging. There's always that greed pushing for higher and higher prices. For example, and this has been chronicled well, someone I know was uninsured and ended up in hospital for a fairly moderate problem. Needed a CT scan and Medicare standard price was like ~$650, but hospital charged my friend ~$2,800. That's no lie nor exaggeration, and there are no laws forcing standard prices.

          Medical insurance companies try to negotiate for Medicare prices, but it's a negotiation process (wasteful in itself) and they never quite get the Medicare rate.

          That's why you've heard Bernie Sanders and others pushing for "Medicare for ALL".

          Not sure how to stem the capitalism tide. Capitalism has saturated our political / legal system, and political/legal trumps medical.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 04 2020, @03:57PM (2 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 04 2020, @03:57PM (#1016153)

            Unless the law changed I thought the U.S. government wasn't allowed to directly negotiate prices?

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 04 2020, @09:09PM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 04 2020, @09:09PM (#1016247)

              Under 42 USC §1395w–111(i) DHHS is forbidden by current law for negotiating lower drug prices for drugs paid under Medicare Part D. Other programs, like Medicaid, Part C, the VA, etc. are still free to do so. The problem is the vast majority of drugs paid for by the government are under the Part D program and their ability to negotiate under the other programs is limited by the same provision.

              • (Score: 2) by RS3 on Saturday July 04 2020, @11:28PM

                by RS3 (6367) on Saturday July 04 2020, @11:28PM (#1016307)

                Thank you. I was thinking more of procedures, but I'm not sure if they negotiate them. They have huge tables of codes for procedures, hospital rooms, etc., and the price they'll pay. There are jobs for "medical coding" where they do something accountingy with the codes. From what hospital staff have indicated to me, they just have to accept what Medicare will pay. And generally the feeling was positive / optimistic. IE, whenever they heard the patient was covered by Medicare, it was always an "okay, you're covered for this or that procedure".

                One thing I know that's a good thing- with most US health insurance, you can not just go to a specialist- you must be referred by your PCP (Primary Care Physician). Well, you can go but you pay full price out of your pocket. However, under Medicare you can generally "self refer" - just make an appt. and go. I did that frequently with my parents and a friend's mom.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 04 2020, @03:57PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 04 2020, @03:57PM (#1016152)

        just don't see how to fix it. Maybe I stayed out of these Internet forum / blog discussions too long. I love philosophy, but I'd rather (everyone) put effort into reality. I think capitalism has gone too far, especially in the medical world.

        That's probably true. I've thought about this a bunch and think that a quasi-public pharmaceutical development organization would likely make a big difference.

        Research and production facilities can be set up via a quasi-public corporation using public monies (bonds perhaps?). This would be a non-profit organization whose primary function is to provide access to new and existing drugs *at the lowest price possible*.

        This organization could then develop and manufacture new (and generic) pharmaceuticals and sell them *at cost*. What's more, Congress can ensure that this organization gets the right of first refusal [wikipedia.org] for development of new drugs created/discovered with government grants/support.

        Any excess revenue would be plowed back into research on new pharmaceuticals.

        Such an organization would have an incentive to create drugs that for-profit companies shun, like vaccines, malaria drugs, widely used generics. They can also develop/manufacture new, breakthrough drugs the research for which was done with public funds. Note that the quasi-public organization I'm suggesting should be *self-sustaining*.

        All of the financials should be completely transparent as well.

        This would have several positive effects:
        1. Drugs developed can be provided at low(er) cost to those who paid (the public) for its development;
        2. This would significantly mitigate efforts by bad actors to buy the rights to specific, widely used drugs and jack up the prices;
        3. Financial transparency would shine a light on the enormous lie that charging hundreds of thousands of dollars for courses of new drugs to "recoup development costs."

        There are other positives as well, I'm sure.

        There are also potential downsides to this, although 'Gub'mint bad! Bad Gub'mint!' isn't one of them, wo unroll that newspaper.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Saturday July 04 2020, @03:57PM (1 child)

        just don't see how to fix it. Maybe I stayed out of these Internet forum / blog discussions too long. I love philosophy, but I'd rather (everyone) put effort into reality. I think capitalism has gone too far, especially in the medical world.

        That's probably true. I've thought about this a bunch and think that a quasi-public pharmaceutical development organization would likely make a big difference.

        Research and production facilities can be set up via a quasi-public corporation using public monies (bonds perhaps?). This would be a non-profit organization whose primary function is to provide access to new and existing drugs *at the lowest price possible*.

        This organization could then develop and manufacture new (and generic) pharmaceuticals and sell them *at cost*. What's more, Congress can ensure that this organization gets the right of first refusal [wikipedia.org] for development of new drugs created/discovered with government grants/support.

        Any excess revenue would be plowed back into research on new pharmaceuticals.

        Such an organization would have an incentive to create drugs that for-profit companies shun, like vaccines, malaria drugs, widely used generics. They can also develop/manufacture new, breakthrough drugs the research for which was done with public funds. Note that the quasi-public organization I'm suggesting should be *self-sustaining*.

        All of the financials should be completely transparent as well.

        This would have several positive effects:
        1. Drugs developed can be provided at low(er) cost to those who paid (the public) for its development;
        2. This would significantly mitigate efforts by bad actors to buy the rights to specific, widely used drugs and jack up the prices;
        3. Financial transparency would shine a light on the enormous lie that charging hundreds of thousands of dollars for courses of new drugs to "recoup development costs."

        There are other positives as well, I'm sure.

        There are also potential downsides to this, although 'Gub'mint bad! Bad Gub'mint!' isn't one of them, wo unroll that newspaper.

        --
        No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
        • (Score: 2) by RS3 on Saturday July 04 2020, @07:27PM

          by RS3 (6367) on Saturday July 04 2020, @07:27PM (#1016197)

          I absolutely agree!! I've commented many times here, other sites, and in person, that the whole medical world should be non-profit.

          Interesting (to me anyway) observation: while both of my parents were ill over the past several years, I spent a lot of time in hospitals and other medical facilities. A fairly major metropolitan non-profit hospital system (4 hospitals, more than 1,000 beds total, more than 10,000 employees) had pretty lavish buildings, artwork, etc. A reasonable number of staff, including nurses (well, they're always overworked) but some had great attitudes, some pretty horrible really.

          A for-profit small hospital, though, had an older building, small tight rooms, the only decorations I remember were personal photographs and cards on a bulletin board, and all of the staff were awesome, incredibly attentive and competent, got along like the best friends you've ever seen. So for-profit doesn't have to be bad or inefficient, but needs to be well run ... and we can't guarantee nor force that, so... back to your ideas!

          So how do we get that to happen? Can we organize a letter-writing campaign to congress?

      • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday July 04 2020, @10:23PM (1 child)

        by aristarchus (2645) on Saturday July 04 2020, @10:23PM (#1016276) Journal

        I love philosophy, but. . .

        Ah, the "realist" equivalent of "I'm not racist, but . . . "

        • (Score: 2) by RS3 on Saturday July 04 2020, @10:39PM

          by RS3 (6367) on Saturday July 04 2020, @10:39PM (#1016281)

          No, it's that I'm not even slightly Greek; philosophy is best left to the experts. :)