Covid-19 Politics

Just one last thing about this. According to Eric Topol, a doctor at Scripps who I follow on twitter, monoclonal antibodies will likely be approved by December or January. The reason clinical trials were delayed is because the pool of people available for trials was sucked up by hydroxychloroquine trials and because testing turnaround was so bad people couldn't be enrolled.

I am not sure whether Trump will get an infusion of monoclonal antibodies early in disease but it's unlikely. I've read that he has a fever and cough.

https://twitter.com/EricTopol/status...55397985910784

Update: he did get an infusion of the Regeneron antibody and was started on Remdesivir.

What's puzzling is that his doctor acknowledged that he has also been started on dexamethasone. This is not just an aggressive treatment but there are known risks associated with giving steroids to someone too early in disease. Steroids work because they have mild immunosuppressing effects. Of course you hope that their suppression of deadly inflammation is greater than their suppression of your ability to fight a virus, but that's why the calculus makes more sense in severe disease. I'll include a link to a medical professional saying it, but I don't think a doctor would give a covid patient dexamethasone unless he thought he had more than mild symptoms.

https://twitter.com/DrEricDing/statu...88769058283522

https://twitter.com/sciencecohen/sta...632541184?s=20

Here is a three tweet thread from Jon Cohen of Science Magazine about the dangers of giving dexamethasone too early. It has an article attached that I haven't read yet, but I've found their articles to be very thorough while still being digestible for non-scientists.

"The speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, has taken aim at the British vaccine testing safety regime, warning that UK approval of a vaccine would not automatically mean it was safe according to the US’s own procedures.
Amid a race to produce an effective vaccine against Covid-19 that meets broad international acceptance for safety, Pelosi’s comments appear partly motivated by concern that any quick and unilateral British approval of a vaccine might be embraced by Donald Trump for political gain, perhaps even before the 3 November election."

What a silly, petulant comment by Speaker Pelosi, and frankly an insult to scientists in the UK. And for what, to get one over on the President? She would be better off looking at where the money is going in the US and ask how it is that the President is treated with a drug that was developed (in part from the tissue of an aborted fetus) by one his golfing buddies and the company he used to own shares in. Vaccines must be about public safety as well as medical effectiveness, but right now there isn't one, but there is a corrupt link between politics and pharmaceuticals, and it into that mix where Pelosi ought to be raking her greasy stick.

The President of the United States has spent the last seven months touting hydroxychloroquine, which was shown not to work by May. As early as April, most scientists thought the best chance of a new, effective therapeutic would be the development of monoclonal antibodies. Phase II data are suggestive of efficacy but we still don't have proof they can save lives.

Trump has spoken the words monoclonal antibodies zero times in the last seven months. Even after getting an infusion of them produced by Regeneron he thinks the drug name is "Regeneron" and also doesn't appear to be aware of the fact that Eli Lilly, Sorrento and several other companies are testing their own cloned antibodies. As I've said before, the clinical trials have been delayed because of Trump's politically motivated obsession with hydroxychloroquine.

He also didn't invest enough federal money to produce monoclonals "at risk" so that if they're proven safe and effective they'd be widely available. Now he's touting Regeneron's treatment as a cure, which it surely isn't and his soft-headed son Eric has referred to the treatment his dad received as a vaccine, which it also isn't. Hopefully Trump's loss is clear cut because this is getting to be too much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

"The speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, has taken aim at the British vaccine testing safety regime, warning that UK approval of a vaccine would not automatically mean it was safe according to the US’s own procedures.
Amid a race to produce an effective vaccine against Covid-19 that meets broad international acceptance for safety, Pelosi’s comments appear partly motivated by concern that any quick and unilateral British approval of a vaccine might be embraced by Donald Trump for political gain, perhaps even before the 3 November election."

What a silly, petulant comment by Speaker Pelosi, and frankly an insult to scientists in the UK. And for what, to get one over on the President? She would be better off looking at where the money is going in the US and ask how it is that the President is treated with a drug that was developed (in part from the tissue of an aborted fetus) by one his golfing buddies and the company he used to own shares in. Vaccines must be about public safety as well as medical effectiveness, but right now there isn't one, but there is a corrupt link between politics and pharmaceuticals, and it into that mix where Pelosi ought to be raking her greasy stick.

---

Of all the countries and their scientists that I would trust to come up with a safe vaccine it would be Great Britain, regardless of who your guys PM is.

Its October 11th. Even if one of the pharmaceutical companies on either side of the Atlantic would to come up with a vaccine by the end of the month, I don't think its going to have an impact on the U.S. Presidential Elections. It also probably wouldn't be available for widespread distribution either. So I don't know why Pelosi had to make that statement.

Throughout covid it has always been pretty easy to identify a medical consensus.

When a vaccine is made available, whether it's from Britain or from the U.S., there will be a lot of information available and a lot commentary on what the data tell us from experts.

I haven't really understood those Democrats who say they won't take a vaccine made available under Trump. If the data were strong enough and the FDA approves it, Trump's view shouldn't matter.

Finally, I have no idea whether the regulatory guidelines in Britain for vaccines are more or less stringent than they are in the U.S. Pelosi's comment is technically correct that one country's regulatory approval shouldn't be binding on our FDA, but given how compromised our FDA has become, maybe she should wait and see what data is made available.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

I haven't really understood those Democrats who say they won't take a vaccine made available under Trump. If the data were strong enough and the FDA approves it, Trump's view shouldn't matter.

---

What i mean is that if we're worried about a vaccine that is rushed through the regulatory process you don't have to judge its safety by Trump's comments. People will demand that the data be publicly available and will see what the foremost experts have to say about the strength of the evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

Throughout covid it has always been pretty easy to identify a medical consensus.

When a vaccine is made available, whether it's from Britain or from the U.S., there will be a lot of information available and a lot commentary on what the data tell us from experts.

I haven't really understood those Democrats who say they won't take a vaccine made available under Trump. If the data were strong enough and the FDA approves it, Trump's view shouldn't matter.

Finally, I have no idea whether the regulatory guidelines in Britain for vaccines are more or less stringent than they are in the U.S. Pelosi's comment is technically correct that one country's regulatory approval shouldn't be binding on our FDA, but given how compromised our FDA has become, maybe she should wait and see what data is made available.

---

A while back, all the CEOs of the major pharmaceutical companies said that no matter what pressure is exert on them, they will not release a vaccine until it has gone through the necessary trials and gets approved by the FDA. Even if you take into consideration the bad reputation that pharmaceutical companies have (some of which is earned), I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. The ramifications of releasing a rushed vaccine to market can have a significant impact on people's health, not the mention the bottom line of the company whose name is on it.

I think there are some Democrats who are just so blinded by their hatred for Trump that will automatically dismiss anything that is associated with him. Even if it is something as positive as a vaccine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackchubby38

I think there are some Democrats who are just so blinded by their hatred for Trump that will automatically dismiss anything that is associated with him. Even if it is something as positive as a vaccine.

---

I understand the skepticism about anything associated with him, as we have 5 times more deaths per capita than the average country. Than average! This man talks about great, average beat him by 500%.

He also promoted a drug that failed in numerous clinical trials and fired Rick Bright, a man with decades of experience making vaccines because he wouldn't promote his fascist sugar pill. He compounded that by gumming up the clinical trials of treatments that could succeed, then getting a compassionate use exemption for himself for a drug whose trials his actions got delayed and is now bragging it's a cure.

If the only evidence of a vaccine's effectiveness were Trump's word, I'd have nothing to do with it. But the vaccines really have very little to do with him and the regulatory process will as well. Under any administration we'd have at least as robust a program and a different President would have required Slaoui to divest his stock portfolio as well. But by the time you or I get a vaccine I expect we'll be told what percentage of people it's expected to prevent disease in and how that is inferred and how many people had serious side effects. If a company is not transparent about the data, I will have concerns, but Trump will be irrelevant as long as he doesn't inadvertently get in the way.