Canada Will Ship 800 Doses of Experimental Ebola Drug to WHO 102
The WSJ reports that 800 doses of an experimental vaccine for Ebola, developed over a decade at Public Health Agency of Canada’s main laboratory in Winnipeg, will be shipped to the World Health Organization in an effort to help fight the ongoing Ebola crisis in West Africa: The vaccine will be shipped by air from Winnipeg, Manitoba, to the University Hospital of Geneva via specialized courier. The vials will be sent in three separate shipments as a precautionary measure, due to the challenges in moving a vaccine that must kept at a very low temperature at all times. ... The vaccine had shown “very promising results in animal research” and earlier this week, Ottawa announced the start of clinical trials on humans at the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research in the U.S. ... The government has licensed NewLink Genetics Corp. , of the U.S., through its wholly owned subsidiary BioProtection Systems Corp. to further develop the vaccine for use in humans. The government owns the intellectual property rights associated with the vaccine.
WHO? (Score:1, Funny)
Who?
Re: (Score:2)
Skippy, you're doing that owl thing again.
Re: (Score:1)
No...no...The Guess Who
You know, that band who were also from Winnipeg.
Ahhh... the 70's.
(American Woman etc.)
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, all efforts must be made to lengthen their lives, as the copyright on their music must not enter the public domain.
Let's Cut To The Chase (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But I don't know, it always seems to come down to third base.
Then we get to see the homers.
D'oh!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: WHO? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
just call him.... (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Obligatory bash.org:
http://www.bash.org/?4780 [bash.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Tax dollars at work. (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe my tax dollars might save some lives.
And maybe we'll see the words 'government' and 'intellectual' in the same sentence more often.
Here's hoping.
Re:Tax dollars at work. (Score:4, Informative)
Maybe my tax dollars might save some lives. And maybe we'll see the words 'government' and 'intellectual' in the same sentence more often. Here's hoping.
It's interesting that OP claims the government "owns" the "IP" related to the vaccine.
In the U.S. there are very few -- almost no -- circumstances in which the government can "own" rights to patents, inventions, copyrights, ect.
They can be classified, but not "owned" except under very rare circumstances. While the ideal has been distorted, especially since 2000, the Federal government is still an employee of The People in the States, and doesn't really "own" anything.
Re: (Score:1)
IANAL
Well, I suppose the government paid for the building, the test tubes, and the salary of the researchers so i guess they own the results.....on my behalf.
Re: (Score:3)
They can be classified, but not "owned" except under very rare circumstances. While the ideal has been distorted, especially since 2000, the Federal government is still an employee of The People in the States, and doesn't really "own" anything.
Uh...I'll just leave this here... [ic.gc.ca]
Yaz
Re: (Score:2)
The US has a patent on an Ebola virus..
Human ebola virus species and compositions and methods thereof [google.com]
Looks like a Canadian patent, owned by the " The Government Of The United States Of America As Represented By The Sec Retary, Department Of Health & Human Services, Center For Disease Control".
It's the wrong strain, though. Also I'm not sure why the US government would own a Canadian patent.
Re: (Score:2)
The US has a patent on an Ebola virus.. Human ebola virus species and compositions and methods thereof [google.com]
Looks like a Canadian patent, owned by the " The Government Of The United States Of America As Represented By The Sec Retary, Department Of Health & Human Services, Center For Disease Control".
It's the wrong strain, though. Also I'm not sure why the US government would own a Canadian patent.
I noticed that myself. However, as someone who has a few patents to his credit, it's not unusual for companies (and I suppose governments) in North America to file patents in both countries to improve their overall protection. The patent systems in the two countries are subtly different, and patents are still a national jurisdiction (meaning that US patents are unenforceable in Canada, and vice-versa). Things patented in the US but not here in Canada are fair game in Canada, as things currently stand. C
Re: (Score:2)
It's the wrong strain, though. Also I'm not sure why the US government would own a Canadian patent.
In reply to this and the other person above:
That was my whole point. The U.S. government can't hold patents, under most circumstances, by U.S. law. Which is, apparently, very different from Canada.
But I know of no law that says it can't hold patents in other countries. I am very skeptical of the ethics of it, though.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"In the U.S. there are very few -- almost no -- circumstances in which the government can "own" rights to patents, inventions, copyrights, ect."
In Canada and most other democracies the gov't is the people, and the people are allowed to own stuff. In the US the government is imposed on a hapless population by lizard beings from planet Big Business, who milk the american people for every ounce of their creativity, via rhetoric and constitutional spells and other sacralized bullshit, in order to benefit Big
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In Canada and most other democracies the gov't is the people, and the people are allowed to own stuff.
As a generalization you're correct, however, in the case of patents, they technically aren't held by the Government of Canada, but are instead held by the Queen. This is usually written as "HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, IN RIGHT OF CANADA AS REPRESENTED BY THE MINISTER OF..." in Canadian patents.
Of course, in a practical sense, the Queen is going around acting as a patent troll. She may own the patents, but control tends to lie with the minister of the responsible government agency.
Yaz
Re: (Score:2)
Sigh...that was, naturally, a typo. It was intended to read that the Queen is not a patent troll.
That said, you can take your nomination and stick it where the sun doesn't shine.
Yaz
Re: (Score:2)
Ummm -- that patent troll was a typo - is not natural - many here identify any non-practicing patent related entity as patent trolls.
Take your head out of your own arse and realize that your mistake is and was your's not mine. I can admit the twit of the week nomintation is now undeserved because of an honest error, can you admit that you did not correct your mistake until you were called out on it?
Sorry, you get twit of the week for not being able to figure the typo out from the original context...which was pretty bloody obvious.
Re:Tax dollars at work. (Score:4, Funny)
It's interesting that OP claims the government "owns" the "IP" related to the vaccine.
Something I left out of my previous post; generally, the Government of Canada doesn't own the patent; instead it's owned by Queen Elizabeth II, in Right of Canada, and represented by the minister of the relevant government agency.
Here's an example I picked purely because of it's humorous title, particular when you relate it to the Queen as owner: APPARATUS FOR PERFORMING SCROTAL CIRCUMFERENCE MEASUREMENT ON BULLS [ic.gc.ca].
Yaz
Re: (Score:2)
I find it interesting how the article talks about how the Canadian government owns the IP yet you discuss the US and its rules.
This is something you see often on slashdot, not all countries have the same rules as the US does.
Re: (Score:2)
I find it interesting how the article talks about how the Canadian government owns the IP yet you discuss the US and its rules.
I am tempted to write WHOOSH! here, but I will politely refrain from meaning it seriously. For now.
I did not make a mistake. I was purposefully bringing attention to that difference between those governments.
Re: (Score:2)
Jane becasue of certain common responses on Slashdot that your post could be understood in two ways is not solely your fault. Unfortunately you created a misunderstanding because you did not originally identify that your intent was to bring attention to the difference.
Perhaps. Reading my original comment again, I do see how it could be taken two ways. But one of them would be a mistake, and one of them would not.
When there is ambiguity, should the reader assume the meaning that would be a mistake? Or is it more likely the writer meant it the other way, which is not a mistake?
Regardless, I shall try to keep this in mind.
Re: (Score:1)
This is the most ignorant comment, I have ever seen modded up.
The U.S. government, "owns" and has rights in multiple patents.
Just pulled this from a random patent.
"The invention described herein was made in the course of work partially funded by Grant No. xxxxxxxxxxx from the National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The U.S. government may have rights in this invention."
You will see that the U.S. government can do anything with the research funded by the government. This
Annoying grammar guy (Score:1)
...to WHOM
There is a better drug in my opinion. (Score:4, Informative)
It's called favipiravir, and originates in Japan. It was tested on a few Spanish patients and it seems to have worked. The key difference between favipiravir and the ZMapp mAb is that favipiravir is effective even when given in the later stages of infection.
Re:There is a better drug in my opinion. (Score:5, Informative)
There are three very different agents here:
ZMapp - engineered antibodies to EBOV.
Favipiravir - small molecule, presumably made by standard organic synthesis techniques, active against the RNA polymerases (key replication enzymes) of quite a broad range of RNA viruses (including influenza virus).
VSV-EBOV - (what the Canadians are shipping). A vaccine rather than a treatment, made by using molecular cloning to insert specific EBOV proteins into an unrelated, harmless virus. It will be propagated in mammalian cells rather than the tobacco-plant based method used for ZMapp production.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem you are seeing is that these drugs are nowhere near tested as far as any other drug approved for use would be. These are being used as a last ditch efforts to save someone who would already be dead.
The normal treatment for Ebola is more or less strengthening your body and letting it handle the virus. Blood plasma transfusions from surviving patients seem to help a bit but are sporadic. The ZMapp drug was used- if we are to believe the story- when the patient was within hours of death and no othe
Re: (Score:2)
Of course this is only true if the virus was not understood and the drugs were no
Re: (Score:2)
Lol. They did not just throw darts at a stack of papers and decide to try whatever it landed on. These drugs were already being worked on with knowlege of its Ebola interaction already being worked on.
I'm not saying we know evrrything but we certainly do have a better understanding of it than the health benefits of cat purrs.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, history (AZT giving people AIDS, Polio vaccine giving people Polio) suggests we should expect much worse when this kind of rushed drug testing occurs.
Those aren't great examples! AZT has never given anyone AIDS (outside the minds of conspiracy theorists) and remains in use as part of standard anti-retrovial combination therapy. Live polio vaccine can (extremely rarely) revert to a harmful form, but this has to be balanced against its enormously beneficial overall impact. I'm sure the researchers would be delighted if any of the anti-EBOV drugs currently being tested were as effective as AZT is against HIV, or if either of the new recombinant ebola vaccin
Re: (Score:2)
Although I did not mention it in my original post, I am extremely skeptical of the evidence for polio vaccines' effectiveness.
Then I'm afraid it's pretty unlikely we can have a useful discussion. There is still no fully effective cure for entrenched belief in anti-vaccine conspiracy theories (or HIV 'scepticism', if you also subscribe to that).
Re: (Score:2)
I remember someone here shared the notion that x white people had to get the disease to get a vaccination underway. Maybe the tipping point was actually x hours of news coverage.
Whatever the motivation, thank you Canadians! This never was a we versus them problem. We are them and they are us, all earthlings.
Re: (Score:2)
Leaving aside the "x white body count" shit (remember, most of the work so far has been on the basis of fears of weaponised EBV), you do realise that before you can have a vaccination programme, you firstly need to have a vaccine that works, with a reasonable degree of safety and efficacy (so trials are unavoidable) ; then you need to produce large quantities of the vaccine (GSK estimate that t
Re: (Score:1)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
This makes more sense. I hadn't thought of it that way -- being an American, and used to big pharma's exploits, I keep forgetting (and need to be reminded) that Canada is a bit more progressive with the bigger picture.
I also can appreciate where an entity, including the Canadian Gov't, would want to recoup reasonable research costs. If all countries thought that way....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Just shows what big pharma actually does for the money they get. Not much it seems.
Why would Big Pharma waste time trying to cure Ebola? It's a disease that affects a relatively tiny number of people in (mostly, until the past month) Third World nations. It is only notable due to the terrifyingly (and unusual) high mortality rate, but there is absolutely no financial incentive to go after it right now.
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit. This is "stuff that matters."
bbbut racism.... (Score:3, Interesting)
I am keeping my fingers crossed that MSNBC screams that black people are being used as guinea pigs
Re: (Score:2)
I forget which treaty is it, but there are exceptions in which a government can claim a state of emergency and manufacture any drug or violate any patent to address that emergency without violating any international law or foreign law.
It was all over the news back when the Anthrax scares were happening. Canada cited the provisions when it appeared there would be a shortage of Cipro and decided one of their companies would manufacture it for Canadian stockpiles. I think they later reversed on that when Bayer
Intellectual rights, in a crisis? (Score:1)
Pardon my ignorance, but where is the greater good served by intellectual rights, in the face of a potentially dangerous epidemic. As an above poster pointed out, not even the US Gov't can own intellectual rights (that I know of anyway). Say this vaccine works, and works really well. Does that now make us all liable to pay the Canadian Gov't for more doses, or to license the formula for manufacture? At what cost. Interesting. I want to learn more facts behind this.
I know why it does't work (Score:2)
And when you're sick of people dying. Call me. Remember this.
Re: (Score:1)
Ebola drugs (Score:2)
Current list of Ebola drugs [quora.com], tacky headline on their stock market status [twitter.com]
Re: (Score:3)