Sorrento Finds a Coronavirus Antibody That Blocks Viral Infection 100% in Preclinical Lab Experiments (techcrunch.com) 112
Therapeutics company Sorrento has made what it believes could be a breakthrough in potential treatment of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that leads to COVID-19. From a report: The company released details of its preclinical research on Friday, announcing that it has found an antibody that provides "100% inhibition of SARS-CoV-2 virus infection of healthy cells after four days incubation." The results are from a preclinical study that still has to undergo peer review. It was an in vitro laboratory study (meaning not in an actual human being), but it's still a promising development as the company continues to work on production of an antibody "cocktail" that could provide protection against SARS-CoV-2 even in case of mutations in the virus. Sorrento says it believes this antibody, which is labelled STI-1499, stood out among billions of candidates it has been screening from its extensive human antibody library for its ability to completely block the interaction of the SARS-CoV-2's spike protein with a human cell target receptor. That means it prevents the virus from attaching to the host's healthy cell, which is what leads to incubation and infection. The nature of the antibody's efficacy means that Sorrento currently believes it will be the first antibody to be included in the cocktail it is developing, which will be made up of a large number of different antibodies that show efficacy in blocking the attachment of the spike protein, in order to provide multiple avenues of protection that are designed to remain effective even if the virus mutates in transmission from person to person, or within the same individual.
Aren't anti-body treatments impractical (Score:2)
Re:Aren't anti-body treatments impractical (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm unfamiliar with the science on that. Even a small scale solution could be used to protect certain critical populations... essential workers in specific areas or around a small virus cluster identified early enough. Screening for this particular antibody might also help optimize convalescent plasma therapy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't make the bold assumption that the patent won't be disregarded. In case of a health emergency most governments can disregard any sort of patent... also antibodies are discovered not made.
Re: (Score:1)
How true. We discovered nuclear fusion that produces net energy in stars, so obviously any earthbound nuclear fusion reactor will not be patentable. Also, as you rightly point out, they discovered the molecules of antibody that they have in their possession- good thing that's enough for our purposes and nobody will need to make more.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless they manufactured the cells producing the anti-bodies there is no invention to patent there either. Either way, most governments, including the US government can disregard patents and fix prices at need in emergencies.
Re:Aren't anti-body treatments impractical (Score:5, Informative)
Unless they manufactured the cells producing the anti-bodies there is no invention to patent there either. Either way, most governments, including the US government can disregard patents and fix prices at need in emergencies.
Monoclonal antibody patents are an important part of many biotech/pharma companies' portfolios and are enforceable. What is challenging is that someone else can develop an antibody with a different sequence that binds to the same target and produces the same effect. Your patent cannot protect you from this, but the hope for many companies is that the barrier to antibody development will allow you to gain mass marketshare before competitors go after your target. While it is a valid concern that the govt may attempt/succeed at confiscation of intellectual property, I think it that the first company to develop a successful COVID-19 prophylactic will probably profit from their initial investment.
also antibodies are discovered not made
Antibodies initially discovered through screening almost always go through a stringent engineering process. Antibody engineering includes but is not limited to humanization (careful substitution of animal host sequence with matching human sequence, but not so much that it *breaks* the antibody, as well as affinity maturation, which involves creating derivative sequences that can be selected for higher affinity to the target. Reduced immunogenicity, pH sensitive binding and the inclusion of other recombinant protein domains or even other antibody binding domains (bispecific antibodies) are other examples of antibody engineering. All of these modifications are absolutely included in your antibody patent and make your molecule much more defensible.
Re: (Score:2)
"Monoclonal antibody patents are an important part of many biotech/pharma companies' portfolios and are enforceable. "
You can't enforce a government granted artificial right if the government says otherwise and most governments confer themselves the authority to disregard medical patents for an emergency. Curing COVID-19 was never a path for growing wealth. At least not in the short term, anymore than selling water after a hurricane is an allowed path for getting rich.
After the crisis is over and the state
Re: (Score:3)
Curing COVID-19 was never a path for growing wealth.
I would imagine the leadership at the companies doing much of the work to cure/prevent COVID disagree, otherwise they would not come up with their own individual solutions (what we're seeing now) instead of cooperating and sharing the production burden (possible altruistic non-profit scenario?).
In the meantime the government should be manufacturing everything that helps with the crisis without regard for patents and intellectual property. For that matter it should feel free to seize facilities to use to perform the manufacturing and distribution.
Since the US govt. lacks the capacity to produce these kinds of drugs at industrial scale, the only way they could replace the privately owned companies (who possess the knowhow, facilities, workforce, supply cha
Re: (Score:2)
The concept of nuclear fusion is not subject to patent; the creation of a machine to bring about the effect is.
Likewise you won't patent an antibody, though you can possibly have protection for novel devices that manufacture, process, or distribute it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, what's wrong?
This isn't like this action would cause any harm to anyone experiencing problems during the pandemic...
The stock market by nature reacts to world events, all sorts of them and this is one of them.
Seems smart to invest in things that might help the outcome, no?
I could see your point if this type actions harmed anyone, but it doesn't, just me gambling with my money a bit.
So, what's the problem?
While funding a solution (Score:2)
If GP wants to buy into the company, the company can choose to seek him the stock, thereby raising money to develop the antibodies. If that company doesn't need more funding, he'll be buying from somebody who wants to move their funding somewhere else, perhaps to a different company developing a vaccine.
If he puts his savings to good use, funding a cure, while you put your money into buying 20" rims, he may see a benefit from doing so. If you choose to put your money into rims, you'll get - rims. Or you c
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Aren't anti-body treatments impractical (Score:5, Informative)
The downside with scFv is that unlike full-size antibodies (they are 6 times smaller), they are cleared more rapidly from the blood, have only one antigen binding site instead of 2, which makes it harder for them to hold on to their target (imagine doing one-handed pullups instead of two-handed or even just hanging there) and they lack the immune effector functions present on full size antibodies made natively in the body. To convert scFv to full size antibodies is generally straightforward, but production must be switched to mammalian cells (such as CHO) [wikipedia.org] that are capable of handling the more complex protein folding and modification required to make functional antibody molecules.
Overall the strategy to protect front line workers in critical industries is probably the best one. Once a vaccine is available, it will put the monoclonal antibody out of business due to the ability to induce long-term immunity vs. the very short term immunity an antibody would provide.
Re:Aren't anti-body treatments impractical (Score:5, Informative)
Normally your body produces its own antibodies. You *can* use other people's antibodies (convalescent serum) but since you can't produce them yourself, the effect is temporary. A better antibody would be good, if your body could produce it itself. A vaccine is a thing that stimulates your body to produce its own antibodies. They might not be as effective, but you can make them yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
Say no to convalescent serums! Buy locally-produced antibodies!
Re: (Score:2)
To soon! :-)
Seriously, though, Anyone who has had COVID-19 might want to consult the CoVIg-19 Bot [covig-19pl...liance.org] to see if a blood donation from you might help save lives.
https://www.nature.com/article... [nature.com]
Re: (Score:2)
They can produce any number of antibodies by breeding more of the immune cells.
Re: (Score:2)
Monoclonal antibodies are already used for therapy, at scale. Multiple blockbuster drug scale. If the name of a drug ends with -ab it's probably an antibody.
You're likely thinking of the antibodies they use in movies, isolated from a recovered patient. That's not terribly practical because you have to harvest them from people. Monoclonal antibodies are produced from b-cell cultures grown in large bioreactors.
Re: (Score:3)
It's perfect.
There's no money in a cure/vaccine. The money is in a treatment.
Re: (Score:2)
There's some work to make them with genetic engineering and bacterial fermentation.
Once they crack that and the patents expire 20 years later, they are going to be dirt cheap to produce.
Re: (Score:2)
They are hoping to start phase 1 trials in July. At that point, they will join more than 400 other drug trials aimed at curing/preventing coronavirus [wikipedia.org]. Surely one of them will succeed.
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure what the cultural of Sweden vs. the US has to do with death rates, but I would note that you are talking about how the score is tied in the second inning of a baseball game. This thing isn't over by any means.
And maybe we will look back and say that all the social distancing and lockdowns were unnecessary. In a situation where data is lacking you have to make the best decisions you can, based on what you know and can project. Despite the conspiracy theories out there, I accept that the governors
Re: (Score:1)
Well that's a stupid fucking comparison. How about comparing the Swedish death rate to the Danish or Norwegian death rates? Because that's going to be a shit load less favourable to your stupid little story.
And Sweden's death rate is among the highest in the world:
https://www.businessinsider.co... [businessinsider.com]
Go back to masturbating to thoughts of Hitler and the white race instead of posting on Slashdot. It's a better use of your time and keeps you out of harm's way.
Re: (Score:2)
You're confusing things just a little bit. There's a potential treatment that uses antibodies extracted from people who have recovered from the virus. That unfortunately doesn't scale very well because you need roughly the same number of donors as recipients. What this article talks about is antibodies that are made in a lab and can be manufactured in large quantities. They're planning to make a million doses while waiting for FDA approval, so they can start treatment as soon as approved.
Link (Score:3)
https://investors.sorrentother... [sorrentotherapeutics.com]
Marketing Release (Score:5, Insightful)
"Preclinical Lab Experiment" means "We would like our share price to go up, please."
Re: (Score:2)
They also aren't the first. I think I've heard of other monocolonal neutralizing antibodies that have been trialed in apes and humanized mice. Pretty soon one of them should be ready for a safety trial in humans. Then you do the dosage and effectiveness trial. Then you ramp up production. If there aren't any problems give it a year for one of them to be reasonably available. ("reasonably" is a lot less than "widely".)
Note that this isn't a vaccine. This is designed to be used on people who are alread
Re: (Score:2)
They also aren't the first. I think I've heard of other monocolonal neutralizing antibodies that have been trialed in apes and humanized mice. Pretty soon one of them should be ready for a safety trial in humans. Then you do the dosage and effectiveness trial.
Yeah, these guys are saying they've dropped something into a Petri dish and killed the virus. That's only a small step up from dropping bleach into the dish and killed the virus. I'm not even sure it is a step up. It certainly isn't newsworthy.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
"so, no trials. lab experiments can include anything from computer simulations to petri dishes full of test gel. It is meaningless outside research and academia, so the reason you would publicly announce this is likely to pump your stock."
In the course or normal scientific and academic rigor sure. But not in a state of emergency, in a state of emergency a 30% margin of error can be a desirable outcome relative to delay while seeking higher assurance. The worst that happens is it kills people and that is wha
Re: (Score:2)
Your peer review is going to be absolutely ravenous and unforgiving
is enough to bankrupt a company so its important to clarify what Sorrento is claiming.
It seems like the novelty of the situation would make it pretty stupid to predict such specific outcomes like bankruptcy, and there isn't any clear mechanism to cause it.
Are you suggesting patients who take their medications would refuse to take their pills, or that doctors would phone patients and tell them to stop taking it? Or stop prescribing anything?
Re: (Score:2)
The summary said they did it in glass. I.e. petri dishes or something similar.
Re:Why is so much effort being put into covid19? (Score:5, Informative)
"Everyone" is lying to you. COVID-19 has killed more people in a month than the seasonal flu kills in a year. It's easier to catch, spreads faster, and is almost certainly considerably more deadly. The error bars on the fatality rate include "more deadly than Spanish flu".
Re:Why is so much effort being put into covid19? (Score:5, Informative)
Where are the links with sources for your claims?
"Case-fatality rates were >2.5% [for Spanish flu]" - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov]
"The overall fatality rate of persons with confirmed COVID-19 in the Italian population, based on data up to March 17, was 7.2%" - https://jamanetwork.com/journa... [jamanetwork.com]
Case fatality ratio of 4.5%, incidence of 3.1% - https://www.medrxiv.org/conten... [medrxiv.org]
Case fatality rates are very inaccurate, and vary a great deal by location, health care system, public health system, policies, and disease characteristics. Which is why I said the error bars on the fatality rates overlap.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The AC is probably a troll sure. Problem is, the others are dumb. And dumb kills. And when it's a public health issue, dumb doesn't just kill dumb.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
But muh monies.
There's nothing like a crisis to bring out one's true colours.
Re:Why is so much effort being put into covid19? (Score:5, Interesting)
Thats not exactly accurate.
1. Covid-19 has not kill more people than a year of seasonal flu. Current average estimates are 389 000, between 250 000 and 650 000 for a bad season (depending on CDC 2017 estimates or this studies estimates in 2019 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6815659/)
2. Its easier to catch because we don't any vaccine for it and we dont have any immunity. However the numbers for infections and mortality are on par with a very bad flu season where the vaccine misses the mark.
3. However, that said, it does seem to have more complications. Sickness last longer, incubation as well, which increases spread.
4. We already know for certain that all those mortality rates are wrong. They are based on confirmed positive cases. However from dozens of serology studies across the globe we know that infection rates are between 20 to 50 times higher, depending on area and population density. (Studies from NY, Boston, Santa Clara, LA County, Netherlands, France, etc...)
Also, mortality of those with confirmed infections when separated by age group are much less scary as we can see from this study from the Pasteur Institute of Paris, Chart S2, page 25.
Mortality of patients infected by Covid-19.
0-19 yrs old: 0,001%
20-29 yrs old: 0,007%
30-39 yrs old: 0,02%
40-49 yrs old: 0,05%
50-59 yrs old: 0,2%
60-69 yrs old: 0,8%
70-79 yrs old: 2,2%
80 yrs old+ : 8,3 %
https://hal-pasteur.archives-o... [archives-ouvertes.fr]
5. Those more deadly than Spanish Flu bars are so off the mark, they fall into the fear mongering category.
Re:Why is so much effort being put into covid19? (Score:5, Informative)
1. Covid-19 has not kill more people than a year of seasonal flu. Current average estimates are 389 000, between 250 000 and 650 000 for a bad season (depending on CDC 2017 estimates or this studies estimates in 2019 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6815659/)
Read this [scientificamerican.com].
Short version:
* Flu statistics are estimates.
* Most medial professionals couldn't tell you the last time they saw a death from flu.
* Pneumonia deaths are included in CDC "flu" statistics.
In the last six flu seasons, the CDC’s reported number of actual confirmed flu deaths—that is, counting flu deaths the way we are currently counting deaths from the coronavirus—has ranged from 3,448 to 15,620, which far lower than the numbers commonly repeated by public officials and even public health experts.
...
If we compare, for instance, the number of people who died in the United States from COVID-19 in the second full week of April to the number of people who died from influenza during the worst week of the past seven flu seasons (as reported to the CDC), we find that the novel coronavirus killed between 9.5 and 44 times more people than seasonal flu. In other words, the coronavirus is not anything like the flu: It is much, much worse.
If we're going to compare it to the flu we need to use the right numbers.
Re: (Score:2)
The estimates are there for a reason, and the newer studies take the factors you mention above into consideration.
Confirmed flu deaths are lower, of course, because they are tested and confirmed.
However, we very well know many pneumonia deaths in the elderly are from influenza, which is the reason for those estimates, as well as other reasons.
We are currently counting COVID-19 deaths like we estimate the flu deaths. Many if not half of the COVID-19 deaths are not confirmed cases. As well there is a good per
Re: (Score:2)
Covid-19 has not kill more people than a year of seasonal flu.
I present an article explaining how the way we estimate flu doesn't match the way we count COVID-19. New claim:
I wont say COVID-19 is as low risk as the flu, but it certainly is not orders of magnitude higher. Maybe double at most and that does not warrant the state of affairs we are in.
Except you did say it was as low risk as the flu. In fact you said:
Those more deadly than Spanish Flu bars are so off the mark, they fall into the fear mongering category.
Re: (Score:2)
Your article plays semantics.
To take it at face value, you would have to assume COVID-19 deaths are counted properly at the moment and we all know for a fact they are not.
Your last claim that I made a false claim about the FLU, then you proceed to link to me talking about the comparison to the SPANISH FLU.
Are you that disingenuous or do you not know the difference between the FLU and the SPANISH FLU?
Look up how many died for the spanish flu, then come back and tell me this virus could ever come close to tha
Re: (Score:1)
The number infected with the flu is also way higher than the confirmed positive cases. My best guess is that the ratio between mortality percentages is about correct. And 20-50 times higher is way off the mark, best estimates are 10x higher based on antibody tests. It obviously is not 50x becasue that would mean more than 100% of people have COVID-19.
Re: (Score:2)
Current USA confirmed cases is 1.48 million. 50x higher is 74 million not that unreasonable with an a very high asymptomatic rate. Though I wouldnt blanket the 50x higher to the whole USA.
As I mentioned, it depends on areas. I think it was about 3 to 5% in areas like LA County and Santa Clara and 14% in areas like NYC.
So depending on current oubreak numbers and population density lets say 10 to 50x.
Re: (Score:2)
So my statement is literally true. COVID-19 has so far killed more than *a* year of flu. It has not killed more than the *worst* year. I stopped reading there. If you're going to be pedantic, at least make sure you're doing it right.
Re: (Score:2)
You are desperately looking to be right. Is that the only reason to debate or is it top exchange ideas?
You seem to be taking this personally in the way you reacted above. All I said was its not exactly accurate and proceeded to add precision with sources.
If you wish to compare it to the lower estimates, go ahead. As mentioned the Average is 389 000. So in that sense, we havent hit the mark yet.
BTW, we are comparing current numbers and the crisis is not yet over. We will see when the dust settles. But we kn
Re:Why is so much effort being put into covid19? (Score:5, Informative)
You can check the number of deaths here: https://web.archive.org/web/*/... [archive.org]
But I'll make it easy for you; I download the state and county reports daily and put them in a database; I can answer the question with a simple query:
MONTHLY COVID-19 Deaths
February
March
April
May 1-11
Compare this to the worst flu seasons (source: https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/... [cdc.gov])
*ANNUAL* Flu Season Deaths
2017-2018: 61,000
2014-2015: 51,000
2016-2017: 38,000
2013-2014: 38,000
2010-2011: 37,000
2015-2016: 23,000
Death rates are still rising for COVID-19, but at present it would be accurate to say that one month of COVID-19 kills about as many people as the the entire year of the worst seasonal flus.
Now the estimated number of flu infections runs from 9 million to 29 million. At present we have 1.4 million confirmed cases of COVID-19, and researchers think the actual number of infections are 10x to 15x as much. So it would be reasonable to say *thus far* COVID-19 has infected about as many people as a bad flu year. However it is important to remember that the number of infections are still rising sharply even though we've been taking extreme containment measures.
We can reasonably conclude that:
(1) COVID-19 is much more infectious than the most infectious seasonal flu, and
(2) COVID-19 is much more lethal than the most lethal seasonal flu.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
So far mutations are not happening quickly, and though newer slightly different strains (if Im not mistaken it was less than 4% different) do not seem to be any more deadly or infectious.
Claims by some studies about the new strains being more "aggressive" where false. You can see the break down of the response by the University of Glasgow here:
https://retractionwatch.com/20... [retractionwatch.com]
Usually as a virus mutates it also weakens and we will have to see if Sars-Cov-2 follows that pattern.
Re: (Score:1)
4% sounds like a very high mutation rate, but otherwise your observation that most mutations make it less lethal is correct.
Re: (Score:2)
Stockholm doesn't have bodies being burned in pits yet, so I think we can rule out worse than Spanish Flu.
Flu season lasts months, covid-19 burns itself out in about 5 weeks at a given level of social distancing. So it killing more people in 4 weeks than flu in a year doesn't mean a whole lot.
In Sweden where excess deaths have long since peaked it seems about twice as bad as the worst flu season for the last few decades. Assuming there's no second wave, that shouldn't change too much going forward any more.
Re: (Score:2)
Stockholm doesn't have bodies being burned in pits yet, so I think we can rule out worse than Spanish Flu.
Stockholm might not, but we know Iran and even New York City have had to do mass burials of corona victims.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.worldometers.info/... [worldometers.info]
It's also not true that their economy has been impacted any less severely than average for Europe.
Re: (Score:2)
There's lies, damn lies and excess deaths :
https://www.scb.se/en/About-us... [www.scb.se]
Freedom has some inherent value too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Despite what your media might be telling you, Sweden has instituted anti-infection measures almost as strong as anywhere else. The only difference is the Swedes have been doing them mostly voluntarily.
Imagine what would happen if, instead of all sitting at home, millions of us were crowded into soggy trenches together. Then maybe we all went home to different parts of the world and hugged and kissed our families who we hadn't seen for months or years.
Re: (Score:2)
Big difference between shutting down large parts of the service economy and just running them at lower capacity due to distancing measures.
They basically started at the same level of social distancing most western countries are adopting for the lock down "exit" (less an exit and more a moment of clarity after temporary insanity).
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Sweden took a long view, were confident that their populace would self-impose reasonable limits, and believed that their system could absorb the casualties. It looks like they were right. So they've traded 3-5x the fatalities now for hopefully more long-term compliance and a better showing in round 2. We'll see in a year or two whether they made the right call or not.
Their strategy certainly wouldn't have worked for Italy, Spain or New York. The UK tried it, but had to abandon it. It might have worked
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. And the most likely place not to see a second wave is Sweden as they have a higher chance of the virus having gone through the population and increase general immunity before dying out.
The major difference with this virus and previous ones, isnt the virus itself but social media and mainstream media being vectors for viral trash information.
This has led to government officials playing it so safe that they actually cause harm.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Sweden's excess deaths have not peaked, they have plateaued. Be careful with the graphs, because the way they are reporting, the last full 7 days are always revised upward over the next week. Sweden is currently ranked 6th, above Netherlands (refresh your browser Rand Paul!), in deaths per capita among major countries, and is steadily gaining on France.
Re: (Score:1)
Flu season lasts months, covid-19 burns itself out in about 5 weeks at a given level of social distancing. So it killing more people in 4 weeks than flu in a year doesn't mean a whole lot.
If you live in Trump fantasy land perhaps.
In the real world it just doesn't work like that.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.scb.se/en/About-us... [www.scb.se]
Stockholm, 5 weeks.
https://gis.cdc.gov/grasp/fluv... [cdc.gov]
NYC, 5 weeks and a bit.
There's a distinct pattern in excess deaths in heavy hit regions if you care to look for it. There's going to be a tail of course and when you relax distancing you get a renewed peaking, but the pattern is there. The level of distancing in Sweden is a lot more maintainable than in most countries.
To appeal to authority a bit, Nobel laureate Michael Levitt commented on the pattern too.
Re: (Score:2)
Yet they are still working non essential jobs, still going to cafes, primary/secondary education is still going. There's only a limited amount of distance they can take and there's no contact tracing.
Even assuming herd immunity can not help at low levels of disease spread. That still means you can leave all businesses and primary/secondary schools open and not make masks mandatory and people will still just bring R0 under 1, within 5 weeks ... with deaths at roughly twice as bad as a bad flu seasons.
I perso
Re: (Score:2)
There are theories which posit immunity effects occurs at far lower levels than the consensus 80% assumption.
https://judithcurry.com/2020/0... [judithcurry.com]
As this and previous pandemics have shown, the consensus modeling is generally wrong by orders of magnitude ... so there is a lot of room for alternative models.
Excess deaths have gone down (and up) far faster than the diagnosed deaths.
Re: (Score:2)
You need to find yourself a more intelligent "everyone".
Re: (Score:3)
Everyone tells me this is no worse than the seasonal flu. Seems we are using up all available effort to "cure" (or vaccinate against) something that isn't actually all that dangerous. Can someone confirm this? (And no, Plandemic is not a confirmation)
Go slap some sense into that everyone person who keeps telling you that. It took 37 days exceed all but the 1918 pandemic's annual flu death toll in the US. The 2nd worst flu season on record was 1957-1958, with 69,800 deaths in the US. The third was more recently, with 61,000 in the 2017-2018 season. Between April 1 and May 7, 71,777 people died from COVID-19. Just in those 37 days (an additional 5151 died before April 1). Today we are at 87,707. We should cross 100,000 before the end of May.
1957-19
Re: (Score:2)
United States population 1917: 103.27 million.... United States population 1957: 171.98 million.
If you don't compare relative numbers or provide the extra information required to make the relative comparison, you're clearly trying to mislead.
Re: (Score:1)
100%! (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
"Ohh you're right, and when you're right, you're right, and you? you're always right!"
Hurry The F%&^ck Up.. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a vaccine candidate. It's a treatment candidate.
Vaccines work by instilling immunological memory. That means you can vaccinate people *before they get infected*.
Antibody treatments like this trick the immune system into attacking viral proteins it doesn't actually recognize. This makes them useful after the patient has been infected, but before the patient's immune system has mounted an effective defense.
Re: (Score:2)
But your main point is right. Nobody should be counting any chickens until they're very thoroughly hatched.
So why is this not on every news headline (Score:1)
FAKE NEWS!!! (Score:1)
It is a common ploy lately for drug companies to leak bullshit news like this in order to boost their stock price.
The fact is: They ALL have some measure of success - NONE of which really means much at this stage in the process.
So, do NOT allow yourselves to get sucked into this bullshit!
Nor, the excessive bullshit coming from the White House!
It will serve you all well to learn to see thru all this crap, and vote sensibly in November!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly which constitutional rights are you talking about? States have had the right to quarantine persons pretty much since the founding of the country; it was never controversial until now. Likewise they have been able to shut down businesses for health reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
>"Exactly which constitutional rights are you talking about? States have had the right to quarantine persons pretty much since the founding of the country; it was never controversial until now. "
I am no expert, but I believe they have quarantined *sick* people in the past. Never healthy ones.
Re: (Score:2)
No, historically anyone reasonably suspected of carrying a disease was quarantined.
In 1900, the entire Chinese population (est. 35,000) of San Francisco was quarantined for months. Eventually the courts overturned the order, not because the city lacked the authority to issue such orders, but because the order violated the Equal Protection Clause. For example Chinese businesses were shut down while white-owned businesses next door were allowed to operate.
The most famous quarantined person was Mary ("Typhoid
Re: (Score:2)
>"No, historically anyone reasonably suspected of carrying a disease was quarantined."
Which was never "everyone"
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Your specifically-targeted political smear will never, ever work nor be taken seriously for one second by any international court.
You're just making shit up like calling anything an everything "sexual assault" because, well, that sounds worse than whatever the inappropriate comment was.
Because, like today's Democrats in the main, you're a transparently lying idiot. I don't see what you could find unclear about this fact.
Re:Trump on TV right now, vaccine by year's end (Score:4, Insightful)
Q: How can you tell when Trump is lying?
A: He opens his mouth