The Race for a Super-Antibody Against the Coronavirus (nytimes.com) 98
A network of scientists is chasing the pandemic's holy grail: an antibody that protects against not just the virus, but also related pathogens that may threaten humans. From a report: Dozens of companies and academic groups are racing to develop antibody therapies. Already Regeneron and the drug company Eli Lilly have requested emergency use authorizations for their products from the Food and Drug Administration. These drug companies have the long experience and deep pockets needed to win the race for a powerful antibody treatment. But some scientists are betting on a dark horse: Prometheus, a ragtag group of scientists who are months behind in the competition -- and yet may ultimately deliver the most powerful antibody. Prometheus is a collaboration between academic labs, the United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, and a New Hampshire-based antibody company called Adimab. The group's antibody is not expected to be in human trials until late December, but it may be worth the wait. Unlike the antibodies made by Regeneron and Eli Lilly, which fade in the body within weeks, Prometheus's antibody aims to be effective for up to six months. "A single dose goes a long way, meaning we can treat more people," said Kartik Chandran, a virologist at Albert Einstein College of Medicine and the group's leader.
More than antibodies (Score:5, Informative)
>"Unlike the antibodies made by Regeneron and Eli Lilly, which fade in the body within weeks, Prometheus's antibody aims to be effective for up to six months."
I will post what most should already know by now.... antibodies are great, but even when they fade, the T cells SHOULD remember how to make them again. They can do this quickly, for many years to come, regardless of how long antibodies remain in the bloodstream, should the immune system identify the same or very similar pathogen.
This is normal and how all immunizations for long-term protection. So yeah, it is better to have a longer antibody response than a shorter one. But as long as your immune system remembers the pathogen, you should be OK for much, much longer.
Re:More than antibodies (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:More than antibodies (Score:4, Interesting)
It's a software subscription model for vaccines.
They just need to try and sue you if your body produces similar antibodies via some kind of copywrite/patent law.
Good times.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting criticism. So are you saying you don't want to be cured quickly? Nobody is stopping work on a vaccine, but neutralizing antibodies have the ability to target antigens that are not accessible by vaccines. So while a vaccine can become ineffective due to antigenic drift, a neutralizing antibody may have more broad activity. It's also easier to produce and scale up manufacturing of antibodies than live-attenuated viruses.
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly.
The body won't learn how to make those antibodies, hence the T-cells won't remember anything.
However if a case turns quickly bad such therapies are worth it.
Re: (Score:2)
Correct. The neutralizing antibodies are a treatment to prevent virus from entering host cells. If the infection is cleared quickly, it may not elicit a long-term immune response. You would not take Regeneron antibodies as a vaccine, you would take them similar to the way you would take an antiviral, but likely with many fewer side effects.
Re:More than antibodies (Score:4, Insightful)
...This is normal and how all immunizations for long-term protection. So yeah, it is better to have a longer antibody response than a shorter one. But as long as your immune system remembers the pathogen, you should be OK for much, much longer.
Given what 21st Century Greed has proven capable of, I wouldn't be surprised if any "cure" is engineered to not be a permanent one, and thus you will be forever dependent on obtaining more each year to sustain immunity.
The Medical Industrial Complex avoids creating cures. Only treatments that create a permanent revenue stream.
Go ahead. Troll away. Then tell me why this simply couldn't ever come to fruition. You know, because we humans are so kind and sharing as Greed races to capture one of the world's largest profit streams.
Oh yeah, and save lives. Yeah, that too.
Re: (Score:2)
>"I wouldn't be surprised if any "cure" is engineered to not be a permanent one[...]Then tell me why this simply couldn't ever come to fruition. You know, because we humans are so kind and sharing as Greed races to capture one of the world's largest profit streams."
Give information to the consumers and watch what happens. It is silly to think that companies can do whatever they want with absolutely no repercussions from the market. That is, unless you think that everyone is stupid and/or uninformed or
Re:More than antibodies (Score:5, Interesting)
If the "balance" you claim exists in the world did actually exist, there would be no such thing as big banks being caught repeatedly in massive financial scams that have caused economic meltdowns. You would see companies actually receive fines, not a slap-on-the-wrist that is viewed as justification to do it again. You would see criminal executives go to jail, not receive fucking bonuses for being fired, only to be re-hired by the Criminal Executive Officer down the street.
Mega-corps. Insurance companies. Banking institutions. Sports franchises. Just how many more companies, have now earned Too Big To Fail status?
I really hate to be so blunt, but fucking hell are you delusional about "balance" today.
And yes, there are that many stupid and ignorant people. They supported and created all of this shit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In about half of the banking scandals, the banks were forced to act badly by stupid or vicious laws and regulations. However, there's no excuse for repeat offenders like Wells Fargo.
Wells Fargo was the exact example I was thinking of as well. And oddly enough, no one seems to have been forced into a prison cell for their egregious actions in banking. I think religious leaders are probably the only other example of being legally untouchable to this extreme. Corrupt exemptions, are odd.
Re: (Score:2)
The name for this attitude is *populism* and it has a long and dirty history. Even with all the drawbacks, we're still better off with our society in the hands of educated elites instead of people like you.
The fact that you actually believe society is in the hands of "educated elites", IS the reason society has become the absolute clusterfuck it is today.
That long and dirty history has culminated in the past with the concept of Eat The Rich. The starving masses are getting hungry, and we humans ARE stupid enough to repeat the worst of our history.
Unlike society, I'm merely trying to revive common sense thinking instead of being in the hands of clicks, likes, hype, and bullshit in the quest for the almighty c
Re: (Score:2)
Company A develops an engineered, short term cure.
Company B develops a permanent cure.
Who is going to buy from Company A?
Re: (Score:2)
>"Company A develops an engineered, short term cure. Company B develops a permanent cure. Who is going to buy from Company A?"
I know this is going to sound like I am arguing against my own post, but I will play the devil's advocate (because good argumentation needs to understand all sides of an issue). So I will offer some things to ponder...
What if A can offer it at $10 a dose and B offers it at $20?
What if A was available 6 months sooner than B?
What if A could be pumped out at 10 times the available
Re: (Score:2)
What if there was enough momentum behind A that B went nearly or actually bankrupt?
Close, but not close enough.
If A finds an investor or has enough money, they will buy B and cancel B's product.
If B has enough money or finds an investor, they will buy A and cancel B's product.
Re: More than antibodies (Score:2)
Everyone, after company A succeeds in buying company B. If you don't believe they'll have the means, think of the investor money behind Let's Eat, Uber, etcetera. They'd get the means swiftly.
Re: (Score:2)
21st Century Greed has proven capable of what exactly? Renewable energies? Anti-smoking laws? Low emission cars?
The argument that big pharma avoids creating cures can be debunked in many ways. But let's focus on one: greed. Ok, let's say lab A has a cure, lab B has a recurring treatment. Whose product do you think people will buy? Lab B is dead, its treatment is worthless while lab A can set any price it wants. Maybe if lab A sets the price too high, lab B can get the scraps. There are also these things cal
Re: (Score:2)
21st Century Greed has proven capable of what exactly? Renewable energies? Anti-smoking laws? Low emission cars?
21st Century Greed has re-defined business success. You can have a multi-million dollar IPO and be worth billions, and yet never turn a profit. 21st Century Greed also gave us Too Big To Fail, and the dissolving of Glass-Steagall Act, which paved the way to the 2008 global financial crisis. Yes, 21st Century Greed, has managed to beat all records established in the 20th Century. Well, except for maybe Communist Socialism. We haven't killed that many.
Yet.
The argument that big pharma avoids creating cures can be debunked in many ways. But let's focus on one: greed. Ok, let's say lab A has a cure, lab B has a recurring treatment. Whose product do you think people will buy? Lab B is dead, its treatment is worthless while lab A can set any price it wants. Maybe if lab A sets the price too high, lab B can get the scraps. There are also these things called patents, they only last 20 years. It means that labs have only 20 years to rack up the profits before competition arrives.
20 years is a hell of a lot longer than your at
Re: (Score:2)
In ancient China (and other parts of Asia, e.g. Japan), you would pay your health insurance to the doctor in your "block". (Yes, they had health insurance 3000 years ago)
If you got sick, you would stop paying, until the doctor had treated you properly.
For people dying under is cure he had to put out a lantern under his roof and keep it burning every night for about 10 years. Not sure about the amount of years, I guess you can google that.
Re: (Score:2)
it isn't because of some greedy conspiracy, it is because it is hard.
Actually it is not hard, but rather easy.
The way how to do it was invented/discovered in the 1970s, the inventors received a Nobel Prize in 1984 for it.
There is no fucking reason a health care - aka drug aka cure - "company" needs to make a profit. It is good enough if they work at costs and pay their staff - and if they have investors a fixed rate to them.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you claiming that there have been no advances in antibody design or development since 1984? Such as trivalent antibodies, perhaps,
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov]
Oh, look. The authors on that paper are from where? Roche, a pharma company, not an academic lab.
While there are clear examples of abuses, it is simply ridiculous to claim that there is no innovation in biotech and pharma companies. It is also ridiculous to claim that biotech and pharma companies should work for free. Do organic farms work for
Re: (Score:2)
Did you answer to the wrong post?
Do organic farms work for free?
No, but they work "at cost".
It is also ridiculous to claim that biotech and pharma companies should work for free.
I did not claim that. I pointed out: at cost. There is no need that a pharma company makes wins or earnings. It should serve the public good. It is as simple as that, or does the garbage collecting "company" in your town make earnings? I don't think so.
Re: (Score:2)
Advances in medicine definitely serve the public good. Yes, they also need to behave ethically, but that doesn't mean no profit.
Do organic farms work for free?
No, but they work "at cost".
You're a fool if you actually believe that. If it's a private company, it's making a profit, even if it is just a sole proprietorship.
It is as simple as that, or does the garbage collecting "company" in your town make earnings? I don't think so.
Wow, really? Trash service is generally, although not always, a municipal service, just like the schools, police stations, and the comptroller's office. But the city doesn't own the grocery store, or the pharmacy, or many countless other businesses t
Re: (Score:2)
If you want the state to own and control everything, you are advocating for communism.
The state most certainly should control health care, as it is done in Europe.
Advocating communism? What is wrong with that? American brain washed idiot?
Trash service is generally, although not always, a municipal service, just like the schools, police stations, and the comptroller's office
Oh, and is that not communism? Seriously? You Americans are so stupid and uneducated and not have common sense, it is unbelievable.
Re: (Score:2)
Let me know when any country in Europe decides to own and run a major pharmaceutical company (not just buy from them using leveraged aggregate bargaining), and then we can talk about whether communism is a good model for drug development. I think there is a good argument for state-run or state-regulated hospitals, but state-owned and operated manufacturers of everything (hospital beds, drugs, consumables) has not been done and would not be supported by many.
Trash service is generally, although not always, a municipal service, just like the schools, police stations, and the comptroller's office
Oh, and is that not communism? Seriously? You Americans are so stupid and uneducated and not have common sense, it is unbelievable.
When did I ever say state-provided services were a
Re: (Score:2)
Let me know when any country in Europe decides to own and run a major pharmaceutical company
The EU has plenty of pharma companies.
Which countries in Europe have state-owned and operated grocery stores? I'm not aware of any.
None, why do you ask such silly questions?
Re: (Score:2)
Which country in the EU owns which pharma company? As in owned and run by the state government, not publicly (or privately) by shareholders? Reading comprehension isn't your strong point I can see. We were talking about communism, which you were advocating as an appropriate model for drug development, so provide an example of a European country that is doing this.
Which countries in Europe have state-owned and operated grocery stores? I'm not aware of any.
None, why do you ask such silly questions?
Right. So clearly communism is not always the right answer for everything.
Re: (Score:2)
What has that to do with communism?
Sorry, you are silly jumping around with your statements.
Drug prices in Europe are dictated by the state.
Does not matter who owns the company.
Ooops.
Re: (Score:2)
Drug prices in Europe are dictated by the state.
Negotiated would be a better term. The NHS block (or whatever equivalent in a given country) makes purchasing decisions for the entire system and has substantial negotiating power because of the size of their purchase. But they don't dictate anything. There is no law that can be passed that would force a company to produce a drug and sell it for a particular price. As you say, what they do now is not communism at all.
There is no fucking reason a health care - aka drug aka cure - "company" needs to make a profit. It is good enough if they work at costs and pay their staff - and if they have investors a fixed rate to them.
This was your statement at the beginning of the thread. What you are advocating for in this
Re: (Score:2)
There is no law that can be passed that would force a company to produce a drug and sell it for a particular price.
Yes there is.
What you are advocating for in this statement is communism ... oops.
No, it is not. Means of production are neither state owned nor public owned
Sorry, no idea about what you want to nitpick.
or do you still think communism is a better model than the market based model they have now?
Sorry, you use words which you obviously do not know what they mean, why do you suggest "communism" an
Re: (Score:2)
or do you still think communism is a better model than the market based model they have now?
Sorry, you use words which you obviously do not know what they mean, why do you suggest "communism" and "market" are opposites and can not fit together? China is a prime example (and other asian countries) that it works perfectly well to be "communist" and have a free market.
I am only using the definitions you provided previously in this thread. You are ignoring the question, as you have done many times in this thread, and trying to diverge the conversation. The question at hand is clear. Should the state seize control of drug companies so that it can compel them to produce and sell drugs at a particular price? Or should the state engage in collective bargaining, thereby applying price pressures using market forces? The former is what you were advocating for previously. The lat
Re: (Score:2)
I think you make a question that I not understand ... sorry.
So, no I from my point of few answered all your questions.
"Should the state seize control of drug companies so that it can compel them to produce and sell drugs at a particular price?" Is that your question? Then the answer is simple: if there is an emergency or the company plays rogue: definitely Yes! If it is just a normal operating company, then obviously no.
No idea why even have the need to ask such things.
Or should the state engage in collecti
Re: (Score:2)
"Should the state seize control of drug companies so that it can compel them to produce and sell drugs at a particular price?" Is that your question? Then the answer is simple: if there is an emergency or the company plays rogue: definitely Yes! If it is just a normal operating company, then obviously no.
No idea why even have the need to ask such things.
I'm asking because I want to understand your position. You said earlier that drug companies should not be allowed to make a profit. I want you to understand that the only way to do that is to seize control of the company. Thanks for answering the question and clarifying that you would only do that in an emergency.
In my opinion, I think it is best to have the willing cooperation of companies in an emergency, rather than micromanagement from the government. You get that by building trust over time. Many count
Re: (Score:2)
You said earlier that drug companies should not be allowed to make a profit
If I said that, I did not mean that. And I'm pretty sure: I did not say that.
I said: they should work at cost and have minimal earnings to pay our shareholders.
If you make a habit of seizing control of companies, you will soon find yourself without any.
I think you do not know much about "european companies", 30 years ago, everything important was state owned. Now still many things are state owned, e.g. the German Railroad "Deutsch
Re:More than antibodies (Score:5, Insightful)
It's based on the premise that we can engineer things in biology the way we engineer software or hardware. Nothing could be further from the truth. The therapies and diagnostics that we make today, the most advanced, best ones we have, compared to the complexity of biology makes us look like cavemen trying to understand a supercomputer. Our bodies and biology is so utterly beyond our grasp to comprehend it's complexity or even deal with diseases effectively that therapeutics companies are just barely able to do anything useful by comparison.
The premise that pharma would rather make a short term therapy rather than a long term solution is foolishness simply because there are thousands upon thousands of diseases out there. In the entirety of human history, we have eradicated just one: small pox. That's it. If a drug company was able to eradicate a disease on it's own, their stock price would shoot through the roof and they'd be hailed as saints and heroes, because they'd look like they know what they're doing and there's a thousand other diseases waiting to be solved.
So it is actually in pharma's best interest to try and eradicate a disease to the best of their potential, but the biology is just too damned hard to understand to determine an effective strategy to eliminate anything; at best they can mitigate effects; that's about it.
Re: (Score:2)
So it is actually in pharma's best interest to try and eradicate a disease to the best of their potential, but the biology is just too damned hard to understand to determine an effective strategy to eliminate anything; at best they can mitigate effects; that's about it.
Well that's certainly the cute version we tell medical investors.
It's actually in Big Pharmas "interest", to make a shitload of money for their shareholders. By any legal means necessary. Which means even death has a calculated profit margin now. It may sound callous, but there are few other professions where you are legally allowed to try and help humans, and hopefully not kill any of them while you practice at your job.
I'm curious; why do they never seem to mitigate the effects, of Greed? Perhaps beca
Re: (Score:2)
Small pox, and to a lesser extent polio is extinguished by vaccination programs. Not by a Pharma company.
For most viruses, we could do the same.
And for nearly every sickness we can do monoclonal anti body therapies - but those are developed by "companies" hence: not really going to happen unless it is a global pandemic.
but the biology is just too damned hard to understand to determine an effective strategy to eliminate anything
Ah, you are the guy who was snorting behind me in 7th to 13th grade biology class
Re: (Score:2)
Uh huh, and who makes the vaccines? Magic fairies?
Sure, the government can fund some vaccine development, but there are two problems. First, while many families of viruses are known, it is hard to select good antigens. Unless a particular virus is actually in circulation, we won't necessarily have a good way to target it. If we had developed a vaccine against NL63, which is one of mild seasonal coronoviruses, it would probably not have worked against SARS-CoV-2. A lot of work has gone into production of "un
Re: (Score:3)
That applies when the body makes the antibodies in response to a disease, not when the antibodies are infused from outside. When the antibodies come from outside, the immune system learns nothing.
Re: (Score:3)
>"That applies when the body makes the antibodies in response to a disease, not when the antibodies are infused from outside. When the antibodies come from outside, the immune system learns nothing."
+100
That is extremely true. I was under the impression that these were vaccines.... my fault for not reading the article before posting.
What I posted was true. But also not necessarily relevant in this discussion, other than to bolster the point you just made. These appear to be just antibody treatments an
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, this is absolutely useful in cases where the body's own response is inadequate or too slow. It's a natural extension to the use of convalescent plasma and less likely to cause a bad reaction.
Re: (Score:2)
>"Yes, this is absolutely useful in cases where the body's own response is inadequate or too slow. It's a natural extension to the use of convalescent plasma and less likely to cause a bad reaction."
It is a wonderful tool in our belt to fight infections. I still think, probably like most people do, an immunization is more important, because it can protect and prevent, rather than just treat. Thankfully, it is not an "either or" situation- having BOTH tools is much better than having just one. And it l
Re: (Score:2)
*SHOULD* being the operative word. I'm reminded of the key difference between theory and practice: that in theory there should be no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. First of all, B cells make antibodies, not T cells. Second, naive B cells must be activated and differentiate into effector B cells before they can produce antibodies. This is why it takes time to amount an antibody immune response and why your body also has an innate immune system to elicit a faster and more immediate response to infection. Effector B cells don't proliferate, so while they are long-lived, when they die they are gone, and that's why antibodies don't stick around forever. It's actually
Re: Better ideas sooner (Score:1)
You're a sick, twisted individual. Slashdot welcomes its Chinese friends. ____ Sent from my Huawei
Re: Better ideas sooner (Score:2)
Re: Better ideas sooner (Score:2)
Not Eli Lilly (Score:1)
The U.S. just stopped their trial because of "safety concerns". Maybe update the post?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Eli Lilly was forced to stop their trial earlier this afternoon.
The "race" menatality is TOO dangerous (Score:2)
And what if the race creates a monster? They think they've "won the race" and created a super-antibody and rush to administer it to thousands or millions of people, only then we discover that there's a problem.
First horrible example that comes to mind is that the target disease manages to incorporate the super-antibody and uses it to become a super-disease that defeats ALL of the antibodies, super and otherwise. We can't prove the negative, can we? Testing to "win the race" has to be limited. We only have a
As long as protocol is followed it should be fine (Score:2)
The race is mostly about money (Score:2)
I have to strongly disagree. I think the strike-it-rich mentality is the greatest threat. The laboratories are not racing for political favor, but for money.
I would say that a politician can make things much worse, but it should be the job of the politicians to focus on the long-term public good without short-term considerations like stock prices and election results.
The main involvement of the politicians is to receive bribes to rig the game. And the bribes still fail against long-term reality. Look at the
Re: (Score:1)
Look at the cigarette companies and Exxon.
All are doing well. The owners remain very rich and out of jail
Public masturbation of 1673220 (Score:2)
Z^-5
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know if this is a troll, but that is not how antibodies work.
There is a worry that excessive use will just quickly evolve versions of the pathogen that are immune to the antibody. But it won't "incorporate" the antibody.
Re: (Score:2)
I was trying to keep it short enough to be a candidate for FP, but yes, I know that it was a gross oversimplification. But my main point is that we really don't know everything about what we are doing and we are therefore playing with fire. Not a good time to be racing for dollars.
I definitely doubt that it would be possible for any bacterium or virus to develop a universal countermeasure against antibodies. Any pathogen that was so successful would exterminate its own host species and then go extinct. (How
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry,
why don't you just read some biology books?
What you write makes no sense at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, why don't you just read some biology books?
That's his problem. He reads something and he thinks he's automatically an expert. He's one of those unfortunate folks who's perpetually stuck on Mount Stupid on the DK curve, and nothing anyone says will get him to come down. When I read his stuff, it's for entertainment purposes, and this last post from him certainly didn't disappoint!
Expect one or more of his "Public masturbation" replies. It's the only thing he's got left when someone calls out his pseudoscientific babble. Hell, I'll probably get
Public masturbation of 3493987 and 80593 (Score:2)
Z^-1
The bot is doing threesomes now! (Score:1)
Kinky!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
He doesn't care... He's having fun too with his little program scrolling up the screen.
Circle jerk of 1673220 and 3493987 (Score:2)
Z^-4
Bot attacks everyone (Score:1)
Even those just talking about it. Ears must be burning. Maybe the creator is reading the posts, all the better. Make it waste its precious time. But it probably just scans for UIDs. Oh well, keep that cup full!
We'll see if exposure has any effect on it.
Public masturbation of 1673220 (Score:2)
Z^-6
Re: (Score:2)
First horrible example that comes to mind is that the target disease manages to incorporate the super-antibody and uses it to become a super-disease that defeats ALL of the antibodies
Seriously: how stupid and utterly uneducated are you?
Public masturbation of 80593 (Score:2)
Z^-3
Re: (Score:1)
The bot doesn't read or "discuss". It just reacts to the userID. Been like that for years
Re: (Score:2)
Then again, I trust Putin's Sputnik 5 vaccine even less. ..
Then you should have a long talk to the vaccine. Ask its intentions, its history, its family, what pleasures it what makes it anxious and so on. Perhaps invite it to a drink and his trust, and it will open to you and tell you secrets. Perhaps you can trust it then? Or you can just shoot it
Oh, you meant you did not trust Putin has a working vaccine? Never mind, I was for one reason sucked down to your level of stupidity for a moment, my fault!
Public masturbation of 80593 (Score:2)
Z^-2
What's up, bot? (Score:1)
Make sure not to miss a spot!
Public masturbation of 1673220 (Score:2)
Z^-7
The cure. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The age old cure of chicken noodle soup, DayQuil, and Sprite works just fine.
Nope, that one does not work for extreme stupidity. Which is what you are obviously suffering from.
Widely available rapid testing... (Score:3)
Also everybody who wants a test (Score:4, Insightful)
People who think they might be positive will intentionally hide their results so they can keep working because the alternative for millions is homelessness and starvation.
Re: (Score:1)
The problem is in a global pandemic affecting tens of millions, you're bound to have edge cases. It doesn't really matter if he has no _known_ underlying health issues, there's bound to be the odd individual that responds unexpectedly. Unless there's a significant number of reinfections I wouldn't worry too much, right now there's a mere handful to the point it's hard to see it as anything other than edge cases, we seem to be talking tens, maybe hundreds out of tens of millions so far.
In the US' case we're
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The reason why only about a dozen reinfections have been confirmed so far is that nobody is looking for them very hard. It requires genetic sequencing of the virus, and only a tiny fraction of cases are sequenced (thousands out of tens of millions). To confirm a reinfection, both the initial infection and the new one must be sequenced and their genomes compared. The chances of that happening are infinitesimal. We'd only get meaningful data on the likelihood of reinfection if all infections had their genomes
Re: (Score:2)
You also need to to know that the current one is the second one, which you only can, if he had symptoms the first time and got tested.
If I get tested positive tomorrow, no one know if it is my first, second or third infection.
Re: (Score:2)
A 25-year old Nevada man is the first person confirmed in all of North America [cbsnews.com] to have contracted covid-19 twice. Even better, he was infected by two genetically different strains of the virus which means you may not be protected even if you do get infected. Even more better, the second time around was worse than the first.
In all, the guy was out for seven weeks with his infections despite having no significant underlying health issues.
Hey did you hear about the asymptomatic guy who caught COVID three times and lived to not tell a single story about it?
Yeah, neither did he.
Cool story, bro.
Re: (Score:1)
You can have a Y chromosome and still not grow a penis.
Therefore all known biology is overturned and we should throw out all assumptions that a fetus with Y chromosomes will develop a penis.
Or maybe exceptions don't invalidate a rule from holding water, likes one civic planning can benefit from. If the weatherman is 99% sure you won't need an umbrella at The Game, you don't need to fucking buy one and he's saved you time money AND baggage.
Virology isn't a fucking math proof. C19 is a potential threat and in
Super Antibody? (Score:5, Funny)
Did they harvest them from a recently healed super-body, with a tremendous health, who felt better than 20 years ago and the external glow lead you to it?
Yeast (Score:5, Informative)
Adimab is a local company for me (know some folks there). The NYT article somehow forgets to mention that their tech is based on yeast-expressed antibodies. Which means it can eventually be grown in large vats and purified.
The Regeneron system, AIUI, is quite effective, but uses humanized mice, which take a relatively long time to raise and are necessarily more expensive to, ahem, process. But faster to the races.
There's a company out of San Diego taking yet another rapid approach, and is also promising. They happened to be studying SARS-1 when SARS-2 struck, which helped immensely.
Re: (Score:2)
Some info on their product: https://www.precisionvaccinati... [precisionv...ations.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The mice are only used for the first step.
As soon as you have the cells producing the antibody it is just cell cultures.
What about polyclonal antibodies from animals (Score:3)
The article doesn't mention it, but these folks have another approach.
https://www.sabbiotherapeutics... [sabbiotherapeutics.com]
Here's the phase one clinical trial:
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2... [clinicaltrials.gov]
https://www.clinicaltrialsaren... [clinicaltrialsarena.com]
and a short video if you don't like reading this kind of stuff:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Movie Plots 101 (Score:1)