Es geht ums Geschäft

Dachte wirk­lich jemand, bei der Impfkampagne gehe es um Gesundheit? Wir erle­ben gera­de einen welt­wei­ten Krieg von Pharmafirmen um Märkte und Einfluß. Dabei wer­den sie von natio­na­len Regierungen gepam­pert, für die EU kann nur mit Mühe Gemeinsamkeit nach außen simu­liert wer­den. Über einen der Akteure brach­te faz.net am 27.1. eini­ge Hintergrundinformationen:

»Astra-Zeneca-Chef Pascal Soriot gilt in Großbritannien als Held der Corona-Impfstoffproduktion. Doch in der EU machen ihn man­che plötz­lich zum Buhmann...

Das Corona-Abenteuer begann für Soriot im ver­gan­ge­nen März. Mit Impfstoffen hat­te Astra-Zeneca vor­her wenig zu tun, der Konzern ver­dient haupt­säch­lich mit Krebsmitteln Milliarden. Im März erhielt Soriot einen Anruf von Sir John Bell, einem ehe­ma­li­gen Kollegen bei Roche, heu­te Medizinprofessor in Oxford. Bell erzähl­te von der Corona-Forschung am Jenner Institute. „Wir kön­nen hel­fen mit dem Zeug“, ant­wor­te­te Soriot. Als Oxford dann im April zwei bri­san­te Bedingungen stell­te – „Non-pro­fit“ und gleich­be­rech­tig­te Lieferungen an arme Länder in aller Welt –, stimm­te Soriot (anders als ande­re Pharmakonzerne) sofort zu.

Folgt eine Milliarden-Übernahme?

„Meine Kinder wür­den mich töten, wenn ich es nicht tun wür­de“, ant­wor­te­te Soriot, wie Bell der „Times“ erzählt hat. Die Folge ist, dass Astra-Zenecas Impfstoff sehr viel güns­ti­ger ist der von Pfizer/Biontech oder Moderna. Das macht beson­ders in Entwicklungsländern einen Unterschied. Und er wer­de fai­rer ver­teilt, ver­merkt die Hilfsorganisation One lobend. Bei ihr steht Astra-Zeneca an der Spitze des „Fairness“-Rankings. Zudem ist der Impfstoff leich­ter zu hand­ha­ben, da er nur Kühlschranktemperatur braucht. In fast einem Dutzend Ländern, von Britannien über Amerika bis Indien, haben Oxford und Astra-Zeneca die Notfall-Zulassung erhal­ten. Sollte die EU-Arzneimittelbehörde EMA ent­schei­den, den Impfstoff nicht für Alte zu emp­feh­len, wäre das ein har­ter Rückschlag. Astra-Zeneca droht ein Reputationsschaden, falls etwas schief­lau­fen sollte…

2014 ver­such­te Pfizer den bri­ti­schen Konkurrenten auf­zu­kau­fen, für fast 70 Milliarden Pfund – doch Soriot konn­te die feind­li­che Übernahme abwehren.

Heute ist Astra-Zeneca mehr als 100 Milliarden Pfund wert, das wird auch Soriots star­ker Forschungsorientierung ange­rech­net. Zeitweise war der Konzern 2020 das wert­volls­te bri­ti­sche Unternehmen, vor Shell und Unilever. Von sei­nem Selbstbewusstsein zeugt auch das impo­san­te, neu ent­ste­hen­de Hauptquartier am Stadtrand von Cambridge: Der Glasbau mit gro­ßen Laboren, der wie ein rie­si­ger Donut aus­sieht, kos­tet rund eine Milliarde Pfund. Soriot hat­te vor Jahren die Entscheidung getrof­fen, den Firmensitz aus dem länd­li­chen Cheshire in die Universitätsstadt Cambridge zu ver­le­gen. In der Nähe der Forschergemeinde blüh­te das Unternehmen auf. Bevor Soriot zu Astra-Zeneca wech­sel­te, arbei­te­te er als Manager beim Schweizer Pharmakonzern Roche und beim kali­for­ni­schen Biotech-Unternehmen Genentech, davor bei Aventis und einer Hoechst-Tochtergesellschaft, für die er vie­le Jahre in Australien unter­wegs war, wo sei­ne Kinder und sei­ne Familie lebt…«

Lesenswert in die­sem Zusammenhang ist auch "Impfstoffchaos mit Ansage" vom 29.1. auf nachdenkseiten.de.

4 Antworten auf „Es geht ums Geschäft“

  1. Naja, die FAZ stellt natür­lich die 30 Milliarden "Gewinn" in den Vordergrund.
    Entspricht seit 2014 knapp 5% jähr­li­cher Rendite. Nicht schlecht, aller­dings über­schau­bar, wenn man z.B. die seit­he­ri­ge DAX-Entwicklung betrachtet.
    Bei des­sen UK-Äquivalent (FTSE) sieht's nicht so gut aus – dürf­te aber eher auf den Brexit zurück­zu­füh­ren sein.

    Ach ja, Schweden ist auch mit im Boot:
    https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/AstraZeneca

    Dass die Pharmariesen ihr Personal aus und umtau­schen ist eben­falls bekannt: sogar der geschätz­te Yeadon ist von Pfizer ins Novartis-Imperium abge­wan­dert (wenn auch "frei­be­ruf­lich").

    Im Chicago des frü­hen 20sten Jahrhunderts wuss­te man zumin­dest i.d.R. wel­ches Stadtviertel und wel­che Branche wem gehör­te und wem man glau­ben muss­te oder durf­te, dass er einen "beschützt".

  2. .

    "The RT-PCR used for tes­ting sam­ples ampli­fies the gene­tic mate­ri­al of the virus pri­or to tes­ting. The mole­cu­lar test can­not dis­tin­guish bet­ween dead and live gene­tic frag­ments and hence can­not make out whe­ther the virus is ali­ve or not." 

    .

    02.05.2020 The Hindu 

    Dead frag­ments of novel coro­na­vi­rus led to fal­se posi­ti­ves in reco­ve­r­ed patients 

    Ravindranath Prasad

    (…) Oh Myoung-don, who leads the cen­tral cli­ni­cal com­mit­tee for emer­ging dise­a­se con­trol, said that the com­mit­tee mem­bers found litt­le rea­son to belie­ve that tho­se cases could be COVID-19 reinfec­tions or reac­ti­va­tions, Korea Herald repor­ted. The RT-PCR used for tes­ting sam­ples ampli­fies the gene­tic mate­ri­al of the virus pri­or to tes­ting. The mole­cu­lar test can­not dis­tin­guish bet­ween dead and live gene­tic frag­ments and hence can­not make out whe­ther the virus is ali­ve or not. 

    Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (KCDC) depu­ty direc­tor Kwon Joon-wook told CNN that so far the­re is no indi­ca­ti­on that pati­ents who retest posi­ti­ve are con­ta­gious, even though about 44% of them show­ed mild symptoms. (…) 

    The KCDC had inves­ti­ga­ted three cases from the same fami­ly whe­re pati­ents tes­ted posi­ti­ve after reco­vering. But sci­en­tists were unab­le to grow (cul­tu­re) the virus. Culturing the virus is typi­cal­ly done for tes­ting and pro­du­cing vac­ci­nes. The ina­bi­li­ty to grow the virus in a cell cul­tu­re con­fir­med that live virus was not present. 

    “The respi­ra­to­ry epi­the­li­al cell has a half-life of up to three mon­ths, and RNA virus in the cell can be detec­ted with PCR tes­ting one to two mon­ths after the eli­mi­na­ti­on of the cell,” Oh told Korea Herald. 

    https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/science/dead-fragments-of-novel-coronavirus-led-to-false-positives-in-recovered-patients/article31489407.ece

    .

    01.06.2020 | CodeBlue (Scott Garden SOHO, Jalan Klang Lama, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia) 

    Positive SARS-CoV‑2 RT-PCR Test: Virus Dead Or Alive? — Dr Tan Poh Tin 

    A clinician’s dream and public health nightmare. 

    (…) RT-PCR Tests For SARS-CoV‑2 RNA Gene Targets, Not Whole RNA Or Live Virus 

    So far, the most reli­able test for the dia­gno­sis of Covid-19 is the RT-PCR test using nasopha­ryn­ge­al swabs or air­way spe­ci­mens, inclu­ding throat swabs and sali­va. A varie­ty of RNA gene tar­gets (viral enve­lop, nucleo­cap­sid, spike etc) are used by dif­fe­rent manufacturers. 

    On 11–12 February 2020, WHO orga­ni­zed a forum to iden­ti­fy rese­arch gaps and prio­ri­ties for Covid-19, in col­la­bo­ra­ti­on with GloPID‑R (Global Research Collaboration For Infectious Disease Preparedness). One of the eight immedia­te rese­arch needs agreed upon as part of the Forum was to “mobi­li­ze rese­arch on rapid point of care dia­gnostics for use at the com­mu­ni­ty level”. (…) 

    WHO is con­ti­nu­al­ly updating tech­ni­cal gui­d­ance for Covid-19, inclu­ding gui­d­ance on labo­ra­to­ry tes­ting. The Geneva-based non-pro­fit Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics (FIND) is working clo­se­ly with WHO and other part­ners to pro­vi­de sup­port on trai­ning, tech­ni­cal assi­s­tance and capa­ci­ty buil­ding to ensu­re access to accu­ra­te and high-qua­li­ty dia­gnostic tes­ting for SARS-CoV‑2.

    On 19 February 2020, FIND laun­ched an expres­si­on of inte­rest (EOI) for test deve­lo­pers of in vitro dia­gnostics (IVDs) that detect SARS-CoV‑2 nucleic acid (mole­cu­lar tests). The EOI clo­sed on 9 March 2020. A total of 220 sub­mis­si­ons were recei­ved for evaluation. 

    FIND con­duc­ted inde­pen­dent eva­lua­tions at the University Hospitals of Geneva (HUG), to veri­fy the limit of detec­tion (LOD) and the cli­ni­cal per­for­mance (as repor­ted by the manu­fac­tu­rers) of the­se mole­cu­lar test kits. (…) 

    (Dr Tan Poh Tin is a public health-trai­ned paediatri­ci­an from Kuching, Sarawak, who reti­red from MOH and Unimas.) 

    https://codeblue.galencentre.org/2020/06/01/positive-sars-cov-2-rt-pcr-test-virus-dead-or-alive-dr-tan-poh-tin/

    .

    03.12.2020

    ( "Is RT-PCR an infal­li­ble test of COVID-19? Can it dif­fe­ren­tia­te bet­ween live virus and RNA frag­ments of dead virus?" ) 

    Truly spea­king, RT-PCR can't dif­fe­ren­tia­te bet­ween live & dead frag­ments of nucleic acid. Only viral cul­tu­re can dif­fe­ren­tia­te that. Hence, inter­pre­ta­ti­on may be done accord­in­gly in rela­ti­on to time of ent­ry of virus in a human body. 

    Kamalesh Sarkar | ICMR-National Institute of Occupational Health 

    https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is-RT-PCR-an-infallible-test-of-COVID-19-Can-it-differentiate-between-live-virus-and-RNA-fragments-of-dead-virus

    .

    Not all shed­ding is equal 

    In the abo­ve cases, the viral par­ti­cles being shed are infec­tious, which is what we as viro­lo­gists con­si­der viral shed­ding to mean. But during COVID-19, the defi­ni­ti­on of shed­ding has been broa­den­ed to inclu­de the shed­ding of viral gene­tic mate­ri­al (RNA).

    Although RNA con­sti­tu­tes frag­ments of the virus, the­se aren’t necessa­ri­ly infec­tious fragments. 

    Studies mea­su­ring the shed­ding of viral gene­tic mate­ri­al from the respi­ra­to­ry tract have repor­ted shed­ding typi­cal­ly lasts around 17 days. 

    Shedding of SARS-CoV‑2 gene­tic mate­ri­al can per­sist for more than 80 days in the upper respi­ra­to­ry tract, and over 120 days in the stool. 

    Where peop­le have reco­ve­r­ed and then later test posi­ti­ve again — or return a “weak posi­ti­ve” result — the test has picked up viral gene­tic mate­ri­al. We don’t know whe­ther the virus is infec­tious at this point. 

    Lara Herrero (Research Leader in Virology and Infectious Disease, Griffith University), Eugene Madzokere (PhD Candidate in Virology, Griffith University) | What’s the dif­fe­rence bet­ween viral shed­ding and reinfec­tion with COVID-19? | The Conversation 30.11.2020

    https://theconversation.com/whats-the-difference-between-viral-shedding-and-reinfection-with-covid-19–150547

    The Conversation laun­ched in Australia in March 2011 and in the UK in May 2013. 

    https://theconversation.com/uk/who-we-are

    .

    Annals of Internal Medicine

    Variation in False-Negative Rate of Reverse Transcriptase PolymeraseChain Reaction–Based SARS-CoV‑2 Tests by Time Since Exposure 

    (…) The fal­se-nega­ti­ve rate is lowest 3 days after onset of symptoms,or appro­xi­mate­ly 8 days after expo­sure. Clinicians should­con­si­der wai­t­ing 1 to 3 days after sym­ptom onset to min-imi­ze the pro­ba­bi­li­ty of a fal­se-nega­ti­ve result. (…) 

    Lauren M. Kucirka, MD, PhD*; Stephen A. Lauer, PhD*; Oliver Laeyendecker, PhD, MBA; Denali Boon, PhD; and Justin Lessler, PhD 

    file C: Users/H1RB96~1/AppData/Local/Temp/1 pdf

    file:///C:/Users/H1RB96~1/AppData/Local/Temp/1.pdf

    .

    16.09.2020 | nature 

    Fast coro­na­vi­rus tests: what they can and can’t do 

    Rapid anti­gen tests are desi­gned to tell in a few minu­tes whe­ther someo­ne is infec­tious. Will they be game chan­gers? Giorgia Guglielmi 

    (…) Tests for COVID-19 fall into two cate­go­ries: dia­gnostic tests such as PCR and anti­gen assays, which detect parts of the SARS-CoV‑2 virus, and anti­bo­dy tests that sen­se mole­cu­les that peop­le pro­du­ce when they have been infec­ted by the virus. Antibodies can take several days to deve­lop after an infec­tion and often stay in the blood for weeks after reco­very, so anti­bo­dy tests have limi­ted use in dia­gno­sis (see ‘Catching COVID-19’). (…) 

    https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020–02661‑2

    .

    12.02.2020 | WHO Geneva, Switzerland 

    World experts and fund­ers set prio­ri­ties for COVID-19 research 

    (…) The 2‑day forum was con­ve­ned in line with the WHO R&D Blueprint – a stra­te­gy for deve­lo­ping drugs and vac­ci­nes befo­re epi­de­mics, and acce­le­ra­ting rese­arch and deve­lo­p­ment while they are occurring. 

    “This out­break is a test of soli­da­ri­ty – poli­ti­cal, finan­cial and sci­en­ti­fic. We need to come tog­e­ther to fight a com­mon enemy that does not respect bor­ders, ensu­re that we have the resour­ces necessa­ry to bring this out­break to an end and bring our best sci­ence to the fore­front to find shared ans­wers to shared pro­blems. Research is an inte­gral part of the out­break respon­se,” said WHO Director-General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus. (…) 

    The mee­ting, hos­ted in col­la­bo­ra­ti­on with GloPID‑R (the Global Research Collaboration for Infectious Disease Preparedness) brought tog­e­ther major rese­arch fund­ers and over 300 sci­en­tists and rese­ar­chers from a lar­ge varie­ty of disci­pli­nes. They dis­cus­sed all aspects of the out­break and ways to con­trol it including: 

    • the natu­ral histo­ry of the virus, its trans­mis­si­on and diagnosis; 

    • ani­mal and envi­ron­men­tal rese­arch on the ori­gin of the virus, inclu­ding manage­ment mea­su­res at the human-ani­mal interface; 

    • epi­de­mio­lo­gi­cal studies; 

    • cli­ni­cal cha­rac­te­riz­a­ti­on and manage­ment of dise­a­se cau­sed by the virus; 

    • infec­tion pre­ven­ti­on and con­trol, inclu­ding best ways to pro­tect health care workers; 

    • rese­arch and deve­lo­p­ment for can­di­da­te the­ra­peu­tics and vaccines; 

    • ethi­cal con­si­de­ra­ti­ons for research; 

    • and inte­gra­ti­on of social sci­en­ces into the out­break response. 

    “This mee­ting allo­wed us to iden­ti­fy the urgent prio­ri­ties for rese­arch. As a group of fund­ers we will con­ti­nue to mobi­li­ze, coor­di­na­te and align our fun­ding to enab­le the rese­arch nee­ded to tack­le this cri­sis and stop the out­break, in part­ners­hip with WHO,” said Professor Yazdan Yazdanpanah, chair of GloPID‑R. “Equitable access – making sure we share data and reach tho­se most in need, in par­ti­cu­lar tho­se in lower and midd­le-inco­me coun­tries, is fun­da­men­tal to this work which must be gui­ded by ethi­cal con­si­de­ra­ti­ons at all times.” 

    During the mee­ting, the more than 300 sci­en­tists and rese­ar­chers par­ti­ci­pa­ting both in per­son and vir­tual­ly agreed on a set of glo­bal rese­arch prio­ri­ties. They also out­lined mecha­nisms for con­ti­nuing sci­en­ti­fic inter­ac­tions and col­la­bo­ra­ti­ons bey­ond the mee­ting which will be coor­di­na­ted and faci­li­ta­ted by WHO. (…) 

    https://www.who.int/news/item/12–02-2020-world-experts-and-funders-set-priorities-for-covid-19-research

    .

    GloPID‑R | glopid‑r.org

    https://www.glopid‑r.org/

    .

    26.01.2021
    GloPID‑R

    The work car­ri­ed out by GloPID‑R, its mem­bers and part­ners and the les­sons learnt in the respon­se to the COVID-19 pan­de­mic have been fea­tured in three arti­cles publis­hed in lea­ding journals 

    ‘Coordinating rese­arch on pan­de­mic pre­pa­red­ness and rapid respon­se’ by GloPID‑R Chair, Charu Kaushic and Geneviève Boily-Larouche, CIHR Institute of Infection and Immunity was publis­hed on December 17, 2020 by Open Access Government. 

    Drawing on the expe­ri­ence gathe­red during the respon­se to the COVID-19 pan­de­mic, the aut­hors pre­sent the les­sons learnt for glo­bal coor­di­na­ti­on among rese­arch fund­ers and high­light the impor­t­ance of the invol­ve­ment of natio­nal fund­ers for rapid fun­ding; the need to ful­ly under­stand the fun­ding land­s­cape and to track fun­ded pro­jects against rese­arch prio­ri­ties; and the value of visi­bi­li­ty of fun­ded rese­arch to fos­ter col­la­bo­ra­ti­on and insights bet­ween researchers. 

    GloPID‑R’s work along­side the WHO and the coope­ra­ti­on with the UK Collaborative on Development Research (UKCDR) are also under­li­ned as key to the rese­arch respon­se to the pandemic. 

    Drs Kaushic and Boily-Larouche con­clu­de that to end this pan­de­mic and to be bet­ter pre­pa­red for future public health emer­gen­ci­es, it is vital to build strong col­la­bo­ra­ti­ve mecha­nisms and rela­ti­ons­hips bet­ween sta­ke­hol­ders and with indus­try; to rai­se awa­reness, streng­t­hen pre­pa­red­ness rese­arch and to adopt a One-Health approach. 

    Read more > openaccessgovernment.org/coordinating-research-on-pandemic-preparedness-and-rapid-response/100415/

    In ‘A living map­ping review for COVID-19 fun­ded rese­arch pro­jects: three-mon­th update’ publis­hed by Wellcome Open Research on December 18, 2020, Alice Norton, Adrian Bucher, Emilia Antonio et al pro­vi­de an updated detail­ed descrip­ti­ve ana­ly­sis of this UKCDR – GloPID‑R live database. 

    The ana­ly­sis focu­ses on rese­arch gaps, rese­arch are­as in need of coor­di­na­ti­on, stu­dy popu­la­ti­ons and rese­arch loca­ti­ons (most par­ti­cu­lar­ly, resour­ce-limi­ted coun­tries). The aim is that by using this living map­ping review, fund­ers and rese­ar­chers will more easi­ly be able to prio­ri­ti­ze rese­arch resour­ces to und­er­fun­ded are­as whe­re the need is grea­test and future stra­te­gic col­la­bo­ra­ti­on will be facilitated. 

    Read more > wellcomeopenresearch.org/articles/5–209

    In the paper ‘Integrating the social sci­en­ces in epi­de­mic pre­pa­red­ness and respon­se: A stra­te­gic frame­work to streng­t­hen capa­ci­ties and impro­ve Global Health secu­ri­ty’ publis­hed in BMC on December 30, 2020, Kevin Bardosh, Daniel H. de Vries, Sharon Abramowitz et al pre­sent the results of a stu­dy com­mis­sio­ned for the GloPID‑R Funders’ Forum on Social Science Research for Infectious Disease. 

    The aut­hors point out the inte­gra­ti­on of the social sci­en­ces in epi­de­mic pre­pa­red­ness and respon­se remains “ina­de­qua­te, frag­men­ted and under-fun­ded, with limi­ted reach and small initi­al invest­ments”. Using data collec­ted befo­re the COVID-19 pan­de­mic, the bar­ri­ers to the full inte­gra­ti­on of the social sci­en­ces in epi­de­mic pre­pa­red­ness and respon­se are ana­ly­zed and the aut­hors pre­sent a stra­te­gic frame­work for addres­sing them. 

    Read more > globalizationandhealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12992-020–00652‑6

    https://www.glopid‑r.org/the-work-carried-out-by-glopid-r-its-members-and-partners-and-the-lessons-learnt-in-the-response-to-the-covid-19-pandemic-have-been-featured-in-three-articles-published-in-leading-journals/

    .

    28.01.2021
    GloPID‑R

    GloPID‑R obser­ver, CEPI, seeks seni­or sci­en­ti­fic and glo­bal health experts for its Scientific Advisory Committee 

    GloPID‑R obser­ver, CEPI, has laun­ched a call for app­li­ca­ti­ons to join its Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC).

    The CEPI SAC pro­vi­des gui­d­ance and recom­men­da­ti­ons on R&D pro­gram­mes and broa­der out­break respon­se efforts. CEPI’s aim is to widen the pool of know­ledge of its SAC by enga­ging seni­or experts and glo­bal health pro­fes­sio­nals with expe­ri­ence across rele­vant sci­en­ti­fic disci­pli­nes for a three-year peri­od from April 2021. 

    CEPI is a public-pri­va­te part­ners­hip estab­lis­hed in 2017 in respon­se to the West African Ebola epi­de­mic. Its mis­si­on is to sti­mu­la­te and acce­le­ra­te the deve­lo­p­ment of vac­ci­nes against emer­ging infec­tious dise­a­ses and enab­le access to the­se vac­ci­nes for peop­le during outbreaks. 

    As many as 25 posi­ti­ons on the CEPI SAC are avail­ab­le inclu­ding that of Chair and Vice-Chair. Applications clo­se on February 6, 2021. 

    https://www.glopid‑r.org/glopid-r-observer-cepi-seeks-senior-scientific-and-global-health-experts-for-its-scientific-advisory-committee/

    .

    25.01.2021 | CEPI 

    CEPI opens search for experts to join its Scientific Advisory Committee 

    CEPI’s call for indi­vi­du­als to join its Scientific Advisory Committee, or SAC—an expert group pro­vi­ding broad gui­d­ance and recom­men­da­ti­ons to CEPI on R&D pro­gram­mes and broa­der out­break respon­se efforts—is now open through 5 February 2021. 

    CEPI seeks to enga­ge seni­or experts and glo­bal health pro­fes­sio­nals who have exten­si­ve expe­ri­ence across rele­vant sci­en­ti­fic disci­pli­nes to join the SAC for a three-year peri­od star­ting April 2021. Successful app­li­cants’ sci­en­ti­fic input, gui­d­ance and chal­len­ge will be cri­ti­cal in the imple­men­ta­ti­on of CEPI’s new stra­te­gy from 2022, desi­gned to acce­le­ra­te vac­ci­ne tech­no­lo­gies to tack­le cur­rent emer­ging infec­tious dise­a­ses, inclu­ding COVID-19, and enhan­ce glo­bal pre­pa­red­ness for future threats. (…) 

    Operating as both a fun­der and faci­li­ta­tor wit­hin the vac­ci­ne R&D eco­sys­tem, CEPI’s initi­al focus (2017–2021), set up pri­or to the COVID-19 pan­de­mic, was to advan­ce vac­ci­ne R&D pro­gram­mes against its prio­ri­ty dise­a­ses: Lassa fever, Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), Nipah, Ebola, Rift Valley Fever and Chikungunya. CEPI also inves­ted in plat­form tech­no­lo­gies that can be used for rapid vac­ci­ne deve­lo­p­ment against unknown patho­gens (Disease X) and has sup­por­ted enab­ling sci­en­ces acti­vi­ties, inclu­ding wit­hin epi­de­mio­lo­gy and bio­lo­gi­cal stan­dar­di­sa­ti­on efforts, to gui­de and ulti­mate­ly acce­le­ra­te our vac­ci­ne R&D efforts. 

    In respon­se to the COVID-19 pan­de­mic, CEPI moved quick­ly and in col­la­bo­ra­ti­on with its part­ners buil­ding the lar­gest COVID-19 vac­ci­ne port­fo­lio to date. The goal is to sup­port deve­lo­p­ment of three safe and effec­ti­ve vac­ci­nes which can be made avail­ab­le to coun­tries par­ti­ci­pa­ting in COVAX, the glo­bal col­la­bo­ra­ti­on bet­ween CEPI, Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, and the World Health Organization (WHO) to deve­lop, manu­fac­tu­re and enab­le equi­ta­ble access to 2 bil­li­on doses of COVID-19 vac­ci­ne by the end of 2021 to end the acu­te pha­se of the pan­de­mic. As part of this work, CEPI has also made stra­te­gic invest­ments in vac­ci­ne manu­fac­tu­ring, estab­lis­hed a cen­tra­li­sed labs net­work to har­mo­ni­se collec­tion of data on COVID-19 vac­ci­nes in cli­ni­cal tri­als, and is also inves­ting in the ‘next genera­ti­on’ of vac­ci­ne can­di­da­tes, which will give the world addi­tio­nal opti­ons to con­trol COVID-19 in the future. (…) 

    The new stra­te­gy (run­ning from 2022–2026) will con­ti­nue to advan­ce CEPI’s exis­ting vac­ci­ne pro­gram­mes and enab­ling sci­ence acti­vi­ties, inclu­ding the pivo­tal work to end the acu­te pha­se of the COVID-19 pandemic. (…) 

    cepi.net/news_cepi/cepi-opens-search-for-experts-to-join-its-scientific-advisory-committee/

    https://cepi.net/news_cepi/cepi-opens-search-for-experts-to-join-its-scientific-advisory-committee/

    .

  3. The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) is an inno­va­ti­ve glo­bal part­ners­hip bet­ween public, pri­va­te, phil­an­thro­pic, and civil socie­ty orga­ni­sa­ti­ons laun­ched in Davos in 2017 to deve­lop vac­ci­nes to stop future epi­de­mics. CEPI’s mis­si­on is to acce­le­ra­te the deve­lo­p­ment of vac­ci­nes against emer­ging infec­tious dise­a­ses and enab­le equi­ta­ble access to the­se vac­ci­nes for peop­le during outbreaks. 

    CEPI was foun­ded by the governments of Norway and India, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Wellcome Trust, and the World Economic Forum. 

    (…) to rai­se funds for the next CEPI stra­te­gy peri­od, run­ning from 2022–2026. (…) CEPI’s new stra­te­gy (2022–2026)

    (…) the respon­se to COVID-19 and the COVAX facility (…) 

    The expec­ted dura­ti­on for a con­tract awar­ded under this Request for Proposals is up to 31 Dec 2021, with the opti­on to renew, replace or ter­mi­na­te, based on the needs of the rep­le­nish­ment process. 

    https://cepi.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/RFP-CEPI‑2.0‑Replenishment_WEB‑1.pdf

Schreibe einen Kommentar

Deine E-Mail-Adresse wird nicht veröffentlicht.