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“
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:
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".
"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
(…) 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.
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.)
( "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
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
The Conversation launched in Australia in March 2011 and in the UK in May 2013.
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
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’). (…)
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. (…)
GloPID‑R | 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
‘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
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.
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. (…)
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.