Pharmaceuticals industry

Subterms

    More stories

    • 238 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      Big pharma has a powerful new shill, Kyrsten Sinema, fighting drug price reform | Andrew Perez and David Sirota

      by

      OpinionPharmaceuticals industryBig pharma has a powerful new shill, Kyrsten Sinema, fighting drug price reformAndrew Perez and David SirotaIn the 2020 election cycle, pharmaceutical political action committees suddenly funneled more money to her than they did the whole six years she served in the US House Mon 11 Oct 2021 06.18 EDTLast modified on Mon 11 Oct 2021 12.42 EDT“The pharmaceutical lobby is very savvy,” Representative Ro Khanna, Democrat from California, said earlier this week. “They pick the one or two people they need to block things, on the relevant committees or at the relevant time.”“It may differ from Congress to Congress,” explained Khanna, who is a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. “We try to get 90-95% [of the caucus]. They are focused not on 90% , but the blockers.”In the current Congress, Big Pharma appears to have zeroed in on Senator Kyrsten Sinema, Democrat from Arizona, as one of their lead obstructionists to help kill or gut the Democrats’ drug pricing plan. In the 2020 election cycle, pharmaceutical political action committees suddenly funneled more money to her than they did the whole six years she served in the US House.Pharmaceutical companies can charge up to four times as much in the United States for name-brand pharmaceuticals than in other countries, in part because Congress barred Medicare from using its bulk purchasing power to negotiate lower drug prices. President Joe Biden and most Democrats support lifting that prohibition in their reconciliation legislation, a move that would save hundreds of billions of dollars – but Sinema has emerged as the party’s most prominent opponent to the plan.Her heel turn on drug pricing is a dramatic shift. A one-time progressive activist, Sinema campaigned on lowering drug prices in her 2018 Senate race, and she was still calling on Congress to address rising drug costs as recently as last year, boasting on her Senate website that she was fighting to “ensure life-saving drugs” would be more affordable.But it’s clear now that the pharmaceutical industry has been courting Sinema for some time. Indeed, in March 2021, as pharmaceutical Pac money was flooding into her campaign coffers, drug lobbyists were already bragging to Beltway reporters that they may have found their lead blocker in Sinema.Sinema has studiously avoided giving the public any details about where she stands on virtually any of the policy proposals in Democrats’ reconciliation legislation – refusing to speak with activists, reporters, or even other Democratic lawmakers.We only know Sinema opposes Democrats’ drug pricing plan thanks to a Politico report, which cited anonymous “sources familiar with her thinking”. Sinema reportedly told Biden she opposes the party’s proposal and won’t support a weaker offering from conservative House Democrats either.With the Senate split 50-50, her opposition imperils the whole endeavor.It makes sense that Sinema would be reluctant to publicly explain her opposition to Democrats’ drug pricing plan – because she would sound absolutely ridiculous, like a craven hypocrite straight out of Veep.During her 2018 Democratic primary campaign, Sinema released a direct-to-camera ad noting that her family had struggled with healthcare costs when she was younger. “We need to make healthcare more affordable, with access to the lowest-cost prescriptions, and fix what’s broken in the system,” she said in the ad.Sinema’s 2018 campaign website featured similar language: “Kyrsten is committed to making sure Arizonans have access to more health care choices, low-cost prescription drugs, and high-quality, dependable coverage. As one of the most independent-minded members of Congress, she’s committed to working with anyone – regardless of party – to get it done.”In a 2019 Senate hearing on prescription drug prices, Sinema noted, “The issue I hear about most back home is the cost of health care.” She went on to cite several stories from Arizonans who contacted her office about their sky-high drug costs:
      There’s a gentleman in Mesa, Arizona, who is lucky enough to be insured. But he has seen the price of his medication, to treat a serious lung condition, increase nearly five times in just one year … He’s looked, but there are no generics available that could offer him any financial relief. A woman from Glendale, Arizona, worries about her husband who has a serious heart condition. But his medication costs more than $500 out-of-pocket for a three-month supply. So he refuses to fill his prescription, because he’s worried about how it would impact their family financially. Another Arizona woman struggles to afford her specialty cancer medication. Even though her medication is a generic, she still has to pay thousands of dollars out-of-pocket. And often spends hours on the phone just to understand the unexpected cost increases, and to research payment assistance options. And this, of course, is unacceptable.
      In February last year, Sinema published an op-ed declaring: “Congress must address the cost of prescription drugs. Today, even Arizonans who have insurance sometimes struggle to afford the medicine they need. That’s why I’m pursuing policies to ensure life-saving drugs like EpiPens and insulin are affordable and available to Arizonans, especially our senior citizens.”But by then, drug industry cash was already starting to flood into Sinema’s campaign account.In May 2020, Kaiser Health News wrote that Sinema had recently “emerged as a pharma favorite in Congress”, based on the fact that she had become “a leading recipient of pharma campaign cash even though she’s not up for re-election until 2024 and lacks major committee or subcommittee leadership posts”.According to Kaiser’s pharma contribution tracker, Sinema received $121,000 worth of campaign donations from pharmaceutical company Pacs in 2019 and 2020.For some context, that’s double the amount of drug company Pac money she received during the 2018 election cycle, when she was on the ballot running for Senate. It’s more cash than she had raised from pharmaceutical company Pacs during her entire congressional career to that point.Over the course of her career, Sinema has accepted more than $500,000 from executives and Pacs in the pharmaceutical and health products industries, according to data from OpenSecrets.By March 2021, Big Pharma wasn’t just quietly funneling money to Sinema; the industry was publicly signaling that the senator could be its lead blocker in the fight to prevent the government from negotiating drug prices.“Drug lobbyists see a potential ally in Democratic Sen Kyrsten Sinema, the Arizona moderate who has shown a willingness to break with her party,” Politico reported at the time.Then, early last month, a corporate front group called Center Forward bought $600,000 worth of television and radio ads promoting Sinema in Arizona. The ads touted her “independence”, and characterized her as “a bipartisan leader” in the mold of the late Senator John McCain.As The Daily Poster reported, Center Forward has been heavily bankrolled by Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the powerful Washington drug lobby. Two Center Forward board members lobby for PhRMA, as well as drugmakers Amgen, Bayer, Gilead Sciences, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis and Sanofi.A few days after the ad campaign started, Sinema informed the White House that she opposed the party’s drug pricing plan.Now, senators are talking behind the scenes about ways they can water down the legislation to appease the drug industry, and a second Democratic holdout – Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey, a longtime top recipient of drug industry cash – has emerged to help Sinema and Big Pharma block the way.For his part, Khanna said he has tried to reach out to Sinema. But though she was eagerly making herself available to her business donors opposing the reconciliation bill, she wasn’t interested in talking to the progressive congressman, even though he was one of the lead authors of the Medicare drug pricing bill.“I’ve never met with her,” he said. ‘I’ve offered. She didn’t want to.”
      David Sirota is a Guardian US columnist and an award-winning investigative journalist. He is an editor-at-large at Jacobin, and the founder of the Daily Poster. He served as Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign speechwriter
      Andrew Perez is a senior editor at the Daily Poster and a cofounder of the Democratic Policy Center
      This article was originally published in the Daily Poster, a grassroots-funded investigative news outlet
      TopicsPharmaceuticals industryOpinionUS CongressUS SenateDemocratsUS politicscommentReuse this content More

    • 225 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      Guess what the three Democrats blocking lower medication prices have in common? | David Sirota and Andrew Perez

      by

      OpinionUS politicsGuess what the three Democrats blocking lower medication prices have in common?David Sirota and Andrew PerezA bill in Congress would allow Medicare to use its bulk-purchasing power to negotiate lower drug prices. Big Pharma is not pleased Mon 20 Sep 2021 06.25 EDTLast modified on Mon 20 Sep 2021 11.21 EDTThe three conservative Democratic lawmakers threatening to kill their party’s drug pricing legislation have raked in roughly $1.6m of campaign cash from donors in the pharmaceutical and health products industries. One of the lawmakers is the House’s single largest recipient of pharmaceutical industry campaign cash this election cycle, and another lawmaker’s immediate past chief of staff is now lobbying for drugmakers.The threat from Democratic representatives Kurt Schrader (Oregon), Scott Peters (California) and Kathleen Rice (New York) comes just as the pharmaceutical industry’s top lobbying group announced a seven-figure ad campaign to vilify the Democratic legislation, which aims to lower the cost of medicines for Americans now facing the world’s highest prescription drug prices.At issue is House Democrats’ initiative to let Medicare use its bulk purchasing power to negotiate lower prescription drug prices. That power – which is used by other industrialized countries to protect their citizens from exorbitant prices – has been promised by Democrats for years, and party leaders have been planning to include it as part of their sprawling $3.5tn infrastructure reconciliation effort.On Wednesday, Schrader, Peters and Rice helped vote the measure down in the powerful energy and commerce committee, blocking the legislation before it could come to the House floor for a vote. Even if the bill were to ultimately make it to the floor through another committee – which remains a possibility – Democrats have only a four-seat majority that allows them to pass legislation, so they can’t afford to lose any more votes.“I understand that the pharmaceutical industry owns the Republican party and that no Republican voted for this bill, but there is no excuse for every Democrat not supporting it,” said the Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders after the vote.The trio of Big Pharma Democrats are jeopardizing a plan based on HR 3, the Elijah E Cummings Lower Drug Costs Now Act. The Congressional Budget Office has said the drug pricing legislation, named for the late Representative Elijah Cummings of Maryland, would save the government $456bn and “reduce prices by 57% to 75%, relative to current prices” for various medicines.The measure would direct federal health regulators to negotiate prices of 25 high-priced drugs in the first year of implementation and 50 drugs in subsequent years, and the new negotiated prices would be available to both Medicare and private insurers.Polls show that the idea of allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices is wildly popular – to the point where swing-state Republicans and swing-district Democrats, and even former President Donald Trump, have expressed support for it.Schrader and Peters are among the two biggest recent Democratic recipients of pharmaceutical industry donations, according to OpenSecrets. The pharmaceutical and health products industries are collectively the second biggest donor to both lawmakers over the course of their careers, giving them almost $1.5m in total. Peters is the House’s top recipient of pharmaceutical industry donations in the 2022 election cycle.Big Pharma doesn’t want us to expand Medicare. We have to fight them | Bernie SandersRead morePeters and his family were worth an estimated $60m in 2018, making him one of the wealthiest lawmakers in Congress, according to OpenSecrets. His wife is the president and CEO of Cameron Holdings, an investment firm whose portfolio company provides manufacturing and packaging for pharmaceutical companies.Schrader’s net worth, meanwhile, was pegged at nearly $8m. The Oregonian reported in 2008 that he received “a quite large inheritance” from his grandfather, who was “vice president and director of biochemical research and development at Pfizer” – the drugmaker whose political action committee is now Schrader’s third largest career donor.The congressmen on Tuesday offered their own drug pricing proposal, which would allow Medicare to negotiate prices only under limited conditions, such as when a company no longer has exclusive marketing rights on an older drug but there are no competitors. That proposal was also backed by the Democratic representative Stephanie Murphy (Florida), the co-chair of the conservative Blue Dog Coalition, who is the House’s fifth largest recipient of donations from the pharmaceutical and health products industries.Earlier this year, Peters’ campaign saw a surge in donations from pharmaceutical company executives after he organized a letter with nine other Democratic lawmakers informing the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, that they opposed HR 3. Schrader and Rice co-signed the letter.It’s worth noting that Peters, Schrader and Rice all voted in favor of HR 3 in the previous Congress. Politico wrote in May that Peters “said he cast that vote knowing it had no chance of becoming law at the time. He said he supported it only to ‘start a conversation about lowering the cost of prescription drugs’.”Rice, Schrader and Peters have seats on the House energy and commerce committee, which is writing the party’s prescription drug plan, and they used those positions to help block the measure there on Wednesday, preventing it from moving to the floor.Last December, House Democrats’ steering committee voted to put Rice on the energy and commerce panel instead of the progressive New York representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.On Tuesday, Rice explained that she opposes the drug pricing measure because “I do not support advancing policies that are not fiscally responsible and jeopardize the bill’s final passage.”Schrader’s longtime top aide, Paul Gage, left the congressman’s office earlier this year, according to Legistorm, and quickly started lobbying for Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the powerful Washington drug lobby.Gage has been lobbying Congress on drug pricing issues and HR 3, according to ethics records. PhRMA raised more than $500m in 2019, and the organization is one of the top lobbying spenders in DC.On Wednesday, PhRMA announced it is launching an ad campaign against House Democrats’ drug pricing efforts. “Politicians say they want to negotiate medicine prices in Medicare,” one ad warns. “But make no mistake: What politicians mean is they’ll decide which medicines you can and can’t get.”The Blue Dog Coalition’s political action committee has been making monthly payments to a consulting firm led by the coalition’s former communications director, Kristen Hawn.Hawn is also a partner at the bipartisan public affairs firm ROKK Solutions, which has worked for PhRMA.
      David Sirota is a Guardian US columnist and an award-winning investigative journalist. He is an editor-at-large at Jacobin, and the founder of the Daily Poster. He served as Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign speechwriter
      Andrew Perez is a senior editor at the Daily Poster and a cofounder of the Democratic Policy Center
      This article was originally published in the Daily Poster, a grassroots-funded investigative news outlet
      TopicsUS politicsOpinionUS CongressPharmaceuticals industryHealthcare industrycommentReuse this content More

    • 188 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      US officials call for more data on vaccine boosters as Pfizer pushes for third shot

      by

      PfizerUS officials call for more data on vaccine boosters as Pfizer pushes for third shot Pharma company presses case with senior health officials WHO urges priority for nations with low Covid vaccination rates Ankita RaoTue 13 Jul 2021 08.29 EDTLast modified on Tue 13 Jul 2021 08.49 EDTPfizer, the pharmaceutical company that created one of the first Covid-19 vaccines to be approved, has been making a hard sell for emergency approval of boosters – additional doses given to those already vaccinated, especially immunocompromised adults.But in private meetings with Pfizer on Monday, senior US officials said they needed more data – prompting the latest debate over how to curb a pandemic which has claimed more than 620,000 lives in the country. Last week, the US health department also rebuked Pfizer for pressing for a booster shot, and Anthony Fauci, Joe Biden’s chief medical adviser, has said there isn’t enough evidence to support needing a third shot.Pfizer pushes for US booster shots as WHO says greed is driving vaccine disparitiesRead more“It was an interesting meeting. They shared their data. There wasn’t anything resembling a decision,” Fauci said in a Monday evening interview with the New York Times. “This is just one piece of a much bigger puzzle, and it’s one part of the data, so there isn’t a question of a convincing case one way or the other.”In the US, almost half of the population is fully vaccinated, while a little over half has received one dose, according to data from the Mayo Clinic. Still, vaccination rates lag in huge swaths of the country, giving the virus more opportunities for community outbreaks.Pfizer’s experts have pointed to Israel, where the government has decided to give a third Pfizer vaccine shot to vulnerable adults. But leaders from the World Health Organization and other organizations have pushed back, highlighting the vast lack of access and inequality in global vaccine distribution. More than 3.4 billion people have been vaccinated worldwide, but some countries, such as India, have rates as low as 5%.The debate over booster shots is the latest in the many public health decisions the Biden administration has faced since January. With the country largely relaxing Covid-19 rules and opening the economy, the path forward continues to be difficult, with emerging science being incorporated in real time.In next steps, Pfizer says it will submit more evidence to the government. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, meanwhile, will further study breakthrough infections – which happen when people who are vaccinated contract Covid-19.TopicsPfizerCoronavirusPharmaceuticals industryVaccines and immunisationUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 200 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      AstraZeneca’s boss is a boardroom superstar but a potential £2m cherry is pushing the point

      by

      A majority is a majority, but a rebellion of 40% against an executive pay policy is too large to be pinned solely on those brain-dead fund managers who outsource their thinking to proxy voting agencies.At AstraZeneca some serious institutions, with Aviva Investors and Standard Life Aberdeen to the fore, clearly thought the company was pushing things too far by adding a potential £2m cherry on top of their chief executive, Pascal Soriot’s, already substantial pay package. The rebels had a point.Yes, Soriot is a boardroom superstar thanks to AstraZeneca’s success in supercharging the development and production of the Oxford University vaccine for no profit. Communication with regulators went awry at times, and Soriot himself obviously wasn’t getting his hands dirty in the labs. But the boss, even when operating from Australia, is doing an excellent job of standing up to irritating and ungrateful EU commissioners, which is also part of the pandemic operation. And, amid it all, the company didn’t miss a beat on its day job and had time to spend $39bn buying the rare disease specialist Alexion, which looks a promising deal.Yet exceptional effort in an exceptional year is roughly what one expects from a chief executive on Soriot’s pay package. In the last three years, his incentives have performed wonderfully and he has earned £13m, £15m and £15m, so is firmly established in the £1m-a-month category, which very few chief executives of FTSE 100 companies can say. Even for an international hero, it feels a decent whack.The company’s claim was that “the world drastically changed in the last 12 months, and so did AstraZeneca”, and thus adjustments should be made outside the normal three-yearly cycle for tweaking pay.That argument would have felt stronger if AstraZeneca was not already at the adventurous end by UK standards. Last year, Soriot earned 197 times the median pay among his workforce. And, critically, the new arrangement will take his variable pay – annual bonus plus long-term incentives – to 900% of his £1.33m salary. A few years ago 500% was regarded as high by FTSE 100 standards.That precedent-setting detail helps to explain why the rebellion was so strong. Those fund managers who care about controlling boardroom pay inflation saw the risk of knock-on effects elsewhere. Loyalty to Soriot probably swayed a few doubters and helped AstraZeneca prevail, but the company did not need to pick a fight at this time – it gave Soriot a chunky rise a year ago.Some real pay shockers (think Cineworld) have slipped through in recent months. If the wider message in the AstraZeneca vote is that fund managers are not all asleep, that would be no bad thing.Seatbelts on for more stock market turbulenceLast Friday investors preferred to see a silver lining in a weak set of US unemployment numbers – only 266,000 jobs created in the month of April, against forecasts of 1m. If a lack of new jobs implied no inflationary wage pressures in the US economy, at least the stock market could take a few days off from worrying about rises in interest rates, ran the theory.Inflationary pressures, though, come in many forms, and here is a piece of data that spooked the stock market on Tuesday: China’s producer prices index rose at an annual rate of 6.8% in April, up from 4.4% in March.That is the highest level for three years and a sign, probably, that the boom in prices of raw copper, iron ore and other raw materials is finally feeding through to goods. The FTSE 100 index fell 175 points, or 2.5%, following other stock markets down.The benign view says a flurry of higher prices is almost to be expected as the global economy reopens. In that case, central banks’ mistake would be to move too early and choke off recovery. Yet it is clearly also possible that we could be at the start of a big move on prices, with the next leg delivered by the Biden’s administration’s huge infrastructure programme. If so, the mistake would be to delay rate rises.Do not expect quick or clear answers. Inflation data can give mixed messages for months. Do, though, anticipate more bumpy days for stock markets. Investors’ default assumption is to assume the US Federal Reserve will play nicely and look through the short-term signals. Life could quickly get ugly if there is any deviation from that assumed path. More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Johnson & Johnson one-shot Covid vaccine gets nod from FDA advisory panel

      by

      The battle against Covid-19 took a major step forward on Friday as the US moved closer to distributing its first one-shot Covid-19 vaccine, after an independent expert advisory panel recommended drug regulators authorize the Johnson & Johnson vaccine for emergency use.The authorization would be a significant boost to the Biden administration’s vaccination plans, making Johnson & Johnson’s vaccine the third available to the public. Janssen, Johnson & Johnson’s vaccine subsidiary, told a congressional hearing this week that it expects to deliver 20m doses by March and a total of 100m doses before the end of June.The Johnson & Johnson vaccine, along with those from Pfizer and Moderna, should provide the US with more than enough supply to vaccinate every vaccine-eligible person.“We’re still in the midst of this deadly pandemic,” said Dr Archana Chatterjee, a voting member of the panel and an infectious disease pediatrician at Chicago Medical School, as she explained her vote in favor of recommending the vaccine. “There is a shortage of vaccines that are currently authorized, and I think authorization of this vaccine will help meet the needs at the moment.”While regulators at the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) do not always take the advice of their advisory panels, the agency is expected to authorize the vaccine for emergency use.“We urgently need more vaccines [authorized] to protect the millions of Americans who remain at risk” of Covid-19 infection, said Dr Greg Poland, the editor-in-chief of the medical journal Vaccine and leader of the Vaccine Research Group at the Mayo Clinic.“Today, we have seen clear and compelling evidence that the Janssen vaccine candidate is well tolerated, has an acceptable safety profile and most importantly is highly efficacious against Covid-19,” he said. “To me, it is clear that the known benefits vastly outweigh the known risks.”The recommendation comes soon after the US marks 500,000 deaths from Covid-19, a toll that comes as cases decline in the US and across many countries worldwide. More than 28 million Americans have been infected by Covid-19.“We are seeing positive trends in terms of declining cases,” said Dr Adam MacNeil, a member of the Covid-19 epidemiology taskforce with the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. He later added: “We are certainly not out of the woods yet.”Importantly, Johnson & Johnson’s vaccine would also be the easiest to distribute. Unlike vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna, which require sub-zero storage, Johnson & Johnson’s vaccine can be stored at common refrigerator temperatures for up to three months. When frozen it has a shelf life of three years.The convenience of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine comes with caveats. The company’s clinical trials were the first to show the potential impacts of Covid-19 variants, or evolutionary changes in the virus.The vaccine was found to 85% effective at preventing severe disease and to provide complete protection against Covid-19-related hospitalization and death after 28 days. Johnson & Johnson’s vaccine was found to be 72% effective in clinical trials in the US, but only 57% effective in South Africa, where a variant called B1351 originated.However, vaccination remains a powerful weapon, even with threats posed by variants. “Even with decreased effectiveness, vaccination may still provide partial protection against variants,” said MacNeil. Like the Moderna vaccine, Johnson & Johnson’s product will only be available to people 18 and older. Pfizer’s vaccine is available to teenagers older than 16. Also, as with other vaccines, researchers are uncertain how long the vaccine protects against Covid-19, and whether it reduces asymptomatic transmission of the virus, although studies are promising.Johnson & Johnson’s vaccine uses different technology from the two vaccines currently available in the US. The new vaccine uses “viral vector” technology, which introduces the body to the genetic code for the spike protein covering the outside of the coronavirus. This code is transmitted by a second, weakened virus called an adenovirus.Immunity is provoked when the body’s immune system then recognizes the coronavirus by this key structure. Vaccines developed by Pfizer and Moderna also prompt the body to recognize spike proteins on the outside of the coronavirus, but deliver the genetic code through lipid nanoparticles, or tiny molecules of fatty acids.Because scientists are still researching the degree to which any of the authorized vaccines prevent people from spreading Covid-19 to other people, public health authorities recommend people continue to social distance and wear masks after being vaccinated. In theory, a vaccinated person could still spread the SARS-CoV-2 virus, even if they do not experience any symptoms of the disease Covid-19.Johnson & Johnson’s vaccines and the doses already scheduled to be delivered by Moderna and Pfizer, the makers of the two vaccines currently authorized in the US, mean there could be enough supply to vaccinate 400 million people by July. Roughly 267 million people in the US are eligible for a vaccine.This ease of storage and one-dose regime is likely to increase pressure on the US government to pledge doses to low- and middle-income countries, which often lack the cold chain infrastructure needed to distribute the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines. Currently, dozens of low- and middle-income countries do not expect to begin broadly distributing vaccine doses until 2022.Activists, many of whom also worked to expand access to Aids medications, have described this as “vaccine apartheid”, and a threat to the “project of global population immunity”. More

    • 125 Shares149 Views

      in US Politics

      BioNTech chief rejects Trump claim it delayed Covid vaccine news

      by

      The scientist behind the BioNTech/Pfizer coronavirus vaccine has defended his company from Donald Trump’s accusation that it deliberately delayed news of its rapid progress until after the election, saying “we don’t play politics”.
      BioNTech, a German company, and the US pharmaceutical giant Pfizer announced on Monday that their jointly developed vaccine candidate had exceeded expectations in the crucial phase 3 vaccine trials, proving 90% effective in protecting people from coronavirus infections.
      Quick guide Who in the UK will get the new Covid-19 vaccine first?
      Show
      Hide

      The UK government’s joint committee on vaccination and immunisation has published a list of groups of people who will be prioritised to receive a vaccine for Covid-19. The list is:
      1. All those 80 years of age and over and health and social care workers.
      2. All those 75 years of age and over.
      3. All those 70 years of age and over.
      4. All those 65 years of age and over.
      5. Adults under 65 years of age at high at risk of serious disease and mortality from Covid-19.
      6. Adults under 65 years of age at moderate risk of at risk of serious disease and mortality from Covid-19.
      7. All those 60 years of age and over.
      8. All those 55 years of age and over.
      9. All those 50 years of age and over.
      10. Rest of the population

      The US president criticised the timing of their press release. Trump accused the companies of holding back the good news until after the American elections “because they didn’t have the courage to do it before”.
      But BioNTech’s chief executive, Prof Uğur Şahin, told the Guardian in a wide-ranging interview he only was notified of the outcome of the interim trials on Sunday at 8pm in a call from the Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla, who himself had only been informed three minutes earlier by the independent monitoring board.
      “We want to develop this vaccine as quickly as possible, and we have our own system of coordinates,” Şahin said in response to Trump’s accusation. “Every day counts, and we were desperately waiting for the day of the trial results. It couldn’t come early enough.”
      “Pharmaceutical research should never be politicised. It’s a question of integrity. Withholding information would have been unethical. What’s important for us is that we are developing a vaccine and we don’t play politics.”
      Others have criticised the two companies for not holding on to their information long enough. Bourla raised eyebrows when he sold $5.6m (£4.2m) in stock as company shares soared on Monday night.
      Pfizer says the shares were sold via an automated system after they hit a certain price, under a plan set up in August. More

    • 125 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Demand surges for Regeneron drug that Trump claims ‘cures’ Covid-19

      by

      Doctors are reporting a spike in enquiries by patients for an experimental Covid-19 drug cocktail after Donald Trump called the Regeneron Pharmaceuticals drug “a blessing from God” that is a “cure” for the virus.Two doctors involved in the trial of the drug told Reuters that more patients are asking to participate in the drug’s trials, though medical experts have pointed out the drug, REGN-COV2, is still too early in its trial period to confirm that it can help treat Covid-19.On Wednesday, just hours after Trump praised the drug as the “cure” for the virus, Regeneron announced that it submitted an application to the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) for an emergency use authorization of the drug, which is a cocktail mix of two antibodies meant to aid the immune system in fighting the virus.Regeneron’s stock, and the stock of Eli Lilly, another pharmaceutical company conducting drug trials for an anti-body treatment, soared Thursday after Trump touted the treatment.“The politics of the situation would suggest to me that the story could be Trump gets Covid … then American technology fostered by the Trump administration cures Covid,” said Dr Dirk Sostman, head of research network at Houston Methodist Hospital, a trial site for Regeneron’s antibody program, who told Reuters that more patients were seeking to take part in the trial. “I would think there would be pressure on regulators [to approve the drug],” he said.Though Trump said that “hundreds of thousands” of doses were ready for use, Regeneron said that it actually has enough doses for 50,000 patients and would have enough for 300,000 patients in the coming months. The company has said 275 patients participated in the first phase of the drug trial.The US has more than 7.5m confirmed cases of Covid-19 and over 212,000 people have died of the disease, according to Johns Hopkins University.Because the drug is in clinical trials, it is only available to patients who are accepted into the trial. With approval from the FDA, drug companies can offer a treatment to patients not participating in trials under “compassionate use” rules, which are meant to make treatments accessible to patients with a life-threatening condition that has no alternative therapies available. Regeneron said that under 10 people have been given its drug under the rules.Doctors on Twitter have been voicing their concerns about promises of a cure when the treatment is still nascent.“We don’t know if it works. We don’t know about patient outcomes because it hasn’t been studied enough. Frankly, [Trump] is an anecdote,” said Dr Rob Davidson, an emergency room physician in Michigan and executive director of the Committee to Protect Medicine, in a video on Twitter.Regeneron’s drug is just the latest treatment that Trump is touting as the cure to the virus without the evidence medical experts say is necessary to actual confirm a treatment is safe and effective. In the spring, Trump infamously announced he was taking anti-malaria drug hydroxychloroquine in an attempt to prevent Covid-19, though the FDA warned against using the drug for that reason. Just a month later, the FDA revoked its emergency authorization for the drug citing growing evidence that it did not work to prevent the virus and that it had serious side effects. More