In "The lessons of Lander", @ScienceMagazine chief editor @hholdenthorp points out WH hasn't fulfilled its pledge to revitalize our scientific agencies.
What we need: clear deadlines for NIH, FDA, and OSTP appointments, and accountability at HHS and CDC
Here's one calm sentence that is nevertheless alarming in pointing out the danger we are in. There's been a complete absence of government leadership in this epidemic; no wonder the only people in charge seem to be company CEOs.
The entire article is worth reading; it ends with a call to quickly fill our scientific leadership positions.
This shouldn't be hard, given the number of scientific/medical leaders in the US. Just search beyond 1º of separation from the WH, and make competence the only criterion
That's both scientific and leadership competency BTW, not just one or the other. Still, plenty of smart capable leaders around.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Essentially type 2 statistical errors are errors. And relying on those errors to hold back useful interventions led to deadly lack-of-recommendations by public health agencies
@DLeonhardt Good to see inaction on boosters for J&J cited as one of the examples. Seems the CDC would like to ignore #JnJers so it's good to be reminded that they have been treated badly.
Also good to mention again the FDA officials opposed to boosters (who still insist they are correct!)
Only thing I'd add: anti-intervention messages get traction citing "lack of solid data" precisely because newspapers, including (especially?) the @nytimes, publishes articles featuring them. Often these are news articles citing "experts" with a track record of being wrong.
This study aims to address what is necessary for high levels of Omicron immunity. As we should define adjectives quantitatively if possible (thinking of a particular big pharma), we can define "high levels" as those associated with >75% disease protection in clinical observations
So let's take a look at the findings. They're very comprehensive, so there are a lot of comparisons to parse. Unfortunately graphs are arranged by # of vax doses, not # of immunity events (ugh). I hope you like brainteasers.
Today in Science, two prominent viral drug experts express concerns about molnupiravir, Merck's mutagenic COVID pill: 1. Mutating patient DNA not ruled out 2. Mutating viral genomes for sure, risk unknown
Raymond Schinazi is a well known antiviral drug developer, called the "King of the Pills". His wikipedia page lists the many marketed HIV and HCV drugs he has developed based on nucleoside analogues like molnupiravir. science.org/doi/10.1126/sc…
In fact Schinazi is the one person who has the most knowledge of molnupiravir (MOV). He's been studying its active metabolite NHC as an antiviral since 2003 (PMID 12499198). He didn't push it to clinic because of mutagenesis concerns. That comes out clearly above, but also below
The article reveals many things not publicly known earlier.
First, Merck had (like my own lab and others) found boceprevir to have some activity against SARSCoV2. Not too surprising, as boceprevir is a HCV protease inhibitor, and SARSCoV2 protease is homologous to HCV protease.
I had emailed Merck to let them know in case they didn't already. But I expected the to know, and this confirms it. They determined that is was unlikely to work well for COVID19 on its own, but Merck was in a good position to modify it to work better, but they didn't.
A recent study by Novavax suggests it may be able to provide broader protection across variants than other vaccines so far. That has interesting implications for vaccine design, if true.
This seems to have escaped analysis entirely, so we'll take a look.
The study came out on 12/25. It contains the data behind Novavax's 12/22 announcement that 3 shots of their vaccine provided Omicron protection. That got into the news, but nobody came back on Christmas to write about the actual findings (I wonder why). ir.novavax.com/2021-12-22-Nov…
Sorry, Novavax, but you might benefit from hiring a science communication consultant for advice on publication strategy and writing. Besides the poor decision to release your article on 12/25, assuring no one will analyze it, the abstract is a disaster. Because there isn't one.
Also confirms JJ is a poor booster for JJ, for either "original" D614G or Omicron.
Above, the JJ+Pfizer looked about 2x worse than 3xPfizer. Confidence intervals are wide, but another underreported Omicron study found JJ+Pfizer was ~3x worse than Mod+Mod+Pfizer. So this effect size seems consistent.