Patents Kill Patients (But Stupidity Kills Too)
No, this isn’t about the “people in India wouldn’t die if patents on vaccines were waived” mantra we discussed in great detail in a previous post (in sections NINETEEN, THIRTY-TWO, THIRTY-FOUR). It’s about the vaccines that failed to exist because of a patent by Katalin Karikó.
It’s not Dr. Malone
The “inventor of the mRNA vaccine,” as everyone calls Dr. Robert W. Malone these days, has had some scientific merits back in the day (see “Snake Oil Doctors Everywhere” here), but nowadays he’s more than toxic. His contributions to the mRNA-based vaccines by Pfizer and Moderna is ZERO, and he’s one of those former experts who aged badly and started to fail to understand how things work (I call them “snake doctors”; but maybe they’re just senile).
The mRNA vaccines by Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna weren’t made possible by Dr. Robert W. Malone’s research, but by the research of Katalin Karikó. There’s no shame in that, except when you do all your best to launch fake news about Pfizer’s vaccine, as previously discussed.
The real patents in question
No, it’s not about the existence of the patents that allegedly led to the so many COVID-related deaths in India. I discussed the matter here (sections NINETEEN, THIRTY-TWO, THIRTY-FOUR), and if you still don’t understand it was a red herring, you’re completely retarded. But patents do much harm, and even the Big Pharma can shoot themselves in a foot.
The other day, I was reading CureVac Comes Up Short, discussing the pathetic 40% to 47% efficacy of the vaccine by CureVac, the German mRNA vaccine company. Why is this vaccine inferior? It’s because it does not use any modified mRNA bases, while Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna make extensive use of bases like N-methylpseudouridine, whose benefits are well-known (2015, 2020). Here’s a relevant comment:
The reason for Curevac’s failure is pretty obvious, and many people with a bit of knowledge have seen it coming for quite some time. Check out this 2005 publication by a certain K. Karikó (righfully nominated for Nobel price) titled: “Suppression of RNA recognition by Toll-like receptors: the impact of nucleoside modification and the evolutionary origin of RNA”. The authors demonstrated that TLR will recognise “alien” RNA, and subsequently shut down cellular RNA replication processes in an evolutionary acquired protection mechanism. That doesn’t happen if uridine is replaced by pseudo-uridine (compare Link 2, also with K. Karikó as lead author).
Unlike BioNTech and Moderna, Curevac didn’t apply that replacement. Btw. not neccessarily out of considerations for RNA “pureness”, but primarily for not having the respective patent, which is held by K. Karikó and UPenn.
A likely implication is that some other mRNA vaccines in trial, e.g. Sanofi / TranslateBio, and Curevac-GSK “Gen 2” may equally fail, unless their developers have found another way to avoid RNA detection by TLRs, and subsequent shut-down of the replication mechanism.
The discussed patents:
- US 8278036, Kariko K, Weissman D, “RNA containing modified nucleosides and methods of use thereof”, issued 21 August 2006, assigned to University of Pennsylvania
- US 8748089, Kariko K, Weissman D, “RNA containing modified nucleosides and methods of use thereof”, issued 15 March 2013, assigned to University of Pennsylvania
Now you know why CureVac’s mRNA vaccine failed (CureVac and GSK, actually).
Now you know why Merck’s mRNA vaccine failed (Merck and AmpTec, I guess).
Now you know why Sanofi’s mRNA vaccine failed (Sanofi Pasteur and Translate Bio, to be accurate).
If a patent waiver was to be revoked or waived (let me insist: a patent waiver, not a TRIPS waver!), the above two patents should be considered first!
It’s still funny (or tragic, depending on how you look at it) the changing mindset of the pharmaceutical industry, which even in the US, used to hate patents:
The moral critique of patenting was so strong that the American Medical Association made it a cornerstone of its first Code of Medical Ethics in 1847, declaring it was “derogatory to professional character” for a physician “to hold a patent for any surgical instrument, or medicine.”
This was no laughing matter. Conformity to the code was a requirement for licensing in many states. Violating the ban on patents could have serious professional consequences. In 1849, leaders in the medical community even tried to get a law passed prohibiting patents on drugs altogether.
Let us trust the studies even less: an inflation of idiots
Several reputed virologists and vaccinologists have resigned as editors of the journal Vaccines to protest its 24 June publication of a peer-reviewed article that misuses data to conclude that “for three deaths prevented by [COVID-19] vaccination, we have to accept two inflicted by vaccination.”
Since Friday, at least six scientists have resigned positions as associate or section editors with Vaccines, including Florian Krammer, a virologist at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, and Katie Ewer, an immunologist at the Jenner Institute at the University of Oxford who was on the team that developed the Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine. Their resignations were first reported by Retraction Watch.
“The data has been misused because it makes the (incorrect) assumption that all deaths occurring post vaccination are caused by vaccination,” Ewer wrote in an email. “[And] it is now being used by anti-vaxxers and COVID-19-deniers as evidence that COVID-19 vaccines are not safe. [This] is grossly irresponsible, particularly for a journal specialising in vaccines.”
Meanwhile, the article has been retracted, but the harm was done. As someone remarked on Hacker News:
The main problem with the article is that it assumes that all deaths after vaccination are due to the vaccination, which is nonsense. If 100% of the people are vaccinated they would describe all deaths to it.
Also they do not seem to correct for age. We started the vaccinations in the Netherlands with the oldest persons, who were already much more likely to die. So the LAREB results are not representative for the entire population. They will give an overestimate of the mortality by vaccinations.
Just think of it: suppose 100% of the population were vaccinated. If someone dies from no matter what disease, do you correlate the death of anyone of everyone with this vaccine? Could anyone really claim that all the deaths have been triggered by the vaccine?
More idiocy: arithmetic is too complex for the retarded Homo sapiens sapiens
I recently gave an example of how basic mathematics is too much for journalists (look here, right above “What is to be done?”). I’ll copy the calculus below:
- If 87% are vaccinated and 10% of them get infected nonetheless: 8.7 infected, all vaccinated.
- If 13% are not vaccinated and all of them get infected: 13 infected, not vaccinated.
- Infected, vaccinated out of total: 8.7/(13+8.7) *100 = 40%
So that’s why in Israel, at the time of reporting, 40% of the new cases were among fully vaccinated people.
In a comment to the aforementioned CureVac-related article, an idiot claims that Israel having more than 30% infections among the fully vaccinated with Pfizer “is not consistent with 80% efficacy of Pfizer against Delta.” Thankfully, a non-retarded person bothered to reply:
It is concerning – but more for your reading of his tweet.
His back of the envelope calculations are:
85% of adults are fully vaccinated
Delta vaccine efficiency is ~80%
Ratio of vaccinated to unvaccinated is 1.13:1
Therefore – 52% of adult cases expected to be vaccinated!
~50% of cases are in adults
Hence: >25% expected
That still looks obscure, so let’s make it clearer:
- If 85% are vaccinated and 20% of them get infected nonetheless (80% efficiency): 17% infected
- If 15% are not vaccinated and all of them get infected: 15% infected
- Ratio of vaccinated infected to unvaccinated infected: 17/15 = 1.13
- Percentage of vaccinated infected out of the total infected: 17/(17+15)*100 = 53%
If all the cases were among adults, 53% of the cases would have occurred to fully vaccinated people! The fact that the actual numbers were lower (30-40%) was because ~50% of the cases occurred in children, of which very few were vaccinated!
With vacc: 85% of adults * 20% chance of becoming a case = 17%.
No vacc: 15%*100% = 15%.
So 17 cases out of 17+15 will be vaccinated = ~53%.
— Yuval E. (@yuvale2) June 29, 2021
Why this virus is even more important than before
Some people may have relaxed: a vaccine is available to most people in some countries; there’s the feeling that “whoever had to die has already died”; and the fact that this virus is likely to become a common occurrence for the years to come doesn’t bother them in the least. However…
FACT: A virus that is less lethal than before (eg vaccination), or infects a lower risk (younger) population can actually *kill & maim more victims* if it’s more contagious (#DeltaVariant) or allowed to spread to more people (e.g. ⚽️ games), than if a virus is merely more lethal. pic.twitter.com/Swj1NHELVN
— Eric Feigl-Ding (@DrEricDing) July 1, 2021
That’s exactly why SARS-CoV-2 created the COVID-19 pandemic, still ongoing, while the original SARS did not. From the original SARS (2002-2004) people were experiencing severe symptoms and they were dying too fast for the virus to be able to spread much.
Should vaccination be mandatory?
I’d make it mandatory when at least two different vaccines are available to anyone. Andreas Kluth: Should We Be Forced to Get Covid Vaccines? It’s Complicated:
The moral case must start with the premise that, barring special circumstances, nobody has a right to tell me what to do, even if it’s “for my own good,” since that’s for me to judge. By this logic, even seat-belt laws are a baby step toward tyranny. I happen to wear one voluntarily because I feel it makes sense. But if I didn’t, what right does anybody have to make me put it on? It’s my life, after all. The same could be said for the risk of catching Covid-19.
This line of thought immediately crashes into the difference between a seat-belt law and a vaccine mandate, however. Saving the life and health of the one getting jabbed is only the secondary purpose of inoculation. The primary goal is to approximate herd immunity, so that the virus stops spreading in the community at large, infecting and potentially killing others who, owing to allergies or other complications, cannot get vaccinated.
So a vaccine mandate is less like a seat-belt law and more like rules against, say, fiddling with a smart phone while driving — a cognitive distraction that vastly increases our risk of causing accidents that maim or kill others. By the same token, my refusal to get jabbed makes me a potential vector for SARS-CoV-2. As it keeps spreading, it’ll also keep mutating, thus causing inestimable harm to people near and far alike.
This “harm principle” was already defined in 1859 by John Stuart Mill in his treatise “On Liberty”: “The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.”
In 1905 the Supreme Court ruled in Jacobsen v. Massachusetts that states may compel vaccination as long as the coercion is proportionate and necessary to maintain public health. In such cases, the judges decided, vaccine mandates fall conceptually into the category of the government’s “police power,” which legitimately restrains personal liberty for the common good.
In many iterations, that logic has prevailed in most open societies to date. In April, for example, the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg ruled, in a case that preceded the pandemic and was brought by parents in the Czech Republic, that mandatory vaccination is “necessary in a democratic society.”
Both these moral and legal lines of reasoning must of course confront practical realities, and this is where things get tricky in the current pandemic. That’s mainly because the Covid vaccines are still scarce, new and less understood than those against mumps or polio, say.
The next question is how safe the vaccines are. Nothing in this world is ever completely free of risk, but the mandate decision must rest on weighing one risk — the jab’s to the individual — against two others: the risk to the same individual of catching Covid and the collective risk to public health.
The court is in recess.
Bonus opinion on J&J
This being said, I’d have liked a statement from the fucking “experts” along the lines of:
Whoever developed the Guillain-Barré syndrome following vaccination would have most likely had developed it also as a complication of the COVID-19 infection.
Supposing this is true, of course. Or rather: why isn’t anyone asking themselves whether this is true or not?!