Super Antibody Could Provide Permanent Flu Vaccine

Why is it that when there is a drug that works it takes years, while people are dying, to get to market?

I understand the risks, but if I have an illness that has a 50% chance of killing me, well a drug with a 50% chance of helping me is good enough for me.

I mean why can't we, as individuals with the illness, choose to be used in lab tests for these potentially life saving drugs? It would help get them out there for general use faster.

And this from someone whom has never taken a flu shot, I hate to take any type of drugs, but I'll do my part to help others.

I understand the sentiment, I really do. I used to ask the same question. The problem is that it's more complicated than that.

First, experimental drugs are often expensive since they're produced in small quantities, etc. There's usually nowhere near enough supply for everyone who wants to be a guinea pig. Insurance doesn't cover the costs and you can't afford such drugs on your own.

Second, there are scientific reasons that doctors choose only certain people for drug trials. Could be any number of reasons - age, weight, family medical history, earlobe length, etc. It's about learning - not just about people surviving. It sounds cruel but what's learned early on can save more people if and when a drug goes to market.

There are other (and maybe more important) reasons too, but I won't go into those right now.

Insurance doesn't cover the costs and you can't afford such drugs on your own.

It sounds like these Mice are in a different tax bracket then me.

Protocol, laws, liability issues. That's the short answer.

Could the rules be changed to make it the choice of the patient? ... Possibly. But patients have a tendency to leap toward the best sounding medicine, not necessarily the best medicine. When one gets ill, finds there is no cure, and then swears not to give up against all odds, the next lesson in life is to find out that you can't cram the education for a medical degree into the rest of your life when you don't have much time left and you don't feel good.

You'd hire a plumber, even though you might know about pipes. You'd hire an electrician, even though you might argue with him over the best wire for the job. In the case of life and death, cutting edge medical discoveries, it's best to trust the experts.

I think the ethical argument that is against making experimental meds liberally available to patients in need, is based on a flawed concept that presumes a patient who is in dire need is somehow or somewhat incapable of 'informed consent': that is, apt to consent to experimental treatments without a balanced evaluation of the risk/benefit equation.

A load of BS in my opinion, what you need is to improve the quality of consent by providing better information, not to set up absurd prohibitions. Just make sure there is really well informed consent.

The same people who wrote this stuff also authored provisions to experiment on people without their consent. Crap. Nanny state with a truncheon...

It is all about the money not the cure. The big drug companies are looking at ROI (return on investment). Treating symptoms is a cash cow, curing common diseases has a poor return to the drug company. Altruistic no, economically viable for the few.

The cure for the common ulcer was developed in the 1920's and the medical profession didn't embrace it until the 1990's. Then at first required a prolonged hospital stay. From the 1920's on any farmer had access to the cure if it was known. Once out the profit was gone from a lot of treatments for symptoms.

Many cures and inexpensive treatments die for lack of ROI.

Technology is no different. What company would let out the knowledge of how to make cars that got 200 mpg, tires that drove 200,000 miles before wearing out, parts that don't fail or are dirt cheap to replace. Low profit margin means small ROI.

Altruistic? No. I don't think it is right. But businesses run on profit unless a black hole government props them up with fiat money.

I hope some breakthroughs are made because medical access is starting a down turn. Sickness that was once demographically locked are now jet setting globe travelers. Not just the major ports but every city in the world is but a few days travel. And we are just beginning to understand diseases and their functioning.

Brad

You hit the nail right on the head, Brad.

This antibody vaccine, if it lives up to its promise, is a true breakthrough. This could relieve humanity of influenza in the same way that Salk and Savin relieved us of polio.

It would also eliminate the need to manufacture tons of yearly flu vaccine presently made trying to tailor to the worst variants of the season. It would also eliminate the need to stockpile "Tamiflu" and similar antivirals in fear of a pandemic. In other words, it would eliminate a big chunk of revenue for the pharmocrats.

Still, it seems unlikely they would be allowed to buy, patent, and just sit on it, the way some inventions are said to have been suppressed. This is the information age: once the cat is out of the bag, there will be pressure to follow through. Some company will get the rights to manufacture it, and even if it is a one-shot deal, it's a big market.

The influenza pandemic scenario is a terrible thing. In 2008, the medical profession got together and decided who would be turned away from medical care in a pandemic. The whole idea, that a person with chronic illness (for example) is not to receive medical care, would be more distressing if there was actually any useful care to be provided. It's more like, who would we go through the motions for.

Lets hope this new vaccine gets underway before the 'looming pandemic' does.