Antiviral Molnupiravir Reduces Risk of Hospitalization/Death by ~50 Percent • Hacker News Board

Re: Antiviral Molnupiravir Reduces Risk of Hospitalization/Death by ~50 Percent

#271

Post by sjg007 » Sat, Oct 02, 2021, 3:59 AM UTC

mywittyname wrote: post #216

sjg007 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can thank Bob Dole for that wrt patents from Federal research funds.

TIL. I'm slowly learning that, when the government has a choice between and obvious, smart way of operating, and a clearly dumb way. They choose the dumb way because some chucklefucks in Congress made it illegal to operate the smart way.

Not sure it's dumb... it's just the way... Academic institutions should be able to patent basic research. One would argue that the govt gets a 30% tax cut.. now maybe that's excluded since mosts schools are nonprofit but idk.

Re: Antiviral Molnupiravir Reduces Risk of Hospitalization/Death by ~50 Percent

#272

Post by b9a2cab5 » Sat, Oct 02, 2021, 5:50 AM UTC

photochemsyn wrote: post #266

b9a2cab5 wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where is the motivation for Merck to pour funds into a drug they don't get any return on? And if the government is doing this R&D instead of pharma cos, what is their motivation to perform? If you're a government apparatchik making decisions about what drugs to invest into R&D for, what penalty and upside do you get for being wrong/right? Getting fired or getting a promotion? That's hardly motivating at all. Your pro…

I think you completely misunderstand my point. Merck would be inventing new drugs on its own dime with no government input so it would own that IP outright, yes? This allows universities to concentrate more on the kind of fundamental basic research that underlies all applied research discoveries; this basic research may not produce IP but is utterly foundational for new applied discoveries.

But the entire reason Merck and co don't pour money into foundational and/or exploratory research is because it's unprofitable. Giving the money to universities to do the research instead of doing it themselves doesn't change that. This is why things like DARPA exist in the defense industry: to fund exploratory research that would otherwise be unprofitable.

Government is already "profiting" by getting novel lifesaving drugs for their money. That's why if your research doesn't deliver results you don't get more grants. They also get a return in the form of jobs for their citizens. I don't see why it's govt's job to make profits off every venture, since their goal should be to maximize wellbeing of their citizens instead. And even if you think they should profit, the tax dollars from even a single successful drug would easily pay for a full year's NSF grants to the entire scientific community.

Re: Antiviral Molnupiravir Reduces Risk of Hospitalization/Death by ~50 Percent

#273

Post by kwhitefoot » Sat, Oct 02, 2021, 7:06 AM UTC

dham wrote: post #200

kwhitefoot wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's a political question not a medical question. Not as much here in Norway as it is in the UK. Our death rate per unit population is one tenth of the UK and local authorities remain prepared to reinstate restrictions. Here we have been living pretty much normally for months already anyway. And while the government has occasionally overreacted both the government and population have mostly followed the Norwegian P…

> it's a political question not a medical question. >> Our death rate per unit population is one tenth of the UK and local authorities It's a fat question at the end of the day. Norway doesn't have many fat people.

It has a lot more now than it did when I arrived here in 1986. Dramatically more so.

Re: Antiviral Molnupiravir Reduces Risk of Hospitalization/Death by ~50 Percent

#274

Post by coryrc » Sat, Oct 02, 2021, 7:13 AM UTC

barbazoo wrote: post #162

Disclaimer: I'm not promoting Ivermectin here, don't get me wrong. I just want to cover my bases as this announcement is definitely going to be used by people to support their conspiracy theory. Earlier this year Merck the manufacturer of Ivermectin issued this [0] statement saying that Ivermectin isn't useful for preventing/treating Covid-19 and people shouldn't take it. Some people explained that with the fact that…

We wouldn't need to spend $1000/dose if people just got the free vaccine!

Re: Antiviral Molnupiravir Reduces Risk of Hospitalization/Death by ~50 Percent

#275

Post by coryrc » Sat, Oct 02, 2021, 7:17 AM UTC

dougmwne wrote: post #54

carbocation wrote: post #37

I think it's disappointing that this thread has devolved into a political discussion that is hardly related to the topic. The scientific/medical achievement here seems significant. As an MD, the difference between calling in a script for a pill and arranging for outpatient infusion therapies is vast.

Thank you for weighing in. I am hugely excited about this and immediately sent a message to all my family. I know people who died because they didn't know that antibody treatments were available and effective when given early enough. I very likely saved my own father's life by helping him to get an antibody treatment when he and his own doctor knew nothing about it at the time. When we're talking about pre-hospitaliz…

If only he got the free vaccine, could've saved the rest of us tens of thousands of hospital bills.

Though they appear to have been available a couple months before the vaccine so it's possible the situation was warranted.

Re: Antiviral Molnupiravir Reduces Risk of Hospitalization/Death by ~50 Percent

#276

Post by twofornone » Sat, Oct 02, 2021, 7:24 AM UTC

pcwalton wrote: post #256

twofornone wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Something extremely frustrating about virtually all reporting to date is that I haven't seen any statistics as to infection and reinfection rates among front line workers. The implication is that immunity post exposure/infection doesn't exist, but I suspect that this data is being deliberately withheld because it would suggest that frontline workers don't need vaccines, or at the very least don't need a mandate.

> I suspect that this data is being deliberately withheld because it would suggest that frontline workers don't need vaccines, or at the very least don't need a mandate. Of all the possible reasons you couldn't find this data, a vast conspiracy is the most likely cause? Come on.

Don't you think it would be a public service for news to report such information? Have it listed somewhere conveniently?

It would literally be the most accurate look at worse case constant exposure.

I'm not implying any sort of conspiracy, just an emergent combination of social pressure and implicit taboo. Lots of powerful and not so powerful reputations are riding on the "danger" of this virus and the "safety and efficacy" of the vaccines. And if that's not enough for you, don't forget that fear gets clicks.

Re: Antiviral Molnupiravir Reduces Risk of Hospitalization/Death by ~50 Percent

#277

Post by cinntaile » Sat, Oct 02, 2021, 9:52 AM UTC

sterlind wrote: post #231

roflc0ptic wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Curious why this is downvoted. Is this person wrong? It seems like an important detail if the drug is actually mutagenic in mammalian cells.

It is misleading but not directly wrong. Excessively high doses lead to mutations, but that's true for aspartame too. Nothing suggests that a therapeutic dose for a short time will give you cancer any more than X-rays from plane travel (i.e. there's a causal mechanism, but it's not statistically significant.) See my reply to them for more details.

Judging from his comment history he seems to spread a lot of this kind of covid "doubting" information.

Re: Antiviral Molnupiravir Reduces Risk of Hospitalization/Death by ~50 Percent

#278

Post by landemva » Sat, Oct 02, 2021, 1:36 PM UTC

legostormtroopr wrote: post #269

landemva wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Almost a year ago, nih.gov wrote about a study, 'Ivermectin is an FDA-approved broad-spectrum antiparasitic agent with demonstrated antiviral activity against a number of DNA and RNA viruses, including severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).' https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7539925/ Over one year ago, Nature said ivermectin has antiviral properties. 'It is highly effective against m…

The literature doesn't just say it has antiviral properties, The Lancet itself has published papers that show that "A concentration dependent antiviral effect of ivermectin in COVID-19 was identified, with significant reductions in SARS-CoV-2 viral load in respiratory secretions among patients"[^1]. The fact that you are being downvoted, even though the science is relatively sound shows how polarised this topic has b…

I am not surprised that the medical establishment are focused on the high-priced drugs while ignoring a promising treatment which is cheap. The people who turn health issues into blue/red or left/right seem to have missed out on the joys of healthy living and being physically fit. While I understand the medical monopolies want more money, I don't understand how regular people actively resist taking charge of factors of their own health.

Re: Antiviral Molnupiravir Reduces Risk of Hospitalization/Death by ~50 Percent

#279

Post by photochemsyn » Sat, Oct 02, 2021, 1:41 PM UTC

b9a2cab5 wrote: post #272

photochemsyn wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you completely misunderstand my point. Merck would be inventing new drugs on its own dime with no government input so it would own that IP outright, yes? This allows universities to concentrate more on the kind of fundamental basic research that underlies all applied research discoveries; this basic research may not produce IP but is utterly foundational for new applied discoveries.

But the entire reason Merck and co don't pour money into foundational and/or exploratory research is because it's unprofitable. Giving the money to universities to do the research instead of doing it themselves doesn't change that. This is why things like DARPA exist in the defense industry: to fund exploratory research that would otherwise be unprofitable. Government is already "profiting" by getting novel lifesavin…

Bell Labs was hardly unprofitable, was it? So Merck can fund its own Bell Labs, can it not? Just invert the current typical R&D : S&M budget at any pharma outfit, which is like 1 : 3 at present (research vs. marketing).

Yes, they may have to cut shareholder dividends, yes a more competitive market will mean lower profits. However we are talking about people's lives here, and I don't care about Merck's shareholder dividends at all in relation to that.

Re: Antiviral Molnupiravir Reduces Risk of Hospitalization/Death by ~50 Percent

#280

Post by photochemsyn » Sat, Oct 02, 2021, 1:45 PM UTC

parineum wrote: post #270

photochemsyn wrote: post #55

Some interesting points on the nature of our pharmaceutical patent system... (and while the cohort in this study does seem a bit small, the conclusions appear to be fairly valid): > "Molnupiravir was invented at Drug Innovations at Emory (DRIVE), LLC, a not-for-profit biotechnology company wholly owned by Emory University, and is being developed by Merck & Co., Inc. in collaboration with Ridgeback Biotherapeutics." >…

> Clearly, this patent should be assigned to the federal government, not to Merck Would Merck have done the research if they didn't get to own the patent?

Merck didn't do the research, Emory did the research. Now, maybe you're thinking, would Merck finance the clinical trial of like 1000 people if they didn't get exclusive licensing right to the Emory-owned patent?

Well, perhaps in a non-exclusive licensing situation, other pharma outfits, or a consortion, or how about the federal government? would pay for the clinical trials. I'd guess this situation - competitive manufacturing - would result in a massive drop in the price of the drug for people who needed it.