Trump wants to fast-track COVID vaccine before election

Recent Forum Topics Forums The Public House Trump wants to fast-track COVID vaccine before election

Viewing 12 posts - 1 through 12 (of 12 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #119880
    nittany ram
    Moderator

    https://amp.ft.com/content/b053f55b-2a8b-436c-8154-0e93dcdb3c1a?__twitter_impression=true
    FDA could use emergency authorisation rules despite fears over high-profile resignations due to safety concerns

    Making a vaccine available before the election could allow the US president to claim he had turned the tide on a virus that has killed more than 170,000 Americans © REUTERS

    August 23, 2020 5:14 pm by David Crow , Demetri Sevastopulo , Hannah Kuchler and Andrew Edgecliffe-Johnson
    The Trump administration is considering bypassing normal US regulatory standards to fast-track an experimental coronavirus vaccine from the UK for use in America ahead of the presidential election, according to three people briefed on the plan.

    One option being explored to speed up the availability of a vaccine would involve the US Food and Drug Administration awarding “emergency use authorisation” (EUA) in October to a vaccine being developed in a partnership between AstraZeneca and Oxford university, based on the results from a relatively small UK study if it is successful, the people said.

    The AstraZeneca study has enrolled 10,000 volunteers, whereas the US government’s scientific agencies have said that a vaccine would need to be studied in 30,000 people to pass the threshold for authorisation. AstraZeneca is also conducting a larger study with 30,000 volunteers, although the results from that will come after the smaller trial.

    Making a vaccine available before the election could allow US president Donald Trump to claim he has turned the tide on a virus that has killed more than 170,000 Americans following widespread criticism of his handling of the pandemic. In his convention speech on Thursday night, Joe Biden, Mr Trump’s Democratic opponent, said that the US response to the virus was the “worst performance of any nation”.

    However, if the Trump administration does rush through emergency authorisation ahead of the election by skirting normal government guidelines, it could dent already shaky public confidence in the safety of vaccines ahead of one of the largest mass-immunisation programmes in US history.

    Mark Meadows, White House chief of staff, and Steven Mnuchin, Treasury secretary, have told top Democrats that the administration was considering fast-tracking a vaccine, according to one person briefed on a July 30 meeting the pair held with Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic Speaker of the House of Representatives.

    Mr Meadows said in the meeting that there could be emergency authorisation, possibly for the AstraZeneca vaccine, in September. Mr Mnuchin added that the administration expected an EUA for a vaccine before full approval, said the person, who added that Ms Pelosi warned that there should be “no cutting corners” in the vaccine approval process.

    Recommended
    The race for a vaccine heats up
    A spokesperson for the Treasury secretary said: “Secretary Mnuchin did not make any comments regarding AstraZeneca, nor is he familiar with the specifics of the AstraZeneca vaccine candidate. He is also not aware of any plans the FDA may have regarding any emergency use authorisation for any potential vaccine, beyond what he has heard publicly stated.

    “The secretary believes, and has always believed, that any decision on vaccine candidates and any possible EUA is up to the FDA.”

    The White House did not comment.

    If the FDA, which is led by commissioner Stephen Hahn, were to grant emergency approval to the AstraZeneca vaccine based on the Oxford study, it could provoke a string of resignations from the agency.

    Earlier this week, Peter Marks, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research — which is responsible for assessing the vaccines — told Reuters that he would resign if the agency were to approve a jab before definitive data showing it was safe and effective.

    “I could not stand by and see something that was unsafe or ineffective that was being put through,” Dr Marks said. “You have to decide where your red line is, and that’s my red line.”

    He went on: “I would feel obligated [to resign] because in doing so, I would indicate to the American public that there’s something wrong.”

    Mr Marks declined to comment to the FT.

    Michael Caputo, a spokesperson for the US health and human services department — which contains the FDA — said any claim that the administration would issue an EUA before the election was “absolutely false”.

    Mr Caputo said the administration was hopeful that a vaccine would be developed by the first quarter of 2021.

    “We have always been working towards that goal. I’ve never been told at any point in time that that goal has changed,” he said. “Talk of an October surprise is a lurid resistance fantasy. Irresponsible talk of an unsafe or ineffective vaccine being approved for public use is designed to undermine the president’s coronavirus response.”

    On Saturday, Mr Trump lashed out at the FDA in a tweet that appeared to accuse the agency of slowing down enrolment in coronavirus vaccine and drug trials to delay the results of studies until after the election.

    “The deep state, or whoever, over at the FDA is making it very difficult for drug companies to get people in order to test the vaccines and therapeutics,” Mr Trump wrote in a tweet that tagged Dr Hahn. “Obviously, they are hoping to delay the answer until after November 3rd. Must focus on speed, and saving lives!”

    Ms Pelosi hit back at Mr Trump in a press conference on Saturday.

    She said: “The FDA has a responsibility to approve drugs, judging on their safety and their efficacy, not by a declaration from the White House about speed and politicising the FDA.”

    She added: “This was a very dangerous statement on the part of the president. Even for him, it went beyond the pale in terms of how he would jeopardise the health and wellbeing of the American people.”

    Two of the people briefed on the plans said that the relatively small UK trial was not designed to produce sufficient data of the kind that would be required for emergency authorisation in the US. US drugmakers Moderna and Pfizer, which are also trialling vaccines, both plan to enrol 30,000 participants in Phase III studies they started in July. Moderna said it would complete enrolment by the end of September, while Pfizer has said it has already enrolled 11,000.

    One of the people briefed on the plan said: “I don’t see a way forward for [AstraZeneca],” based on the 10,000-person trial. “They’re not going to get there. They won’t have the clinical end points”

    Although we have talked about doing this at ‘warp speed’, it is not through any cuts in our efforts for vaccine safety or scientific integrity.

    Robert Redfield, head of the US Centers for Disease Control and Infection
    The person predicted that if Dr Marks were to quit, other scientists in his division of FDA would follow suit.

    A spokesperson for AstraZeneca said it had “not discussed emergency use authorisation with the US government” and that it “would be premature to speculate on that possibility”.

    Paul Offit, a vaccine expert at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said it would be “very disappointing” if the Trump administration were preparing such a plan before it had even seen the data because it risked “politicising the science”.

    He said even if the study were successful, a 10,000-person trial would not be large enough to rule out rarer side effects. “The job of the FDA is to protect the American public if they see these data as inadequate.”

    Dr Hahn faced criticism earlier this year after the FDA granted emergency approval for hydroxychloroquine — an unproven drug repeatedly touted by Mr Trump — before reversing its decision when multiple studies showed the drug was not an effective treatment for coronavirus.

    Public health officials in the US have repeatedly stressed the importance of following normal processes when approving a Covid-19 vaccine.

    In June, Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health, told CNN: “Each vaccine needs to be tested on about 30,000 volunteers. We don’t believe that we have enough power in the analysis, to be able to document the vaccine works unless you get to roughly that number.”

    Robert Redfield, head of the Centers for Disease Control and Infection, told the FT on Friday: “Although we have talked about doing this at ‘warp speed’, it is not through any cuts in our efforts for vaccine safety or scientific integrity. I am confident there will be all the rigour we have always had for developing vaccines for human requirements.”

    One person working on the US effort to find a vaccine said the Trump administration’s exploration of ways to circumvent normal procedures had prompted infighting among the government’s top scientists. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and Dr Collins are stressing the importance of scientific rigour whereas Moncef Slaoui, the White House’s vaccine tsar, wants to forge ahead, the person said.

    Additional reporting Clive Cookson and Donato Mancini in London and Kiran Stacey in Washington

    Copyright The Financial Times Limited . All rights reserved. Please don’t copy articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web.

    #119881
    wv
    Participant

    Well Im fine with fast-tracking a vaccine. I’d be very surprised if any President in any nation did not fast-track it, if something looks promising.

    The thing is they have to be honest about the risks, etc.

    w
    v

    #119889
    Billy_T
    Participant

    Well Im fine with fast-tracking a vaccine. I’d be very surprised if any President in any nation did not fast-track it, if something looks promising.

    The thing is they have to be honest about the risks, etc.

    w
    v

    I think the radically new thing here is this:

    No president in our memory has used so many strong-arm tactics on various agencies, all to benefit him personally. From where I sit, this is unprecedented. The bullying, the public shaming, the sending in various hatchet men to accuse them of being “Deep Staters!” and “You’re just doing this to hurt me in the election!”

    Trump is obviously desperate, and he’s relentlessly fixated on his reelection, cuz he knows he’s likely doing jail time if he loses. I can’t think of another president — perhaps Nixon? — with that kind of thing forever hanging over his head, defining his policy decisions, executive orders, etc. etc.

    And, of course, it’s one thing to “fast track” this or that. It’s another thing entirely to bully scientists into dropping numerous (essential) testing phases along the way. And given Trump massive deregulation of corporations, businesses in general, finance, environmental protections, workers’ protections, etc. etc. . . . this latest move fits an obvious pattern.

    Do everything and anything to make Trump look better, no matter the costs in blood or treasure.

    #119893
    Zooey
    Participant

    Do you really think Trump will go to jail? I’m skeptical.

    With Trump…the role of his ego cannot be overstated. He does not want to lose because he does not want to lose. And he does not care what kind of damage, or to whom, he causes in that pursuit.

    #119894
    zn
    Moderator

    Well Im fine with fast-tracking a vaccine.

    w
    v

    No vaccine has ever been fast-tracked before. There’s of course profound medical reasons for that. You don’t want to end up with a serum that either simply does not work or causes harm in its own right.

    It is possible for example to produce a vaccine that makes people more, not less, vulnerable to the virus. That’s why rigorous testing is needed, and testing takes time.

    #119895
    Billy_T
    Participant

    Do you really think Trump will go to jail? I’m skeptical.

    With Trump…the role of his ego cannot be overstated. He does not want to lose because he does not want to lose. And he does not care what kind of damage, or to whom, he causes in that pursuit.

    Well, yeah, I need to revise that.

    Should he go to jail for what he’s done, prior to and during his presidency? No question in my mind that it’s a Yes. Mueller documented at least 10 counts of obstruction, and he’s also an un-indicted co-conspirator in the Michael Cohen case, and Cohen went to jail. Mueller also said that the DoJ “rule” regarding sitting presidents is what prevented him from indicting him, etc. The recent Senate report on Russiagate confirms and expands Mueller’s.

    Will they actually pull the trigger and lock him up if he loses? Maybe not. Probably not. I fear a repeat of the “Let’s move on” mood and mode after Bush.

    And I agree with you about Trump’s ego. But I think the two exist together with him. Fear of legal ruin and ego. He knows he can’t count on Dems wanting to move on, etc.

    #119896
    Billy_T
    Participant

    Also . . . and more importantly . . . Trump should go to jail for stuff no one’s even trying to nail him for:

    Kids in cages; using the military to attack peaceful protestors; tampering with the Postal system; suppressing the vote via that system; the massive destruction of our environmental protections; his criminal neglect, leading to nearly 180K Covid deaths (likely a major undercount) . . . and countless cases of outright fraud, grifting, using the office to feather his own nest, etc. etc. I need a lot more coffee to list all of his “sins.”

    In short, it’s for the stuff that has been investigated, and the stuff he’s done that should be but won’t be.

    #119897
    Billy_T
    Participant

    Well Im fine with fast-tracking a vaccine.

    w
    v

    No vaccine has ever been fast-tracked before. There’s of course profound medical reasons for that. You don’t want to end up with a serum that either simply does not work or causes harm in its own right.

    It is possible for example to produce a vaccine that makes people more, not less, vulnerable to the virus. That’s why rigorous testing is needed, and testing takes time.

    I agree with that.

    Trump has told us, in public, far too many times, directly and indirectly, that all he cares about is the appearance of things. Whatever makes him look good at the moment. He doesn’t care if a vaccine actually works. Just the appearance that it may, and a way for him to take credit for that.

    #119898
    Billy_T
    Participant

    More on that pressure stuff.

    This is an Op-Ed, and should be read as such, but it does include actual quotations from our madman in chief and links to other evidence, including scientific research, which is why it’s particularly relevant. I also happen to think the author draws solid conclusions from that evidence:

    Trump’s ugly new conspiracy theory only underscores his weakness

    Excerpt:

    Another deranged conspiracy theory

    That’s because Trump’s new announcement came packaged with another demented conspiracy theory. Trump had rage-tweeted that the “deep state” was getting the Food and Drug Administration to delay trials for coronavirus vaccines and therapeutics, for the explicit purpose of harming his reelection. He even cited FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn in the tweet:

    The deep state, or whoever, over at the FDA is making it very difficult for drug companies to get people in order to test the vaccines and therapeutics. Obviously, they are hoping to delay the answer until after November 3rd. Must focus on speed, and saving lives! @SteveFDA
    — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 22, 2020

    Trump’s new announcement was immediately denounced by scientists and physicians. As The Post reports, many felt the announcement had “misled the public by overstating the evidence behind a therapy that shows promise but still needs to be rigorously tested.”
    AD

    Specifically, Trump overstated its immediate benefits. He claimed it is “proven to reduce mortality by 35 percent,” when in fact, the FDA itself offered a much narrower assessment, saying patients under 80 who also met a range of other conditions were 35 percent more likely to be alive one month later.

    Meanwhile, some experts said even the FDA’s conclusions hadn’t received enough examination. Importantly, they noted all this could have adverse consequences: The overstatement of the treatment’s value and scientific grounding could create a false public sense of security about the coronavirus. As one noted: “The reality is what we have today to treat covid is extremely limited.”

    #119902
    wv
    Participant

    Well Im fine with fast-tracking a vaccine.

    w
    v

    No vaccine has ever been fast-tracked before. There’s of course profound medical reasons for that. You don’t want to end up with a serum that either simply does not work or causes harm in its own right.

    It is possible for example to produce a vaccine that makes people more, not less, vulnerable to the virus. That’s why rigorous testing is needed, and testing takes time.

    ================

    You would say that. You were against his plan to inject clorox into people’s ears.

    The man is President of the United States of America. You act like he’s some sort of pinhead.

    w
    v

    #119903
    zn
    Moderator

    The man is President of the United States of America. You act like he’s some sort of pinhead.

    w
    v

    Look. I’ve been reading articles about vaccines. For at least a few weeks now.

    Ergo, nobody could possibly know more than I do.

    #119906
    nittany ram
    Moderator

    More fast-tracking…this time convalescent plasma

    “In other words, President Trump has no basis for giving carte blanche for the use of convalescent plasma. Heads of the FDA and HHS, who do know better, got ordered to smile and nod in agreement with Trump’s convention surprise, lest they get tarred as deep state obstructionists. The rush should be trying to figure out if convalescent plasma really works, but the president has made that impossible since no trials will get funded or enrolled. Instead, the future holds vicious infighting as doctors struggle to grab some of the scarce supply of convalescent plasma for their patients, since the president has all but announced it as a cure.“

    Link: https://www.statnews.com/2020/08/24/trump-opened-floodgates-convalescent-plasma-too-soon/

Viewing 12 posts - 1 through 12 (of 12 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Comments are closed.