Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog

News and views about philosophy, the academic profession, academic freedom, intellectual culture, and other topics. The world’s most popular philosophy blog, since 2003.

  1. Daniel Fidel Ferrer's avatar
  2. Ryan Mitchell Wittingslow's avatar
  3. Panu Raatikainen's avatar
  4. Jason Stanley's avatar
  5. Daniel Greco's avatar
  6. Nobody's avatar
  7. Roger of Invisible America's avatar

Some skepticism about the initial reports on Moderna’s vaccine

A propos this, see this; an excerpt:

The company’s statement led with the fact that all 45 subjects (in this analysis) who received doses of 25 micrograms (two doses each), 100 micrograms (two doses each), or a 250 micrograms (one dose) developed binding antibodies.

Later, the statement indicated that eight volunteers — four each from the 25-microgram and 100-microgram arms — developed neutralizing antibodies. Of the two types, these are the ones you’d really want to see.

We don’t know results from the other 37 trial participants. This doesn’t mean that they didn’t develop neutralizing antibodies. Testing for neutralizing antibodies is more time-consuming than other antibody tests and must be done in a biosecurity level 3 laboratory. Moderna disclosed the findings from eight subjects because that’s all it had at that point. Still, it’s a reason for caution.

Separately, while the Phase 1 trial included healthy volunteers ages 18 to 55 years, the exact ages of these eight people are unknown. If, by chance, they mostly clustered around the younger end of the age spectrum, you might expect a better response to the vaccine than if they were mostly from the senior end of it. And given who is at highest risk from the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, protecting older adults is what Covid-19 vaccines need to do….

The report of neutralizing antibodies in subjects who were vaccinated comes from blood drawn two weeks after they received their second dose of vaccine….

“That’s very early. We don’t know if those antibodies are durable,” said Anna Durbin, a vaccine researcher at Johns Hopkins University….

(Thanks to Dr. David Ozonoff for the pointer.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

4 responses to “Some skepticism about the initial reports on Moderna’s vaccine”

  1. John Bussanich

    Items 1-3 offer interesting info re antibodies and immunity:

    https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/coronavirus-updates-a-list-of-good-news-and-bad-news.html

  2. It seems that, for the foreseeable future, we can expect a steady stream of press releases touting this virus vaccine or that Covid treatment. My understanding is that these releases primarily target potential investors. But I too want to be hopeful, so I'm torn between looking for clues that each something is really real, or dismissing these releases as hype and waiting until the peer-reviews (or at least well-informed critiques) are in. Hmm….

  3. Elsewhere, a former Harvard Medical School professor, Dr. William Haseltine, bemoaned Moderna's "publication [of scientific findings] by press release."

    Curiously, over the course of the same day, May 18, that the mRNA-1273 press release appeared, Moderna issued two more releases: Moderna Announces Proposed Public Offering of Shares of Common Stock and Moderna Announces Pricing of Public Offering of Shares of Common Stock. See here: https://investors.modernatx.com/news-releases

    I am almost entirely unfamiliar with the ordinary timing of these offerings. My skeptical disposition leads me to assume this is nothing more than cynical cashing-in by Moderna. But maybe this is a common practice premised upon a reasonable need for capital to continue and bolster the research? Do researchers typically prepare to make offerings after announcing potentially good news? Put another way, do they manufacture good news when they are preparing offerings?

  4. NYT on the "backlash" against the Moderna announcement: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/23/health/coronavirus-vaccine-moderna.html It gives Moderna's response to my query:

    "'It was based on our looking at the data and concluding that we needed to have our own resources going into develop this vaccine and not simply wait for government grants,' [Afeyan, the company Chairman said. Moderna has a deal to receive up to $483 million from the U.S. government to pursue a vaccine."

    Plausible, I suppose. The article needlessly twists itself into disingenuous anguish. How hard is it for a journalist reporting on a story like the original announcement simply to state its shortcomings? Little data, no idea whether the eight favorable cases were randomly selected, no peer review, etc.?

    —–
    KEYWORDS:
    Primary Blog

Designed with WordPress