Under a capitalist system, consumers would overwhelmingly prefer one-and-done - so that would naturally become the more profitable product. Unfortunately, we don't use capitalism for medicines. We use a system of state-enforced monopoly that extorts obscene rents from powerless consumers. It's the central joy of this vaccine beer discovery - if vaccines can go on the ordinary capitalist food market then the system will automatically sort out the best products. It'll undoubtedly go even faster with this proposed modification:
I'm excited to say that in my own personal n-of-1 experiment my antibody levels against BK polyomavirus have been flat for six months. It's a better result than things like the flu or covid vaccines, where antibody levels fall over the course of just a few months. One-and-done already seems to be a realistic hope for this first generation of yeast vaccines.
Is there any way that repetitive-molecular-structures type of vaccines could work against the viruses that currently have no vaccines at all, though people have tried and tried in vain - like some of the herpes viruses? I wouldn't know because I don't know what makes herpeses so resistant against vaccination.
Yes! My friends next door in NIAID's Vaccine Research Center are currently moving toward clinical trials of a ferritin-arrayed vaccine against Epstein-Barr virus (a herpesvirus that causes mononucleosis and white blood cell cancers). The preclinical testing is jaw-droppingly great. Merck recently announced their support for a copycat effort.
There has also been exciting recent progress adapting the ferritin platform to develop a universal one-and-done flu vaccine. Just now I updated the article with my thoughts on the flu effort.
"The FDA has apparently judged the evidence of the SKYCovione trials to be insufficiently extraordinary — perhaps because the trials were conducted in Korea, where the agency couldn’t micromanage their development."
I'd like some laws passed that result in some degree of international cooperation between drug regulatory agencies. If a decent regulatory regime approves of a drug, unless there are particular showstoppers with respect to the regulatory approval, it should be good enough for the FDA after a review.
Wholehearted agreement about international reciprocity! It seems like legislative low-hanging fruit. It might not even require legislation - a question I haven't yet seen any lawyers cover is whether the Supreme Court's recent stare-de-nevermind decision revoking the Chevron doctrine has suddenly opened the door to legal arguments that FDA's original charters intended for the agency to assign significant weight to regulatory decisions in other countries.
Some other low-hanging legislative fruit is the Promising Pathway Act, which is currently bottled up in committee in the Senate. It would allow people faced with life-threatening illness greater freedom to choose medicines.
Both things would be small but significant improvements - and they both have bipartisan appeal, so they seem legislatively achievable even with a divided Congress. I dream of more comprehensive solutions here:
Which type of vaccine is more profitable, a one-and-done or one that requires regular boosters?
Asking for a pharma company.
Under a capitalist system, consumers would overwhelmingly prefer one-and-done - so that would naturally become the more profitable product. Unfortunately, we don't use capitalism for medicines. We use a system of state-enforced monopoly that extorts obscene rents from powerless consumers. It's the central joy of this vaccine beer discovery - if vaccines can go on the ordinary capitalist food market then the system will automatically sort out the best products. It'll undoubtedly go even faster with this proposed modification:
https://cbuck.substack.com/p/consumer-reports-for-medicines
I'm excited to say that in my own personal n-of-1 experiment my antibody levels against BK polyomavirus have been flat for six months. It's a better result than things like the flu or covid vaccines, where antibody levels fall over the course of just a few months. One-and-done already seems to be a realistic hope for this first generation of yeast vaccines.
Is there any way that repetitive-molecular-structures type of vaccines could work against the viruses that currently have no vaccines at all, though people have tried and tried in vain - like some of the herpes viruses? I wouldn't know because I don't know what makes herpeses so resistant against vaccination.
Yes! My friends next door in NIAID's Vaccine Research Center are currently moving toward clinical trials of a ferritin-arrayed vaccine against Epstein-Barr virus (a herpesvirus that causes mononucleosis and white blood cell cancers). The preclinical testing is jaw-droppingly great. Merck recently announced their support for a copycat effort.
There has also been exciting recent progress adapting the ferritin platform to develop a universal one-and-done flu vaccine. Just now I updated the article with my thoughts on the flu effort.
Great article!
"The FDA has apparently judged the evidence of the SKYCovione trials to be insufficiently extraordinary — perhaps because the trials were conducted in Korea, where the agency couldn’t micromanage their development."
I'd like some laws passed that result in some degree of international cooperation between drug regulatory agencies. If a decent regulatory regime approves of a drug, unless there are particular showstoppers with respect to the regulatory approval, it should be good enough for the FDA after a review.
Wholehearted agreement about international reciprocity! It seems like legislative low-hanging fruit. It might not even require legislation - a question I haven't yet seen any lawyers cover is whether the Supreme Court's recent stare-de-nevermind decision revoking the Chevron doctrine has suddenly opened the door to legal arguments that FDA's original charters intended for the agency to assign significant weight to regulatory decisions in other countries.
Some other low-hanging legislative fruit is the Promising Pathway Act, which is currently bottled up in committee in the Senate. It would allow people faced with life-threatening illness greater freedom to choose medicines.
Both things would be small but significant improvements - and they both have bipartisan appeal, so they seem legislatively achievable even with a divided Congress. I dream of more comprehensive solutions here:
https://cbuck.substack.com/p/life-liberty-and-the-pursuit-of-health