• FluTrackers.com Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster. The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website. By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website.
  • We are not asking for any donations. Do not donate to any entity who says they are raising funds for us.

Discussion - Dispute over ownership rights on coronavirus ncov

tetano

Editor, Senior Moderator
GENEVA ? World Health Organization officials said Thursday that their probe into the deadly new coronavirus that has now claimed 22 lives is being delayed because of a dispute over the ownership rights to a sample ? a claim disputed by the researcher at the center of the issue.

Dr. Keiji Fukuda, WHO?s assistant director-general for health security, says the organization is ?struggling with diagnostics? into the Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus, or MERS, because of the dispute.

Officials at the World Health Assembly in Geneva then publicly decried the public health impacts ? and legal fallout ? because a sample taken by Saudi microbiologist Ali Mohamed Zaki was mailed last year to virologist Ron Fouchier at the Erasmus Medical Center (EMC) in the Netherlands, where it was tested, sequenced and identified as a new virus.

...


http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...b63bb6-c3b4-11e2-9642-a56177f1cdf7_story.html
 
Re: WHO: dispute over research on coronavirus which has killed 22 worldwide

Re: WHO: dispute over research on coronavirus which has killed 22 worldwide

Source: http://www.chicagotribune.com/health/sns-rt-us-coronavirus-whobre94m0zl-20130523,0,1016463.story


WHO warns countries not to hoard secrets of coronavirus
Tom Miles and Stephanie Nebehay Reuters
1:07 p.m. CDT, May 23, 2013

GENEVA (Reuters) - The World Health Organization (WHO) warned countries with possible cases of the SARS-like novel coronavirus on Thursday that they must share information and not allow commercial labs to profit from the virus, which has killed 22 people worldwide.

Saudi Arabia, where the first case occurred, has said the development of diagnostic tests for the disease has been delayed by a foreign laboratory's patent rights on the SARS-like virus...
 
Re: WHO: dispute over ownership rights on coronavirus which has killed 22 worldwide

Re: WHO: dispute over ownership rights on coronavirus which has killed 22 worldwide

These are some of the same guys who decided to label the new coronavirus as "Middle East":

Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (MERS-CoV); Announcement of the Coronavirus Study Group

Raoul J. de Groot1, Susan C. Baker2, Ralph S. Baric3, Caroline S. Brown4, Christian Drosten5, Luis Enjuanes6, Ron A.M. Fouchier7, Monica Galiano8, Alexander E. Gorbalenya9, Ziad Memish10, Stanley Perlman11, Leo L.M. Poon12, Eric J. Snijder9, Gwen M. Stephens10, Patrick C.Y. Woo13, Ali M. Zaki14, Maria Zambon8 and John Ziebuhr15

more...

http://jvi.asm.org/content/early/2013/05/08/JVI.01244-13.abstract
 
Re: WHO: dispute over ownership rights on coronavirus which has killed 22 worldwide

Re: WHO: dispute over ownership rights on coronavirus which has killed 22 worldwide

Global public health is not an economic asset (in the strict sense of the term according the wide consensus of economics of the various schools - ie: from Neoliberists to Neokeynesians, etc.)

If this is true, so what's the matter about how much money would Worth a gene sequence for use in labs tests to quick isolate and manage infected patients?

There are some things that have not an inherited money value: human life, human rights, the air, the water, from an economics point of view.

If the priority is the safeguard of global public health any kind of consideration about economic value of a genetic sequence should be withdrawn.

For the sake of our children future. Or not? (GM)
 
Re: WHO: dispute over ownership rights on coronavirus which has killed 22 worldwide

Re: WHO: dispute over ownership rights on coronavirus which has killed 22 worldwide

It is the same kind of thinking. No Dignity or Respect for people = people for exploitation.
 
Re: WHO: dispute over ownership rights on coronavirus which has killed 22 worldwide

Re: WHO: dispute over ownership rights on coronavirus which has killed 22 worldwide

Source: http://www.businessweek.com/news/20...d-in-saudi-was-patented-by-dutch-scientists-1


Bloomberg News
Dutch Scientists Defend Patenting of Deadly Saudi Coronavirus
By Simeon Bennett
May 23, 2013

Dutch scientists who took out a patent on the novel coronavirus that?s killed 22 people since emerging in Saudi Arabia last year defended the move after the Saudi Health Ministry said the patent was hindering the fight against the outbreak.

Albert Osterhaus and Ron Fouchier, virologists at Erasmus Medical Center in the Netherlands, said patenting the virus was a ?normal thing to do,? and that they have shared it freely with more than 40 labs worldwide, in a phone interview from Rotterdam yesterday...
 
Re: WHO: dispute over ownership rights on coronavirus which has killed 22 worldwide

Re: WHO: dispute over ownership rights on coronavirus which has killed 22 worldwide

Source: http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/episode/2013/05/23/the-politics-of-virus-hunting/

The Politics of Virus Hunting
Thursday, May 23, 2013 | Categories: Episodes, Health

Listen

The advisories for a new strain of coronavirus are out. The links to infected cases each traced back to middle eastern countries. Samples are now in Winnipeg at Canada's National Microbiology Lab. But if you think this is a story solely about health ... think again. This is also a story about the virus as a commodity where those seeking to find a treatment or vaccine can find themselves navigating political and commercial interests. Today, the politics of potential pandemics...
 
Re: WHO: dispute over ownership rights on coronavirus which has killed 22 worldwide

Re: WHO: dispute over ownership rights on coronavirus which has killed 22 worldwide

It would be interesting to see how would have behaved researchers late in the XIX century if they had to patent their vaccines for smallpox or TB, or if they would have patented their isolates of diphteria bacteria?

Possibly, the polio vaccines dispute (in our days) would have prevented a quick access to lifesaving drugs...

But this is only a rude argument against our current human solidarity and charity from scientific establishment (not immune from shares market behaviour).
 
Re: WHO: dispute over ownership rights on coronavirus which has killed 22 worldwide

Re: WHO: dispute over ownership rights on coronavirus which has killed 22 worldwide

Hattip Alert
http://www.flutrackers.com/forum/showthread.php?t=197994

This article was posted in January 2013.

Excerpt:

Tensions linger over discovery of coronavirus

A continuing row pits researchers against authorities in Saudi Arabia, where deadly pathogen was first isolated.
Declan Butler

14 January 2013 Corrected: 15 January 2013
...
In June 2012, Zaki, who was then at the Dr Soliman Fakeeh Hospital in Jedda but has since returned to work in his native Egypt, isolated and cultured a virus from a man who had died of severe pneumonia and acute renal failure.

After routine diagnostics failed to identify the cause of death, Zaki contacted Ron Fouchier, a leading virologist at the Erasmus Medical Center (EMC) in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, for advice. Fouchier, who last year made headlines for his work on H5N1 avian influenza, suggested that Zaki test for a coronavirus. The test came up positive.
...
Meanwhile, Zaki had mailed a sample of the virus to Fouchier, who sequenced it and found that it was a previously unknown human coronavirus, closely related to one from bats. On 20 September, Zaki announced the discovery on ProMED-mail, an online disease-reporting system...

Fouchier says that he has not denied any requests from scientists to obtain the virus, and that the MTA ? and related patent applications ? does not give Erasmus MC any ownership of the virus itself. Rather, it exerts rights that are based on work involving the viral sequence it generated ? such as diagnostic tests, vaccines and antiviral treatments.
...
Zaki claims that he complied with procedures by submitting a virus sample and associated clinical data to the Saudi health ministry on 18 June, and that the ministry did not sufficiently follow up. Memish, however, says that the sample was sent without a sufficient red flag. Zaki adds, however, that he only informed authorities of subsequent progress on the same day as his ProMED post. ?My responsibility stops at sending the sample and giving them the clinical data, and they are the ones that then have to decide what to do,? he says.
...
What has also riled Saudi authorities, and some researchers, is the fact that the EMC has control over researchers' access to samples of its virus culture, even though the virus was first isolated and cultured in Saudi Arabia. Who owns what rights on virus samples can be a politically charged issue in global health. The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) provides countries with sovereign rights to their biological resources, but how this applies to viral samples of potential global-health significance is unclear.
...
Naturedoi:10.1038/nature.2012.12108
 
Re: International Group Suggesting Name for New Coronavirus (hnov-EMC) to be Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus - Outrageous!

Re: International Group Suggesting Name for New Coronavirus (hnov-EMC) to be Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus - Outrageous!

hat tip Helen Branswell


Erasmus MC Press Release Rotterdam, 24 May 2013



Erasmus MC: no restrictions for public health research into MERS coronavirus

The Viroscience Department of Erasmus MC strongly refutes all allegations concerning a presumed lack of willingness to cooperate in research into the new MERS coronavirus. The virus has already been sent free of charge to many public research and health institutions that can work with it safely and, like the Viroscience department, serve public health worldwide. It should be clear that a virus cannot be patented, only specific applications related to it, like vaccines and medicines. Rumours that the Viroscience department of Erasmus MC would hamper research into the MERS coronavirus are clearly wrong and not based on facts.

Erasmus MC was the first to identify the new coronavirus (MERS coronavirus). To date, more than 44 people have been infected with MERS coronavirus worldwide, 22 of whom have died. The virus could develop into a major public health threat if the new coronavirus becomes efficiently transmissible from human-to-human. Therefore a major research effort into MERS coronavirus and its properties is urgently needed.

It is clear that all research institutions worldwide that want to carry out such research will receive the virus free of charge from Erasmus MC. Indeed many research institutions already received the virus together with additional materials and information from Erasmus MC. For shipment of the virus it is mandatory that a material transfer agreement (MTA) is signed by the recipient institution, as is common practice when shipping viruses. Such an MTA covers issues like liability and limitations to commercial use. Consequently the virus may not yet be used for commercial purposes and may not be distributed to third parties without permission. These are the usual conditions covered by a MTA.

MTAs were implemented to facilitate scientific research as well as exchange of materials to the benefit of public health. Ab Osterhaus and Ron Fouchier of Erasmus MC stress that ?every research or public health laboratory that complies with the safety criteria for handling MERS coronavirus can work with it?.

It is clearly a misunderstanding that Erasmus MC owns the virus. Only specific applications related to it, like vaccines and medicines can be patented.

Virologists of the Viroscience Department of Erasmus MC are sending MERS coronavirus free of charge and without restrictions to all research institutions that work to benefit public health.
Erasmus MC is the largest and most authoritative scientific University Medical Center in the Netherlands. Almost 13,000 staff members work within the core tasks of patient care, education, and scientific research on the continuous improvement and enforcement of individual patient care and social healthcare. They develop high-level knowledge, pass this on to future professionals, and apply it in everyday patient care. Over the next five years, Erasmus MC wants to grow into one of the best medical institutes in the world. Erasmus MC is part of the Dutch Federation of University Medical Centers (NFU): www.nfu.nl.

http://www.erasmusmc.nl/perskamer/archief/2013/4164294/?lang=en
 
Re: WHO: dispute over ownership rights on coronavirus which has killed 22 worldwide

Re: WHO: dispute over ownership rights on coronavirus which has killed 22 worldwide

Apparently Erasmus is only trying to patent the vaccines and medicines that might come from the virus - not the virus itself.

In 2005 Fouchier made an application for SARS:

http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=WO&NR=2004089983A3&KC=A3&FT=D


hat tip Jason Tetro for the link.
 
Re: WHO: dispute over ownership rights on coronavirus which has killed 22 worldwide

Re: WHO: dispute over ownership rights on coronavirus which has killed 22 worldwide

Source: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b4d1d20c-c488-11e2-bc94-00144feab7de.html#axzz2UFfsPrkt

May 24, 2013 11:14 pm
Researchers challenge Saudi coronavirus patent claims
By Andrew Jack in London

Leading international research groups have cast doubt on claims from Saudi Arabia that the patenting of a lethal new virus first identified in the Gulf hindered diagnosis of patients.

Ziad Memish, Saudi?s deputy health minister, told the World Health Assembly this week that samples of the Sars-like novel coronavirus (nCoV) had been taken out of the country without permission last year for patenting and then negotiations with companies over the development of a diagnostic had slowed its identification...

The remarks sparked firm ripostes from the Dutch and UK institutions that they had not patented the virus itself and they swiftly analysed it and shared their findings with public health officials in more than 40 countries around the world to accelerate diagnosis...
 
Re: WHO: dispute over ownership rights on coronavirus which has killed 22 worldwide

Re: WHO: dispute over ownership rights on coronavirus which has killed 22 worldwide

Hello,

I have been reading, following, and enjoying the flu-trackers posts for some time now, its almost a mini side hobby for me. Thanks for all the insights and information. I've decided to put in my two cents, partly because I am worried about a pandemic, and partly because its a little disconcerting at least to me the direction the virus world is going.
I believe a pandemic is imminent. I know it would be folly to say when, but I believe it is much sooner than later. H7N9, H5N1, H1N1, the coronavirus, engineered research on viruses, one of these will take out a large part of the human race. Putting a patent on a coronavirus shows to me that a large part of the public will be affected by this virus-otherwise people who are both endowed with intelligence and clever social constructs wouldn't bother doing this.
It amazes me with all this technology and knowledge we are still essential the same people that inhabited this planet thousands of years ago, human nature will not change. And that is the problem here.
With the added insights from this board, it has occurred to me that human beings are essentially stable double helixes viruses ourselves, with a little mammal and reptile mixed in. Viruses are not bad things at all, they are us.
But I digress. The pandemic is coming, and its going to be on more than one front. I just wish it was like older times when human health was above, on a different plane, than profit.
 
Re: Discussion - Dispute over ownership rights on coronavirus ncov

Welcome Paul!

The accusation and controversies are flying.

Laurie Garrett posted this essay but it claims that a team from Yale is also trying to patent this virus which is an error in fact.

http://lauriegarrett.com/blog/2013/5/25/8iyqpyp9vnz18ruxrgjnryppav6a87

She also claims that Dr. Zaki sent his letter to ProMED in June at the same time that he sent the sample to Erasmus.

"...So last June he mailed a sample to his friend Ron Fouchier. At the same time Zaki sent a notice in June 2012 to ProMED, a disease alert system run by the Infectious Diseases Society of America... "

ProMED published Dr. Zaki's letter in September - allegedly 3 months after receiving it - unless Laurie also has this fact wrong:

"Published Date: 2012-09-20 15:51:26
Subject: PRO/EDR> Novel coronavirus - Saudi Arabia: human isolate
Archive Number: 20120920.1302733

NOVEL CORONAVIRUS - SAUDI ARABIA: HUMAN ISOLATE
***********************************************
A ProMED-mail post
http://www.promedmail.org
ProMED-mail is a program of the
International Society for Infectious Diseases
http://www.isid.org

Date: Sat 15 Sep 2012
From: Ali Mohamed Zaki <azaki53@hotmail.com> [edited]....."




http://www.promedmail.org/
 
Re: Discussion - Dispute over ownership rights on coronavirus ncov

Laurie Garrett is likely in error.

The letter sent from Dr. Zaki to ProMED is dated September 15, and was pulibhsed on September 20.

And ProMED is run by the International Society for Infectious Diseases, not the "Infectious Diseases Society of America". There's nothing American about ProMED. I'm not sure the "Infectious Diseases Society of America" is even a real entity.
 
Re: Discussion - Dispute over ownership rights on coronavirus ncov

It is sad that profit should prevail over public health. That said, vaccine for coronavirus, and avian influenza H7 haven't exactly shown promising results. My fear it that the public has been lulled into believing that in the event of a pandemic, vaccine will be developed quickly. Slowing it down for any reason, seems to me unethical.

Even with having vaccine for H5N1, from what I have read, we could not produce enough for the large double doses required.

Given the lack of funding for many public health endeavors, and lack of surge capacity at hospitals, it is, at least for me, a huge area of concern, even for the developed world.

Profit and healthcare are difficult to reconcile. I don't see that healthcare should be a free market.
 
Re: Discussion - Dispute over ownership rights on coronavirus ncov

I think that an effective (more or less) vaccine for H7N9 is quite possible but the real issue is to have an expedited approval for the adjuvants from US FDA.

For this reason there is this great fanfare about the (quite possible) low growth potential of H7N9 CVVs.

In EU the two monovalent pre-approved pandemic vaccines (Focetria and Pandremrix, originally designed for bulk approval in the event of an H5N1 pandemic) had been administered to millions o people with their adjuvants but in the US only inactivated full virion vaccines were used.

Now the Pandemrix seems to be out of the scene, but I think that in the event of an H7N9 outbreak, it will be repurposed quickly because the potential damage from the pandemic would be much more Greater that the extremely rare adverse events linked to the adjuvant (ie narcolepsy).

It is a profits issue, a political willingness issue and a bad preparedness policy issue.

From an humanitarian point of view, in case of extreme hazard a collective action should be taken by world governments in order to:

-- have a full control of R&D labs and facilities to speed up the research for best CVVs, therapeutical protocols and guidelines;

-- have summoned the management of pharmaceutical industrial facilities in order to maximise the production irrespective of the owners/shareholders expectation in terms of revenue of profits;

-- have a moratorium in patents reclaim in order to override need for permission to use Technologies and platforms to make drugs and vaccines, test kits;

-- have a full control of distribution channels in order to send all materials needed in time and in place as needed.

In brief, the same things done during world war II, when British summoned scientists from various branches to break German codes (for example) and gain ground in front of the horrific threat of a Nazi with nulcear bombs...
 
Re: Discussion - Dispute over ownership rights on coronavirus ncov

Welcome Paul!

The accusation and controversies are flying.

Laurie Garrett posted this essay but it claims that a team from Yale is also trying to patent this virus which is an error in fact.

http://lauriegarrett.com/blog/2013/5/25/8iyqpyp9vnz18ruxrgjnryppav6a87

She also claims that Dr. Zaki sent his letter to ProMED in June at the same time that he sent the sample to Erasmus.

"...So last June he mailed a sample to his friend Ron Fouchier. At the same time Zaki sent a notice in June 2012 to ProMED, a disease alert system run by the Infectious Diseases Society of America... "

ProMED published Dr. Zaki's letter in September - allegedly 3 months after receiving it - unless Laurie also has this fact wrong:

"Published Date: 2012-09-20 15:51:26
Subject: PRO/EDR> Novel coronavirus - Saudi Arabia: human isolate
Archive Number: 20120920.1302733

NOVEL CORONAVIRUS - SAUDI ARABIA: HUMAN ISOLATE
***********************************************
A ProMED-mail post
http://www.promedmail.org
ProMED-mail is a program of the
International Society for Infectious Diseases
http://www.isid.org

Date: Sat 15 Sep 2012
From: Ali Mohamed Zaki <azaki53@hotmail.com> [edited]....."




http://www.promedmail.org/


It appears that Laurie corrected the above mistakes in her blog.
 
Re: Discussion - Dispute over ownership rights on coronavirus ncov

I don't see that healthcare should be a free market.

I don't think that healthcare should be free either. Everyone deserves to be compensated fairly for their time and investment.

However, when there is a health threat that has a 50%-60% fatality rate I think that maybe profit motive should not be the primary concern.
 
Back
Top Bottom