Immunology is quite far from a clearly understood science. It is clear from the polio story from years ago, that both neutralizing antibodies and T cell based immunity can work. They seem to work better if both appear as a result of immunization. That's all I was trying to say.
I'm not at all unhappy that the vaccine tests are being conducted for SARS-Cov-2. However, I am unhappy with the popular press's unquestioning to acceptance of Regeneron's & Eli Lily's spin on things. They develop and sell monoclonal antibodies, not vaccines, and they clearly have their own financial interest in mind.
If a cocktail of monoclonal antibodies is all it takes to treat Covid-19, that would go against some 30 years of immunological scientific development. I'm not saying it's impossible. But I am saying such an extraordinary finding requires extraordinary evidence to support it.
I'm also not sure why you said "You are ignoring the other type immune response – the killer T cell response" after I summarized the results of the Navy study with regards to the percentages of those tested who had reactive and neutralizing antibodies. I was pointing out that only about 36% of the people had neutralizing antibodies. Was this factually incorrect?
I actually said that there must be other immune responses: "However, if I'm reading it correctly,
the Navy study seems to suggest that other immune responses can also be effective in clearing the virus (at least in relatively young people)."
You seem to be reading a lot into my posts that I don't actually say.
As I've said in prior posts, my hope is that that the antibody treatments might be available in limited quantities sooner than vaccines and might be at least somewhat effective to save some lives before vaccines come on line. From everything I've read it's pretty clear that (even in a best case scenario) antibody treatments are not a viable large scale, long term solution (at least absent some sort of a major breakthrough). It's not like there are a lot proven options to choose from right now.
I am curious why you are skeptical of antibody treatments? I realize the drug companies are going to fluff up every little thing they can to boost their stock prices, but that's not a scientific reason to think the treatments will not work. It just means you don't take the drug companies at face value (I think we are actually in violent agreement on this point). I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm assuming you have a basis for your skepticism that goes beyond not trusting everything the drug companies say.
Here's an example of a statement to the effect that antibody treatments might be a one of the best near-term options:
>>>Monoclonal antibodies are currently used to treat a variety of conditions, including asthma, cancer, Crohn’s disease, and rheumatoid arthritis. One advantage of this class of therapeutics is that the timelines for their development, testing, and approval are typically shorter than those for drugs made of chemical compounds, called small molecules. Because of these and other factors, many experts think antibody-based therapies may offer one of the best near-term options for developing safe, effective treatments for COVID-19.<<<
We now know that the immune system of nearly everyone who recovers from COVID-19 produces antibodies against SARS-CoV-2, the novel coronavirus that causes this easily transmitted respiratory diseas…
directorsblog.nih.gov
Here's another example:
>>>“I think antibodies have a faster pathway to deployment,” says Robert Carnahan, the associate director of the Vanderbilt Vaccine Center, which is also working on its own antibody treatment research. “We either let everybody get the disease or we get a vaccine, and antibodies can bridge us to that moment where we have it.” . . .
And Bradley Ringeisen, the director of
Darpa’s Biological Technologies Office, believes at least two of the projects it funds will go into human trials this summer. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, which is beginning a human trial of its antibody cocktail in June, recently
told investors that it is aiming for a fall release. Glanville believes Distributed Bio’s timeline could be similar. “Assuming everything went right—and this is tight—we'd be talking about being able to do a large-scale release in September,” he says. . . .
And in the very young, the very old, and the already immunocompromised, vaccines often do not work well. For them, antibody treatments could be a much-needed shield. <<<
As scientists race to create a vaccine, a parallel quest to engineer effective antibody treatments for the coronavirus is vital, too—and may provide relief sooner.
www.wired.com
However, the wired article DOES acknowledge that there are production issues:
>>>“The big annoyance right now is manufacturing,” Glanville says. “It's super fucking slow to grow antibodies as drugs using traditional methods.”<<<
Yet another article with a generally positive take on antibody treatments as a stopgap, but also includes a discussion of various issues:
>>>Michael Joyner, a physiologist who is
leading the Mayo Clinic’s convalescent plasma project for COVID-19, says antibody therapies could be a reasonable stopgap until a vaccine is available. “If they work and are used intelligently, [such therapies] could put a finger in a number of holes in the dike,” he says. . . .
“I think [researchers] should be careful about how they communicate and basically create hope in the population,” Krammer says. “I think it's very dangerous to say, ‘Within [months], we will have [an] antibody therapeutic that works, and everybody will get it.’ That’s unrealistic.”
Some experts caution we should temper our expectations about the much-touted approach
www.scientificamerican.com
A Joe Schmo like me reading these types of articles gets the impression that "super fucking slow" is not good, but this is nevertheless more than just drug company fluff.
