Coronavirus

[Irvrobinson]

I still don't follow.

You said: "Almost certainly the government would have to compensate the drugs companies for the "taken" patents, and that would cost many billions of dollars."

What do you mean by this?

I mean that if the USG confiscates patents, which is really what the Democrats are discussing, the USG is required to compensate the patent holders for their loss, just like in eminent domain law. The process is covered in 28 US Code section 1498:

28 U.S. Code § 1498 - Patent and copyright cases

www.law.cornell.edu

This is the same law that Bernie Sanders staff and lobbyists used for development of the original version of the Medicare For All bill, which included a section for compulsory drug pricing proposals by the government. If the drug companies disagreed they would be forced to argue their cases in the US Court of Federal Claims for compensation. However, just like with eminent domain law, claims do not prevent the government from proceeding with their actions. In the case of Medicare For All, the pro-bill lobbyists were smart enough to include provisions in the bill to order compulsory surrender of research materials and production documentation, so that the USG could license other manufacturers to have a better chance at production of the drugs. My understanding of what's currently being proposed for the vaccines is more clueless, probably because "think tank" experts are not involved. For whatever reasons, the compulsory patent licensing for drugs when the drug companies do not agree with the government's proposed pricing, has been removed from the latest version of the Medicare for All bill:

Text - S.1129 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Medicare for All Act of 2019

Text for S.1129 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Medicare for All Act of 2019

www.congress.gov

 

[Mr._Clark]

I mean that if the USG confiscates patents, which is really what the Democrats are discussing, the USG is required to compensate the patent holders for their loss, just like in eminent domain law. The process is covered in 28 US Code section 1498:

28 U.S. Code § 1498 - Patent and copyright cases

www.law.cornell.edu

This is the same law that Bernie Sanders staff and lobbyists used for development of the original version of the Medicare For All bill, which included a section for compulsory drug pricing proposals by the government. If the drug companies disagreed they would be forced to argue their cases in the US Court of Federal Claims for compensation. However, just like with eminent domain law, claims do not prevent the government from proceeding with their actions. In the case of Medicare For All, the pro-bill lobbyists were smart enough to include provisions in the bill to order compulsory surrender of research materials and production documentation, so that the USG could license other manufacturers to have a better chance at production of the drugs. My understanding of what's currently being proposed for the vaccines is more clueless, probably because "think tank" experts are not involved. For whatever reasons, the compulsory patent licensing for drugs when the drug companies do not agree with the government's proposed pricing, has been removed from the latest version of the Medicare for All bill:

Text - S.1129 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Medicare for All Act of 2019

Text for S.1129 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Medicare for All Act of 2019

www.congress.gov

I'm well aware of section 1498:

"Whenever an invention described in and covered by a patent of the United States is used or manufactured by or for the United States without license of the owner thereof or lawful right to use or manufacture the same, the owner’s remedy shall be by action against the United States in the United States Court of Federal Claims for the recovery of his reasonable and entire compensation for such use and manufacture."

28 U.S. Code § 1498 - Patent and copyright cases

www.law.cornell.edu

The main thing 1498 does is strip a patent owner from the ability to file for an injunction against the U.S. government.

Also, the U.S. government does not "confiscate" patents under section 1498. The government does not obtain ownership rights in a patent so it cannot license others or sue others. The party that owns a patent retains the ability to enforce it's patents against others even if the government is successful in a section 1498 action.

Under the proposed waiver of the TRIPS foreign countries want to make the vaccines in their countries. Section 1498 does not apply because the activities in foreign countries are not covered by US patents and the activities would not be conducted by the US government.

The TRIPS agreement incorporates the Paris Convention. Basically, the Paris Convention says that all countries who sign the agreement must permit inventors from foreign countries to apply for patents in their country. If a company applies for a patent in it's home country, it still needs to file patent applications in foreign countries if it wants patent protection in the foreign countries.

Keep in mind that each country has it's own laws governing activities in that country, but a country can't (for the most part) pass a law that controls activity in other countries. The process for treaty implementation varies somewhat from country to country, but treaties basically say "By signing this agreement we agree to pass laws in our country consistent with the agreement."

 

[Mr._Clark]

I mean that if the USG confiscates patents, which is really what the Democrats are discussing, the USG is required to compensate the patent holders for their loss, just like in eminent domain law. The process is covered in 28 US Code section 1498:

28 U.S. Code § 1498 - Patent and copyright cases

www.law.cornell.edu

This is the same law that Bernie Sanders staff and lobbyists used for development of the original version of the Medicare For All bill, which included a section for compulsory drug pricing proposals by the government. If the drug companies disagreed they would be forced to argue their cases in the US Court of Federal Claims for compensation. However, just like with eminent domain law, claims do not prevent the government from proceeding with their actions. In the case of Medicare For All, the pro-bill lobbyists were smart enough to include provisions in the bill to order compulsory surrender of research materials and production documentation, so that the USG could license other manufacturers to have a better chance at production of the drugs. My understanding of what's currently being proposed for the vaccines is more clueless, probably because "think tank" experts are not involved. For whatever reasons, the compulsory patent licensing for drugs when the drug companies do not agree with the government's proposed pricing, has been removed from the latest version of the Medicare for All bill:

Text - S.1129 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Medicare for All Act of 2019

Text for S.1129 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Medicare for All Act of 2019

www.congress.gov

Part of the problem is that the original cnbc article was very vague about the waivers, and it didn't make it clear that the primary issue is a proposal for a TRIPS IP waiver by foreign countries.

 

[Irvrobinson]

I'm well aware of section 1498:

"Whenever an invention described in and covered by a patent of the United States is used or manufactured by or for the United States without license of the owner thereof or lawful right to use or manufacture the same, the owner’s remedy shall be by action against the United States in the United States Court of Federal Claims for the recovery of his reasonable and entire compensation for such use and manufacture."

28 U.S. Code § 1498 - Patent and copyright cases

www.law.cornell.edu

The main thing 1498 does is strip a patent owner from the ability to file for an injunction against the U.S. government.

Also, the U.S. government does not "confiscate" patents under section 1498. The government does not obtain ownership rights in a patent so it cannot license others or sue others. The party that owns a patent retains the ability to enforce it's patents against others even if the government is successful in a section 1498 action.

Under the proposed waiver of the TRIPS foreign countries want to make the vaccines in their countries. Section 1498 does not apply because the activities in foreign countries are not covered by US patents and the activities would not be conducted by the US government.

The TRIPS agreement incorporates the Paris Convention. Basically, the Paris Convention says that all countries who sign the agreement must permit inventors from foreign countries to apply for patents in their country. If a company applies for a patent in it's home country, it still needs to file patent applications in foreign countries if it wants patent protection in the foreign countries.

Keep in mind that each country has it's own laws governing activities in that country, but a country can't (for the most part) pass a law that controls activity in other countries. The process for treaty implementation varies somewhat from country to country, but treaties basically say "By signing this agreement we agree to pass laws in our country consistent with the agreement."

Then why don't you explain to us precisely what Pelosi and the other Democrats are proposing?

 

[Mr._Clark]

Then why don't you explain to us precisely what Pelosi and the other Democrats are proposing?

Sure. They want the US to agree to the proposed waiver of IP under the TRIPS agreement.

 

[Irvrobinson]

Sure. They want the US to agree to the proposed waiver of IP under the TRIPS agreement.

You're correct, I see it now. The original news stories made it look more like a domestic issue. Now that I have a more correct view, it looks more misguided than ever. This proposal is likely to speed up exactly nothing. Vaccine manufacturing is risky and complex even with the labs and the drug companies directly involved. If the developers of the vaccines aren't involved, how will the non-license manufacturers know what to do?

 

[Mr._Clark]

You're correct, I see it now. The original news stories made it look more like a domestic issue. Now that I have a more correct view, it looks more misguided than ever. This proposal is likely to speed up exactly nothing. Vaccine manufacturing is risky and complex even with the labs and the drug companies directly involved. If the developers of the vaccines aren't involved, how will the non-license manufacturers know what to do?

You’re firing on all cylinders now.

I’m not saying this to beat my chest, but I’m a partner at an IP law firm and I’ve been practicing IP law for 25 years.

That doesn’t mean I know everything about every patent law on the planet. I was trying to figure out if you saw an aspect of this that I missed. I’m always open to learning something new.

 

[Irvrobinson]

You’re firing on all cylinders now.

I’m not saying this to beat my chest, but I’m a partner at an IP law firm and I’ve been practicing IP law for 25 years.

That doesn’t mean I know everything about every patent law on the planet. I was trying to figure out if you saw an aspect of this that I missed. I’m always open to learning something new.

Cool. I'm definitely not an attorney, but I'm married to one.

 

[Irvrobinson]

You’re firing on all cylinders now.

I’m not saying this to beat my chest, but I’m a partner at an IP law firm and I’ve been practicing IP law for 25 years.

That doesn’t mean I know everything about every patent law on the planet. I was trying to figure out if you saw an aspect of this that I missed. I’m always open to learning something new.

After reading your post, I was poking around in the Moderna-NIH mRNA patent web, what came out of Moderna and what came out of the NIH. Somehow the University of Pennsylvania is mixed up in it too, in that a number of patents are apparently assigned to them. Some are affected by the Bayh-Dole act, but some directly relating to vaccine development and production apparently aren't. What a mess. I doubt there's even one person in Congress who really understands who did what with this vaccine. I know I don't.

 

[panteragstk]

Question from everyone on here smarter than me (so, lots of you).

My brother in law and sister in law visited and she works for a school. 50 people in her school got the Pfizer vaccine and 4 apparently had weird lumps on their side from their armpit to their hip. She said it went away after a week, but it freaked them out.

Anyone else heard anything like this?

 

[panteragstk]

Cool. I'm definitely not an attorney, but I'm married to one.

That explains some things.

You did seem awfully familiar with arguing a certain way.

 

[Mr._Clark]

Question from everyone on here smarter than me (so, lots of you).

My brother in law and sister in law visited and she works for a school. 50 people in her school got the Pfizer vaccine and 4 apparently had weird lumps on their side from their armpit to their hip. She said it went away after a week, but it freaked them out.

Anyone else heard anything like this?

I've seen reports online that lymph nodes can swell after getting a jab (it's harmless). I'm not sure if this is what happened to the 4 people in question, but it would be my best guess (by posting this response I'm not in any way claiming to be smarter than you, but I did stay in Holiday Inn Express last night).

>>>Post-vaccine lymph node swelling is common and harmless, but doctors are concerned it could cause undue fear among women.<<<

COVID-19 Vaccines

Vaccines are seen as one of the best ways to stop COVID-19. Learn more about the types of vaccines, including the newly approved Novavax.

www.webmd.com

 

[Irvrobinson]

That explains some things.

You did seem awfully familiar with arguing a certain way.

My personality had that quirk long before my wife became an attorney. To paraphrase someone I worked with in the 1980s, but didn't fully appreciate until years later, it's good that we're married, because it would be a shame to waste two houses on us.

 

[Mr._Clark]

As long as we're discussing lymph nodes, recent studies have confirmed that the Pfizer vaccine induced lymph node responses that should provide long lasting immunity.

>>>Pfizer Vaccine Induces Immune Structures Key to Lasting Immunity

In the armpit lymph nodes of people who had received the mRNA vaccine against SARS-CoV-2, researchers found germinal centers needed to generate long-lived antibody-making cells. . . .

In what’s described as the dark zone of the germinal center based on its appearance under a microscope, B cells swiftly multiply and diversify into clones that carry differently shaped antibodies. They then drift into the “light zone,” where they face examination by specialized T cells that test their ability to recognize viral protein. This test is tough; imperfect clones are sent back to the dark zone for refinement or are eliminated. The result of this natural section on fast track is a number of winning clones that stick very tightly to viral protein and are immortalized into long-lived memory B cells and plasma cells, which provide antibody protection for years or even decades. This schooling in germinal centers is crucial to developing lasting immunity, whether by natural infection or vaccines.

A preprint posted to Research Square on March 10 shows that a dozen people who received the Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA vaccine produced potent germinal center responses—the first demonstration that an mRNA vaccine triggers the formation of these key structures in people. Although there was no reason to suspect that the Pfizer vaccine wouldn’t induce germinal centers, proof has so far been elusive. The research provides reassurance that vaccinees will likely have long-lived antibody immunity to SARS-CoV-2.<<<

Pfizer Vaccine Induces Immune Structures Key to Lasting Immunity

In the armpit lymph nodes of people who had received the mRNA vaccine against SARS-CoV-2, researchers found germinal centers needed to generate long-lived antibody-making cells.

www.the-scientist.com

 

[Mr._Clark]

(by posting this response I'm not in any way claiming to be smarter than you, but I did stay in Holiday Inn Express last night).

And I starred in commercials as well:

 

[Swerd]

Question from everyone on here smarter than me (so, lots of you).

My brother in law and sister in law visited and she works for a school. 50 people in her school got the Pfizer vaccine and 4 apparently had weird lumps on their side from their armpit to their hip. She said it went away after a week, but it freaked them out.

Anyone else heard anything like this?

Yes, it's caused by the immune system reacting to the vaccine. When an infection or vaccination occurs, white blood cells are attracted to the site in very large numbers. That causes the local swelling and soreness. After collecting bits of the foreign material, these white cells travel to the nearest lymph node, where a lot more immune system business happens. The nearest lymph node to the shoulder (deltoid muscle) is near the arm pit. These lymph nodes can also swell as a result of all the white cell traffic.

I've heard of painfully swollen lymph nodes within half a day of a vaccination. It's not uncommon. I hadn't heard of swollen lymph nodes all the way down to the hip, but I'm not surprised. There is a large network of lymph ducts and lymph nodes through out the body. Did this happen with the 1st or 2nd dose? It would be more likely after the 2nd dose.

If a woman has a mammogram a few days after a vaccination, the swollen arm pit lymph nodes can be misinterpreted as a positive for breast cancer. That's why women should be warned about having a mammogram soon after a vaccination. Mammogram techs and radiologists have been warned to look out for that.

 

[Swerd]

A recent report in the Washington Post has some good news.

The CDC confirms that the Pfizer & Moderna vaccines are 90% effective after two doses in study of real-life conditions.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/03/29/vaccine-effective-essential-workers-study/

The Pfizer or Moderna mRNA vaccines reduced the risk of infection by 80% after one shot. Protection increased to 90% following the second dose. Unlike the earlier clinical trials which monitored only for symptomatic infections, this study is one of the first to estimate vaccine efficacy against infection among participants. This included infections that did not result in symptoms. Each participant did nasal swab tests on themselves each week.

Among 2,479 fully vaccinated people, just 3 had confirmed infections. Among 477 people who received 1 dose, 8 infections were reported. By comparison, among 994 people who were not vaccinated, 161 developed infections. No deaths were reported.

These findings are consistent with clinical trial results and studies showing strong efficacy in Israel and the United Kingdom, and in preliminary results of ongoing studies of health-care workers in Texas and Southern California.

 

[panteragstk]

Yes, it's caused by the immune system reacting to the vaccine. When an infection or vaccination occurs, white blood cells are attracted to the site in very large numbers. That causes the local swelling and soreness. After collecting bits of the foreign material, these white cells travel to the nearest lymph node, where a lot more immune system business happens. The nearest lymph node to the shoulder (deltoid muscle) is near the arm pit. These lymph nodes can also swell as a result of all the white cell traffic.

I've heard of painfully swollen lymph nodes within half a day of a vaccination. It's not uncommon. I hadn't heard of swollen lymph nodes all the way down to the hip, but I'm not surprised. There is a large network of lymph ducts and lymph nodes through out the body. Did this happen with the 1st or 2nd dose? It would be more likely after the 2nd dose.

If a woman has a mammogram a few days after a vaccination, the swollen arm pit lymph nodes can be misinterpreted as a positive for breast cancer. That's why women should be warned about having a mammogram soon after a vaccination. Mammogram techs and radiologists have been warned to look out for that.

2nd dose from what they told me.

 

[Mr._Clark]

For what it's worth, here's an article about a nursing home's efforts to get their staff to get vaccinated:

>>>WASHINGTON — The Covid-19 vaccine had finally come to Forest Hills of D.C., a nursing home in a prosperous neighborhood of the nation’s capital, but there was a problem. Though nearly all of the home’s residents agreed to get the shots, nearly half its 200 staff members declined.<<<

Getting to Yes: A Nursing Home’s Mission to Vaccinate Its Hesitant Staff (Published 2021)

Almost all of the residents at Forest Hills of D.C. got their initial Covid-19 shots in January. But nearly half of the staff there had declined. Would an effort to change their minds succeed?

www.nytimes.com

 

[Out-Of-Phase]

Sunday, March 28, 2021, Moderna Dose #2

24 hours later, sore arm, 100.2 temperature, achy, tired.

It looks like my immune system is busy. It certainly feels like it.