Dr. William A. Haseltine is one of the nation”™s most prominent scientists who is celebrated for his groundbreaking work on cancer research, HIV/AIDS and the human genome. A former professor at Harvard Medical School and Harvard School of Public Health, he founded more than a dozen biotechnology companies, including Human Genome Sciences, and is chairman and president of Access Health International, a global health think tank.
In the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic, Haseltine authored two books: “A Family Guide to Covid: Questions and Answers for Parents, Grandparents and Children” and “A Covid Back to School Guide.” In this edition of Suite Talk, Business Journal Senior Enterprise Editor Phil Hall speaks with Haseltine on the current race to create a vaccine to fight Covid-19.
The speed in getting a Covid vaccine prepared is astonishingly fast. But is that good science or is that good politics?
“Let’s hope it’s good science. There is a serious effort to develop a vaccine around the world by many countries. The techniques that are being used are sound. The trials, I believe, are suspect.
They were designed, it seemed to me, for rapid approval rather than to really test the hypothesis that these vaccines work. You want a vaccine to prevent infection, prevent serious illness, and prevent death. Those were not the primary endpoints of any of the vaccine trials ”“ rather, out of a very large group of people, they were going to make both their preliminary and final decisions based on infected people who were vaccinated as compared to infected people who weren’t vaccinated, and what the symptoms that they contracted after infection were. And when you read through for almost all of the trials that were described, what those criteria were, they were could be very mild symptoms ”“ a cough, a low fever, or a headache.
And if there were more of those events in the unvaccinated then the vaccinated, you would call that a success. That isn’t a real trial that would make a difference to most people. Most people are interested in not being infected, stopping the transmission, and certainly not dying. In some of the trials, those were secondary endpoints but not required.
Now, on top of that, the numbers of people were very small. In some cases ”“ in all cases, I think ”“ less than 50 or 60. And even for the major trial, for final approval, it was only less than 200. That isn’t a serious number where you’re considering vaccinating hundreds of millions, if not billions, of people.
In addition, there was no long waiting period between the end of the vaccine and the observation of long-term adverse effects. So, immediately as that data was available, the vaccine could be approved for emergency use authorization and for other purposes. To me, it suggests that they weren’t really focusing on safety.”
You mention millions or billions of people ”“ how is this vaccine going be manufactured so quickly for so many people?
“When you’re using a new technology, and even an old technology you’re trying to scale up, it can take you a minimum of a couple of years to get it right. How do we know they’re getting it right? When I developed drugs and vaccines, we had to do the full manufacturing ”“ the full dress-rehearsal ”“ for what it was going to be like three times and get the same result. We had to do stability studies for six months to a year before we could have our products approved. None of that is possible.”
I’ve seen several polls where many people are saying they would not take a vaccine if it does become available. Are we running the risk of this vaccine being science”™s version of the Edsel, where they’re putting out a product that nobody wants?
“We’re not quite there. I think the issues are being partially addressed by the FDA in the U.S. right now, which is at least one of some of the patients in the unvaccinated group have to get seriously ill and compare that to none of the patients of the vaccinated group. And there has to be a two-month period to observe for potential effects. That’s a little bit of an improvement and isn’t much, but it’s something that we have to acknowledge.
In terms of public acceptance, you’re not going to get a whole scientific world to endorse a vaccine that has gone through this meager of a clinical trial ”“ it just isn’t going to happen because the true answer is that we will not know how effective or how safe it is. I wouldn’t take that vaccine, but some of my fellow scientists would take the vaccine. So, I think that if the scientific community is somewhat divided on the issue, there is likely to be serious questioning in the public.”
Is the focus on vaccines and drug cures the right approach in fighting the pandemic?
“The emphasis on vaccines, secondarily on drugs, as compared to public health measures to control this pandemic is very badly misplaced. In the U.S., we have basically done very little to control the pandemic ”“ we’re the worst in the world.
We know this pandemic can be brought to close to zero, in a population of 1.4 billion people, within three months, using only public health measures. But there is some allergy to discussing China in this country. China did not do it because it was a totalitarian government. It did it because it used public health measures that everybody endorses: isolation of those who are exposed for 14 days. That’s reasonable. To dismiss it as ”˜I don’t want to live under a totalitarian government”™ is a non-sequitur. You don’t have to be in a totalitarian government to do normal public health measures that everybody would recommend. We just didn’t do them, nor did most countries in the world.”
What’s going to be happening with Covid-19 when the cold wintry weather comes and flu season is in full swing?
“What we’ve seen with coronaviruses and influenza is they have very sharp, seasonal peaks in temperate climates ”“ that means anything that’s not tropical. And that means that come mid-November through February, there are very strong peaks.
One thing we’ve had a little bit of heads-up for is the flu season in South America this year. For their winter, it did not exist ”“ it basically was wiped out by whatever medicines people were taking. Now, they weren’t good enough to stop Covid but they certainly reduced flu. It looks like Covid is more transmissible than flu, from those that very broad picture.”
