Blog Layout
Setting it straight: Talking about COVID-19
Professor Peter Doherty
This is a subtitle for your new post
This is my first communication in what’s intended as a weekly commentary/explainer, “Setting it Straight” on all things infection and immunity. And as we find ourselves in the midst of a global pandemic, I have no doubt I’ll be writing about COVID-19 for the foreseeable future, starting today.
As an Institute devoted entirely to infection and immunity, various research and diagnostic teams across our wonderful, still new, high security, high-tech building are working flat out at the coalface, as they drive forward to develop technical solutions and minimise the human toll of COVID-19. Central to that are the efforts of clinical infectious disease colleagues (real doctors!), many of whom have their offices and laboratories in our building at the top end of Elizabeth Street, while they care for patients at The Royal Melbourne Hospital
across the street and at the Austin Hospital
in Heidleberg.
As is central to our evidence-based and ever-questioning culture, our coordinated COVID-19 SWAT team is in deep discussion at least three times a week, via Zoom, in these extraordinary times. Our Director, Sharon Lewin, a leading HIV cure researcher and physician, is now a household name. Just about everyone will now know Sharon’s face and voice from the TV, radio and newspapers. I’m helping with the public interface as we try to ensure that we get good, sound information out to all of you.
Rather than just go over the territory that’s being explored thoroughly in podcasts, TV, radio, print and online articles, I’ll take a different tack in my column, aimed at providing a deeper level of familiarity with what’s happening and what’s being discussed. And, as we’re doing this in a series of relatively short articles, I’ll use the “dog food” model of “handy, bite-sized chunks”. Rather than try to summarise complex issues in an abbreviated format, the intent is to give you a bit more background, a better understanding of the basics. This will move slowly, but we have time. Let’s begin.
Words matter. For research scientists like me, the first thing we must do in any discussion is to get our terminology straight. When we use a word, or a phrase, to describe something, it’s essential that we’re all on the same page. Beyond the “academy”, the big mistake that many professionals make in public communication is to think that non-technical words they regard as both commonplace and obvious in their meaning are “heard” in the same way by those in the broader community.
From what I read online and in print media, for instance, I get the impression that even some experienced journalists just don’t understand the very basic difference between a drug and a vaccine. That’s fundamental to any understanding of infection and immunity.
Let’s start with drug. What drug means to me is some chemical, or mix of chemicals, that we use to treat people. That might be injected, inhaled, swallowed (as a pill or in liquid form), administered as a suppository or “attached” as a slow-release “patch” on the skin. Some of the existing commercial products that are in (or will soon go into) efficacy trials for COVID-19 are the old anti-malarial drug, Hydroxychloroquine; Kaletra, a combination of two anti-HIV drugs; and Remdesivir, an experimental anti-Ebola drug. Apart from participation in major international trials, Steve Tong
from our Institute is heading the multi-centre, Australasian COVID-19 Trial (ASCOT) that will look initially at Hydroxychloroquine
and Kaletra, but is designed so that compounds that are obviously not working can be swapped out for new candidates that look to be more promising.
Right now, pharmaceutical companies and academic researchers across the planet are working flat out to screen various chemical “libraries” in a search for novel (new) drugs that specifically block SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. Other chemists and structural biologists are “playing” on computer screens with three-dimensional molecular images (generated via such places as the Synchrotron) as they seek to create “designer” molecules for chemical synthesis. If you’re both a smart young person and a computer nerd, this may be the career for you!
Once a promising compound is identified and screened to see whether it stops the SARS-CoV-2 virus growing in lab cell cultures (the fabled Petri dish), the next step is to produce the drug in sufficient quantities for testing in animals, then people. Following strict protocols set out by regulatory agencies, especially the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the first step is “pre-clinical” studies with e.g. mice and ferrets, followed by non-human primates (various macaque species), then through a progression of human trials.
Before any such drug is approved in Australia, it must also be evaluated by our own TGA, the federal Therapeutic Goods Administration. Following careful scrutiny of the available evidence by experienced scientists and clinicians, the TGA recommendations then go to the Federal Health Minister for final approval. The same protocols apply for evaluating and approving a vaccine. But I can’t say it too strongly: a vaccine is not a drug!
Therapeutic goods? The other word doctors use for a drug is a “therapeutic”. Not all therapeutics originated as chemicals made by a major pharmaceutical company. Early on, the doctors of the day recommended “natural medicines” like quinine, a compound that was first extracted from the bark of the Cinchona
tree for use (from the early 19th century) as an antimalarial. Anyone who is partial to a G&T “well-being therapy” knows the taste of quinine in what used to be called “Indian Tonic Water”, reflecting that therapeutic history.
Another “natural medicine” exploited more recently as an anti-malarial is Artemisinin, which is made naturally by sweet wormwood (Artemesia annus). In 2015, Tu Youyou was the first resident Chinese researcher to be awarded the Nobel Medicine Prize for her 1972 discovery that provided a bright light at the end of the multi-drug resistant malaria tunnel. Quinine (plus its various chemical derivatives) and Artemisinin
are now made synthetically, both to ramp up production and to ensure precise dosing. Apart from availability, the problem with using natural products directly as medicines is that the levels of active ingredient vary.
As anyone who has taken malaria medication in association with some tropical travel itinerary knows, drugs are the primary resource (taken before, during and after) for prophylaxis (prevention). Then, if you’re unlucky enough to be bitten by a mosquito carrying a Plasmodium
(malaria) species that’s resistant to your prescribed prophylactic, a different anti-malarial will be required for therapy (treatment).
Antiviral drugs are also used as preventives. Perhaps the best known example is PrEP, where those who are currently uninfected but have a high risk of contracting HIV (the virus that causes AIDS) take a combination of two anti-HIV drugs (Truvada) that are normally used for the treatment of those with the disease. The same drugs are thus “dual use”, for prophylaxis and therapy.
So, if we were enduring a catastrophic influenza pandemic rather than COVID-19, we could be dosing frontline, uninfected healthcare workers, police and supermarket check-out operators prophylactically with the long-acting anti-influenza drug, Laminivir, while, when it came to treating a patient with the flu, the attending doctor might choose the more familiar, short-acting Oseltamivir
(aka Tamiflu) as a therapeutic. Both products are “designer drugs” that target a key molecule in virus production pathway. Neither would work to inhibit SARS-CoV-2, but these are the types of therapeutics and prophylactics we need for COVID-19.
‘Till next time!
The above piece was first published under a Creative Commons Attributions-No Derivatives License at https://www.doherty.edu.au/news-events/news/setting-it-straight-talking-about-covid-19
Getting asked what we look for in deals is one of the most common questions I get as an investment manager.
The Small Business Association of Australia is dedicated to supporting SMEs, acting as their voice to government and helping them connect, grow, and prosper well into the future.
Sensibles may sound like science fiction, but this revolutionary technology is making waves in aged-care facilities, and has the potential to transform health monitoring at scale.
Alice Springs and the deserts of Central Australia don’t sound like a food basket, but they are for businesswoman and bush foods innovator Rayleen Brown.
A new report aims to lay the foundations for a deeper and more meaningful and equitable relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians in the mining transition sector.
If the health and medical research sector in Australia is to move forward, it must address gender equity, diversity, and inclusion- which means making the sector a safe and inclusive workspace for all.
A ground-breaking sheep technology system is bettering the businesses and lives of Australian sheep breeders thanks to a revolutionary combination of software, hardware, and support never before combined into one cohesive unit.
ANCA took an early view to look beyond Australia’s shores whilst developing advanced manufacturing technologies now viewed as ‘business as usual’
As Australia grapples with a critical skills shortage, many are now encouraging young people to embrace a career in the trades, where a wealth of opportunities awaits.
In 2016 I published a blog article titled Moonshots for Australia: 7 For Now. It’s one of many I have posted on business and innovation in Australia. In that book, I highlighted a number of Industries of the Future among a number of proposed Moonshots. I self-published a book, Innovation in Australia – Creating prosperity for future generations, in 2019, with a follow-up COVID edition in 2020. There is no doubt COVID is causing massive disruption. Prior to COVID, there was little conversation about National Sovereignty or supply chains. Even now, these topics are fading, and we remain preoccupied with productivity and jobs! My motivation for this writing has been the absence of a coherent narrative for Australia’s business future. Over the past six years, little has changed. The Australian ‘psyche’ regarding our political and business systems is programmed to avoid taking a long-term perspective. The short-term nature of Government (3 to 4-year terms), the short-term horizon of the business system (driven by shareholder value), the media culture (infotainment and ‘gotcha’ games), the general Australian population’s cynical perspective and a preoccupation with a lifestyle all create a malaise of strategic thinking and conversation. Ultimately, it leads to a leadership vacuum at all levels. In recent years we have seen the leadership of some of our significant institutions failing to live up to the most basic standards, with Royal Commissions, Inquiries and investigations consuming excessive time and resources. · Catholic Church and other religious bodies · Trade Unions · Banks (and businesses generally, take casinos, for example) · the Australian Defence Force · the Australian cricket teams · our elected representatives and the staff of Parliament House As they say, “A fish rots from the head!” At best, the leadership behaviour in those institutions could be described as unethical and, at worst….just bankrupt! In the last decade, politicians have led us through a game of “leadership by musical chairs” – although, for now, it has stabilised. However, there is still an absence of a coherent narrative about business and wealth creation. It is a challenge. One attempt to provide such a narrative has been the Intergenerational Reports produced by our federal Government every few years since 2002. The shortcomings of the latest Intergenerational Report Each Intergenerational Report examines the long-term sustainability of current government policies and how demographic, technological, and other structural trends may affect the economy and the budget over the next 40 years. The fifth and most recent Intergenerational Report released in 2021 (preceded by Reports in 2002, 2007, 2010 and 2015) provides a narrative about Australia’s future – in essence, it is an extension of the status quo. The Report also highlights three key insights: 1. First, our population is growing slower and ageing faster than expected. 2. The Australian economy will continue to grow, but slower than previously thought. 3. While Australia’s debt is sustainable and low by international standards, the ageing of our population will pressure revenue and expenditure. However, its release came and went with a whimper. The recent Summit on (what was it, Jobs and Skills and productivity?) also seems to have made the difference of a ‘snowflake’ in hell in terms of identifying our long-term challenges and growth industries. Let’s look back to see how we got here and what we can learn. Australia over the last 40 years During Australia’s last period of significant economic reform (the late 1980s and early 1990s), there was a positive attempt at building an inclusive national narrative between Government and business. Multiple documents were published, including: · Australia Reconstructed (1987) – ACTU · Enterprise Bargaining a Better Way of Working (1989) – Business Council of Australia · Innovation in Australia (1991) – Boston Consulting Group · Australia 2010: Creating the Future Australia (1993) – Business Council of Australia · and others. There were workshops, consultations with industry leaders, and conferences across industries to pursue a national microeconomic reform agenda. Remember these concepts? · global competitiveness · benchmarking · best practice · award restructuring and enterprising bargaining · training, management education and multiskilling. This agenda was at the heart of the business conversation. During that time, the Government encouraged high levels of engagement with stakeholders. As a result, I worked with a small group of training professionals to contribute to the debate. Our contribution included events and publications over several years, including What Dawkins, Kelty and Howard All Agree On – Human Resources Strategies for Our Nation (published by the Australian Institute of Training and Development). Unfortunately, these long-term strategic discussions are nowhere near as prevalent among Government and industry today. The 1980s and 1990s were a time of radical change in Australia. It included: · floating the $A · deregulation · award restructuring · lowering/abolishing tariffs · Corporatisation and Commercialisation Ross Garnaut posits that the reforms enabled Australia to lead the developed world in productivity growth – given that it had spent most of the 20th century at the bottom of the developed country league table. However, in his work, The Great Reset, Garnaut says that over the next 20 years, our growth was attributable to the China mining boom, and from there, we settled into “The DOG days” – Australia moved to the back of a slow-moving pack! One unintended consequence of opening our economy to the world is the emasculation of the Australian manufacturing base. The manic pursuit of increased efficiency, lower costs, and shareholder value meant much of the labour-intensive work was outsourced. Manufacturing is now less than 6% of our GDP , less than half of what it was 30 years ago!
