I'm never having another, not that I've had many. Unfortunately tetanus I've had a few in the past. And definitely not any of my animals. 2019 we went to Morocco with our two cats. They had to have rabies jabs. Both have been to vet's constantly since. Now I'm very well informed on all jabs. It's mind blowing once you do your own research.
What do you mean “bring a drug to market”? Hal was CMO and development officer at Genentech for years, which was v successful in bringing new drugs to market. Obviously he did not do this on his own. Nobody does. But avastin was launched for example, and lots of new indications developed & approved.
What’s your beef with Hal? He’s an odd character for sure, but on the data, I have never not known him be honest and factual and have a good understanding of stats. Very unlike his predecessor at GSK.
Hal had nothing to do with the vaccines. Like most pharmaceutical companies, the vaccine people were kept well away from drug people. Mike Yeadon has a good take on why: the safety scrutiny of vaccines is suspect at best and would shock anyone working in traditional pharmacology, so best kept away - in Belgium in this case. Walmsley, knowing nothing of any of this, demanded vaccines come under R&D’s remit. But being GSK everyone just said OK and then did nothing. Because passive aggressive is the way the place works. Or rather doesn’t work.
As to what Hal is up to now, I don’t understand it. He’s been given a shit ton of money to do pay lots of people to generate mouse data as far as I can tell. As to who is funding it, it’s very vague. Middle Eastern money and west coast billionaires. Only reason he is still on GSK board is to save face - they don’t want it to look like he’d run out the door the minute his golden handcuffs expired.
That’s very helpful, thanks 🙏. I don’t see Juno in Hal’s background - didn’t he spend some time there? Or was that under Google? As per GSK, I met Ian McCubbin in 2012 at GSK House when he was VP Global Supply Chain. Wiley had published my book the year before and I managed to get a call with David Pulman, then in charge of GMS. He had the usual GSK arrogance about him. I was then handed over to McCubbin, and hence the meeting. He said he would buy 4 copies of my book for his team. That’s the last I heard. McCubbin was the supply chain guy of UKs Vaccine Task Force, coordinating everything. Now he is Chair of the Cell & Gene Therapy Catapult 🤔 : https://ct.catapult.org.uk/news/press-release-cell-and-gene-therapy-catapult-appoints-ian-mccubbin-obe-cbe-as-chair-of-the-board - what do you think he is working on now?
I don’t know. Cell & gene, despite the UK focus it has, is massively out of favour with both industry (except maybe j&j) and VCs as it hasn’t been as profitable or scaleable as hoped, and now there are emerging concerns on T cell lymphomas & Parkinson’s. The buzz is all now about using the uk bio bank data (and they hope NHS data) to generate new drug targets & make lots of money, using AI. So probably getting involved in all that.
My view is that this is pie in the sky (bought into by people who don’t understand biology, computing, or both) and if some scuzzy politician thinks they can line their pockets by leveraging my genetic information - either directly or indirectly - they can do one. I’ve withdrawn consent for the NHS to use any of my info for sharing with partners.
Very helpful again, Sophocles. C> has indeed flopped due to cost (Kymriah £475,000 at launch) and the black box warning that FDA applied to the PI. However, as as you say, they don't have anything left now CAR-T gene modified cell therapy has fallen over. The concept of drug targets based on genetic data has been proven a nonsense, and I have published this from Ray Perkins PhD, who says:
"The Genes-are-Destiny model is broken. It is recognised now humans are
composite creatures and must be approached as such. One of the first scientists to sequence the human genome, recognised
the limitations of using genes to predict and prevent disease:
“We simply don’t have enough genes for this idea of biological determinism to work.” Craig Venter, Chairman and CEO of J. Craig Venter Institute.
The key takeaway is that the CAR T gene modified cell therapy was rebranded as 'vaccines' and there we have the SARS-CoV-2 sterile injectables scam - more on that tomorrow - what do you think?
Completely agree. The hope seems to be based on the Nelson et al 2015 paper showing a greater PoS of approval for genetically validated drug targets.
But this has not been demonstrated prospectively, as far as I can tell. There’s so much more to determining whether a drug makes it through the development process than the pure science behind it, even if it IS the case that genetic validation helps.
I see Nelson et al updated their paper earlier this year. I need to read it properly but capital allocation in drug development has as much to do with fads & trends, and company politics, as it does science. And you need capital to progress development.
Thanks for your frank comment, Sophocles. I should provide more context for the post. Genentech first. I was Director of Supply Chain at OSI Pharmaceuticals from 2002 to 2005 and led OSIs supply chain launch of Tarceva in 2004. As you will know, Tarceva was a small molecule drug for non-small cell lung cancer.
Our team visited the South San Francisco site a number of times. I can remember sitting in an office there, looking at a chart on the wall showing 7,000 vacancies they had to fill. This is a company going places, I thought. However, I only worked on the US launch, the Roche team did EU and RoW. As you will also know, Roche fully acquired GNE for $46.8Bn in 2009.
There was much concern from industry commentators at the time that the Roche 'traditional' pharma culture would subsume the GNE 'innovative' culture. Those concerns came to pass, me thinks. GNE and its culture has disappeared from the planet.
In respect of Hal Barron, I don't have a beef with his early achievements, or him as an individual really. The post is about the industry that has turned to short cuts to get drugs to market; also the obsession with 'vaccines' - in GSK's case, 21 in development. The killer question for the post is "Why is Hal Barron, still a Board (non-executive) Director at GSK, also now in charge of a company with a BioNTech-type business model?" BioNTech (nor Moderna) had the capability or skill-sets to develop new drugs, not even nonclinical testing? Please, do challenge me Sophocles, to determine the real truth :O)?
As the west has been deindustrialised over the decades, the only market open to them is the health care market, oh, and the "fact checker" business!
21 new!?! Vaccines Eck
That's just one company Cookie! not right, is it?!
I'm never having another, not that I've had many. Unfortunately tetanus I've had a few in the past. And definitely not any of my animals. 2019 we went to Morocco with our two cats. They had to have rabies jabs. Both have been to vet's constantly since. Now I'm very well informed on all jabs. It's mind blowing once you do your own research.
What do you mean “bring a drug to market”? Hal was CMO and development officer at Genentech for years, which was v successful in bringing new drugs to market. Obviously he did not do this on his own. Nobody does. But avastin was launched for example, and lots of new indications developed & approved.
What’s your beef with Hal? He’s an odd character for sure, but on the data, I have never not known him be honest and factual and have a good understanding of stats. Very unlike his predecessor at GSK.
Hal had nothing to do with the vaccines. Like most pharmaceutical companies, the vaccine people were kept well away from drug people. Mike Yeadon has a good take on why: the safety scrutiny of vaccines is suspect at best and would shock anyone working in traditional pharmacology, so best kept away - in Belgium in this case. Walmsley, knowing nothing of any of this, demanded vaccines come under R&D’s remit. But being GSK everyone just said OK and then did nothing. Because passive aggressive is the way the place works. Or rather doesn’t work.
As to what Hal is up to now, I don’t understand it. He’s been given a shit ton of money to do pay lots of people to generate mouse data as far as I can tell. As to who is funding it, it’s very vague. Middle Eastern money and west coast billionaires. Only reason he is still on GSK board is to save face - they don’t want it to look like he’d run out the door the minute his golden handcuffs expired.
That’s very helpful, thanks 🙏. I don’t see Juno in Hal’s background - didn’t he spend some time there? Or was that under Google? As per GSK, I met Ian McCubbin in 2012 at GSK House when he was VP Global Supply Chain. Wiley had published my book the year before and I managed to get a call with David Pulman, then in charge of GMS. He had the usual GSK arrogance about him. I was then handed over to McCubbin, and hence the meeting. He said he would buy 4 copies of my book for his team. That’s the last I heard. McCubbin was the supply chain guy of UKs Vaccine Task Force, coordinating everything. Now he is Chair of the Cell & Gene Therapy Catapult 🤔 : https://ct.catapult.org.uk/news/press-release-cell-and-gene-therapy-catapult-appoints-ian-mccubbin-obe-cbe-as-chair-of-the-board - what do you think he is working on now?
I don’t know. Cell & gene, despite the UK focus it has, is massively out of favour with both industry (except maybe j&j) and VCs as it hasn’t been as profitable or scaleable as hoped, and now there are emerging concerns on T cell lymphomas & Parkinson’s. The buzz is all now about using the uk bio bank data (and they hope NHS data) to generate new drug targets & make lots of money, using AI. So probably getting involved in all that.
My view is that this is pie in the sky (bought into by people who don’t understand biology, computing, or both) and if some scuzzy politician thinks they can line their pockets by leveraging my genetic information - either directly or indirectly - they can do one. I’ve withdrawn consent for the NHS to use any of my info for sharing with partners.
Hal was, I believe, on the board at Juno.
Very helpful again, Sophocles. C> has indeed flopped due to cost (Kymriah £475,000 at launch) and the black box warning that FDA applied to the PI. However, as as you say, they don't have anything left now CAR-T gene modified cell therapy has fallen over. The concept of drug targets based on genetic data has been proven a nonsense, and I have published this from Ray Perkins PhD, who says:
"The Genes-are-Destiny model is broken. It is recognised now humans are
composite creatures and must be approached as such. One of the first scientists to sequence the human genome, recognised
the limitations of using genes to predict and prevent disease:
“We simply don’t have enough genes for this idea of biological determinism to work.” Craig Venter, Chairman and CEO of J. Craig Venter Institute.
The key takeaway is that the CAR T gene modified cell therapy was rebranded as 'vaccines' and there we have the SARS-CoV-2 sterile injectables scam - more on that tomorrow - what do you think?
Completely agree. The hope seems to be based on the Nelson et al 2015 paper showing a greater PoS of approval for genetically validated drug targets.
But this has not been demonstrated prospectively, as far as I can tell. There’s so much more to determining whether a drug makes it through the development process than the pure science behind it, even if it IS the case that genetic validation helps.
I see Nelson et al updated their paper earlier this year. I need to read it properly but capital allocation in drug development has as much to do with fads & trends, and company politics, as it does science. And you need capital to progress development.
Thanks for your frank comment, Sophocles. I should provide more context for the post. Genentech first. I was Director of Supply Chain at OSI Pharmaceuticals from 2002 to 2005 and led OSIs supply chain launch of Tarceva in 2004. As you will know, Tarceva was a small molecule drug for non-small cell lung cancer.
Our team visited the South San Francisco site a number of times. I can remember sitting in an office there, looking at a chart on the wall showing 7,000 vacancies they had to fill. This is a company going places, I thought. However, I only worked on the US launch, the Roche team did EU and RoW. As you will also know, Roche fully acquired GNE for $46.8Bn in 2009.
There was much concern from industry commentators at the time that the Roche 'traditional' pharma culture would subsume the GNE 'innovative' culture. Those concerns came to pass, me thinks. GNE and its culture has disappeared from the planet.
In respect of Hal Barron, I don't have a beef with his early achievements, or him as an individual really. The post is about the industry that has turned to short cuts to get drugs to market; also the obsession with 'vaccines' - in GSK's case, 21 in development. The killer question for the post is "Why is Hal Barron, still a Board (non-executive) Director at GSK, also now in charge of a company with a BioNTech-type business model?" BioNTech (nor Moderna) had the capability or skill-sets to develop new drugs, not even nonclinical testing? Please, do challenge me Sophocles, to determine the real truth :O)?
No more vaccines!!!