From “A Spoonful of Sugar” to Operation Warp Speed: COVID-19 Vaccines and Their Metaphors
We must remain cognizant of the many ways metaphors may distort, divide, or misrepresent important details.
Pfizer
-
Read more: From “A Spoonful of Sugar” to Operation Warp Speed: COVID-19 Vaccines and Their Metaphors -
Read more: Authorize Emergency Vaccines for COVID-19, but Do It Well Authorize Emergency Vaccines for COVID-19, but Do It Well
We can simultaneously get COVID vaccines to those most at risk while minimizing harm to our ability to fully evaluate their safety and efficacy.
-
Read more: Why the Government Shouldn’t Pay People to Get Vaccinated Against COVID-19 Why the Government Shouldn’t Pay People to Get Vaccinated Against COVID-19
Paying for vaccination is dubious public health policy likely to backfire in terms of (re)building public trust in vaccines.
-
Read more: Under an EUA, Can Businesses Require Employees and Customers to Get Vaccinated? Under an EUA, Can Businesses Require Employees and Customers to Get Vaccinated?
Can private businesses mandate that employees and customers receive COVID-19 vaccines authorized for emergency use?
-
Read more: What Does the Good News on the Vaccine Front Mean? What Does the Good News on the Vaccine Front Mean?
In the past weeks, three companies in advanced stages of COVID-19 vaccine trials reported good news. What does this mean?
-
Read more: Roche and City of Hope Claim Pfizer Biosimilar Version of Trastuzumab Will Infringe “At Least” 40 Patents Roche and City of Hope Claim Pfizer Biosimilar Version of Trastuzumab Will Infringe “At Least” 40 Patents
By James Love On November 17, 2017, Genentech, a subsidiary of the giant Swiss drug company Roche, together with City of Hope, a charity, filed a complaint in a U.S. District Court, seeking an injunction to block introduction of a Pfizer biosimilar version of Herceptin (INN: trastuzumab), as well as other remedies to infringement, including…
-
Read more: Kaiser v. Pfizer and the Question of Who Pays When Fraudulent Pharmaceutical Promotion Has Its Intended Effect Kaiser v. Pfizer and the Question of Who Pays When Fraudulent Pharmaceutical Promotion Has Its Intended Effect
By Kate Greenwood Cross-Posted at Health Reform Watch On April 3, 2013, the First Circuit issued decisions in three cases in which third-party payers sought compensation from Pfizer for damages sustained as a result of fraudulent pharmaceutical promotion. The decisions were noteworthy because in them the First Circuit lent its imprimatur to a causal chain…