Born in Santa Clara / Mother's maiden name is "Adams"
Name : Robert W Malone
Birth Date : 20 Oct 1959
Mother's Maiden Name : Adams
Birth County : Santa Clara
Married to Dr. Jill Glasspool-Malone (born 1960)
Dr. Michael Vincent Callahan (born 1962) ( .. )
Robert Malone was introduced to Callahan in 2009 by Darrell Galloway, according to the RFK Jr Book "The Real Anthony Fauci" (2021) : "Dr. Robert Wallace Malone (born 1959) first met [Dr. Michael Vincent Callahan (born 1962)] in 2009 through Malone’s sometime business partner, [Dr. Darrell Ray Galloway (born 1946)], a CIA officer who formerly served in the US Navy and at one point held the post of director of JSTO in the [Defense Threat Reduction Agency, aka "DTRA"]. To Malone, Galloway introduced Callahan as a fellow CIA officer."
Dr. Philip Louis Felgner (born 1950) ( 1989-1994 , mRNA and naked-DNA conceptualization patents , and a peer at [Vical Incorporated] ).
Dr. Gary Harvey Rhodes (born 1944) ( 1989-1994 , mRNA and naked-DNA conceptualization patents , and a peer at [Vical Incorporated] ).
Dr. Jon Asher Wolff (born 1956) ( 1989-1994 , mRNA and naked-DNA conceptualization patents ; Dr. Jon Wolff collaborated extensively with Dr. Felgner at the startup of Vical )
Dr. Dennis A. Carson (born 1936) ( Multiple shared patents, and worked together at Vical Incorporated - See Dr. Malone's 2017 resume at [HL0080][GDrive] )
Dr. Murray Briggs Gardner (born 1945) ( Mentor at UC Davis, 1980s )
Dr. Robert Darrell Cardiff (born 1935) (Mentor at UC David, 1980s )
Dr. Darrell Ray Galloway (born 1946) (Business partner with Robert Malone, "Galloway and Associates", 2012 - 2014 ... [HL0080][GDrive] )
Dr. Inder Mohan Verma (born 1947) ( Malone and Verma collaborated on several efforts between 1983-ish and 2000 )
Sina A Bavari (born 1959) ( 2016 (April 16) - Collaboration between Dr. Robert Malone and Dr. Sina Bavari on "Zika virus: Accelerating development of Medical Countermeasures by re-purposing licensed drugs", by Dr. Jill Glasspool Malone. Saved as PDF : [HW006R][GDrive] )
Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche ( Dr. Robert Malone has said in 2021 and 2022 that Dr. Vanden Bossche was his "partner" in raising awareness of risks of strengthening pathogens when vaccinating during a pandemic. )
Dr. David Michael Hone (born 1960) ( " [Dr. Michael Vincent Callahan (born 1962)] later confessed to Malone that he lacked authority to be in Wuhan and had escaped by boat when the government imposed its quarantine. Callahan repeated parts of this story to Brendan Borrell, a writer for Science. Later, DTRA scientist [Dr. David Michael Hone (born 1960)], a GS15 officer, warned Malone to stop talking about Callahan, saying that “We had no military personnel in Wuhan at the time of the outbreak and Michael was lying about his presence.” Malone told me, “That would mean that Michael also lied to Brendan Borrell.” " ... "The Real Anthony Fauci" RFK Jr. book (2021) , Download the full PDF here : [HB0078][GDrive] )
Dr. James Miller Wilson V (born 1969) ( Western African Ebola virus epidemic (2013 - 2016) collaboration .. Dr. James Miller Wilson V (born 1969) worked directly with Dr. Robert Wallace Malone (born 1959) and associates. See RWMalone Consulting feedback page, archived here : [HC005X][GDrive] )
Vical Incorporated ( ... )
Solvay pharmaceuticals unit ( Dr. Malone was Director, Clinical Development/Medical Affairs, Influenza 2006-2007 ... see Dr. Malone's 2017 resume at [HL0080][GDrive] )
Intradigm Corporation ( ... )
DynPort Vaccine Company, LLC ( .... )
EpiVax ( "Dr. Robert Malone on board of directors for EpiVax, Scientific Advisory Board, 2012-2019." [HL0081][GDrive] ; Dr. Robert Malone also provided "consulting services to" [EpiVax] for the years 2005-2018... see [HL0081][GDrive] )
"Consulting services for [Aldevron] 2001-2005 (operating as Gene Delivery Alliance)" (March 2017 CV for Dr. Robert Wallace Malone (born 1959) - [HL0080][GDrive] )
BioProtection Systems Inc. ( BioProtection Systems Inc. is a subsidiary of NewLink Genetics Corporation )
NewLink Genetics Corporation ( BioProtection Systems Inc. is a subsidiary of NewLink Genetics Corporation )
DOMANE ( "Discovery of Medical Countermeasures Against Novel Entities" , created by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency in December of 2019 )
"Malone is part of a classified project called [DOMANE ( "Discovery of Medical Countermeasures Against Novel Entities" , created by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency in Dec of 2019 )] that uses computer simulations, artificial intelligence, and other methods to rapidly identify U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved drugs and other safe compounds that can be repurposed against threats such as new viruses." .... See [HP009H][GDrive] (April , 2020)
Source : [HK008J][GDrive] / live link : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_W._Malone
Citizenship : United States
Education : MD, Northwestern University B.S., University of California Davis
Occupation : Virologist
Website : rwmalonemd.com
Robert Wallace Malone is an American virologist and immunologist. His work has focused on mRNA technology, pharmaceuticals, and drug repurposing research. During the COVID-19 pandemic, he has been criticized for promoting misinformation about the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines.
Robert Malone graduated from the University of California Davis, and received his MD from Northwestern University.[1]
In the 1980s, while a researcher at the Salk Institute, Malone conducted studies on messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) technology, discovering that it was possible to transfer mRNA protected by a liposome into cultured cells to signal the information needed for the production of proteins.[2][3] In the early 1990s, he collaborated with [Dr. Jon Asher Wolff (born 1956)], [Dr. Dennis A. Carson (born 1936)], and others on a study that first suggested the possibility of synthesizing mRNA in a laboratory to trigger the production of a desired protein.[4] Malone claims to be the inventor of mRNA vaccines, although credit for the distinction is more often given to later advancements by [Dr. Katalin Karikó (born 1955)] or [Dr. Derrick James Rossi (born 1966)],[5][2][6][7] and was ultimately the result of the contributions of hundreds of researchers, of which Malone was but one.[8]
Malone has served as director of clinical affairs for Avancer Group, a member of the scientific advisory board of [EpiVax], assistant professor at the University of Maryland Baltimore school of medicine, and an adjunct associate professor of biotechnology at Kennesaw State University.[9] He was CEO and co-founder of Atheric Pharmaceutical,[10] which in 2016 was contracted by the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases to assist in the development of a treatment for the Zika virus by evaluating the efficacy of existing drugs.[11][12][13][14] Until 2020, Malone was chief medical officer at Alchem Laboratories, a Florida pharmaceutical company.[15]
In early 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic, Malone was involved in research into the heartburn medicine famotidine (Pepcid) as a potential COVID-19 treatment following anecdotal evidence suggesting that it may have been associated with higher COVID-19 survival. Malone, then with Alchem Laboratories, suspected famotidine may target an enzyme that the virus (SARS-CoV-2) uses to reproduce, and recruited a computational chemist to help design a 3D-model of the enzyme based on the viral sequence and comparisons to the 2003 SARS virus.[16][17] After encouraging preliminary results, Alchem Laboratories, in conjunction with New York's Northwell Health, initiated a clinical trial on famotidine and hydroxychloroquine.[16] Malone resigned from Alchem shortly after the trial began and Northwell paused the trial due to a shortage of hospitalized patients.[15][18]
Malone received criticism for propagating COVID-19 misinformation, including making unsupported claims about the alleged toxicity of spike proteins generated by some COVID-19 vaccines;[3][7][19] using interviews on mass media to popularize self-medication with ivermectin;[20] and tweeting a study by others questioning vaccine safety that was later retracted.[3] He said LinkedIn suspended his account over what he claimed were posts he had made questioning the efficacy of some COVID-19 vaccines.[21] Malone has also claimed that the Pfizer–BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines could worsen COVID-19 infections.[22]
With another researcher, Malone successfully proposed to the publishers of Frontiers in Pharmacology a special issue featuring early observational studies on existing medication used in the treatment of COVID-19, for which they recruited other guest editors, contributors, and reviewers. The journal rejected two of the papers selected: one on famotidine co-authored by Malone and another submitted by physician Pierre Kory on the use of ivermectin.[18] The publisher rejected the ivermectin paper due to what it claimed were “a series of strong, unsupported claims” which they determined did “not offer an objective nor balanced scientific contribution.”[18] Malone and most other guest editors resigned in protest in April 2021, and the special issue has been pulled from the journal's website.[18]
Malone was critisized for falsely claiming that the FDA had not granted full approval to the Pfizer vaccine in August 2021.[23]
Directory information (publicly available)
https://www.whitepages.com/name/Robert-W-Malone/Troy-VA/Pe9xVxw2v3a
Older brother Roger L (Leigh) Malone ?
Position: Medical Director, Vaccines at [Beardsworth Consulting Group, Inc.] / Editor in Chief at Journal of Immune Based Therapies and Vaccines / Consultant at Chesapeake PERL / Consultant, Vaccines and Biologics at RWMaloneMD.com (Self-employed) / President at RW Malone MD LLC
Location : Greater Atlanta Area
Work:
Education:
Interests:
Honor & Awards:
" Robert W. Malone, M.D., M.Sci. CEO, CSO, co-founder and board of manager member of Atheric Pharmaceutical, LLC. Dr. Malone has extensive research and development experience in the areas of clinical trials, vaccines, gene therapy, bio-defense, and immunology. He has over twenty years of management and leadership experience in the academia, pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries. His FDA, HHS, and DoD agency knowledge is extensive. Dr. Malone is an internationally recognized scientist and is known as one of the original inventors of “DNA Vaccination.” Dr. Malone holds numerous fundamental domestic and foreign patents in the fields of gene delivery, delivery formulations, and vaccines. He has over fifty peer-reviewed publications, has been an invited speaker at over thirty-five conferences, has chaired numerous conferences and he has sat on numerous study sections. Dr. Malone is in the Harvard Medical School Global Clinical Scholars Program in 2015-2016. In August 2014, colleagues at the Department of Defense/Defense Threat Reduction Agency asked Dr. Malone to step in and help NewLink manage the Ebola project and develop the contracts necessary to move the "orphan" PHAC/rVSV ZEBOV vaccine forward quickly. Dr. Malone got the project on track, recruited our client Focus Clinical Trials to team with USAMRIID/WRAIR to develop the immunoassays, put WHO leadership in touch with Pentagon leadership to expedite the initial WRAIR clinical trials, recruited the government of Norway to help fund the clinical research, used social media (LinkedIn) to recruit Merck Vaccines to join the project, recruited a management team, and lead the development of the BARDA and DTRA contracts - yielding over 200M$ in resources. Those were frightening times, but now we have a remarkably effective vaccine, developed in record time. Dr. Malone was CEO and co-founder of RW Malone MD, LLC, a very successful consulting and development firm focused on clinical trials and USG medical countermeasure proposal capture and management. As a capture and proposal manager, Dr. Malone has an extraordinary funding record. In the past five years, he has been involved in ten billion dollars of successful government contracts and awards."
Dr. Malone is internationally recognized as one of the original inventors of “DNA Vaccination.” He holds numerous fundamental domestic and foreign patents in the fields of gene delivery, delivery formulations, and vaccines, has over fifty publications, has served as an invited speaker at over thirty conferences, has chaired numerous conferences, and has sat on numerous US Federal study sections.
Dr. Malone has extensive research and clinical development experience in the areas of clinical trials design and implementation, vaccines, gene therapy, biodefense, and immunology. He has over twenty years of management and leadership experience in academia, pharmaceuticals and biotechnology. His NGO, HHS, NIH, and DoD contract and grant knowledge is extensive, and he has helped many groups and companies to capture and manage multi-million dollar awards with these sponsors, including almost 10 billion dollars won in the last five years. Dr. Malone has superior leadership skills, and has often brought diverse teams together to tackle complex problems, and develop innovative solutions.
In 2014, Dr. Malone built and led the initial team, under NewLink Genetics, that took the Canadian rVSVZEBOV-G Ebola vaccine from an abandoned vaccine candidate to funding in the 100 million USD range. He led the team that implemented effective stockpiling strategies, project planning and clinical trials development for dosing strategies. He also set up the initial acquisition talks between Merck Vaccine and Newlink, which led to the sale, research collaboration, and successes of the development of the rVSVZEBOV-G Ebola vaccine.
In 2016, Dr. Malone started a new company: Atheric Pharmaceutical, LLC. Atheric™ Pharmaceutical LLC is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the rapid development and commercialization of repurposed drugs to prevent and treat Zika and other Flavivirus disease. Atheric's lead drug products are reformulated broad spectrum antiviral drugs that inhibit autophagy-dependent viral replication as well as other virus-cell interactions. Atheric is committed to providing broad-spectrum medical countermeasures for Zika and other neglected tropical diseases. Provisional patents for these indications have been filed with the USPTO. The lead drug candidates are approved or allowed by FDA/EMA for use during pregnancy, and cross the placenta enabling clinically significant pharmacodistribution to both mother and fetus. While CEO of Atheric, Dr. Malone has led research teams that have conducted an extensive analysis of drug compounds –working closely with USAMRIID, published two papers in PLoS NTD, have three more papers on Zika in preparation, has filed nine patents with due diligence performed for field of use, conducted in-vitro screening of compounds, and has identified lead drug candidates for prophylactic and therapeutic indications.
Dr. Malone is licensed to practice medicine in the state of Maryland, USA and holds a Doctorate of Medicine from Northwestern University Medical School.
He graduated from Harvard Medical School, Global Clinical Scholars Research Training Program in 2016. His pathology internship was completed at UC Davis. Dr. Malone has served as Adjunct Associate Professor of Biotechnology at Kennesaw State University, as faculty (Associate Professor) at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, as faculty at the University of Maryland, Medical School and at UC Davis. He holds a MS from UC San Diego in Biology and a BS in Biochemistry from UC Davis.
SUMMARY OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS / SKILLS
WORK EXPERIENCE
TEACHING EXPERIENCE
Kennesaw State UniversityAssociate Professor:BTEC 4490 Experimental Design and Analysis (2009): Survey course focused on advanced product development and regulatory aspects of biotechnology and vaccines products.University of Maryland, Medical SchoolAssistant Professor:Fundamentals of Molecular Biology (Graduate Course, Winter 2000)Host defenses and Infectious Diseases, small group instructor Year 2 Medical School core curriculum.1998, 1999PROFESSIONAL OFFICES AND MEMBERSHIPS
EDUCATION
SPECIALTY POSTGRADUATE COURSEWORK
EDITORIAL BOARDS
Reviewer for:
ACADEMIC HONORS
PATENTS SUBMITTED:
PATENTS ISSUED:
PUBLICATIONS
PUBLISHED ABSTRACTS: Over 40 published ( CHAIRPERSON/ORAL PRESENTATIONS BY INVITATION: Over 40 Invitations )
(Only the most recent events listed)RECENT STUDY SECTIONS:
BOOK CHAPTERS
Five Year Performance: Grants and Contracts ( Grants and Contracts / Role / Year / Awarded amount )
An original inventor of core mRNA and DNA vaccination technology (1989), Dr. Malone is a specialist in clinical research, medical affairs, regulatory affairs, project management, proposal management (large grants and contracts), vaccines and biodefense. This includes writing, developing, reviewing and managing vaccine, bio-threat and biologics clinical trials and clinical development strategies. He has been involved in developing, designing, and providing oversight of approximately forty phase 1 clinical trials and twenty phase 2 clinical trials, as well as five phase 3 clinical trials. He has served as medical director/medical monitor on both phase 1, phase 2 and phase 3 clinical trials, including those run at a well known vaccine-focused Clinical Contract Research Organizations. He has served as principal investigator on some of these. Examples of his infectious disease pathogen advanced (clinical phase) development oversight experience include HIV, Influenza (seasonal and pandemic), Plague, Anthrax, VEE/EEE/WEE, Tularemia, Tuberculosis, Ebola, Zika, Ricin toxin, Botulinum toxin, and Engineered pathogens. In many cases, this experience has included vaccine product development, manufacturing, regulatory compliance, and testing (manufacturing release and clinical) aspects. In most cases, his oversight responsibilities have included clinical trial design, regulatory and ethical compliance, and laboratory assay strategy, design, testing and performance.
Dr. Malone has a history of assembling and managing expert teams that focus on solving complicated biodefense challenges to meet US Government requirements. He was instrumental in enabling the PHAC/rVSV ZEBOV (“Merck Ebola”) vaccine to move forward quickly towards BLA and (now recently granted) licensure. Dr. Malone got the project on track in support of DoD/DTRA and NewLink Genetics, recruited organizations to team with USAMRIID/WRAIR to develop the immunoassays, put WHO and Norwegian government philanthropic leadership in touch with Pentagon leadership to expedite the initial WRAIR clinical and ring vaccination trials, recruited a management team, recruited Merck vaccines to purchase the product candidate from NewLink, helped write and edit the clinical trials developed by the World Health Organization and lead the development of the BARDA and DTRA contracts - yielding over 200M$ in resources. Dr. Malone’s early involvement in this project allowed for the Merck vaccine to be developed very rapidly.
Currently, Dr. Malone is leading a large team since January 10, 2020, focused on clinical research design, drug development, computer modeling and mechanisms of action of repurposed drugs for COVID-19 treatment. This work has included multiple manuscripts summarizing most recent findings relating to famotidine and overall insights into the mechanism of COVID-19 disease, and others focused on celecoxib and famotidine are being reviewed for publication. He has developed and wrote the initial clinical trial design: A Single Center, Randomized, Double Blinded Controlled Crossover Observational Outpatient Trial of the Safety and Efficacy of Oral Famotidine for the Treatment of COVID-19 in Non-Hospitalized Symptomatic Adults. Another project he has been involved with is a DTRA/DOMANE-funded development and performance of a virtual outpatient clinical trial designed to test new monitoring and data capture technology while using COVID19 as a live-fire example. He has helped open two IND fo famotidine and celecoxib use for treatment and prevention of COVID19 disease including an associated drug master file, and has enabled teaming/pharmaceutical supply arrangements with two major pharmaceutical firms.
Dr. Malone is an internationally recognized scientist and is the original inventor of mRNA Vaccination, DNA Vaccination, and multiple non-viral DNA and RNA/mRNA delivery technologies. Dr. Malone holds numerous fundamental domestic and foreign patents in the fields of gene delivery, delivery formulations, and vaccines: including DNA and RNA/mRNA vaccines. His expertise includes virology, immunology, molecular biology, pathology and pharmacology.
Scientifically trained at UC Davis, UC San Diego, and at the Salk Institute Molecular Biology and Virology laboratories, Dr. Malone received his medical training at Northwestern University (MD) and Harvard University (Clinical Research Post Graduate Fellowship) medical schools, and in Pathology at UC Davis. Dr. Malone is currently finishing up his board certification in medical affairs (BCMAS).
He has extensive research and development experience (bench to bedside) in the areas of pre-clinical discovery research, clinical trials, vaccines, gene therapy, bio-defense, repurposing drugs for infectious diseases, high throughput screening and immunology. He has over twenty years of management and leadership experience in academia, pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries, as well as in governmental and non-governmental organizations. He often serves as study section chairperson for NIAID contract study sections relating to biodefense medical product development. He is currently a topic editor for the journal Frontiers in Pharmacology, in the area of “Treating COVID-19 With Currently Available Drugs.”
Dr. Malone has approximately 100 peer-reviewed publications and published abstracts and has about 12,000 citations of his peer reviewed publications, as verified by Google Scholar. His google scholar ranking is “outstanding” for impact factors. He has been an invited speaker at over 50 conferences, has chaired numerous conferences and he has sat on or served as chairperson on numerous NIAID and DoD study sections.
SUMMARY OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS / SKILLS
LICENSURE / CERTIFICATIONS
BOARD OF DIRECTOR POSITIONS:
EDUCATION
TEACHING EXPERIENCE
PROFESSIONAL OFFICES AND MEMBERSHIPS
EDITORIAL BOARDS
ACADEMIC HONORS
PATENTS ISSUED:
PUBLICATIONS (selected)
PUBLISHED ABSTRACTS: Over 50 published
CHAIRPERSON/ORAL PRESENTATIONS BY INVITATION: Over 40 Invitations
(Only the most recent events listed)RECENT STUDY SECTIONS (selected):
BOOKS AND BOOK CHAPTERS
PDF of transcript info : [HL007Z][GDrive]
Name: Robert W Malone
Birth Year: about 1960 (Age: 19)
Marriage Date: 17 Feb 1979
Marriage Place: Santa Barbara, California, USA
Spouse Name: Jill Glasspool [ now Dr. Jill Glasspool-Malone (born 1960) ]
Spouse Age: 18
1984 to 1986 - "Northwestern University MD/ PhD Scholarship"
Full Journal of the National Cancer Institute (Sep, 1984) - [HG00E5][GDrive]
Leslie J. Faulkin ,4 Dan J. Mitchell, Lawrence J. T. Young, David W. Morris, Robert W. Malone,5 [Dr. Robert Darrell Cardiff (born 1935)] , and [Dr. Murray Briggs Gardner (born 1945)] 5, 6
https://www.pmid2cite.com/pmid-to-doi-converter : No DOI for PMID 6090752
ABSTRACT - Laboratory colonies of feral mice ( Mus musculusdomesticus ) have been established with specific mouse mammary tumor virus ( MUMTV ) genotype , including colonies lacking any proviral DNA ( ev ) or carrying only a single copy of MUMTV DNA ( ev * ) . No evidence of a decline in reproductive capacity has been observed in the first 8 generations . Both the ev ' and ev* mice showed normal mammary gland development and the development of hyperplastic lesions in the older females . The mice were very resistant to spontaneous or chemically induced mammary tumors . However, the occurrence of 1 mammary tumor in an ev mouse indicates that mammary neoplasias can occur in the absence of MUMTV DNA . The few tumors that do occur in the ev mice provide a unique opportunity to study the neoplastic process in the absence of proviral DNA . –JNCI 1984 ; 73 : 971-982 .
The evolutionary conservation of genetically transmitted retrovirogenes has suggested that they may provide a critical function for normal development ( 1 ) . In the MuMTV system , specifically, it has been speculated that MuMTV expression may be required for normal functioning of the mammary gland. Bent velzen and Hilgers ( 2 ) hypothesized that MuMTV germinal provirus was associated with a mam gene, analogous with src of the avian sarcoma virus. They proposed that controlled expression of this gene was essential for normal mammary gland development, whereas uncontrolled expression ( as after exogenous infection with MuMTV ) resulted in mammary neoplasia ( 2).
COnversely, the great variation in endrogenous MuMTV restruction patterns in inbred mouse strains and individual wils mice implied a lack of selective advantage of these genes (3). This belief was supported by the finding of several apparently normal feral mice lacking detectabl eMuMTX provirus in their liver DNA (2). COhen and Varmus *3) thus favored the hypothesis that endogeneous proviruses were acquired by multiple independent infections of germ cells, and they saw no funcitonal ruole for proviral DNA in normal growth and deveopment.
To determine whether enogeneous MuMTX provirueses are essential to normal development of the mammary gland and/or the development of mammary hyperplasia and neoplasia, we have studies these featres in a coloony of selectively bred feral mice that are totaly free of endogenous MuMTV copies in their cellular genome ( 5 ) . For ease of discussion we have labeled these endogenous virus -negative mice " ev ." In the ev mice , mammary gland development and function are compared to other feral mice homozygous for a single MuMTV provirus labeled " ev ” and to well established strains of inbred mice carrying multiple MUMTV proviruses ( 5 ) . In addition , we describe the formation in the mammary tissue of the ev and ev * mice of hyperplastic and neoplastic lesions that, although infrequently seen , are similar to those of laboratory mice ( 6 , 7 ) . We confirmed by Southern blot analysis that the ev' and ev * mouse colonies bred true for this trait and that the tumor DNA in these mice showed no alteration from the germ line MuMTV genotype.
[...]
. Summer 1985;2(2):93-8.
[Dr. Murray Briggs Gardner (born 1945)], R W Malone, D W Morris, L J Young, R Strange, [Dr. Robert Darrell Cardiff (born 1935)], L J Faulkin, D J Mitchell
PMID: 3023583
Abstract : Two mammary tumors developed in feral mice treated with dimethylbenzanthracene. The tumors, livers, and spleens of these animals contained no MuMTV proviral DNA. Neither tumor had amplified or rearranged int-1 or int-2 loci. This demonstrates that mammary tumorigenesis can occur in mice in the absence of endogenous and exogenous MuMTV.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3023583/
1985-02-journal-of-experimental-pathology-mammary-tumors-in-feral-mice-lacking-mumtv-dna.pdf
1985-02-journal-of-experimental-pathology-mammary-tumors-in-feral-mice-lacking-mumtv-dna-pg-93
1985-02-journal-of-experimental-pathology-mammary-tumors-in-feral-mice-lacking-mumtv-dna-pg-94
Article located here : [Dr. Murray Briggs Gardner (born 1945)]
(1989). "Cationic Liposome-mediated RNA Transfection". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 86 (16).
PNAS August 1, 1989 86 (16) 6077-6081; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.86.16.6077 / Source PDF : [HG00EW][GDrive]
Authors : R W Malone / Dr. Philip Louis Felgner (born 1950) / Dr. Inder Mohan Verma (born 1947) /
Abstract : "We have developed an efficient and reproducible method for RNA transfection, using a synthetic cationic lipid, N-[1-(2,3-dioleyloxy)propyl]-N,N,N-trimethylammonium chloride (DOTMA), incorporated into a liposome (lipofectin). Transfection of 10 ng to 5 micrograms of Photinus pyralis luciferase mRNA synthesized in vitro into NIH 3T3 mouse cells yields a linear response of luciferase activity. The procedure can be used to efficiently transfect RNA into human, rat, mouse, Xenopus, and Drosophila cells. Using the RNA/lipofectin transfection procedure, we have analyzed the role of capping and beta-globin 5' and 3' untranslated sequences on the translation efficiency of luciferase RNA synthesized in vitro. Following transfection of NIH 3T3 cells, capped mRNAs with beta-globin untranslated sequences produced at least 1000-fold more luciferase protein than mRNAs lacking these elements." [ ... ]
The wide variety of methods to introduce genetic material into cells includes relatively simple manipulations like mixing high molecular weight DNA with calcium phosphate, DEAEdextran, polylysine, or polyornithine. Other methods involve electroporation, protoplast fusion, liposomes, reconstituted viral envelopes, viral vectors, or microinjection. In nearly all cases DNA has been introduced into cells because of its inherent stability and eventual integration in the host genome. By comparison, progress in introducing RNA molecules into cells has been very slow and restricted to a few cases (1-4). Inability to obtain sufficient amounts of intact RNA and its rapid degradation have been a major hindrance in the past. The limitation of obtaining sufficient quantities of RNA can now be alleviated by synthesizing large amounts of RNA in vitro, using bacteriophage RNA polymerases (5).
Since we were interested in studying the cis- and transacting factors influencing both the translational efficiency and the stability of eukaryotic mRNAs, we undertook the development of a reliable method to efficiently introduce RNAs into cells. We report the use of RNA transfection mediated by lipofectin (a liposome containing a cationic lipid) for efficient and reproducible RNA introduction and expression in tissue culture cells. The RNA/lipofectin complex can be used to introduce RNA into a wide variety of cells, including fibroblasts, hematopoietic cell lines, F9 teratocarcinoma cells, JEG choriocarcinoma cells, PC12 pheochromocytoma cells, amphibian cells, insect cells, and a variety of cells grown in suspension.
Tissue Culture and Plasmids. All the cell lines used were obtained from the American Type Culture Collection and grown in either Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium (DMEM) + 10% fetal calf serum or RPMI 1640 medium + 10%o fetal calf serum. Drosophila KC cells were obtained from Michael McKeown (Salk Institute) and maintained in D22 medium (Whittaker M. A. Bioproducts).
Cloning procedures were carried out essentially as described (6). T7 RNA polymerase transcription templates, as well as various mRNAs produced from them, are outlined in
Fig. 1. Xenopus laevis f3-globin sequences were derived from the plasmid pSP64 T (7), with the 5' f-globin sequences obtained as the HindIII/Bgl II fragment and the 3' /3-globin sequences released as the Bgl II/EcoRI fragment. These 3' sequences include a terminal polynucleotide tract of A23C30. The Photinus pyralis luciferase sequences were obtained as the HindIII/BamHI fragment ofpJD206 (8), and they include 22 bases of luciferase cDNA sequence preceding the open reading frame, as well as 45 bases of cDNA sequence downstream of the termination codon, but they are devoid of the luciferase polyadenylylation signal. The 30-nucleotide poly(A) tail of the plasmid Luc An was obtained from pSP64 An. All transcripts were generated from the T7 RNA polymerase promoter (9).
RNA Synthesis and Purification. The capped RNAs were transcribed from a linearized plasmid DNA in a reaction mixture containing 40 mM Tris HCl at pH 8.0, 8 mM MgCl2, 5 mM dithiothreitol, 4 mM spermidine, 1 mM ATP, 1 mM UTP, 1 mM CTP, 0.5 mM GTP, 0.5 mM m7G(5')ppp(5')G (New England Biolabs), T7 RNA polymerase (New England Biolabs) at 4000 units/ml, RNasin (Pharmacia) at 2000 units/ ml, and linearized DNA template at 0.5 mg/ml for 60 min at 370C. Transcription reaction mixtures were treated with RQ1 DNase (2 units/,ug of template; Pharmacia) for 15 min at 370C, and, after extraction with phenol/chloroform, the samples were precipitated with ethanol/NaOAc. Uncapped RNAs were prepared in a similar fashion, except that m7G(5')ppp(5')G was omitted and the GTP concentration was raised to 1 mM. Radioactive RNA was prepared without capping as described above by adding 4 ,uCi (1 Ci = 37 GBq) of [32P]UTP per ag of template DNA. All RNA species used for the data presented herein were prepared in bulk, using reactions yielding 0.1-1 mg of purified RNA. [...]
1990 Mar 23;247(4949 Pt 1):1465-8. doi: 10.1126/science.1690918. : PDF Download : [HP007R][GDrive]
Authors :
"RNA and DNA expression vectors containing genes for chloramphenicol acetyltransferase, luciferase, and beta-galactosidase were separately injected into mouse skeletal muscle in vivo. Protein expression was readily detected in all cases, and no special delivery system was required for these effects. The extent of expression from both the RNA and DNA constructs was comparable to that obtained from fibroblasts transfected in vitro under optimal conditions. In situ cytochemical staining for beta-galactosidase activity was localized to muscle cells following injection of the beta-galactosidase DNA vector. After injection of the DNA luciferase expression vector, luciferase activity was present in the muscle for at least 2 months."
@RWMaloneMD : "So, this mRNA vaccine proof of principle experiment is from one of the patent's - priority date 1989. I wrote the patent disclosures and drafts of patent. Gary Rhodes did a lot of the work - and I helped him with design (after I left Vical) - he was hired to replace me."
See : Dr. Gary Harvey Rhodes (born 1944)
"University of California, Davis photo from my gene therapy and vaccine laboratory group circa mid-1990s at the Department of Pathology in the School of Medicine. From left to right are Dr. Jay Hecker, myself, and Dr. Gary Rhodes. "
Inventors: [Dr. Philip Louis Felgner (born 1950)], Rancho Santa Fe, Calif.; [Dr. Jon Asher Wolff (born 1956)], Madison, Wis.; [Dr. Gary Harvey Rhodes (born 1944)], Leucadia, Calif.; Robert W. Malone, Chicago, Ill., [Dr. Dennis A. Carson (born 1936)], Del Mar, Calif. 73) Assignees: [Vical Incorporated], San Diego, Calif.; Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, Dane, Wis.
Patent Number: 5,589,466 45) Date of Patent: Dec. 31, 1996 / PDF Source : [HG00F1][GDrive]
1989 (March 21) US Patent Serial no 326305 --> 1990 (Jan 19) US Patent Serial no 467881 --> 1990 (March 21) US Patent 496991 --> 1993 (Jan 25)
Full newspaper page : [HN01WM][GDrive] / Text form [HN01WX][GDrive] / Mentioned : Dr. Philip Louis Felgner (born 1950) / Dr. Jon Asher Wolff (born 1956) / Dr. Robert Wallace Malone (born 1959) / Vical Incorporated /
Also mentioned : Dr. Dennis A. Carson (born 1936) / Dr. Karl Yoder Hostetler (born 1939) / Dr. Douglas Daniel Richman (born 1943)
The experiment was so elementary, and the results so surprising, that researchers working with San Diego’s Vical Inc. couldn’t really believe what they were seeing. It all seemed too simple.
They had been injecting submicroscopic fatty globules containing DNA or RNA into mice to see what would happen. The idea was that the fat globules, called liposomes, would be taken up by cells. The cells would use the genetic material inside to make proteins they couldn’t otherwise make.
The researchers found moderate success with that, but the rigors of science demanded that the experiment have a “control” portion--injecting the raw DNA or RNA into the mice to show that the liposomes themselves were making it possible for the new genes to be incorporated into the cell’s processes.
It turned out the cells like the raw material even better and began making the new proteins for as long as six months.
“This was a big surprise, and that’s really what you’re looking for in this area,” said [Dr. Philip Louis Felgner (born 1950)], director of product development at Vical. Felgner worked on the experiment with [Dr. Jon Asher Wolff (born 1956)] and others at the University of Wisconsin at Madison.
Researchers spent several months longer trying to find flaws in their methods or their conclusions. The literature of science is littered with examples of experimental results that deserved the label of too good to be true, explained [Dr. Karl Yoder Hostetler (born 1939)], vice president for research and development at Vical.
“We didn’t want any fiascoes,” he said.
Vical hopes that the results of this checking and double-checking, reported in today’s issue of the journal Science, will convert the company from a bare-bones start-up to a major player in the ranks of San Diego’s biotechnology community.
The company, which was founded in 1987, hopes to find financing to more than double its scientific staff of 22 as a result of the study. It is talking with several large drug companies to see if any would like to buy into the follow-up studies on the new gene transfer method, said Vical President Wick Goodspeed.
Some familiar names in San Diego science and business have played a role in Vical. Among them:
[Dr. Karl Yoder Hostetler (born 1939)], who is on leave from his longtime post as professor of medicine in residence at UC San Diego. His specialties include investigating ways to use lipid chemistry to improve the effectiveness of drugs.
[Dr. Douglas Daniel Richman (born 1943)], a founder and scientific adviser to the firm. Richman is a professor in residence of medicine and pathology at UCSD, specializing in virology and clinical trials of AIDS treatments.
[Dr. Dennis A. Carson (born 1936) ], also a scientific adviser to the firm. Carson recently resigned as head of the division of clinical immunology at Scripps Clinic to become head of UCSD’s new institute for research on aging.
Timothy Wollaeger, chairman of the board. Wollaeger formerly was senior vice president in charge of finance and administration for Hybritech Inc., the monoclonal antibody firm whose success was capped in 1986 with its $485-million acquisition by Eli Lilly & Co.
Howard E. (Ted) Greene, a director of Vical. He formerly was chief executive officer for Hybritech. Greene and Wollaeger were the driving forces behind Biovest Partners, a venture capital firm that financed several San Diego biotech firms.
W. Larry Respess, a Vical director. A leader in biotech patent law, he formerly was general counsel of Gen-Probe and Hybritech.
Until now, the best combination of science and business for Vical has been the multi-year research contract it received last summer from Burroughs Wellcome Co. to develop new forms of AZT for AIDS therapy. The study is investigating the idea that encasing AZT in fat globules would make it more powerful within the body.
The gene-insertion technique reported in Science this week is being suggested as a way to cause the body to generate proteins that would block persistent viral infections, ranging from AIDS to herpes. It also is seen as having potential use as a way to trigger cells to immunize the body against diseases, researchers say.
Vical is calling the new method “gene therapeutics,” to distinguish it from the traditional goal of gene therapy, which uses viruses to insert missing genes into the genetic codes of people with genetic diseases.
The so-called retroviral method has proved difficult and slow, despite several years of intense effort by research groups around the country, including a group led by Dr. Theodore Friedmann at UCSD.
Because retroviruses insert their own genetic code into the cells of their host, the method is also expected to be problematic as a gene therapy technique--since some scientists worry that this could harm the patient irreversibly in some unforeseen way.
Inserting the genes themselves into muscle cells--without any retroviral carrier--avoids this stumbling block entirely, [Dr. Philip Louis Felgner (born 1950)] said. The genes do their work of producing proteins, called expression, but they don’t seem to affect the cell’s own genetic structure, he said.
“People have worked in the gene therapy area for years assuming that a rather complex viral delivery system would be required in order to get expression. And we have found that you can do it very simply,” Felgner said.
It was the slowness of the gene therapy field that led Felgner’s collaborator, of the University of Wisconsin, to decide less than two years ago to get out of it altogether, Wolff said in a telephone interview.
Wolff was an assistant professor and a researcher in Friedmann’s UCSD lab before going to Wisconsin as an assistant professor of pediatrics and medical genetics in 1988.
“I had pretty much planned to get out of the gene therapy field because I got discouraged with the retroviral approach. Scientifically, it wasn’t very challenging,” he said. “Everybody was doing the same thing, and nothing was working that well.”
The results of the research contract with Vical, begun in January, 1989, have rekindled his enthusiasm, [Dr. Jon Asher Wolff (born 1956)] said.
He believes that, in the end, genetic therapies will involve a variety of techniques, not just the Vical method. But he and [Dr. Philip Louis Felgner (born 1950)] acknowledge that they expect some resistance to their ideas from the traditional gene therapy community.
“You’re talking about somebody who has spent his life in this field, and who would like to make the real breakthroughs that are going to allow it to be used in patients with diseases,” Felgner said. “There’s quite a bit at stake.”
Other collaborators with Wolff and Felgner on the research were [Dr. Robert Wallace Malone (born 1959)] of Vical and Phillip Williams, Wang Chong, Gyula Acsadi and Agnes Jani in Wisconsin.
Vical is planning to try to patent the technique, even though it involves no novel or complex steps unfamiliar to molecular biologists. In essence, it involves preparing DNA or RNA with standard techniques and then injecting it in the conventional way into muscle.
“The reason why we have patent position is that it was such a total surprise. Some of those things are the best patents you can get,” Felgner said. “Nobody who was ‘skilled in the art’ would have ever thought that what we have accomplished here was even possible. Nobody would have even thought to do the experiment.”
https://ia802205.us.archive.org/3/items/annualcommenceme1991nort/annualcommenceme1991nort.pdf
annualcommenceme1991nort-malone-hl.jpg
V J Dwarki 1, R W Malone, [Dr. Inder Mohan Verma (born 1947)]
PMID: 7682647 / DOI: 10.1016/0076-6879(93)17093-k / PDF : [HP009U][GDrive]
1994 (Nov)
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7961986/
J Biol Chem
. 1994 Nov 25;269(47):29903-7.
R W Malone 1, M A Hickman, K Lehmann-Bruinsma, T R Sih, R Walzem, D M Carlson, J S Powell
Affiliations expand
PMID: 7961986
The critical physiological functions of the liver make hepatocytes important targets for therapeutic gene delivery. This study reports significant gene expression following direct injection of plasmid DNA into the livers of rats and cats. Transfection was characterized using luciferase and Lac Z expression from plasmids with the cytomegalovirus immediate early promoter/enhancer (CMV IE) or the Rous sarcoma virus long terminal repeat (RSV LTR). Dexamethasone treatment enhanced and prolonged transfected gene expression, possibly by activating gene expression. Southern analysis of total DNA extracted from liver at various times following injection detected persistent unintegrated plasmid DNA which maintained a prokaryotic methylation pattern. This study demonstrates the feasibility of direct DNA injection in the experimental analysis of hepatic gene expression in vivo.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7711140/
Hum Gene Ther
. 1994 Dec;5(12):1477-83. doi: 10.1089/hum.1994.5.12-1477.
M A Hickman 1, R W Malone, K Lehmann-Bruinsma, T R Sih, D Knoell, F C Szoka, R Walzem, D M Carlson, J S Powell
Affiliations expand
PMID: 7711140
The liver is an attractive target tissue for gene therapy. Current approaches for hepatic gene delivery include retroviral and adenoviral vectors, liposome/DNA, and peptide/DNA complexes. This study describes a technique for direct injection of DNA into liver that led to significant gene expression. Gene expression was characterized in both rats and cats following injection of plasmid DNA encoding several different proteins. Luciferase activity was measured after injection of plasmid DNA encoding the luciferase gene (pCMVL), beta-galactosidase (beta-Gal) activity was evaluated in situ using plasmid DNA encoding Lac Z (pCMV beta), and serum concentration of secreted human alpha-1-antitrypsin was measured following injection of plasmid DNA encoding this protein (pRC/CMV-sHAT). Several variables, including injection technique, DNA dose, and DNA diluent, were investigated. Direct injection of pCMVL resulted in maximal luciferase expression at 24-48 hr. beta-Gal staining demonstrated that the majority of transfected hepatocytes were located near the injection site. Significant concentrations of human alpha-1-antitrypsin were detected in the serum of animals injected with pRC/CMV-sHAT. These findings demonstrate the general principle that direct injection of plasmid DNA into liver can lead to significant gene expression.
\https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7647291/
. 1995 Feb;15(1):47-53. doi: 10.1007/BF01200214.
M J Bennett 1, M H Nantz, R P Balasubramaniam, D C Gruenert, R W Malone
PMID: 7647291
DOI: 10.1007/BF01200214
Cationic liposome transfection reagents are useful for transferring polynucleotides into cells, and have been proposed for human pulmonary gene therapy. The effect of adding cholesterol to cationic lipid preparations has been tested by first formulating the cationic lipid N-[1-(2,3-dioleoyloxy)propyl-N-[1-(2-hydroxy)ethyl]-N,N-dimethyl ammonium iodide (DORI) with varying amounts of dioleoylphosphatidylethanolamine (DOPE) and cholesterol. Cholesterol was found to enhance lipid-mediated transfection in both the respiratory epithelial cells and mouse fibroblasts. These findings will facilitate nucleic acid transfection of many cell types including differentiated epithelial cell monolayers, and therefore may be useful for examining gene regulation in various cell types and for developing pulmonary gene therapy.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8717385/
. 1996 Jan 26;44(1-3):43-6. doi: 10.1016/0168-1656(95)00091-7.
PMID: 8717385 / DOI: 10.1016/0168-1656(95)00091-7
Contaminating endotoxin in solutions used in gene therapy and genetic immunization can result in various deleterious effects both in vitro and in vivo. In order to avoid such complications, attempts were made to characterize the extent of the problem of endotoxin contamination and develop a solution to this problem. After screening for endotoxin in plasmid DNA preparations using the Limulus Amoebocyte Lysate (LAL) assay, nearly half of all samples displayed high endotoxin levels. Therefore, a simple one-step procedure was developed for the removal of endotoxin using a polymyxin B resin.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8597581/
Biochim Biophys Acta
. 1996 Feb 16;1299(3):281-3. doi: 10.1016/0005-2760(95)00230-8.
A M Aberle 1, M J Bennett, R W Malone, M H Nantz
Affiliations expand
PMID: 8597581
A panel of DOTAP analogs was prepared by altering the anionic counterion that accompanies the trimethylammonium polar domain. The transfection of plasmid DNA into NIH3T3 cells and mouse lung was examined using the counterion analogs. The in vitro transfection activity decreased as follows: DOTAP.bisulfate > trifluoromethanesulfonate approximately equal to iodide approximately equal to bromide > dihydrogenphosphate approximately equal to chloride approximately equal to acetate > sulfate. A similar activity trend was observed in vivo.
. 1996 Feb;3(2):163-72.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8867864/
R P Balasubramaniam 1, M J Bennett, A M Aberle, J G Malone, M H Nantz, R W Malone
PMID: 8867864
Cationic lipids (cytofectins) have gained widespread acceptance as pharmaceutical polynucleotide delivery agents for both cultured cell and in vivo transfection, and the cytofectins DOTAP and DC-Cholesterol are being tested in clinical human gene therapy trials. This study reports the effects of modifications in the hydrophobic domain of a prototypic cytofectin (DORI), including modifications in lipid side-chain length, saturation, and symmetry. A panel of related compounds was prepared and analyzed using DNA transfection, electron microscopy, and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). Lipid formulations were prepared with dioleoylphosphatidylethanolamine (DOPE) as unsonicated preparations and sonicated preparations. Transfection analyses were performed using cultured fibroblasts, human bronchial epithelial, and Chinese hamster ovarian cells as well as a mouse model for pulmonary gene delivery. In general, cytofectins containing dissymmetric hydrophobic domains were found to work as well or better than the best symmetric analogs. Optimal side-chain length and symmetry varied with cell type. Compounds with phase transitions (Tc) above and below physiological temperature (37 degrees C) were tested for DNA transfection activity. In contrast to previous reports, cytofectin Tc was not found to be predictive of transfection efficacy. Pulmonary treatment with free DNA was found to be at least as effective as treatment with commonly used cytofectin:DNA complexes. However, cytofectins that incorporate a hydroxyethylammonium moiety in the polar domain were found to enhance in vivo gene delivery relative to free DNA.
in same group with - Dr. Robert Ray Redfield Jr. (born 1951) / Dr. Deborah Birx / Dr. Flossie Wong-Staal (born 1946) /
Authors : [Dr. Jill Glasspool-Malone (born 1960)]1, Bergland PJ, Liljestrom P, [Dr. Gary Harvey Rhodes (born 1944)], [Dr. Robert Wallace Malone (born 1959)]
Affiliations : "Gene Therapy Program, Medical Pathology, University of California, Davis 95616, USA. "
Behring Institute Mitteilungen, 01 Feb 1997, (98):63-72 / PMID: 9382771
NOTE : We cannot find a copy of this paper, either free or for purchase, available on the internet as of Jan 3 2022.
Abstract : A variety of gene delivery technologies can be used to express antigens within somatic tissues, resulting in systemic humoral and cellular immune responses. This observation has led to the development of polynucleotide vaccine preparations for stimulation of systemic immunity. Mucosal immune responses are functionally distinct from systemic immune responses, and are stimulated by antigen presentation within specialised mucosal-associated inductor tissues. We hypothesize that mucosal genetic vaccine will require gene transfer methods which target mucosal-associated inductor tissues such as the oropharyngeal Waldeyer's ring or intestinal Peyer's patches. We have tested this hypothesis by expressing a test antigen using a replication-defective recombinant Semliki Forest Virus (SFV) preparation. Mice treated with recombinant SFV via an intravascular or intratracheal route generated systemic immune responses against the test antigen. In contrast, intranasal inoculation resulted in the production of IgA within pulmonary fluids, one hallmark of a mucosal immune response. These results indicate that transfection of mucosal effector tissues may not be sufficient for the generation of a universal mucosal immune response. Furthermore, the results predict that techniques which target transfection or transduction to mucosal inductor tissues will enable the development of a new class of polynucleotide vaccines which exploit current concepts in mucosal immunology.
. 1997 Dec 5;40(25):4069-78. doi: 10.1021/jm970155q.
M J Bennett 1, A M Aberle, R P Balasubramaniam, J G Malone, R W Malone, M H Nantz
Affiliations expand
PMID: 9406597
DOI: 10.1021/jm970155q
A panel of lipidic tetraalkylammonium chlorides has been prepared and screened in studies of both lipid hydration and in vivo mouse transfection. The effect of cationic lipid structure on liposome surface hydration was determined using differential scanning calorimetry. Increases in headgroup steric bulk and the inclusion of cis-unsaturation in the hydrophobic domain led to greater lipid hydration, indicative of a decrease in lipid polar domain associations. Cationic lipids containing hydrogen-bonding functionality in the polar domain exhibited a corresponding decrease in observed lipid hydration, indicative of an increase in lipid polar domain associations. To explore a potential correlation of the hydration data with transfection activity, we examined the in vivo transfection activity of the lipid panel by direct intratracheal instillation of cationic liposome-DNA complexes into BALB/c mice. The more active transfection agents were the lipids that featured headgroup structures promoting close polar domain association in combination with fatty acyl cis-unsaturation. The hydration data suggest that the more effective transfection lipids for mouse lung delivery are those possessing the greatest imbalance between the cross-sectional areas occupied by the polar and hydrophobic domains.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9406597/
1999 Jul 1;10(10):1703-13. doi: 10.1089/10430349950017707.
1999-07-human-gene-therapy-enhancement-direct-respiratory-tissue-transfection-ac.pdf
1999-07-human-gene-therapy-enhancement-direct-respiratory-tissue-transfection-ac-og-01.jpg
J Glasspool-Malone 1, R W Malone
PMID: 10428215
Simple, nontoxic, and pharmaceutically defined methods for genetic modification of respiratory tissues may enable development of a variety of molecular medicines. Clinical applications for such medicines include treatment of inborn errors of metabolism, interventions for asthma and iatrogenic pulmonary fibrosis, and disease prophylaxis via mucosal polynucleotide vaccination. "Free," "direct," or "naked" plasmid administration is a simple, apparently safe, and pharmaceutically defined gene delivery method. Murine, macaque, and clinical human studies have demonstrated transfection of respiratory tissues after direct application of free plasmid. The aim of this study was to develop a simple and safe alternative to respiratory tissue transduction, and specifically to provide a theoretical framework for developing a category of adjuvants, nuclease inhibitors, that augment the transfection activity of free plasmid. Plasmid employing the human CMV IE promoter/enhancer to drive expression of the Photinus pyralis luciferase reporter protein was administered intratracheally into mouse lung with or without the nuclease inhibitor aurintricarboxylic acid (ATA). Lavage samples and tissue extracts were used to demonstrate inhibition of lung nuclease activity. ATA dose escalation studies were performed using lung homogenate assays to characterize transfection. Potential toxicity was assessed histologically. The data indicate that nucleases present in respiratory fluids accelerate clearance of biologically active plasmid from lung, that intratracheal coadministration of ATA together with plasmid reduces extracellular DNA clearance, and that this treatment results in marked enhancement of reporter protein expression. The effective dose for ATA enhancement of direct lung transfection was 0.5 microg/g mouse weight, and the LD50 was approximately 6 microg/g. These findings provide a theoretical and practical foundation for further development of an alternative gene delivery system: free plasmid-based respiratory transfection technology.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10486925/
. 1999 Aug 20;73(2-3):155-79. doi: 10.1016/s0168-1656(99)00118-2.
K A Berlyn 1, S Ponniah, S A Stass, J G Malone, G Hamlin-Green, J K Lim, M Cottler-Fox, G Tricot, R B Alexander, D L Mann, R W Malone
Affiliations expand
PMID: 10486925
Immunotherapy has been successfully used to treat some human malignancies, principally melanoma and renal cell carcinoma. Genetic-based cancer immunotherapies were proposed which prime T lymphocyte recognition of unique neo-antigens arising from specific mutations. Genetic immunization (polynucleotide vaccination, DNA vaccines) is a process whereby gene therapy methods are used to create vaccines and immunotherapies. Recent findings indicate that genetic immunization works indirectly via a bone marrow derived cell, probably a type of dendritic antigen presenting cell (APC). Direct targeting of genetic vaccines to these cells may provide an efficient method for stimulating cellular and humoral immune responses to infectious agents and tumor antigens. Initial studies have provided monocytic-derived dendritic cell (DC) isolation and culture techniques, simple methods for delivering genes into these cells, and have also uncovered potential obstacles to effective cancer immunotherapy which may restrict the utility of this paradigm to a subset of patients.
License Number: D55466 Dr. Robert Wallace Malone
License Type: Physician-Medical Doctor
License Status: Active
Licensed Issued: 10/27/1999 License Expiration: 09/30/2023
Licensure Pathway: N/A
Special License Category: N/A
Primary Practice Setting N/A
Public Address : 355 Hebron Valley Rd / Madison, VA 22727
Education : NORTHWESTERN UNIV MED SCH / Graduation Year: 1991
Medical Assistance and Malpractice Insurance : [blank]
Accept Medicaid? No
Maintains Malpractice Insurance? Yes
Postgraduate Training Program
School / Concentration
► University of California (Davis), Sacramento, CA
► University of Maryland Medical School, Baltimore, MD
► University of California (Davis), Davis, CA
By Sheryl Gay Stolberg / Source : [HN01WS][GDrive]
Mentioned: Dr. Harold Eliot Varmus (born 1939) / Dr. Robert Wallace Malone (born 1959) / Dr. Robert Michael Blaese (born 1939) / Dr. William French Anderson (born 1936) / Jesse Gelsinger (born 1981) / Vical Incorporated /
Gene therapy burst into the news last fall, when a teenager from Tucson died in an experiment at the University of Pennsylvania. But while politicians and the press have spent the year focusing on accusations of lax government oversight and shoddily run clinical trials, the science of gene therapy has been making quiet, steady progress.
Little by little, researchers say, they are finding new and better ways to deliver genes to their target cells. Clinical trials of gene-based treatments for hemophilia are showing promise, and certain cancer patients appear to respond to gene therapy. And the field got a big ego boost this spring when French scientists reported they had used gene therapy successfully to treat babies born with defective immune systems.
And so it was with mixed emotions -- worry and regret, enthusiasm and a little bit of defiance -- that 2,500 gene therapy scientists from around the nation, and the world, gathered here this week for the third annual conference of the American Society of Gene Therapy. It has been, they agreed, a roller coaster of a year.
''It's finally coming together,'' said Dr. Savio L. C. Woo, a soft-spoken molecular biologist who, as the society's president, found himself testifying in Congress on more than one occasion in the past several months. ''We are finally seeing this glimpse of hope that this new technology is going to bear fruit in the clinic. And yet we have had this serious setback.''
The setback, of course, was the death of 18-year-old [Jesse Gelsinger (born 1981)], who suffered from a metabolic disorder and had volunteered for an experiment to test gene therapy for babies with a fatal form of the disease. His presence was acutely felt at the conference. In his presidential address, Dr. Woo asked those attending to stand in a moment of silence for ''the young man who has given his life in pursuit of an ideal treatment'' and ''to assure him in spirit that the scientific community is galvanized to do our very best to help fulfill his dream one day.''
Mr. Gelsinger's death has had ripple effects throughout the field. It touched off a discussion of financial conflict of interest in gene therapy experiments, prompting the society to issue guidelines barring members from running clinical trials if they had a financial stake in the companies sponsoring their studies.
It has also caused a slowdown in human experiments; an official from the Food and Drug Administration, which recently issued more stringent regulations to govern the conduct of gene therapy clinical trials, said here that requests to test gene therapy in people had dropped off sharply in recent months.
''The field is in transition,'' said [Dr. Robert Wallace Malone (born 1959)], a researcher at the University of Maryland. ''I think it is transitioning to a more sober, realistic recognition of what is achievable. I believe there is a new humility in the field.''
Dr. Rajendra Kumar-Singh is typical. At 32, Dr. Kumar-Singh is an assistant professor of ophthalmology at the University of Utah and is just starting his career in gene therapy. He is studying treatments for retinitis pigmentosa, an inherited condition that causes blindness. By administering an infusion of gene-altered viruses to baby mice, he said, he has staved off blindness for 10 weeks in animals that would otherwise have lost their sight within 17 days of birth.
But Dr. Kumar-Singh said he would be cautious before testing the therapy in people. ''Perhaps we were moving too fast,'' he acknowledged, echoing the sentiments of some critics, including [Dr. Harold Eliot Varmus (born 1939)], the former director of the National Institutes of Health, who felt gene therapy researchers moved too quickly into clinical trials. Still, Dr. Kumar-Singh is optimistic about gene therapy's future. ''We are seeing a revolution in medicine right now,'' he said, ''and gene therapy is at the forefront of it.''
The idea behind gene therapy is disarmingly simple: to treat or cure disease by giving healthy genes to patients with defective ones. But in the 10 years since the first human experiment was conducted by researchers at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Md., the results have been largely disappointing.
One reason is that scientists have had trouble devising delivery vehicles, called vectors, that can direct genes into the proper cells and get them to function once they are there. Vectors are typically made by inserting genes into deactivated viruses that target certain cells, literally infecting them with healthy DNA.
Mr. Gelsinger's death, however, raised safety questions about one of the most commonly used viruses, adenovirus, which causes the common cold. In most patients, adenovirus produces mild, flulike symptoms. But in Mr. Gelsinger, it provoked a fatal immune response.
Even before Mr. Gelsinger's death, molecular biologists had been turning their attention to a different virus, the adeno-associated virus, or AAV, which is thought to be safer than adenovirus. Now, a team of researchers at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Stanford University and Avigen Inc., a biotech company, is reporting promising results in hemophilia patients who received a genetically engineered form of AAV that contains the gene for production of Factor IX, a protein that is needed to make blood clot.
The team, led by Dr. Katherine High of the Philadelphia children's hospital, began a small safety study after they found the treatment could essentially cure dogs of hemophilia. So far, six patients have been enrolled. The first three received the gene therapy at a dose so low it was not effective in the dogs. But to the scientists' surprise, the patients began expressing minute amounts of Factor IX -- enough that it improved their conditions and reduced their need for the standard hemophilia treatment, injections of Factor IX.
''We were delighted, but skeptical,'' said Dr. Catherine S. Manno, who is running the clinical trial. ''Only after repeated measurements over a period of months did we become convinced that these levels were real.''
Although the hemophilia experiments are still in their early stages, leaders in gene therapy say that, aside from the French work, Dr. High's research is the most exciting in the field. Dr. Donald B. Kohn, an immunologist at Children's Hospital of Los Angeles, said, ''Hemophilia may be within a shot of being cured by this approach.''
The word cure -- the ''C-word,'' as [Dr. Robert Michael Blaese (born 1939)], who performed the first human gene therapy experiment in 1990, calls it -- is one that gene therapy researchers have learned to use with caution.
''We will not talk about cure,'' said Dr. Alain Fischer of the Necker children's hospital in Paris. ''Cure means forever.'' Yet Dr. Fischer's work on babies with a form of severe combined immune deficiency, or SCID (pronounced like skid), is the closest thing gene therapy has seen to a cure. His study provided gene therapy advocates with what they have long lacked: proof, in principle, that the concept can work.
Dr. Fischer's findings, published in April in the journal Science, were a popular topic among the scientists in in Denver. ''The field is now an established principle in medicine,'' said Dr. Theodore Friedmann, a professor of pediatrics at the University of California at San Diego who said he had been pursuing gene therapy since 1968. ''That's the story -- a brand new concept in biomedicine, irretrievable, and it's beginning to work.''
In the Science article, Dr. Fischer recounted the successful treatment of two babies, both of whom had normal immune systems 10 months after receiving gene therapy. In Denver, he told reporters that he had since treated three more children. Of the five, four have had ''a complete or near complete recovery'' of their immune systems, he said. The outlook for the fifth, who had severe complications from infection at the time of treatment, is less certain.
Experts say one reason Dr. Fischer was successful where others had failed is that SCID is particularly suited for gene therapy. The first human gene therapy experiment, conducted by Dr. Blaese and [Dr. William French Anderson (born 1936)], was directed at curing adenosine deaminase, or ADA, deficiency, another form of SCID. But it has been difficult to gauge that study's outcome because a drug, PEG-ADA, is available to children with the disease, and scientists consider it unethical to withdraw the medicine.
In Denver, however, an Italian researcher, Dr. Claudio Bordignon, announced that he had solved that problem by being ''lucky to find a patient who was unlucky'' -- a child who does not respond well to PEG-ADA. The patient, now 5, was given her first infusion of corrective genes in 1996 and was slowly weaned from the drug. She has not taken PEG-ADA for one year now, and her immune system is functioning better now than before, Dr. Bordignon said.
He theorized that the drug might have somehow suppressed the effects of the gene therapy. ''After discontinuation of PEG-ADA,'' he said, ''all the genetically engineered cells have come out.''
Whether, or when, gene therapy will ever become a part of mainstream medicine remains a matter of debate. Most gene therapy experiments are still being conducted in animals, and those being tested in people are producing mixed results.
At the Denver conference, for instance, scientists from [Vical Incorporated], a San Diego company, reported preliminary results from 52 patients who have been enrolled in a 70-patient study of gene therapy for advanced skin cancer. In the study, a gene that alerts the immune system to recognize and kill foreign tissue is administered directly into the patients' tumors.
According to Dr. Deirdre Y. Gillespie, Vical's chief operating officer, 10 percent of patients responded extremely well to the therapy, with their tumors shrinking in size by 50 percent or more. In another 15 percent of patients, the therapy stopped the progression of disease, and the therapy reduced the size of tumors in some of those patients as well.
Those may not sound like spectacular results, but as Dr. Gillespie noted, there is currently no effective treatment for advanced skin cancer, and the patients in the study had failed all other therapies. In a sense then, the cancer study encapsulates the state of gene therapy as a whole.
Dr. Blaese put it this way: ''For the average person, the progress may look to be minor. But you need to put the developments of this field in context. We just started 10 years ago.''
. 2000 Aug;29(2):314-8, 320-2, 324 passim. doi: 10.2144/00292rv01.
A Colosimo 1, K K Goncz, A R Holmes, K Kunzelmann, G Novelli, R W Malone, M J Bennett, D C Gruenert
Affiliations collapse
University of Vermont, Burlington, USA.
PMID: 10948433 / DOI: 10.2144/00292rv01
The transfer of foreign genes into eukaryotic cells, in particular mammalian cells, has been essential to our understanding of the functional significance of genes and regulatory sequences as well as the development of gene therapy strategies. To this end, different mammalian expression vector systems have been designed. The choice of a particular expression system depends on the nature and purpose of the study and will involve selecting particular parameters of expression systems such as the type of promoter/enhancer sequences, the type of expression (transient versus stable) and the level of desired expression. In addition, the success of the study depends on efficient gene transfer. The purification of the expression vectors, as well as the transfer method, affects transfection efficiency. Numerous approaches have been developed to facilitate the transfer of genes into cells via physical, chemical or viral strategies. While these systems have all been effective in vitro they need to be optimized for individual cell types and, in particular, for in vivo transfection.
https://sci-hub.se/10.2144/00292rv01
2000-08-biotechniques-transfer-and-expression-of-foreign-genes-iin-mammalian-cells.pdf
2000-08-biotechniques-transfer-and-expression-of-foreign-genes-iin-mammalian-cells-pg-01.jpg
Mol Ther
. 2000 Aug;2(2):140-6. doi: 10.1006/mthe.2000.0107.
J Glasspool-Malone 1, S Somiari, J J Drabick, R W Malone
Affiliations expand
PMID: 10947941
Preclinical in vivo rodent, porcine, and primate experiments aimed at enhancing nonviral transgene delivery to skin have been performed. These investigations have identified a compound (aurintricarboxylic acid or ATA) that enhances transfection activity of "naked" plasmid and pulsed electrical fields (electroporation or EP) that synergistically boosts transgene expression to an average of 115-fold more than that observed with free DNA (P < 0.00009). When plasmid is intradermally injected with or without ATA, the transfected cells are typically restricted to the epidermis. However, when electroporation is added after the same injection, larger numbers of adipocytes and fibroblasts and numerous dendritic-like cells within the dermis and subdermal tissues are transfected. This advance creates new opportunities for cutaneous gene therapy and nucleic acid vaccine development.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10947941/
2000-08-molecular-therapy-vol-2-efficient0-vonviral-cutaneous-transfection.pdf
2000-08-molecular-therapy-vol-2-efficient0-vonviral-cutaneous-transfection-pg-01.jpg
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11237682/
. 2001 Feb;3(2):249-55. doi: 10.1006/mthe.2000.0257.
J J Drabick 1, J Glasspool-Malone, A King, R W Malone
PMID: 11237682 / DOI: 10.1006/mthe.2000.0257
Naked DNA injection with electropermeabilization (EP) is a promising method for nucleic acid vaccination (NAV) and in vivo gene therapy. Skin is an ideal target for NAV due to ease of administration and the accessibility of large numbers of antigen-presenting cells within the tissue. This study demonstrates that in vivo skin EP may be used to increase transgene expression up to an average of 83-fold relative to naked DNA injection (50 microg DNA per dose, P < 0.005). Transfected cells were principally located in dermis and included adipocytes, fibroblasts, endothelial cells, and numerous mononuclear cells with dendritic processes in a porcine model. Transfected cells were also observed in lymph nodes draining electropermeabilized sites. A HBV sAg-coding plasmid was used to test skin EP-mediated NAV in a murine model. Analysis of humoral immune responses including immunoglobulin subclass profiles revealed strong enhancement of EP-mediated NAV relative to naked DNA injection, with a Th1-dominant, mixed-response pattern compared to immunization with HBV sAg protein that was exclusively Th2 (P = 0.02). Applications for these findings include NAV-based modulation of immune responses to pathogens, allergens, and tumor-associated antigens and the modification of tolerance.
Source is a Tweet on 2021 (August 26) - Originally at https://twitter.com/rwmalonemd/status/1430929920121835527 , but deleted in late 2021. Fortunately, last 3000 Robert Malone tweets are backed up here : [HT00CH][GDrive]
"Another DNA vaccine candidate [referring to Inovio]. Jill actually did the incorporation for Inovio USA back in the day. We were also very involved in discovery/development of this tech platform when were at UMaryland Baltimore. See https://t.co/E09qszidjK"
See Inovio Pharmaceuticals, Incorporated / Dr. Robert Wallace Malone (born 1959) / Dr. Jill Glasspool-Malone (born 1960)
Also suggested by Dr. Robert Wallace Malone (born 1959)'s June 2021 resume : [HL0081][GDrive]
"2001-2005 (operating as Gene Delivery Alliance).
RECOMBINANT DNA ADVISORY COMMITTEE Minutes of Meeting March 7-8, 2002 : [HG00FW][GDrive]
Note attendance ...
"Jill Glasspool Malone, Gene Delivery Alliance, Inc.
Robert Malone, Management Systems Designers, Inc. "
.... "Management Systems Designers, Inc" appears to be a life sciences effort that was purchased by Lockheed iin 2006 ? ( https://washingtontechnology.com/2006/12/lockheed-buys-management-systems-designers/353701/ )
"MSD brings Lockheed Martin capabilities to support life science, national security, and other civil agency missions. Capabilities include systems design, development, and integration; systems engineering; application support; professional services; management consulting; and health and bioinformatics services, Lockheed said. Customers of the 600-person, employee-owned company include the National Institutes of Health, Internal Revenue Service, Defense and Homeland Security departments, and intelligence agencies. The investment bank Stifel, Nicolaus & Co. was MSD's advisor in the deal. MSD will become part of Lockheed Martin's Integrated Systems and Solutions business.
"The proposed acquisition of MSD will strengthen our ongoing initiatives in the growing health care information market," said Bob Stevens, Lockheed Martin's chairman, president and CEO."
Note, today this maybe Leidos ... https://opencorporates.com/companies/us_va/02094381 ... "Leidos Management Systems Designers, Inc."
2002-methods-in-enzymology-vol-346-enhancing-direct-in-vivo-transfection-w-nuclease-inhibitors-and-pulsed-electrical-fields.pdf
2002-methods-in-enzymology-vol-346-enhancing-direct-in-vivo-transfection-w-nuclease-inhibitors-and-pulsed-electrical-fields-pg-01.jpg
2002-methods-in-enzymology-vol-346-enhancing-direct-in-vivo-transfection-w-nuclease-inhibitors-and-pulsed-electrical-fields-pg-02
Methods Enzymol 2002
Jill Glasspool-Malone 1, Robert W Malone
PMID: 11883098 / DOI: 10.1016/s0076-6879(02)46049-1
. May-Jun 2002;4(3):323-2. doi: 10.1002/jgm.259.
2002 (May)
2002-05-the-journal-of-gene-medicine-dna-transfection-of-macaque-and-murine-respiratory-tissue.pdf
2002-05-the-journal-of-gene-medicine-dna-transfection-of-macaque-and-murine-respiratory-tissue-pg-01.jpg
Jill Glasspool-Malone 1, Peter R Steenland, Ruth J McDonald, Rigoberto A Sanchez, Tammara L Watts, Joseph Zabner, Robert W Malone
PMID: 12112649 / DOI: 10.1002/jgm.259
Background: Nuclease activity present within respiratory tissues contributes to the rapid clearance of injected DNA and therefore may reduce the transfection activity of directly injected transgenes. Most gene transfer technologies transduce or transfect murine tissues more efficiently than corresponding primate tissues. Therefore, it is prudent to assess the utility of novel gene transfer strategies in both rodent and primate models before proceeding with further development.
Methods: This study analyzed the effects of ATA (a nuclease inhibitor) on the direct transfection of macaque and murine lung tissue; compared the levels of DNase activity in murine, primate, and human lung fluids; and tested the inhibitory activity of ATA on the DNase activity present in these samples. Fluorescent microspheres were used to detect areas of transfection in lung.
Results: Intratracheal administration of a nuclease inhibitor (ATA) with naked DNA (0.5 microg ATA/g body weight) enhanced direct transfection efficacy in macaque lung by over 86-fold and by over 54-fold in mouse lung. Hematoxylin and eosin staining showed no apparent tissue toxicity. Moreover, macaque, human, and mouse lung fluids were found to possess similar levels of DNase activity and this activity was inhibited by similar concentrations of ATA. The authors also successfully pioneered the use of carboxylate-modified microsphere tracers to identify areas of transfection and/or treatment.
Conclusion: This work provides evidence that using direct nuclease inhibitors will enhance lung transfection and that nuclease activity is present in all lung fluids tested, which can be inhibited by the use of direct DNase inhibitors.
Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Source ... RWMalone consulting firm website, testimonials page (captured 2021) : [HC005X][GDrive] / See Dr. David Michael Hone (born 1960)
Stefanie Hone , Senior Scientist at DynPort Vaccine Company LLC, A CSC Company
Robert provided consulting services for Aeras and functioned as Director, Business Development and Program Management. During this time Aeras profited both from his extraordinarily background in vaccine development and high skills in writing grants. Furthermore I had the privilege to get to know Robert on a personal basis; he is one of the very rare people I know that are able to pursue an extraordinarily scientific career while being a very down-to-earth and realistic individual.
Authors:
Richard N. Greenberg,1,2 Robert H. Schosser,1,2 Elizabeth A. Plummer,2 Sara E. Roberts,2 Malissia A. Caldwell,2 Dana L. Hargis,2 David W. Rudy,2 Martin E. Evans,1,2 and Robert J. Hopkins3 1 Department of Medicine, Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, and 2 University of Kentucky Medical School, Lexington, Kentucky; and 2 DynPort Vaccine Company, Frederick, Maryland
"A phase 1 smallpox vaccine trial involving 350 adult volunteers was conducted. Of these subjects, 250 were naive to vaccinia virus vaccine (i.e., “vaccinia naive”). Volunteers received a new cell-cultured smallpox vaccine or a live vaccinia virus vaccine. Nine self-limiting rashes (3.6%) were observed in the vaccinia-naive group. None of the vaccinia-experienced patients had a rash. Rashes appeared 6–19 days after vaccination and had 5 different clinical presentations. Five volunteers had urticarial rashes that resolved within 4–15 days, 1 had an exanthem that lasted 20 days, and 1 each presented with folliculitis, contact dermatitis, and erythematous papules found only on the hands and fingers. Volunteers reported pruritus, tingling, and occasional headaches. Relief was obtained with antihistamine and acetaminophen therapy. No volunteer experienced fever or significant discomfort."
Note Acknowledgments :
"We thank Dr. Sandy Geile and Dr. Lloyd Mayer (University of Kentucky Medical School, Lexington), and the University of Kentucky Clinical Research Office, for their assistance with the patients, and Dr. Robert Malone, for reviewing the article in manuscript."
Because there is a risk that the smallpox virus will be used as a bioterrorism weapon, new cell-cultured smallpox vaccines (CCSVs) are being developed. Live vaccinia virus vaccines have been used in the past, including Dryvax (Wyeth Laboratories). Dryvax production and distribution to civilians ceased in 1983 because of lack of need. Because it was prepared from calf lymph, Dryvax can no longer be manufactured without extensive safety testing of livestock and US Food and Drug Administration approval, and only old stocks remain.
Studies are being planned or are underway that involve the use of new CCSVs in both children and adults. These studies have raised questions about the safety and adverse-event profile of the vaccine for individuals naive to vaccinia virus vaccine (hereafter, “vaccinianaive”). Until 1971, when the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommendation for vaccination ended, most American infants were routinely vaccinated. Since then, millions of Americans have never been vaccinated. Furthermore, there is a paucity of literature describing vaccinia virus vaccine–related reactions in adults who are vaccinia naive, and descriptions of adverse events are mostly limited to young children and infants.
We recently completed a phase 1 trial involving a new CCSV (DynPort Vaccine Company). One of the more impressive but non–life-threatening side effects observed in this trial was the development of benign, self-limiting rashes. The frequent occurrence of vaccinia-associated rashes has been described in the literature, but color images and descriptions of the varied range of clinical presentations in adults are limited.We describe 9 adults with benign rashes associated with live vaccinia virus vaccination (either Dryvax or a new CCSV). Our volunteers were otherwise asymptomatic, except for itching, tingling sensations, and occasional headaches. No rash was thought to be due to progressive vaccinia, eczema vaccinatum, or generalized vaccinia. These serious reactions are rare but occur at a rate of 3–5 events per 1 million primary vaccinations [1]. The purpose of this article is to alert the general practitioner to these benign rashes, which require no more than symptomatic treatment with antihistamines.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
From July 2002 through February 2003, 350 adults (18 years of age) were vaccinated in a phase 1 study of a new CCSV and Dryvax. The phase 1 study was planned primarily to compare the pock take rate and adverse events of this new CCSV with that of Dryvax. A total of 250 volunteers were vaccinia naive and !31 years old, and 100 were vaccinia experienced and 32– 65 years old. One hundred volunteers received Dryvax (2.5105 plaque-forming units administered via 15 percutaneous punctures with a bifurcated needle), and 250 volunteers received the new CCSV (2.5105 plaque-forming units or a dilution of this amount administered via 15 percutaneous punctures with a bifurcated needle). Volunteers had to be HIV antibody negative; free of immunosuppressive drugs; free of an immunosuppressive condition; free of eczema or atopic dermatitis; have normal serum levels of IgM, IgG, and IgA; hepatitis B antigen and hepatitis C antibody negative; and not pregnant. Complete blood count, liver and renal function blood testing, urine analysis, and lipid screening were performed, and uric acid level and blood sedimentation rate were measured. A physical examination was performed during the screening process, and several volunteers with severe acne, nodular skin conditions, or large areas of unhealed skin were excluded. Volunteers were observed for 180 days after vaccination, with periodic examinations performed. The presentations and pictures of the rashes were reviewed with a consulting dermatologist (R.H.S.).CCSV used in the study was derived from the 1932 New York City Board of Health virus seed and was passed in calves until the 1960s, when Connaught Laboratories developed master seeds. Seed 17333 was provided to the US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases in the 1980s, at which time it was plaque-purified and adapted to grow in MRC-5 cells (human diploid lung fibroblast cell line). A derivative of this, referred to as the Salk Institute (TSI) strain, was prepared as a master seed in 1989. TSI has been stored under controlled, secure conditions (!70C) since then and is the seed strain used to produce CCSV. CCSV is made from plaque-purified TSI.A comprehensive description of the phase 1 trial is being prepared for publication.
[...]
DISCUSSION
In this study of 350 carefully screened adult volunteers, there were no serious adverse events (e.g., death, cancer, or hospitalization) related to either CCSV or Dryvax. However, 9 volunteers had rashes that were self-limited, benign, and associated mostly with pruritus, tingling, and occasional headaches. Eight of the rashes did not have any pustular components; only volunteer 5051 had folliculitis. None of the rashes had mucosal surface lesions. None of the volunteers had any systemic symptoms other than pruritus and occasional headaches. The volunteers obtained relief from itching with antihistamine treatment.Five of the rashes were thought to be urticarial. Urticaria has been reported after vaccination with vaccinia virus and after inoculation with many other vaccines, including varicella vaccine, pneumococcal vaccine, meningococcal polysaccharide vaccine, Japanese encephalitis vaccine, Haemophilus type b vaccine, and influenza vaccine [2–7]. The cause of urticaria in such cases often remains unknown, but the possibility of an unexpected allergy to a component of the vaccine must always be considered. In 2 instances, urticaria was thought to be due to the gelatin component in the varicella vaccine. Intradermal testing with gelatin resulted in a wheal and flare reaction in both children tested [2]. Urticaria after vaccinia vaccination is uncommon [8] and, in our study, occurred in 5 (1%) of 350 volunteers (250 vaccinia-naive and 100 vaccinia-experienced individuals).Four of the rashes were not urticarial. One of them was an exanthem. The exanthem took more time to resolve than did the urticarial rashes (20 days vs. 6 days). The single exanthem was extensive, with large, confluent areas of erythema, but it was also distinguished by a lack of associated symptoms. One rash was possibly a contact dermatitis due to the bandage adhesive, with both a localized rash and a generalized rash present. Another rash appeared to be folliculitis. Finally, 1 rash that presented as self-limiting erythematous papules localized to the hands remains unusual and unexplained.The rashes appeared during the second week after vaccination and resolved a mean of 11 days later. The rashes occurred in 2 (4%) of 50 vaccinia-naive adults who received Dryvax, in 7 (3.5%) of 200 vaccinia-naive adults who received CCSV, in 0 of 50 vaccinia-experienced adults who received CCSV, and in 0 of 50 vaccinia-experienced adults who received Dryvax.Neff et al. [9] mention that, in their national survey of complications of smallpox vaccination in the United States during 1963—including 765,000 primary vaccinees who were 110 years of age (total survey population of 14 million)—they found 12 patients with a generalized maculopapular rash that appeared 4–10 days after vaccination, all of whom recovered. No more than 2 of these patients were vaccinia-naive adults, and none were vaccinia-experienced adults. Neff et al. [9] found that complications, such as eczema vaccinatum, generalized vaccinia, and others (including benign rashes), occurred much more often among primary vaccinees than among revaccinees, and that the persons at highest risk were !1 year of age. The most common complication was generalized vaccinia, with a prevalence of 20.8 cases per million primary vaccinations.A 4-state survey from 1963 describes 20 cases (in 600,000 vaccinations) of a generalized maculopapular rash of short duration that occurred ∼1 week after vaccination [10]. Results of a national survey reported in 1968 included no specific mention of adults with benign rashes. It is possible that some of the benign rashes were considered to be generalized vaccinia- or erythema multiforme–like rashes [11]. A 10-state survey also conducted in 1968 made no specific mention of benign rashes [12]. These reports provide very little description of benign vaccine-associated rashes.Frey et al. [13] studied 680 vaccinia-naive adults aged 18– 32 years in their trials of Dryvax dilutions. They describe hand lesions that were similar to those seen on volunteer 3017 and a generalized erythematous lesion that was seen in 5 of our subjects. They mention that 37 (5.4%) of 680 volunteers had rashes that appeared on days 7–9 after vaccination and that, for another 67 subjects (10.1%), rashes appeared on days 10–12, for an overall rate of 14.3%. Pustular and vesicular rashes were most common in their study, and rashes were mostly on the chest and back. All rashes resolved spontaneously. Their study suggests that benign rashes with Dryvax are relatively common; however, they did not suggest a cause for the rashes.In a 148-volunteer study involving vaccinia-naive adults, Talbot et al. [14] report 4 participants (2.7%) who developed generalized eruptions and 11 (7.4%) who developed focal eruptions after vaccination with 1 of 3 dilutions (undiluted and dilutions of 1:5 and 1:10) of the Aventis Pasteur smallpox vaccine. Viral cultures of lesion biopsy specimens did not grow vaccinia. A skin biopsy sample obtained from a volunteer with a generalized rash revealed suppurative folliculitis without any evidence of a viral infection. All lesions resolved without scarring.At the time of writing, there is only speculation that some of these rashes may represent a form of vasculitis that is the result of a host response to vaccination. It is possible that some of the rashes could be mild cases of generalized vaccinia. Generalized vaccinia is a syndrome resulting from the viremic spread of virus from the vaccination site. Lesions are similar to those associated with primary vaccination but are usually smaller and rapidly evolve to scarring [1]. None of the rashes described in our volunteers resembled the primary pock lesion. However, no diagnostic tests were conducted as part of this phase 1 trial. Additional studies will be needed to define the cause of these rashes.Our report focuses on a variety of self-limiting skin reactions to vaccinia vaccination. Our findings are important because of the description of the variety of presentations as well as the course of the rashes. The study volunteers were selected after a rigorous screening process and represented an otherwise healthy population of adults. In such a population, there will be a small number of self-limited rashes, such as urticaria and exanthems. Urticarial rashes resolve !1 week after appearance, whereas exanthems may last 13 weeks and can be extensive."For many years, Current Separations has been the journal of the research laboratories of BASi, covering a wide range of topics such as in vivo sampling, microdialysis, liquid chromatography, electrochemistry and liquid chromatography/electrochemistry. The journal ceased publication in 2007, but hundreds of articles have been archived electronically for your reference."
[...]
Dr. Malone brings us a wide variety of substantial experience, including recent concomitant roles as President and CoFounder of Gene Delivery Alliance (a consulting and IP management firm), and Associate Director, Clinical Research, for [DynPort Vaccine Company, LLC]. He has also served as co-founder, CSO and Board of Directors Member for Intradigm Corporation; Associate Professor of Surgery and Chief of Laboratory Science/Director of Tissue Banking for Uniformed Services University Health Sciences-Clinical Breast Care Program; Adjunct Professor at University of South FloridaDepartment of Chemical Engineering; Assistant Professor at University of Maryland-Baltimore School of Medicine-Dept of Pathology, and Assistant Professor at University of California-Davis Department of Medical Pathology.
Dr. Malone has been issued 11 patents from work generated by him and his co-workers, and has submitted another five that are pending patent approval. Also, he is author of more than 30 publications and 35 abstracts, has penned two chapters for medical publications covering Gene Therapy and Toxicology of Non-viral Gene Transfer, and has served as chairperson and delivered oral presentations at 32 scientific meetings.
Dr. Malone has a Doctor of Medicine from Northwestern University Medical School, a Clinical Pathology Internship from University of California-Davis Medical Center, and has received further training as a Research Fellow and Pathology Resident in Medical Pathology, also at the University California-Davis Medical Center. He is currently a member of the GeneTherapy/ Molecular Biology International Society, the New York Academy of Sciences, The Bioelectrochemical Society, the European Gene Therapy Society and AAAS.
[...]
https://www.newspapers.com/image/264661772/?terms=%22Gene%20Delivery%20Alliance%22&match=1
2004-02-27-journal-and-courier-lafayette-indiana-pg-c6-clip-robert-malone.jpg
Saved as PDF : [HW00AU][GDrive]
Regarding : Beardsworth Consulting Group, Inc. / Donna E. Beardsworth (born 1956) / Dr. Robert Wallace Malone (born 1959)
Alison Martin in 2001 NCI book ... https://www.cancer.gov/about-nci/budget/fact-book/archive/2001-fact-book.pdf
FLEMINGTON, N.J., June 24 /PRNewswire/ -- [Beardsworth Consulting Group, Inc.] announces the appointments of Alison Martin, M.D. as the company's Scientific Advisor, Oncology and Robert W. Malone, M.D. as the company's Medical Director, Vaccines.
Dr. Alison Martin is one of oncology's respected research leaders with over 20 years of clinical research experience. She joins Beardsworth from the National Cancer Institute (NCI) where she was most recently Head of Genitourinary Cancers and Melanoma Therapeutics in the Clinical Investigations Branch of the Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program (CTEP). Dr. Martin was scientific co-chair along with Dr. Meenhard Herlyn of the 2007 NCI-Community-Oriented Strategic Action Plan for Melanoma Research. She has served as liaison to three of NCI's cooperative groups and been a senior investigator in the Investigational Drug Branch of CTEP. In addition to experience at NCI, Dr. Martin was a team leader in the Office of Oncology Drug Products at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and has experience working with the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries.
[Dr. Robert Wallace Malone (born 1959)] has extensive experience in viral and recombinant vaccines, biodefense, gene delivery and transfer, immunology, tissue and cell culture, and DNA vaccination in both the commercial and government market sectors. An internationally recognized scientist, Dr. Malone is known as one of the original inventors of "DNA Vaccination" holding numerous fundamental domestic & foreign patents in the fields of gene delivery, delivery formulations, and vaccines. His background includes over 25 years of experience in academia and industry, including both founding and working with a wide range of pharmaceutical and biotech companies. He has experience in federal contracting, working with NGO's in health related research and development as well as relationships with CDC, DOD and HHS. Dr. Malone is involved with 15 issued patents, has numerous publications and two book chapters in this field, and serves as editor-in-chief of the Journal of Immune Based Therapies and Vaccines.
"We are honored and excited to have Alison and Robert join the Beardsworth team," said Michael J. O'Brien, President and CEO, Beardsworth. He added, "the increasing demands of Oncology and Vaccine research, individually and together, place Beardsworth in an attractive position given our many years of experience in these two areas. Alison and Robert will provide valuable expertise and vision to the expanding clinical research needs of our growing client base."
As members of Beardsworth's team, Drs. Martin and Malone join other noted industry experts whose collective strategic scope and in-depth knowledge support Beardsworth's mission of delivering superior quality clinical services, on time and on budget.
Headquartered in Flemington, New Jersey, Beardsworth is a privately held contract research organization delivering research and business solutions for clinical research programs since 1986. Focused on complicated trials in complex therapeutic areas, Beardsworth's clinical team expertise, advanced technology platform, and "Investigator Express" process provide clients with a patient-centric approach to study management, patient recruitment and cost-effective solutions. Beardsworth is a WBENC-certified, woman-owned business and registrant with CCR.
The World Health Organization (WHO) Global Action Plan for Influenza Vaccines. Robert W Malone, MD, MS Geneva, Switzerland. 12-14 July 2011 Invited speaker
Download Slides here : [HI003M][GDrive] / Video recording is here : [HV00IZ][GDrive]
Full WHO agenda and notes for the July 2011 session here : [HI0049][GDrive]
Also present : Dr. Jill Glasspool-Malone (born 1960) / Dr. Rick Arthur Bright (born 1966) / Dr Anthony Stephen Fauci (born 1940) / Dr. Donald Pinkston Francis (born 1942) / Robin A. Robinson / Peter Latham / Dr Harvey Fineberg, /
@RWMaloneMD : "World Health Organization: Vaccine Production Strategies: Ensuring Alignment and Sustainability An invited talk at the World Health Organization that I gave in 2011. And no, they did not think I was a crazy outlier then either. Just now. Truth to power"
Vimeo "" World Health Organization: Vaccine Production Strategies: Ensuring Alignment and Sustainability"
Posted 2011 by Jill G Malone, PhD
12-14 July 2011 - The World Health Organization (WHO) hosted the second Consultation on the Global Action Plan for Influenza Vaccines to review the progress for the first time since it was developed in 2006.
More than 100 representatives attended the meeting to review the progress on the key objectives of the plan and to develop a strategic plan of action for the next five years. The main focus of the second consultation was to discuss countries' experience on pandemic preparedness and vaccine production.
Invited speaker: Robert W Malone, MD, MS
FRIDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2011
https://www.phe.gov/Preparedness/legal/boards/nbsb/meetings/Documents/102811trans.pdf
2011-10-28-usa-gov-phe-legal-boards-nbsb-meetings-docs-102811trans.pdf
2011-10-28-usa-gov-phe-legal-boards-nbsb-meetings-docs-102811trans-img-pg-01.jpg
2011-10-28-usa-gov-phe-legal-boards-nbsb-meetings-docs-102811trans-img-pg-02.jpg
2011-10-28-usa-gov-phe-legal-boards-nbsb-meetings-docs-102811trans-img-pg-03.jpg
2011-10-28-usa-gov-phe-legal-boards-nbsb-meetings-docs-102811trans-img-pg-04.jpg
CAPT SAWYER: Thank you very much, Operator. This is the National Biodefense Science Board Teleconference Public Meeting today. I would like to begin by welcoming everyone to the NBSB meeting. We have NBSB voting members, ex officios or designees, members of the Anthrax Vaccine Working Group and the public. I am Leigh Sawyer, the Executive Director of the National Biodefense Science Board and I serve as the Designated Federal Official for this federal advisory committee. Today's public meeting will focus almost entirely on a discussion of the report and recommendations from the Anthrax Vaccine Working Group. I'm going to begin with a roll call today and I know it is sometimes difficult to get on the phone.
[...]
OPERATOR: Okay. Your next question is from the line of Vera Sharav.
MS. SHARAV: I'm from the Alliance for Human Research Protection. And I'd like to remind everyone that U.S. law prohibits exposure of children to greater than minimal risk in clinical trials if no direct benefit is expected. The only exception is a study for the prevention or alleviation of serious problems affecting the health or welfare of children. There is absolutely no evidence that anthrax is a serious problem affecting U.S. children. The vaccine poses substantial risks of severe adverse effects including permanent disability and death. Anthrax is only one of more than a dozen biological agents that could be used by terrorists, so why all the emphasis on anthrax? The answer is, follow the money. This initiative is not about protecting children, but rather about protecting the vaccine manufacturer's obscene profit margins. A 2010 report based on FEC disclosure documents shows how Emergent Biosolutions, whose only product is the anthrax vaccine, whose only customer is the U.S. government, has been price gouging U.S. taxpayers, raking in an enormous profit of 300 percent. Those profits have been used for large political contributions and heavy lobby duty. The proposed trial is an unconscionable exploitation of children's vulnerability as non-consenting subjects. The trial would expose healthy children to substantial risks of harm with no direct benefit. It is by definition, unethical. A GAO 2007 report stated that between one and two percent of vaccinated individuals experience severe adverse events which could result in disability and death. And FDA approved label say s that approximately six percent of reported adverse events were listed as serious, resulting in death, hospitalization, permanent disability and were life threatening. Antibiotics are the proven treatment of choice when the vaccine's benefits are not --
CAPT SAWYER: Thank you. Operator, we need --
OPERATOR: Okay. Your next question is from the line of Meryl Nass.
CAPT SAWYER: Thank you.
DR. NASS: Thank you. I had a couple of comments. One is that I would be happy to give you all a copy of the slide from MILVAX and the vaccine healthcare centers that points out that there are one or two percent serious adverse effects from the adults from anthrax vaccines. And furthermore, in the CDC trial, there were about seven to eight percent serious adverse events reported to FDA in the anthrax vaccine trial that has never had a final publication. My other point is that although you were almost unanimous in supporting this trial, the American public that's commented on the article by Rob Stein has, in the hundreds, been almost unanimously against it. So it's interesting to see how people inside the beltway seem to think differently than the rest of the country and I think government officials might take that to heart.
CAPT SAWYER: Thank you. I suppose we're ready for the next person.
OPERATOR: Your next question is from the line of Steve Krug. [...]
DR. KRUG: Oh, that's a yes, thank you. I actually first want to, my name's Dr. Steve Krug, I'm a pediatric emergency physician in Chicago, so well outside the beltway and the Chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics Disaster Preparedness Advisory Council. Numerous representatives from the American Academy of Pediatrics, which is an organization of 60,000 pediatricians and pediatric specialists were privileged to participate in the workshop this summer and I would like to, on behalf of the academy, applaud the Working Group for its excellent work. The ethical issues were discussed rather precisely and there are ethical issues both with a pre-exposure trial as well as tying to understand the efficacy of the vaccine after something has happened. And the members of the academy who were present at this workshop, so these are all folks who don't work for the government, were in support of the recommendations of this Working Group. This is a very challenging question, as Dr. Lurie pointed out and several others have pointed out. The ethical issues in the review I think are very pertinent and should be considered to be evaluated, but again, I support the recommendations of this Working Group. Thanks for the opportunity to speak.
CAPT SAWYER: Thank you, Dr. Krug. We have two more individuals lined up and then we'll have to stop after those two. Operator, the next one, please.
OPERATOR: Yes. Your next question is from the line of Robert Malone.
DR. MALONE: Hi, thank you very much. I'm a physician scientist that specializes in vaccines and biodefense and I just wanted to lend my voice to the first comment in this public series. That if it's possible for the committee to advocate NIAID investments in dose pairing in this pediatric population, dose pairing studies for this vaccine, I suspect that that will be warranted due to the potential AE profile and hopefully might still enable sufficient immunogenicity. That's all I wanted to say.
What are "dose pairing studies" ?
All we know is that there are only two hits for this ... this call on Oct 28 2011 , and a O t 21 2011 speech by the Canadian PM ...
https://www.c-span.org/video/?302114-1/canadian-question-period
2013 Sep;9(9):1877-84. doi: 10.4161/hv.25611.Epub 2013 Jul 22.
PMID: 23877094 / PMCID: PMC3906351 / DOI: 10.4161/hv.25611 / PDF Source : [HP009X][GDrive]
Leonard Moise, [EpiVax ]
[ Vaccine Research Center .... https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28783708/ ... Barney Graham and Mascola and others... "Preferential induction of cross-group influenza A hemagglutinin stem-specific memory B cells after H7N9 immunization in humans"]
The integrated US Public Health Emergency Medical Countermeasures Enterprise (PHEMCE) has made great strides in strategic preparedness and response capabilities. There have been numerous advances in planning, biothreat countermeasure development, licensure, manufacturing, stockpiling and deployment. Increased biodefense surveillance capability has dramatically improved, while new tools and increased awareness have fostered rapid identification of new potential public health pathogens. Unfortunately, structural delays in vaccine design, development, manufacture, clinical testing and licensure processes remain significant obstacles to an effective national biodefense rapid response capability. This is particularly true for the very real threat of “novel pathogens” such as the avian-origin influenzas H7N9 and H5N1, and new coronaviruses such as hCoV-EMC. Conventional approaches to vaccine development, production, clinical testing and licensure are incompatible with the prompt deployment needed for an effective public health response. An alternative approach, proposed here, is to apply computational vaccine design tools and rapid production technologies that now make it possible to engineer vaccines for novel emerging pathogen and WMD biowarfare agent countermeasures in record time. These new tools have the potential to significantly reduce the time needed to design string-of-epitope vaccines for previously unknown pathogens. The design process—from genome to gene sequence, ready to insert in a DNA plasmid—can now be accomplished in less than 24 h. While these vaccines are by no means “standard,” the need for innovation in the vaccine design and production process is great. Should such vaccines be developed, their 60-d start-to-finish timeline would represent a 2-fold faster response than the current standard.
According to the Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) Proliferation and Terrorism, medical counter-measures such as vaccines are critically important for protecting first-responders and noncombatant (civilian) populations from the consequences of a bioterror attack. In 2008, Bob Graham (D-FL) and Jim Talent (R-MO), chairs of the WMD commission and authors of World at Risk, reported that the United States was “seriously lacking” in this vital capability.1 The 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic highlighted continued weaknesses in the national preparedness system; as a consequence, Graham and Talent gave US bio-defense preparedness an “F” in their follow-up report, published in 2010.2 The Governmental Accounting Office (GAO) also reported poor inter-agency coordination on biodefense.3,4 As a result of renewed emphasis on biodefense, the United States government has expended substantial resources on protecting the nation against a potential bioterror attack, creating specialized units for planning and preparedness within the Departments of Health and Human Services, Defense, Homeland Security, Agriculture, Commerce and State.
Vaccine production infrastructure has also improved due to significant investments by the Federal government. For example, there are now several federally subsidized “Advanced Development and Manufacturing” production facilities distributed in different regions of the country that are capable of producing millions of doses of protein-based vaccines.5 Unfortunately, despite these important advances in the strategic preparedness of US agencies for biodefense, vaccine design remains a significant obstacle to national biodefense. This is particularly true for the very real threat of as-yet undetermined pathogens for which little is known about their critical antigenic determinants and correlates of immunity, the key parameters used in vaccine design for conventional pathogens.
Recent reports6 of a novel H7N9 avian influenza virus emerging in China have led to even greater scrutiny of methods used to respond to infectious disease public health threats and have, in turn, provided for a “live fire” assessment of novel approaches. In 2009–2010, the FastVax group began to discuss whether existing tools and vaccine production platforms could be used to accelerate the development of vaccines for emerging infectious diseases, as illustrated in Figure 1. Traditional vaccine development for previously unknown pathogens takes place on the time scale of years. The accelerated process, as proposed by our group, would begin with analysis of the genomic sequence of an emerging pathogen with immunoinformatics tools, followed by rapid design of an epitope-based vaccine containing the most immunogenic components, using an integrated in silico approach illustrated in Figure 2. Once the vaccine is designed, production and testing would involve a four-step process undertaken by the FastVax consortium arrangement, as described below.
Several constraints affecting the proposed approach bear mentioning; each of these is addressed in turn.
T cell epitope-based vaccines provide the minimal, essential information required for protective immunity T cell epitopes are critical mediators of cellular immunity. They are derived from a pathogen’s proteins via two pathways: (1) intracellular proteins are processed, and their constituent peptides are loaded onto major histocompatability complex (MHC) class I molecules; and (2) exogenous proteins are processed in the proteolytic compartment, and their constituent peptides are loaded onto MHC class II molecules. MHC class I and class II-peptide complexes are then transported to the surface of an APC, where they are exposed to interrogation by passing T cells (CD8+ and CD4+ T cells, respectively). From these different antigen processing and presentation pathways, two distinct T cell responses are generated: (1) a CD8+ cytotoxic T lymphocyte immune response that is critical for pathogen clearance, and (2) a CD4+ T helper immune response that is essential for robust and sustained antibody and cytotoxic T lymphocyte responses. After initial exposure to pathogen, memory T cells are established that respond more rapidly and efficiently upon subsequent exposure.
Because epitopes provide the essential information needed to trigger a protective immune response, epitope-based vaccines can be developed to recreate this response. Given the lengthy process that is usually associated with the development of killed, live-attenuated and whole-subunit vaccine approaches, an epitope-based strategy is one rational alternative, particularly when no vaccine exists and an emerging pathogen threatens human health on a global scale.
T cell epitopes do not protect against infection; however, they may protect against disease There is published evidence demonstrating that epitope-based vaccines can be protective. Vaccination with peptide epitopes stimulates protective immune responses in a range of animal models, including complete protection of BALB/c mice against RSV challenge,8 partial protection of BALB/c mice against Plasmodium yoelii sporozoite challenge,9 partial protection of BALB/c and CBA mice against encephalitis following intracerebral challenge with a lethal dose of measles virus,10 complete protection of BALB/c mice from intraperitoneal HSV challenge,11 high degree of protection of BALB/c mice against infection with malaria or influenza A virus,12 full protection of sheep against BLV,13 and full protection of horses against West Nile Virus.14 Furthermore, experts are generally in agreement that cross-reactive T cell epitopes were responsible for the limited morbidity and mortality associated with pandemic H1N1 in 2009.15-17 The absence of T cell epitopes may be contributing to the rapid spread and significant mortality rate of H7N9 in China.18 T cell epitoperelated immune responses appear to be critically important for reducing morbidity and mortality in human infectious disease.19
No “Fast Track” to vaccine-on-demand approval is currently possible under existing FDA regulations
Epitope-driven vaccines offer distinct advantages that should contribute to a reconsideration of the current vaccine approval process for emergency use. Multiple epitopes derived from more than one antigen can be packaged together in a single cassette. In this way, a broad-based immune response directed against multiple antigenic proteins associated with the pathogen can be elicited without the need to manufacture and administer large quantities of protein, much of which will be immunologically irrelevant or potentially even reactogenic. This is likely to reduce formulation challenges, decrease cost and accelerate the development process. The use of epitopes also helps to mitigate potential safety concerns stemming from the use of intact recombinant proteins that may have undesired biological activity (e.g., enzymes, immunomodulators, cross-reactivity, toxins, etc.). For example, the NP protein of Lassa has been associated with immune-suppressive activity.20 Genome sequencing, immunoinformatics tools and the epitope-driven approach now make it possible to develop vaccines on demand in response to emerging pathogens.
Step one: Genome-derived, epitope-driven vaccine strategy (GD-EDV). The first step to making “faster vaccines” is to design vaccine immunogens directly from pathogen genomes.21 For example, for emerging influenza strains, the vaccine “payload” is constructed in silico using the pathogen genome sequence provided by the World Health Organization (WHO) or posted on GISAID (http:// platform.gisaid.org/). T cell epitope-mapping algorithms that are integrated in a “vaccine design toolkit” developed by Martin and [Dr. Anne Searls De Groot (born 1956)] are applied to the genome sequences.22 These tools derive and concatenate those epitopes that have a high likelihood of driving an effective T cell response into a “string-of-beads” format for insertion into a vaccine delivery vehicle. The process can be performed in less than 24 h; the exact length of time required for the analysis depends on whether comparisons have to be performed to other existing genomes and epitopes. Tools for carrying out the task have been applied to the development of vaccine candidates for SARS,23 2009 H1N1 pandemic influenza,24 smallpox,25 and a number of other emergent and biowarfare agents, such as West Nile Virus, H. pylori and Burkholderia.7,26-28 Most recently, the tools were applied in May 2013 to the design of a vaccine for H7N9, an emerging avian-origin influenza (Fig. 2).29 The integration of epitope mapping into a step-by-step vaccine design process makes it possible to design vaccines in the shortest time possible once the DNA sequence from the emerging infectious disease or biowarfare pathogen is available. Should errors later be found in the sequence, they may impact one or two epitopes. For an epitope-based string of beads vaccine, the overall impact would be minimal, since T cell epitopes are linear; in contrast, sequence variations may compromise the structural integrity of a whole protein vaccine with negative effects on immunogenicity.
How many epitopes? Available evidence from animal studies suggests that the number of vaccine components (epitopes) required for full protection against disease is a small and definable subset that can be discovered using state-of-the-art computer programs such as the ones described and validated by EpiVax.30,31 We have proposed that any FastVax vaccine would include a minimum of 100 broadly reactive T cell epitopes in several strings, designed to induce multi-functional immune responses that are essential for protective immunity.32 Careful selection of the vaccine components, comprising epitopes covering most common HLA, can provide greater than 99% coverage of diverse human populations.33
Need for adjuvants? Currently, MF59 and AS03, both oil-in-water emulsions, and virosome, a liposome formulation, are three adjuvants licensed for use in seasonal, pre-pandemic and pandemic influenza vaccines. No influenza vaccines containing adjuvant are FDA approved. T cell epitope vaccine responses may be enhanced through genetic immunization. 34 DNA vaccines are self-adjuvanting through co-encoded sequences, and thus many such vaccines do not incorporate traditional adjuvants in their final formulation. A number of strategies that are currently being evaluated may improve DNA vaccine potency for humans, including use of more efficient promoters and codon optimization, addition of traditional or genetic adjuvants, electroporation and intradermal delivery.35
Step two: Manufacturing and production. Reliable, reproducible methods for producing vaccines are currently available. The FastVax consortium favors DNA vaccines because production is scalable, the vaccines are stable at room temperature, manufacturing can be easily distributed to different geographic locations, and the production method is more rapid than many other vaccine manufacturing technologies. Alternative scalable and rapid production methods for accelerated vaccine production include plant-derived vaccines, phage-based vaccines and recombinant vaccines produced in cell culture. Proteins produced using each of these systems have been approved by the FDA for use in humans.
Rapid production of DNA vaccines. The initial vaccine sequence designed in silico can be electronically provided to a production facility, where a cassette representing the vaccine genetic construct(s) is then synthesized and inserted into a standardized DNA vaccine plasmid. A cGMP seed lot of bacteria containing the vaccine plasmid with cassetted payload can be rapidly produced and vialed using existing SOPs for release and characterization assays. An initial manufacturing lot of plasmid vaccine would be produced from the seed lot and used to initiate safety studies. To reduce time to produce sufficient vaccine product, multiple scale-up facilities could be located in different regions of the US. Using current methods of DNA vaccine development, seed lot production would take one to three weeks. Scale-up for DNA production is much more rapid than traditional vaccine designs; only three to four weeks would be required to produce one million doses per facility. See below for discussion of Biological Agents Research Defense Agency (BARDA) appropriations for the construction of distributed vaccine production facilities.
The DNA vaccine delivery platform and rational in silico design provide for a strong safety profile. The DNA vaccine manufacturing process, particularly the efficient and stringent release criteria, allow for a highly pure and well-characterized final product. Rational design permits in silico analysis of the vaccine sequence for identification of potential unfavorable immune responses including regulatory sequences or cross-reactive immune responses. A fundamental principle of rapid biodefense vaccine production is that safety and speed are paramount for eliciting a protective immune response prior to the epidemic.
Delivery vehicle. The bulk vaccine product would then be coated onto premanufactured micro-needle patches that provide direct delivery to the dermis, or would be delivered using another skin-based method such as “scarification.” A number of self-applied patch delivery systems have already been developed. These would be optimal in bioterror and pandemic scenarios, because patches can be pre-manufactured and stored in bulk and do not require refrigeration for delivery or trained practitioners for administration.36 Vaccination centers would not be required, which would minimize transmission of the biothreat organism between patients and health care providers. Alternatively, previously approved electroporation delivery methods37 could be used, though this would take more time and increase the need for vaccine administration personnel training, leading to an escalation of the vaccine administration expense and more protracted timelines.
Step three: Clinical trials. While there are no Phase III or FDA-approved DNA vaccines, there are more than 30 Phase II trials listed in clinicaltrials.gov. FDA approval of a DNA vaccine appears to be on the horizon, but until then, the FastVax DNA vaccine may encounter an additional FDA-associated barrier. Implementation of a previously untested vaccine is only possible after rapidly completing initial clinical testing to the point that “emergency use authorization” can be invoked by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS). In some biodefense scenarios, approximate correlates of protection may have been previously identified; such is the case with Lassa Fever, Ebola, the encephaloviruses, and a number of other “Category A, B and C” biodefense pathogens. In some cases, correlates of protection are unknown, and either an antibody-focused or a T cell-driven vaccine may prove effective. Where antibody-mediated immunity is critically important, T cell-driven vaccines still merit attention as potential adjuncts to more traditional whole-antigen (B cell-driven) approaches, since T cell help drives higher titer, higher affinity antibody responses. Especially in settings where challenge studies cannot be performed in advance of use in humans, licensure may be possible by means of the “Two Animal Rule” in lieu of a human correlate. Rapid clinical testing can be achieved using existing commercial clinical research organizations and clinical site networks such as the Medical Countermeasures Clinical Studies Network currently envisioned by ASPR/ BARDA. Emergency use authorization approval can be based on achievement of “correlates” such as induction of broadly protective T cell or antibody responses, provided an allowed Investigational New Drug (IND) Application is in hand.
One problem facing T cell-driven vaccines that are designed to stimulate HLArestricted human immune responses is that testing for correlates of immunity as described in the “Two Animal Rule” may not demonstrate the true efficacy of the product. Thus alternative approaches may need to be considered.
The MIMIC assay, a comprehensive measurement of localized reactogenicity, could be utilized for initial safety studies and to qualify release of the actual vaccine intended for emergency use.38 Additionally, in pandemic response simulations, “mock up” or example vaccines (in a specific DNA plasmid backbone) and patch delivery system could be submitted for approval by the FDA, and this formulation would be evaluated in the clinic for immunogenicity that recapitulates the influenza correlates of protective immunity already defined by CBER and EMA. Correlates of protective immunity for currently approved influenza vaccines will not serve as a basis for regulatory approval of a DNA vaccine. The FDA would require correlates to be determined for a new influenza vaccine and will not rely on related, but different, vaccines already approved. Advance trials will establish correlates of protection for a FastVax influenza vaccine to serve as a basis for regulatory review in an emergency. In a pandemic, a novel FastVax sequence composition might be rapidly tested in a small, swiftly completed safety and immunogenicity trial, much like EMA precedence for annual influenza vaccine updates.
Step four: Approval and emergency use authorization. One means of obtaining initial FDA review, experience and oversight for the FastVax vaccine-on-demand system would be to firmly establish the immunogenicity of an existing, clinical-trial-ready DNA influenza virus vaccine in a patch or scarification delivery system. Demonstration that the vaccine candidate meets influenza correlates of protection criteria with an acceptable profile in human trials would inform regulatory review for products of similar composition, much as current regulatory policy supports annual marketing re-authorization despite changes in influenza subunit vaccine composition (from trivalent to quadrivalent) to reflect seasonal shifts and drifts.
Timely approval by the FDA to allow distribution of product in response to a rapidly emerging threat would require close cooperation between the vaccine manufacturer and the Agency. The manufacturer can assist by providing clinical safety and efficacy data for a variety of vaccine products based on standardized vaccine platform, manufacturing, specifications, operating procedures and method of delivery. If the manufacturer can establish predictable immunogenicity of epitopes in a demonstrated safe and reproducible vaccine platform and rapidly perform Phase I and Phase II trials establishing safety and immunogenicity in terms of a surrogate endpoint that predicts clinical benefit, the Agency may be able to provide a rapid review and emergency use allowance/authorization; release of the vaccine would then be possible through emergency use authorization by the HHS Secretary.
Scale up. To reduce the time to vaccine production, manufacturing sites could be pre-inspected and maintained at a state of operational readiness. While this would involve redundancy and higher costs, it would allow for the rapid production and scale-up of vaccines at any given moment. Each site would need to utilize the same manufacturing process to ensure consistency across vaccine batches, and entities would need to be willing to share their specific methodologies to harmonize an approach. One site would create the master cell bank (MCB), and then generate the manufacturer’s working cell bank (MWCB) for distribution to all other sites. In order to reduce production time by two weeks, this step would be performed “at risk,” meaning MWCBs would be distributed prior to the completion of testing on either the MCB or MWCB. Sequencing on the MCB could likely be completed before the MWCB goes into fermenter starters. Assuming that a dose would constitute 0.2 mg of DNA vaccine and that each site has several 240 L fermenters (either as back-ups or for parallel growth), one million doses (200 g) per site could be produced in a three- to four-week period. BARDA recently invested hundreds of millions of dollars in distributed influenza vaccine production; adapting these facilities for DNA vaccine production would be an added but not insurmountable expense (as compared with the initial investment).39
An in vitro assay like the MIMIC system could serve as a release characteristic of the multi-site lots that would run in parallel with the patch loading, preventing a single problematic DNA vaccine batch from impeding the release of patches generated with other batches. If the backbonehost system is proven to be rugged with virtually any type of insert, a pilot run would no longer be necessary. Conversely, if the system is not shown to be rugged, then pilot runs would be important, as some inserts can greatly influence stability and growth characteristics. Such pilot runs would need to be undertaken at every facility, most likely with different methods tested, to maximize the likelihood of determining the best method for production.
A number of technological advances are moving T cell-driven vaccines to the foreground with lessons applicable to influenza T cell-driven vaccine development. Perhaps the most prominent example of this new focus is the expanding use of T cell-driven immunotherapy as an adjunct to cancer therapy. Many of the barriers to effective T cell-driven vaccine development are being addressed and surmounted in clinical cancer trials. For example, dendritic-cell pulsing vaccines using tumor antigens have moved into clinical use.40,41 Outcomes of these types of vaccination protocols have improved as MHC class II epitopes (CD4+ T cell help) were included42 and antibodies against cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen-4 (anti- CTLA-4; see ref. 43) and other anti-T regulatory cell (Treg) agents have been added to the conditioning regimen.
Quite a few T cell-driven vaccines are currently in human clinical trials (reviewed by Gilbert in 2012; see ref. 44). While it is true that infectious disease T cell-driven vaccines have lagged behind T cell-driven vaccines for cancer, the regulatory pathway for T cell vaccines is improving, since more than 250 cancer vaccines that are based on T cell-driven immune responses are in clinical trials.a Furthermore, recent challenge studies have shown that humoral immunity is not required for protection against all human pathogens. This was demonstrated in the case of influenza, following vaccination of study participants with a multi-antigen vaccine. Following exposure to live influenza virus, two of 11 vaccinees and five of 11 control subjects developed laboratoryconfirmed influenza (symptoms plus virus shedding). Symptoms of influenza were less pronounced in the vaccinees and there was a significant reduction in the number of days of virus shedding in those vaccinees who developed influenza (mean of 1.09 d in controls, 0.45 d in vaccinees, p = 0.036)45,46 for a final efficacy of 60%, which is better than many vaccines currently available.
This is a major milestone for T cell vaccines for infectious disease, as it is one of the first vaccines to reach a Phase 2 clinical trial and none have reached Phase 3. While one cannot directly extrapolate from this trial nor the many cancer T cell-driven immunotherapy trials to state that the approach will work for all types of vaccines against infectious disease, successful implementation of the T celldriven approach in a range of contexts suggests that it is worth pursuing.
Immunome-mining (computational immunology) tools have played a major role in the design and development of T cell-driven vaccines for infectious diseases. The process was first termed “vaccinomics” by Brusic and Petrovsky in 2002,47 then “reverse vaccinology” by Rappuoli in 2003,48 and more recently, “immunomederived or genome-derived vaccine design” by Pederson,49 De Groot and Martin,50 and Doytchinova, Taylor, and Flower.51 The concept behind these descriptors is that a minimal set of antigens that induces a competent immune response to a pathogen or neoplasm can be discovered using immunoinformatics, and that administration of these epitopes in the right delivery vehicle and with the correct adjuvant will result in a degree of protection against infection by the pathogen. In short, the T cell-driven approach to developing vaccines is based on these fundamental principles: Payload + Adjuvant + Delivery vehicle = Vaccine.
T cell-driven vaccines also offer some significant advantages over conventional vaccines for infectious diseases. For example, despite strain-to-strain variation at the protein level, immunoinformatics tools can be used to identify highly conserved T cell epitopes that are immunogenic and broadly representative or universal, covering a wide range of variant strains; our group has published results for TB, HIV, smallpox, HCV and H. pylori,16,52-58 and additional evidence can be found in literature published by other gene-to-vaccine researchers (e.g., Sette and Newman, Brusic, Petrovsky, Reche, and He). Concatenation of multiple epitopes, either from a single organism or from multiple pathogens in a single delivery vehicle, has been shown to elicit broad-based immune response directed at the epitopes and is associated with improved efficacy when compared with the whole organism (lysate) in animal challenge studies.59,60 Furthermore, epitope-based vaccines limit the antigenic load, diminishing the need to manufacture and administer large quantities of immunogen, much of which is immunologically irrelevant. In an important advance for T cell-driven vaccines, new tools (e.g., JanusMatrix; see ref. 61) may enable vaccine developers to select potent T effector epitopes, and to differentiate these from Treg-activating epitopes and/or self-cross-reactive epitopes that may lead to immunopathogenic responses (Losikoff P, et al. Forthcoming).62-64
Over the past five years, the authors of this report have advanced a number of T cell-driven vaccines described to the point of formulation and delivery studies. Vaccines for many of the high-priority biodefense pathogens and emerging or re-emerging infectious diseases under development are not currently available, and evidence that T cell-mediated immune response is critically important for protection against these pathogens is emerging.43,65-69
Members of the FastVax consortium are well aware that there are many obstacles to overcome before the proposed “rapid response” or FastVax platform for biodefense vaccines can be implemented. Nonetheless, there is a critical national need for an accelerated vaccine design, development and production process that can be accomplished in weeks, not months, in the event of a serious infectious disease outbreak or biowarfare attack. The development of a rapid response to emerging infectious disease threats, using bestin- class technologies to provide a first line of defense, will contribute to greater biodefense preparedness and a significant improvement in the ability of the US to protect its citizens against pandemic infectious diseases. The need for new vaccines for protecting against bioterror pathogens and emerging infectious disease is great, and we would argue that, for the reasons cited above, the time to advance these vaccines to the clinic is now.
ADG and WDM are senior officers and majority shareholders at EpiVax, Inc., a privately owned immunoinformatics and vaccine design company located in Providence, RI, USA. LM is an employee and holds stock options in EpiVax. LE and RWM have been paid consultants of EpiVax on vaccine development programs. JB and MC are employees and stockholders at [Aldevron], Inc. The author acknowledge that there is a potential conflict of interest related to their employment and attest that the work contained in this research report is free of any bias that might be associated with the commercial goals of the companies.
Funding to support the discussions leading to the development of the FastVax consortium can be attributed to the NIH U19 grant AI082642 (to ADG). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases or the National Institutes of Health.
Mentioned : Dr. Matthew James Memoli (born 1973) / ( Dr. Robert Wallace Malone (born 1959) (Not specifically mentioned, but noted that Dr. Malone became vice president of this company in 2013 - [HN01WR][GDrive] )
2015 (April 28) - MIT Lincoln Laboratory - "MIT and the Air Force renew contract for operation of MIT Lincoln Laboratory"
https://news.mit.edu/2015/air-force-renew-contract-mit-lincoln-laboratory-0428
2015-04-028-mit-edi-news-2015-air-force-renew-contract-mit-lincoln-laboratory-0428.pdf
2015-04-028-mit-edi-news-2015-air-force-renew-contract-mit-lincoln-laboratory-0428-img-1.jpg
Lincoln Laboratory
April 28, 2015
MIT is pleased to announce that the Air Force has renewed the contract for the continued operation of MIT Lincoln Laboratory, a Department of Defense Federally Funded Research and Development Center (FFRDC). Since 1951, MIT has operated Lincoln Laboratory in the national interest for no fee and strictly on a cost-reimbursement, no-loss, no-gain basis.
Under the terms of the contract, MIT, a non-profit higher education institution, will ensure that Lincoln Laboratory remains ready to meet research and development challenges that are critical to national security. To this end, the contract provides the framework under which the Department of Defense, civilian, and intelligence agencies may request research, development, and rapid prototyping assistance necessary to meet their distinct missions. The contract was awarded by the Air Force Life Cycle Management Center at Hanscom Air Force Base, Massachusetts, for a term of five years with an option for an additional five years. Although the base contract has an overall ceiling amount of $3.1 billion, the award guarantees only the minimum amount of work stated in the contract (valued at $500,000).
Lincoln Laboratory is a unique resource, as it is the sole national defense laboratory pairing state-of-the-art research and development with rapid hardware prototyping capabilities. Once capabilities and hardware are developed, Lincoln Laboratory, in close coordination with the U.S. government, turns the developed technologies and prototypes over to industry, which then commercializes the technology on the scale necessary to meet national needs.
More broadly, the contract award is indicative of the Department of Defense’s continuing and prudent recognition of the long-term value of, and necessity for, cutting-edge research and development in service of our national security, even in times of fiscal austerity.
Major sponsors include: AERAS Global TB Vaccine Foundation
Speakers :
Dr. Jay Arthur Berzofsky (born 1946) ( Keynote speaker )
Dr. Robert Wallace Malone (born 1959) (Keynote speaker)
Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche ( On the Committee for the 2015 Vaccines R&D Symposium )
2015 Program : [HI004E][GDrive] / Conference Book PDF : [HI004H][GDrive]
Full saved PDF : [HP00C5][GDrive] / DOI:10.1371/journal.pntd.0004530 / PMID: 26934531
[Dr. Robert Wallace Malone (born 1959)] 1,2*, Jane Homan 3, [Dr. Michael Vincent Callahan (born 1962)] 4, [Dr. Jill Glasspool-Malone (born 1960)] 1,2, Lambodhar Damodaran 5, Adriano De Bernardi Schneider 5, Rebecca Zimler 6, James Talton 7, Ronald R. Cobb 7, Ivan Ruzic 8, Julie Smith-Gagen 9, Daniel Janies 5‡, [Dr. James Miller Wilson V (born 1969)] 10‡, Zika Response Working Group
Introduction
Reports of high rates of primary microcephaly and Guillain–Barré syndrome associated with Zika virus infection in French Polynesia and Brazil have raised concerns that the virus circulating in these regions is a rapidly developing neuropathic, teratogenic, emerging infectious public health threat. There are no licensed medical countermeasures (vaccines, therapies or preventive drugs) available for Zika virus infection and disease. The Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) predicts that Zika virus will continue to spread and eventually reach all countries and territories in the Americas with endemic Aedes mosquitoes. This paper reviews the status of the Zika virus outbreak, including medical countermeasure options, with a focus on how the epidemiology, insect vectors, neuropathology, virology and immunology inform options and strategies available for medical countermeasure development and deployment.
[...]
Saved as PDF : [HW006R][GDrive]
AUTHORS : [Dr. Robert Wallace Malone (born 1959)]*1,2, [Veronica Soloveva (born 1966)] 3,4, [Dr. Sina A Bavari (born 1959)] 3,4
1. Atheric Pharmaceutical, LLC, Scottsville, VA, USA,
2. Class of 2016, Harvard Medical School Global Clinical Scholars Research Training Program, Boston, MA
3. United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, Frederick, MD, USA.
4. United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, Therapeutic Development Center, Frederick, MD, USA.
Purpose of the study: Antiviral agent development. Clinical care for Zika virus infection is supportive, and there are no prophylactic or therapeutic drugs, vaccines, or other biologicals licensed for use to prevent or treat Zika virus infection and disease. A Zika virus threat assessment and evaluation of medical countermeasure development options has been completed; re-purposing existing licensed drugs was identified as the most efficient strategy for rapid development of licensed medical countermeasures suitable for prevention, treatment, or containment of the pathogen (1,2).
Methods/summarized description of the project: Hypothesis-driven high throughput re-purposed drug screening. An iterative multi-step drug selection and screening algorithm was established; 1) drug targets involving inhibition of virus-host cell interactions were identified, 2) compounds with significant clinical pharmacokinetic and safety data (preferably including in pregnancy) which inhibit the pathways were selected, 3) selected pharmaceuticals were tested for inhibition of Zika virus infection and replication using multiple cell types and Zika viral isolates, 4) pharmaceuticals with single-digit micromolar to nanomolar IC50 and CC50/IC50 ratios consistent with anti-viral specificity were selected for subsequent development as prophylactic and therapeutic anti-Zika drug candidates.
Results: Re-purposed licensed drugs with anti-Zika activity which are safe for use in pregnancy. Three general mechanisms of action (including autophagy inhibition) have been identified and corresponding compounds have been screened. Multiple re-purposed drugs have been identified which meet selection criteria for subsequent development.
Conclusion: Hypothesis-driven high throughput re-purposed drug selection can expedite identification of emerging infectious disease medical countermeasure candidates. A summary of the pathways targeted, drugs identified and viral inhibition results obtained will be presented.
Discussion: Zika infection of the recipient host requires viral envelope protein binding and particle uptake into susceptible cells, is mediated by specific receptors which include DC-SIGN, AXL, Tyro3, and TIM-1, and triggers transcriptional activation of Toll-like receptor 3 (TLR3), RIG-I, MDA5, interferon stimulated genes including OAS2, ISG15, and MX1, and beta interferon (4). Primarily infected cells include skin fibroblasts, epidermal keratinocytes, and skin dendritic cells. Zika virus subsequently exploits autophagy to facilitate uptake and replication8, and pharmacologic manipulation of Zika infected cells with 3-Methyladenine (3-MA), an inhibitor of autophagosome formation, strongly reduces viral copy numbers in infected fibroblasts (3). Based on prior murine studies involving Zika virus inoculation in mouse brain (5), autophagy of Zika virus has been postulated as playing a key role in the pathogenesis of Zika-associated primary microcephaly (6). Pharmacological mechanisms of currently licensed 4-Aminoquinoline anti-malarial drugs include inhibition of autophagy and broad-spectrum cathepsin B-mediated inhibition of viruses which require endosomal acidification (7).
1. Malone RW, Homan J, Callahan MV, Glasspool-Malone J, Damodaran L, Schneider Ade B, Zimler R, Talton J, Cobb RR, Ruzic I, Smith-Gagen J, Janies D, Wilson J; Zika Response Working Group. Zika Virus: Medical Countermeasure Development Challenges. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2016 Mar 2;10(3):e0004530. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0004530. PMID: 26934531
2. Longini IM Jr, Nizam A, Xu S, Ungchusak K, Hanshaoworakul W, Cummings DA, Halloran ME. Containing pandemic influenza at the source. Science. 2005 Aug 12;309(5737):1083-7. PMID: 16079251
3. Hamel R, Dejarnac O, Wichit S, Ekchariyawat P, Neyret A, Luplertlop N, et al. Biology of Zika Virus Infection in Human Skin Cells. J Virol. 2015; 89(17):8880–96. doi: 10.1128/JVI.00354-15 PMID: 26085147.
4. Carneiro LA, Travassos LH. Autophagy and viral diseases transmitted by Aedes aegypti and Aedesalbopictus. Microbes Infect. 2016. doi: 10.1016/j.micinf.2015.12.006 PMID: 26774331.
5. Bell TM, Field EJ, Narang HK. Zika virus infection of the central nervous system of mice. Arch Gesamte Virusforsch. 1971; 35(2):183–93. PMID: 5002906.
6. Tetro JA. Zika and microcephaly: Causation, correlation, or coincidence? Microbes Infect. 2016. doi: 10.1016/j.micinf.2015.12.010 PMID: 26774330.
7. Zilbermintz L, Leonardi W, Jeong SY, Sjodt M, McComb R, Ho CL, Retterer C, Gharaibeh D, Zamani R, Soloveva V, Bavari S, Levitin A, West J, Bradley KA, Clubb R3, Cohen SN, Gupta V, Martchenko M. Identification of agents effective against multiple toxins and viruses by host-oriented cell targeting. Sci Rep. 2015 Aug 27;5:13476. doi: 10.1038/srep13476. PMID: 26310922
Also see : [Zika virus epidemic (2015-2016)]
PMID: 27560129 / PMCID: PMC4999274 / DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0004877 / Saved PDF : [HP00C8][GDrive]
The ongoing Zika virus epidemic in the Americas and the observed association with both fetal abnormalities (primary microcephaly) and adult autoimmune pathology (Guillain-Barré syndrome) has brought attention to this neglected pathogen. While initial case studies generated significant interest in the Zika virus outbreak, larger prospective epidemiology and basic virology studies examining the mechanisms of Zika viral infection and associated pathophysiology are only now starting to be published. In this review, we analyze Zika fetal neuropathogenesis from a comparative pathology perspective, using the historic metaphor of "TORCH" viral pathogenesis to provide context. By drawing parallels to other viral infections of the fetus, we identify common themes and mechanisms that may illuminate the observed pathology. The existing data on the susceptibility of various cells to both Zika and other flavivirus infections are summarized. Finally, we highlight relevant aspects of the known molecular mechanisms of flavivirus replication.
I have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: Drs. Robert Malone and Jill Glasspool-Malone are principal stockholders of Atheric Pharmaceutical, LLC. Robert Malone is the managing partner of Atheric Pharmaceutical. Dr. Michael Callahan is the Chief Medical Officer of the Zika Foundation.
Several biotechnology companies in the Charlottesville area are working to combat the Zika virus.
The Cville Bio Hub, a new biotech networking organization, recently hosted a forum on Zika research at Indoor Biotechnologies. Three scientist-entrepreneurs gave presentations on their work to an audience of about 40, most of whom were affiliated with the biotech industry.
Zika can manifest itself as a mild disease with flu-like symptoms and a rash. But cases of Zika in pregnant women have been linked to microcephaly, a serious birth defect that affects the development of babies' skulls and brains. Zika also has been found to cause some neurological complications in adults, including Guillain-Barre syndrome.
The Zika virus is primarily spread by two mosquito species. It also can be passed through sex from one person to another.
There have been more than 4,000 cases of Zika diagnosed in the United States since 2015, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Most are associated with travel to areas with large outbreaks, such as Brazil and Puerto Rico. However, there were 184 locally acquired mosquito-borne cases in Florida this year, and one was recently reported in Texas.
As of November, Virginia has seen 94 travel-related cases, and no locally acquired cases. But Robert W. Malone, CEO of Atheric Pharmaceutical in Troy, said mosquitoes eventually could bring the virus into the state.
"There's a darned good chance, with this mild winter, that [Zika] is going to come roaring out of Miami next spring," he said.
Malone said it could take a decade for new drugs or vaccines for Zika to be brought to market. That's why his company is exploring ways to use existing drugs to protect people from Zika and treat its complications.
"Drug combinations, not vaccines, are what has made it possible for us to control AIDS," Malone reminded the audience. "To combat a disease like this, you have to use everything."
In its work with the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute for Infectious Diseases, Atheric has found that an inexpensive combination of anti-malarial and anti-worm drugs can prevent infection of the Zika virus. Malone said he believes these drugs, and others, could stop a highly contagious outbreak if they are taken by a large majority of an affected population.
Sean J. Hart, president and chief scientific officer of Lumacyte, recently lent USAMRIID a machine that could facilitate the development of a Zika vaccine.
Hart's company invented Radiance, an analytical device that uses lasers to observe the mass and shape of individual cells. This data can determine if a cell has been infected by the Zika virus.
Radiance can be used to test how well viral material used in vaccines infects different kinds of cells. It has allowed scientists to conduct these tests much more efficiently than traditional laboratory methods.
"This is a clear pain point that we've identified for large pharmaceutical companies," Hart said.
Daniel A. Engel, professor of Microbiology, Immunology and Cancer Biology at the University of Virginia and chief scientific officer of Alexander Biodiscoveries, is currently studying a single protein of the Zika virus. His goal is to develop antibody fragments that would bind with this protein and neutralize the virus, forming the basis of an effective drug.
Alexander Biodiscoveries is collaborating on this project with RioGin — another Charlottesville biotechnology company — and other researchers at UVa and the University of Chicago.
Engel, Hart and Malone's companies are all members of the CvilleBioHub, which will officially launch in January.
Martin D. Chapman, president and CEO of Indoor Biotechnologies, is one of the founders of the CvilleBioHub. He said the organization's website will offer detailed and up-to-date information on every biotech company in the Charlottesville area, providing a useful resource for policymakers and potential investors.
"People don't know a lot about the tremendous work going on here," Chapman said.
Malone said the CvilleBioHub will help startups connect with leaders of the region's more established biotech companies. "It's not enough to just have money," he said. "You need successful entrepreneurs with past success who can mentor." [...]
Mar 3, 2017
Robert Malone, MD, MS, CEO/CSO of Atheric Pharmaceuticals, LLC, discusses which existing licensed drug compounds are able to be repurposed for use against Zika.
Repurposing Drugs to Tackle Emerging Infectious Diseases
Contagion_Live
167,771 views Apr 28, 2017
Robert Malone, MD, MS, CEO/CSO of Atheric Pharmaceuticals, LLC, discusses the benefits of repurposing drugs for emerging infectious diseases rather than going down the very long, costly road of developing new ones.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVa2to1uBi4
COVID-19 vaccineGet the latest information from the CDC.
How Effective Does an Anti-Arbovirus Drug Need to Be?
2017-04-28-youtube-com-contagion-live-robert-malone-how-effective-anti-arbovirus-need-to-be-720p.mp4
2017-04-28-youtube-com-contagion-live-robert-malone-how-effective-anti-arbovirus-need-to-be-720p-hits-cover-1080p
Contagion_Live
Robert Malone, MD, MS, CEO/CSO of Atheric Pharmaceuticals, LLC, explains how effective a drug needs to be to generate protection.
video - HV010S / cover - HV010T
https://www.medicalcountermeasures.gov/BARDA/documents/BID2018_ParticipantList.pdf
rick bright / sina bavari / jill malone / "patricia haigwood" /
FULL AGENDA - https://www.phe.gov/Preparedness/biodefense-strategy/Documents/summit-detailed-ag-508.pdf
2019-04-19-usa-gov-aspr-summit-detailed-ag-508.pdf
2019-04-19-usa-gov-aspr-summit-detailed-ag-508-img-pg-01.jpg
2019-04-19-usa-gov-aspr-summit-detailed-ag-508-img-pg-02.jpg
2019-04-19-usa-gov-aspr-summit-detailed-ag-508-img-pg-03.jpg
All transcripts available at https://www.phe.gov/Preparedness/biodefense-strategy/Pages/biodefense-summit-transcripts.aspx
Goal 1: Discussion Questions and Answers
Q&A Moderator: Dr. Cindy Bruckner-Lea, Senior Scientist and Manager, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
2018 -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polly_Matzinger - danger model ..
2019 (Nov) - Vaccine Summit
https://vaccines.unitedscientificgroup.org/2019/
featured-speakers
Berzofsky
Malone
John R. Mascola
participants ( https://web.archive.org/web/20221202152335/https://vaccines.unitedscientificgroup.org/2019/participants )
Drew Weissman
Vanden Bossche
page1.jpg
Source (saved as a PDF in Jan 2022) : [HC005Y][GDrive]
Number of Pages: 116
Genre: Health + Wellness
Sub-Genre: General
Format: Paperback
Publisher: ISBN Services
Author: Malone MD & Jill Glasspool Malone Phd
Language: English
Street Date: February 12, 2020
TCIN: 84027333
UPC: 9781648267031
Item Number (DPCI): 247-10-8053
Origin: Made in the USA or Imported
This book provides a pragmatic, practical guide full of everyday tips for living in the real world, while doing what you can to avoid contracting the novel coronavirus (COVID-19). The most important thing that anyone can do to reduce the spread of novel coronavirus infection and disease among your community is to protect yourself, and this book is designed to empower each of us to accomplish this. It is also intended to help you to recognize the signs when you or someone else has become infected. It is not intended as a "doomsday", "survivalist" or "prepper" manual. It is written for average people; mothers, fathers, relatives and families, young and old, singles and couples, workers and retired, well off and living from paycheck to paycheck.At various points, this book does delve into more technical aspects of virology, epidemiology and the biology of novel coronaviral disease. These sections are written for the more scientifically adept reader. However, if you are not scientifically minded, please do not let that scare you off. Discussions on how to protect yourself and your family, and how to prepare for the coming epidemic, are written for and easily understood by those without a strong scientific background. The book also has concrete suggestions on how to mitigate risks associated with businesses and the workplace. This includes risk management and continuity planning for businesses.Finally, an introduction to medical countermeasure (drugs, vaccines, antibodies etc.) development options for this novel coronavirus are discussed.A word of caution: overreaction triggering unnecessary panic can be extremely damaging - economically and in other ways. Just as under-reaction is a problem. Please remember to Keep Calm and Carry on.
Responded to - https://medium.com/@erin.smith_2213/last-night-the-world-experts-on-covid-19-came-together-these-are-their-thoughts-53158f79eefd
Saved as PDF : [HM00BB][GDrive] ( Full JPG Image of this response : [HM00BE][GDrive] )
"Hello Dr. Smith.
Thank you for this contribution.
Perhaps your title is a bit of an overstatement?
Personally, I would not consider this a comprehensive collection of the world’s experts in COVID-19.
Particularly striking is the lack of representation of the community of scientists and physicians from the PRC, who have been at the forefront of understanding and treating this disease.
Just to provide one western example, my colleague [Dr. Michael Vincent Callahan (born 1962)] ( who currently reports directly to the ASPR in US) has supervised treatment of well over 6000 cases of COVID19, was in country in the PRC assisting, was at the forefront of guiding the US management of the Diamond Princess outbreak, and is currently shuttling between particularly troublesome outbreaks in USA and Washington DC where he is actively involved in advising and guiding policy. I do not see any representation in this group which comes close to the active role and experience which Dr. Callahan is bringing to the clinical and functional management and decision making involved in this pandemic.
There are many voices, many individuals with deep expertise, and many ideas guiding the current response.
Perhaps a bit of humility in the face of our profound ignorance about this disease will go a long way to helping enable the emergence of more effective responses? What we confront is a new virus, closely related to SARS, and COVID19 is a new disease with its own nuances and a very complex pathophysiologic cascade that we are just beginning to understand. We now have a bit over three months of practical experience in managing this pathogen and the associated outbreak. And we are out of time, the wolf is no longer at the door but rather is in the house.
In my personal opinion, more effective response management should begin with acknowledging our ignorance, proceeding as efficiently as possible to evaluate the many innovative response options which are emerging worldwide (and often from the PRC scientific and medical community), and opening ourselves to what are essentially crowdsourced solutions. There are many seasoned outbreak veterans who are quietly working on pragmatic solutions. There are others who are doing a lot of talking and in some cases grandstanding. Perhaps a bit less talking by self styled experts, more listening to those on the front lines, and a bit more doing by actively working on solutions would be in order. We have so little time. Lets just get to work. Like many of us have been quietly doing since early January 2020.
Thank you for considering my comments."
by Bethany Halford / June 15, 2020 | A version of this story appeared in Volume 98, Issue 25
Also see : SARS-COV2 famotidine trials (2020) ; Mentioned : DOMANE / Dr. Robert Wallace Malone (born 1959) /
The image below is [HP00CE][GDrive] ; couldnt save entire source as a PDF.
Doctors and scientists are studying many existing drugs with the hope of finding therapies they can repurpose to fight COVID-19. Some of these, like Gilead Sciences’ remdesivir, directly go after the virus SARS-CoV-2, which causes the disease. Others, like Incyte’s ruxolitinib, aim to dampen the overactive immune response that characterizes later stages of disease in COVID-19.
And then there are the oddballs. Take famotidine, the active ingredient in the over-the-counter heartburn drug Pepcid. The histamine-H2-receptor antagonist works by preventing stomach acid production. That it would have any activity in an infectious disease is a bit of a head-scratcher.
Doctors first became interested in famotidine after hearing reports that people in China who took the drug for heartburn were surviving COVID-19, while other people who essentially had the same risk factors but were taking different heartburn drugs like cimetidine or omeprazole (sold in the US as Tagamet and Prilosec, respectively) were dying from the disease. Perhaps famotidine was somehow bolstering these patients and improving their chances for survival.
In early April, doctors began a clinical trial at New York’s Northwell hospitals to test that theory. [See SARS-COV2 famotidine trials (2020)] They reasoned that even if evidence for famotidine’s effectiveness was largely anecdotal, the drug has been around since the 1980s and has a good safety profile. If it worked, it would be a fast and cheap way to ease the symptoms of COVID-19.
They decided to use high doses of intravenous famotidine. Their goal was to enroll 1,200 people with moderate to severe COVID-19 and see if those that got famotidine were less likely to die or require a ventilator. Then, in late April, the first news report about the trial appeared in Science. Boxes of Pepcid began to fly off of pharmacy shelves as people sought out any potential remedy during the pandemic.
Shortly afterward, on May 8, a team, led by Columbia University doctors Daniel Freedberg and Julian Abrams, posted a study on the preprint server medRxiv that compared the outcomes of people with COVID-19 who were prescribed famotidine within 24 hours of being admitted to the hospital to those who didn’t get the heartburn drug. They looked at the records of more than 1,600 patients at Columbia University Irving Medical Center between late February and mid-April. Of those, 84 patients received 10–40 mg of intravenous famotidine daily over the course of about 6 days.
The patients who got famotidine fared better. According to the study, they were far less likely to die or require a ventilator—a twofold decrease in risk—than those not receiving the drug. The results were published in the peer-reviewed journal Gastroenterology later in May (2020, DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.05.053).
“This is merely an association, and these findings should not be interpreted to mean that famotidine improves outcomes in patients hospitalized with COVID-19,” the team says in a statement. “It is also not clear why those patients who received famotidine had improved outcomes.”
For clarity on famotidine’s effectiveness, the team recommends awaiting the outcome of the trial going on at Northwell hospitals. “Hopefully the results from this trial will determine whether famotidine is efficacious for the treatment of COVID-19,” the team says in its statement.
Meanwhile, in early June, the journal Gut published a small case series of 10 people who developed COVID-19 and reported taking famotidine during their illness (2020, DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2020-321852). These people were not sick enough to go to the hospital, but their symptoms, such as cough and shortness of breath, improved within a day or two of taking the heartburn drug. It’s a small study, and the researchers acknowledge that it’s not enough to establish there’s any real benefit from taking famotidine for people who have COVID-19. Those authors recommend a clinical trial with famotidine be carried out with patients with milder disease in addition to the trial going on at Northwell hospitals.
Matthew D. Hall, acting director of biology and group leader, Early Translation Branch, at NIH’s National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences : "I think there’s going to be some intriguing science trying to draw a connection between the activity—if it is proven to have that in patients—and how it’s actually working in the context of SARS-CoV-2 infection."
But the Northwell trial has slowed for two reasons, says Joseph Conigliaro, the physician who is leading it. Cases of COVID-19 in New York have declined, making it challenging to reach the enrollment requirements for the study.
And shifting treatment approaches have further complicated efforts. When the trial began, COVID-19 patients in New York were getting the antimalarial hydroxychloroquine as part of their treatment regimen. So the study was designed to compare patients receiving hydroxychloroquine and famotidine with patients receiving hydroxychloroquine and a placebo. But that standard treatment regimen has changed, and hydroxychloroquine is no longer given routinely. As a consequence, the researchers are looking to modify the study’s protocol, Conigliaro says.
Until the results of the study are in, Conigliaro can’t say whether famotidine works. “As a physician, I can’t tell people ‘go out and buy famotidine, and if you start getting an inkling of anything start taking it,’ ” he says. Even though the drug has long been considered safe, it’s unclear how to guide people to take it in terms of dose and disease stage. “We need to wait for the results of our trial,” he says.
Scientists are meanwhile trying to figure out why a heartburn medicine might also fight COVID-19. Using computational methods, a group in China used SARS-CoV-2 genes to predict the structures of viral proteins. The group then computationally screened existing drugs to see which could potentially act on those protein targets. Their study suggests that famotidine could inhibit the virus’s 3-chymotrypsin-like protease, which plays a role when the coronavirus makes copies of itself while inside the host (Acta Pharm. Sin. B 2020, DOI: 10.1016/j.apsb.2020.02.008).
Similarly, computational chemists at the scientific software company Molecular Forecaster virtually docked a library of 2,700 existing drugs and nutraceuticals to see which fit into a model of the papain-like protease, another key protein in SARS-CoV-2 replication. They were collaborating with scientists working for a US Department of Defense project called [DOMANE]. Famotidine was one of a few drugs that appeared to interact with the protease in the computational studies, says [Dr. Robert Wallace Malone (born 1959)], a physician and consultant who is on the [DOMANE] team.
But other evidence derails those computational studies. Matthew D. Hall, acting director of biology and group leader, Early Translation Branch, at the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS), part of the US National Institutes of Health, points out that his group did studies in cells that show famotidine doesn’t have any ability to fight SARS-CoV-2. “In a direct antiviral assay, we don’t see any activity for any of the compounds in this class,” he says.
As a drug-repurposing candidate, Hall says, famotidine is attractive because it’s safe, affordable, and accessible. But making further conclusions about its usefulness in COVID-19 will require clinical trial data. If those trials show promise, Hall says, “I think there’s going to be some intriguing science trying to draw a connection between [clinical] activity and how it’s actually working in the context of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Understanding the primary mechanism may also drive long-term development of new therapeutics that are more potent.”
[Dr. Robert Wallace Malone (born 1959)] has been working with a team of scientists to get a better understanding of just how famotidine might be working. Results of his team’s study, which have not yet been peer reviewed, appeared on a preprint server on May 23 (Research Square 2020, DOI: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-30934/v1).
Like the NCATS work, the team’s tests showed that famotidine has no effect on SARS-CoV-2’s papain-like protease, nor does it kill the virus. Instead, Malone and colleagues think the drug is working through its usual target—histamine H2 receptors. Famotidine treats heartburn by blocking H2 receptors, which when activated by histamine stimulate cells in the stomach to secrete acid.
Joseph Conigliaro, chief, General Internal Medicine, Northwell Health : "As a physician, I can’t tell people ‘go out and buy famotidine and if you start getting an inkling of anything start taking it.’ "
But H2 receptors aren’t just in the stomach—they’re all over the body. Malone and colleagues argue that COVID-19 is disrupting mast cells, which release histamine and other signaling molecules in response to an inflammatory or allergic reaction. These cells can be found at the boundary between tissue and an external environment. They’re on the skin and line the gut and lungs. Malone reasons that mast cells could be responsible for the overactive immune response, often described as the cytokine storm, which does damage to patients with severe cases of COVID-19. By blocking the histamine that mast cells release, famotidine can dampen some of that response.
If famotidine is effective in COVID-19, why isn’t the other commonly used H2 blocker, cimetidine? The answer, Malone claims, comes down to pharmacokinetics: famotidine makes it into the bloodstream more readily than cimetidine.
Adrian M. Piliponsky, an immunologist at Seattle Children’s Research Institute who studies mast cells, says that it’s possible mast cells are playing a role in the inflammatory response to COVID-19. He notes that mast cells play a role in infections with other viruses. He thinks the idea proposed by Malone and colleagues merits further study, and he’s interested in seeing the results of the clinical trial.
[Dr. Robert Wallace Malone (born 1959)] also would like to see a comprehensive trial of famotidine in people who are in the early stages of COVID-19. But he doesn’t think the drug alone will resolve the world’s COVID-19 pandemic. “We’re committed to trying to create an outpatient cocktail of drugs that will significantly reduce morbidity and mortality for COVID-19 and have it ready for deployment in the fall,” he says.
In the meantime, doctors are urging caution for people who might see these early results and rush out to stock up on Pepcid. Carl J. Lavie, medical director of cardiac rehabilitation and prevention at the John Ochsner Heart and Vascular Institute, recently cowrote a letter to the editor of Mayo Clinic Proceedings encouraging doctors to wait for the clinical trial results.
He tells C&EN that it’s premature to recommend famotidine just for COVID-19, but he adds, “I also think that it is benign, so it would seem very reasonable to use for upper GI symptoms now” before giving other heartburn drugs like omeprazole.
CORRECTION : This story was updated on June 16, 2020, to correctly characterize famotidine as a histamine-H2-receptor antagonist, not an agonist.
CORRECTION : This story was updated on June 22, 2020, to correctly identify the group that did a virtual docking study. It was chemists at Molecular Forecaster, not [DOMANE].
Also see : SARS-COV2 famotidine trials (2020)
A Scientific Education: The Early Discoveries of RNA and DNA Vaccination
The History after Vical
https://www.foxnews.com/transcript/tucker-carlson-tonight-wednesday-june-23
Live link : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyjuSog8VoY / Downloadable 720p copy : [HV00J9][GDrive] / Image of download page : [HV00JA][GDrive]
Note Malone begins speaking at 3:30
Live link was : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8lTQu8JdFo (Note - This has been deleted, as of Oct 5 2021 ) / Downloaded video at 720p : [HV00JB][GDrive]
"Dr. Robert W. Malone is the inventor of the mRNA vaccines, DNA vaccine technology, and RNA as a drug. Dr. Malone has close to 100 peer-reviewed publications, has over 11,477 citations of his peer reviewed publications, has been an invited speaker at over 50 conferences, has chaired numerous conferences and he has sat on or served as chairperson on numerous NIAID and DoD study sections. Dr. Malone has an amazing resume, and should be considered one of the most creditable & respected voices in regards to the mRNA tech used in the COVID vaccines, and instead, Dr. Malone has been censored & suppressed on many platforms. Please help by sharing this interview everywhere."
Lots of talk about wine (yawn) ... just fast forward to ... 13:05 (to 16:22) ... this is the main part where Malone is talking about Gardner and how Gardner proved HIV was from an animal ...
Says his early college mentors were [Dr. Murray Briggs Gardner (born 1945)] and [Dr. Robert Darrell Cardiff (born 1935)]
Mentioned : Dr. Philip Louis Felgner (born 1950) / Dr. Jon Asher Wolff (born 1956) /
Friends and colleagues:
I am writing to you to ask your assistance in helping to correct a misrepresentation in the mainstream media news - one that is essentially fake news. This in regards to a series of newspaper and scientific review articles about the discovery of mRNA vaccines. I write in the first person because I have been a direct witness to these many events.
By way of introduction, Robert Malone and I have been married for 42 years. Through ups and downs, good and bad, we have always been partners. Is this unique? No. Many people find a life partner; work and play together as a team. What maybe is unique is our commitment to working together for the betterment of society. I am very lucky. Robert is brilliant. More than brilliant – he is someone that can take facts and use them to see into the future. Pattern recognition. As a life partner, I am vigilant in my protection of Robert – both of his reputation, his health and as a person. It is with that sense of needing to help shield him that I write this letter. Our careers are as independent researchers; we don’t have the luxury of an academic institution. There is no infrastructure behind us to place articles, apply for awards and provide institutional support. Our consulting business and our philanthropic research relies on our support of each other, what we have built, and the revenue that we generate through our consulting practice. I write this letter as a way to help tell our friends about a great wrong that has been done to Robert.
As a young scientist, Robert saw into the future. He saw the future of RNA as a drug in 1987. Then in early in 1988, he foresaw the future of the use of mRNA for vaccination, as well as DNA vaccination. He did this in the worst of situations. As a graduate student, without support of his thesis advisor and being in an abusive work/student environment.
But this letter is not about that period so much as now. However, a little back history is needed.
Robert is the inventor of mRNA vaccination. The documentation is clear, as is the patent record. In 1986, while at the Salk Institute/UC San Diego as a MD (Northwestern)/PhD (Salk/UCSD) student, Robert worked with RNA for his dissertation. His work with RNA had actually begun much earlier while he was working at UC Davis in 1983. That experience taught Robert how to work with RNA and keep it from degrading, at a time when very few scientists were working with RNA. At the Salk, his early work included structure and modeling analysis, but it soon expanded beyond that. In 1987, he invented lipid mediated mRNA transfection and in 1988 at the Salk, he confirmed those results in-vivo. But the situation in the lab was not healthy. The harassment got to the point, where Robert literally was diagnosed with severe PTSD from abuse at the hands of his thesis advisor and institutional attorneys. He knew he had to abandon his PhD, take a masters degree, and go back to Northwestern to finish his medical degree. His thesis advisor was Dr. Inder Verma, whose behavior abusing women and his employees is now legendary and well documented in both the scientific and lay press. In retrospect, the lack of support by the Salk and UCSD is typical of what they did with anyone who complained about Dr. Verma - they made it go away. At the time, the Salk was referred to as “Inder’s Institution.”
Robert left the university knowing that what he had invented would change the world someday. That he has never doubted.
Patent disclosures and a patent application were written and eventually filed on 3/21/89 for these technologies by the Salk. This included not only RNA transfection (RNA as a drug), techniques to stabilize the RNA and increase production. Vical patents filed on the same date include the use of mRNA for vaccination purposes. This patent application be found here. The disclosures and other documents can be found here. Once it became clear that he would be leaving the Salk/UCSD, he stopped filing disclosures. So, he held on to the idea about RNA vaccination until he left the Salk. I have journal entries and he spoke with others about these ideas, so there is some documentation regarding this timeline. This work culminated in a PNAS paper.
When he left, he brought his research, reagents, DNA constructs, RNA constructs, and all the knowledge of these systems that he pioneered, including the use of the luciferase reporter gene with him. He ported them all into a small startup company called Vical. He didn’t really have any other option financially but to take a job at Vical. It wasn’t ideal but we were starving students and had been for over a decade. However, big promises were made by his supervisor ([Dr. Philip Louis Felgner (born 1950)]) about freedom to continue his research uninterrupted, which was critical to him. He knew that he had to go back and finish medical school, this was just an interim gig to support us and to prove that his discoveries worked, and to continue his research while I finished my BA. For Robert, the only thing that mattered was the science. Not the money, not the fame. It was about saving the world.
Long story short, as the only employee at Vical working in gene therapy and then immunology, he sat down and disclosed all of his ideas for gene therapy and maybe more importantly for mRNA vaccination. He did this almost as soon as he started at Vical. Most of these documents are available on our website. His supervisor at the time, [Dr. Philip Louis Felgner (born 1950)], then over-signed some of the disclosures on top of Robert’s signature as a co-inventor. Then, because Vical did not have vivisection facilities, a collaboration had been set up by Dr. Felgner with the University of Wisconsin to do the animal studies. Robert sent reagents, DNA, RNA and instructions to the researcher there ([Dr. Jon Asher Wolff (born 1956)]) via FedEx and animals were injected. The rest is history. “Naked” DNA and mRNA delivery, Science publication, and blowback that this was a fake finding akin to “Cold Fusion”. Time has proven that it was all true, correct, and highly reproducible.
Robert then wrote more patent disclosures, which included more on RNA vaccination and stabilization. Vical set up talks with the Salk to license Robert’s technology. These Vical patents all have a priority date of 3/21/1989. Important because this is also the date that the Salk filed their patent, demonstrating that the Salk and Vical were working together in this. At that point, Robert was assured that Vical would license the Salk patent – as this was prior art.
As Robert’s supervisor soon took credit for much of his inventions, it was almost immediately clear that this short-term solution was just that and was not sustainable. In August 1989, Robert went back to Northwestern to finish up medical school. He continued to support/consult for Vical without pay. He helped design the animal studies to prove that polynucleotide (DNA/RNA) worked in animal models. These experiments were conducted in 1989 and 1990 and there is documented immunologic data embedded in the patents. But more than that, the actual data that was sent to the USPTO can be found on the webpage (links to the PDF).
This seminal work, which occurred over five years (1986-1990), is what has spawned the mRNA vaccination technologies now saving the world from COVID-19. There are papers and TEN issued patents, all with a priority date of 3/21/1989. THOSE PATENTS INCLUDE mRNA vaccination, there was data to support these and there were vaccines studies to support those claims. The record is crystal clear.
For more on this topic and to view the papers and patents, click here and scroll down this webpage.
So, Vical and the Univ of Wisconsin originally took credit, cutting Robert out of the writing of the papers, as soon as he resigned. Then Vical licensed the technology to Merck and Merck set up an agreement whereby Merck scientists would repeat the experiments and then took credit for the DNA/RNA vaccination discoveries. Literally, Robert’s work was given to someone else to claim as their own.
BUT… Vical and Merck didn’t have the expertise to make RNA after Robert left. Robert had pioneered tech to increase RNA production yield; these protocols came off of his bench. Without Robert there, Vical couldn’t make RNA and we have been told, neither could Merck. Remember this was the early 1990s, Robert had spent a decade perfecting his techniques working with RNA. This was not a fluke or “one-off,” this was a solid research platform that he had created de-novo.
The main reason why mRNA vaccines took an additional 30 years to develop was that these original patents were used by Vical and Merck to block development and commercialization of mRNA vaccines by any other company. They did this even though they had chosen to only develop DNA vaccines. These original mRNA vaccine patents comprehensively disclosed and therefore blocked any others from developing and commercializing an mRNA vaccine until the patents expired.
All this said, this mRNA vaccine discoveries were so amazing, Robert’s passion for the work so far reaching, that the ideas still pour out of him when discussing it. It is this enthusiasm and curiosity that make it so fun to be around Robert and what drives people to want to work with him. When working on a project, it is always about the project, the science, the problem to be solved. Egos are left at the door.
The work at the Salk, at UCSD and at Vical was always about collaboration. Ideas, discussions, writings, editing, data, reagents, constructs – freely made, given and exchanged. That is when science is set free. When minds share – develop, expand, evolve ideas, generate hypotheses. This is what drove Robert and I then and now. So many people worked on developing mRNA technologies and mRNA vaccines. Long after Robert left Vical, he still collaborated with people there. That is how good science works. It is what kept him tethered to Vical. Frankly, it is one reason why he never pursued legal counsel in all of this. It is why he was consulted on data, why Dr. Gary Rhodes, who carried out the initial mRNA vaccination studies, later worked with Robert in the 1990s at UC Davis. Science is one of the highest callings for man. There is always more to know, more to discover.
Over the coming decade, Vical pressured Robert to stop work on mRNA therapies and vaccinations. Cease and desist letters, phone calls were made. Grants were blocked by people at Vical sitting on peer review committees at NIH. I lived it with Robert. This happened. Much of it is documented and we have that documentation.
Fast forward 30 years…
So, imagine how disheartening it is over the course of the last year, to see others take credit for his work in the lay press. First a well-placed article in STAT news. Then a New England Journal review article, written by University of Pennsylvania, extolling their researchers as being up there with Edward Jenner due to their discoveries of mRNA vaccines. Other national newspaper stories followed suit. Any complaints that the news stories were not accurate, were stone walled. It felt like the fix was in. Then to see this article as the headliner by CNN this week was extremely upsetting:
CNN Article :
“The story of mRNA vaccines dates back to the early 1990s, when Hungarian-born researcher Katalin Kariko of the University of Pennsylvania started testing mRNA technology as a form of gene therapy….
Kariko was unable to drum up much interest in this idea for years. But for the past 15 years or so, she's teamed up with Dr. Drew Weissman, an infectious disease expert at Penn Medicine, to apply mRNA technology to vaccines.”
This very long CNN article extolls the “discoveries” by Katalin Kariko, while at the University of Pennsylvania and then BioNTech. Unfortunately, this is just another egregious but highly successful endeavor whereby Dr. Kariko is cited as having invented these technologies. Because after interviewing her, the reporter somehow came away believing that she invented mRNA vaccination! Oh, but now her fame grows, with this article strongly suggesting that she also invented RNA as a drug! Each article becomes more strident in these assertions. Google “mRNA vaccine inventor” and guess whose name comes up, with her own Wiki page and all. Wiki… yes, wiki is all about her also. This publicity didn’t happen in a vacuum. This is an active campaign by institutions to sway public opinion and to convince a very large, international awards committee that Dr. Kariko is deserving.
So, what does one do when someone’s work is not cited, when they are erased from history?
It turns out there is nothing one can do. When a national newspaper gets it wrong, over the course of months – they won’t correct it. Even if one goes to the editor, the magazine, the newspaper or the journalist. Even if one writes about it on social media, etc. Yes, I and to some extent, Robert did all that. I have written, begged, pleaded, informed – all to no avail. Basically, we hit a stone wall. Either journalists denied it (“well, I said “others” worked on these technologies”) or we were ignored. For instance, the New England Journal of Medicine 175 word letter of rebuttal that Robert wrote about an article written by a professor conflating Jenner with Dr. Kariko. The rejection letter below:
<See original blog post>
With time, each article seems to get more and more exaggerated about the Dr. Kariko “discoveries.” The more this gets cited as truth, the more embedded it becomes in the web.
So, why am I writing this?
I guess at the very least to set the record straight with our friends.
This was and is Robert’s work, his passion. He is thrilled that all these technologies are working. He is thrilled for his part in that. He freely credits that other people have worked to develop this. And there are lots and lots of people! But to have poured his heart and soul into this – decades of work and to have someone else get credit for his work in the national press is demoralizing and disheartening. As this isn’t the first time, credit for his work has been taken from him, it literally makes me panic. To note, Dr. Kariko has responded to us and admitted that she did not make these discoveries, only “improvements” to the technology. Improvements, which many companies, like CureVac are not even using. Dr. Kariko now refers to a term that Robert coined and used in the patents- “transient gene therapy” to describe her early work - showing that she is well aware of prior work. She says that she tells reporters that “many, many” people helped make these discoveries, but “they don’t listen to her”… Which reminds me of the quote:
“A truth that's told with bad intent, Beats all the lies you can invent.” ― William Blake, Auguries of Innocence
We literally have nothing to lose in this. Robert never received the money that Vical owed him. Heck, they never even admitted to owing him anything but a silver dollar. They never licensed his work from the Salk. The Salk dropped the patent applications without telling him. Vical threatened Robert with “cease and desist” letters, if he continued working in the field commercially or if he helped a commercial company with these technologies. We never were able to capture a single NIH or government grant for this work. This all happened thirty years ago, it is a terrible but old story. One that Robert likes to forget. It is not worth dredging up.
But now, we kind of have to.
So, I write this to our friends. Understand that Robert is grieving. He invented the field of mRNA vaccination and the use of RNA as a drug. But the credit goes to others. This is painful. It is the erasing of an important part of his life’s work.
As someone who has been supporting him in this endeavor for eons, I know what developing these technologies has brought us. It is the opposite of what one might think. The legacy of these technologies for us has been: abuse, poverty, angst and being disempowered. From there, Robert and I have built successful scientific careers, but it has not been easy and there has been no institutional support.
To move on, Robert will most likely stop writing and speaking about it. This is his way. He is embarrassed to “make a fuss.”
I am not. I know that the American media has a “poster child,” in Dr. Kariko, who is actively being promoted to win a Nobel. There is a campaign going on. I know that Robert has no institutional support, no one to nominate him and no one nominated him (nominations were due in Feb). So, Dr. Kariko, BioNTech and the University of PA do not have to worry. She has no competition from these quarters. She most likely has won. But her win must be cheapened by the fact that that she did not invent these technologies, that the campaign to promote her has misrepresented her contributions to the field, with the press having been misled into believing that she these discoveries came off of her lab bench. But the truth is, they didn’t. The fundamental discoveries and invention of mRNA as a drug and for vaccines were completed, disclosed, published and patented before she began her work.
Thank you for reading through to this point. I hope you will add your voice to those who speak the truth about this.
But in the end, I am afraid that the reality is…
“If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.” ― Walter Langer
https://twitter.com/rwmalonemd/status/1416230282332622849
@alexandrosM did you see my Vical resignation letter? It is in the documents which Jill posted. This conception of DNA and mRNA vaccine applications for gene therapy methods dates back to before I contacted [Dr. Philip Louis Felgner (born 1950)]. I have those original correspondences."
[Dr. James Miller Wilson V (born 1969)] MD FAAP, Director at Ascel Bio World Infectious Disease Forecast Center
"Kudos to Dr. Malone, DTRA, USAMRIID, PHAC, and Many Others. It is rare that I have the privilege to witness, on the ground floor, a major global public health event. And even rarer to give public kudos to one of the silent heroes among a huge group of heroes who contributed to the process. I am proud to present Dr. Robert Malone's heroic contribution to the Ebola fight:
RW Malone MD is proud to have played a key role in enabling the enormous success of developing an effective Ebola vaccine within 12 months. August 2014, colleagues at the Department of Defense/Defense Threat Reduction Agency asked us to step in and help NewLink manage the project and develop the contracts necessary to move the "orphan" PHAC/rVSV ZEBOV vaccine forward quickly. We got the project on track, recruited our client, Focus Diagnostic Clinical Trials (FCT), to team with USAMRIID/WRAIR to develop and perform the immunoassays, put WHO leadership in touch with Pentagon leadership to expedite the initial WRAIR clinical trials, recruited the government of Norway to help fund the clinical research, used social media (LinkedIn) and then personal phone calls to recruit Merck Vaccines to join the project, recruited a management team, and lead the development of the BARDA and DTRA contracts - yielding over 200M$ in resources. Those were frightening times, but now we have a remarkably effective vaccine, developed in record time. The US Army Medical Corps, Medical Countermeasure Systems (MCS) and the DoD Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) took risks and got the job done, on time and on budget, with little fanfare, and we were grateful to have been able to serve and assist with this huge accomplishment.
While the above sounds like a promotion for Robert's consulting service, I am here to publicly say I watched him do this first-hand. I want to also heartily acknowledge and congratulate DTRA, USAMRIID, and especially our colleagues in Canada's PHAC. You all have done a terrific job here. WELL DONE."
Frederick Vogel , Publication Manager, Scientific and Medical Publications, Chief Medical Office, Sanofi Pasteur
I worked with Robert when I was a Senior Scientist at the Division of AIDS, NIAID, NIH from 1992-1999. At that time I was in charge of administering grants and contracts concerning adjuvants and nucleic acid vaccines for HIV vaccines. Robert is a talented molecular immunologist and has significantly contributed to gene vaccine delivery and the adjuvanting of DNA vaccines. His work while at UC Davis included research in cationic lipid mediated gene delivery - still today the most effective method for DNA vaccine delivery, research on mucosal immune responses to DNA vaccination, and methodology for the removal of contaminating endotoxin from DNA preparations. Robert not only possesses a high level of scientific expertise and mastery of his chosen fields of study, but is also highly personable with excellent communications skills. I highly recommend Robert Malone without reservation.
Daniel Becker, MD, PhD , Signal Management Lead at the European Medicines Agency
Robert was the Clinical Research Director of a cell-culture influenza vaccine program. His know-how, dedication, collaboration and communication skills are outstanding. I would welcome him back at any time.
David A. Roth, Ph.D. , Chief Operating Officer
I have known Robert for many years as a collaborator on grants and contracts, as a science and business advisor, and as a colleague on the SAB at EpiVax, Inc. Robert is an easy person to work with, and has a wealth of working knowledge and experience in several key areas of biotechnology and pharma: immunology, molecular biology, vaccine product and clinical development, and IP expansion and management. On a personal level, Robert is an astute integrator of multiple and simultaneous inputs, an excellent trouble-shooter, and an enthusiastic physician-scientist who I respect and admire. He is a tireless worker with a stress-reducing sense of humor and a kind regard for people---truly a joy to work with.
Stephen Bell , CEO & Chairman at Proventus Bio, LLC
As Clinical Research Director, Robert demonstrated in depth understanding the clinical development process. In the course of devising clincial development plans, Robert proactively highlights critical path issues and proposed approaches to mitigate risk,. He is a self-starter and demostrates initiative as appropriate.
D. Andrew Stevenson, MBA , New Business Development / Portfolio and Strategic Planning
Dr. Malone is extremely knowledgeable in his areas of expertise, is results-driven, and has sharp strategic eye for program development. Working with him at Solvay, in response to changing circumstances with regard to clinical supply, he recast the clinical and regulatory development plan and budget in a rapid and highly detailed manner. This plan allowed for the company's first US MDCK studies to begin just two months after IND clearance. He is an expert in translating cutting-edge pre-clinical stage biologic technologies into advanced clinical development. Furthermore, Dr. Malone was especially helpful in our strategic planning for the clinical and regulatory aspects of its US government (DHHS/BARDA) procurement initiatives; he is quite capable of propagating new funds/awards from a core program. A strong team player and consistent contributor and director, Dr. Malone is able to proactively understand a programs requirements, drive his and his team's energies to meet the needs of the overall program, deliver highly competitive ideas and solutions, and communicate progress accordingly.
Larry Vaughn , Principal, Able Search Partners, LLC
I first met Robert over a year ago and have worked with him intensely over the last six weeks. He is a vaccine expert, both influenza and non-influenza. With a compelling personality, well developed interpersonal skills and a flexible approach, Robert can work effectively and successfully in any cultural environment.
Julie McMurry , Software Program Manager at Oregon Health and Sciences University
In addition to being highly intelligent and exceptionally dedicated, Dr. Malone is readily able to identify key collaborators, build consensus, and mobilize teams to produce quality work. Dr. Malone is also generous with this expertise and experience, helping to equip, mentor, and connect those he works with. I heartily recommend him.
[Dr. Anne Searls De Groot (born 1956)] , CEO/CSO of [EpiVax]
In addition to being one of the highest caliber vaccine experts that I [have] worked with in recent memory, Robert is a creative problem-solver and has a work ethic that matches, or exceeds, that of the normal EpiVax employee. And that is a compliment. We've enjoyed working with him and look forward to a long business relationship.
Salome D Winker , Principal Medical Writer and Owner of WinksWriting LLC
Robert Malone and I were working together at Dynport Vaccine Company, where he served as the Clinical Development Associate Director for a portfolio of seven different vaccines against anthrax, smallpox, plague, etc. He was instrumental in planning and conducting a Phase 3 smallpox trial, optimizing vaccine production, and designing clinical development plans for various vaccines, including the writing of government proposals.
Naturally, Robert Malone is a highly experienced and well-connected professional that is very nice to work with. He asks smart questions on data, context, and key messages and quickly familiarizes himself with new concepts in science and medicine.He makes good use of his experience when it comes to creating documents and customizing his writing to different audiences.
Stefanie Hone [See her father ... Dr. David Michael Hone (born 1960) , Senior Scientist at DynPort Vaccine Company LLC, A CSC Company
Robert provided consulting services for Aeras and functioned as Director, Business Development and Program Management. During this time Aeras profited both from his extraordinarily background in vaccine development and high skills in writing grants. Furthermore I had the privilege to get to know Robert on a personal basis; he is one of the very rare people I know that are able to pursue an extraordinarily scientific career while being a very down-to-earth and realistic individual.
Peter Barry , Professor, UC Davis
“Robert was the primary leader of the effort in the Department of Pathology to develop effective strategies to deliver exogenous DNA to cells in vivo. Robert was a leader in the field, and his research made important contributions in advancing our understanding of optimizing delivery of foreign genes into mammalian cells in vivo.”
RelCovaxTM, a second-generation multivalent SARS-CoV-2 vaccine candidate designed to meet global
vaccination demands
V. Ramana1, P. Rao1, R. Sriraman1, A. Phatarphekar1, G. Masand1, V. Reddy1, Ramnath, R.L.1 and R.W. Malone*2
1Reliance Life Sciences
2RW Malone MD LLC
Reliance Life Sciences, part of the Reliance Group of Companies in India, has developed a uniquely constructed, low-cost, easily
manufactured SARS-CoV-2 vaccine candidate that has been specifically developed to enable global access, especially to low
and medium cost countries, to safe and effective protection from SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 disease. The product
employs well-established traditional recombinant protein manufacturing processes together with mature, potent adjuvant technology
to yield a multi-antigen subunit vaccine. A 223 amino acid Spike receptor binding domain (RBD) subunit antigen is manufactured
and purified from CHO cell fermentation, and a 419 amino acid nucleocapsid subunit antigen is produced using E. coli-based
fermentation. These two antigens are then formulated with adjuvants in sodium phosphate buffer to yield a simple and well-defined
final drug product. Immunogenicity analysis (both antibody and cellular responses) were performed using a wide range of antigen
and adjuvant formulations in a murine model to select the final formulation parameters, and SARS-CoV-2 studies were performed
using the well-established golden hamster model. The resulting product candidate is now being manufactured under GMP conditions.
Rigorous pharmacology, toxicology, and chemistry/manufacturing/controls analyses including stability studies have been completed,
and a common technical document (IND) is currently under review by the Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation (CDSCO)
under Directorate General of Health Services, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India. Initial Phase 1 prime/
boost dose ranging studies focused on selecting the final dose, as well as demonstrating immunogenicity and safety of RelCovaxTM
will begin enrollment during Fall 2021.
Assorted Malone family notes, trying to track parents :
1973 - Sgt. Robert Malone ? https://www.newspapers.com/image/682275871/?terms=%22robert%20malone%22&match=1
https://www.newspapers.com/image/165841226
1976-06-04-the-los-angeles-times-orange-county-the-view-pg-01
https://www.newspapers.com/image/165841703/?terms=%22george%20martin%20malone%22&match=1
1976-06-04-the-los-angeles-times-orange-county-the-view-pg-11
https://www.newspapers.com/image/165841722
1976-06-04-the-los-angeles-times-orange-county-the-view-pg-12
1989 - No mention of this Malone/Roley family having any adopted children : https://www.newspapers.com/image/167753713/?terms=%22george%20m%20malone%22&match=1
https://www.newspapers.com/image/30296800/?terms=%22george%20martin%20malone%22&match=1
https://www.newspapers.com/image/381695381/?terms=%22george%20martin%20malone%22&match=1
no mention of kids - https://www.newspapers.com/image/381839903/?terms=%22george%20martin%20malone%22&match=1