The global animal genetics market is likely to rise at a healthy growth rate over the assessment timeframe. Augmented consumption of protein extracted from animals is prophesized to favor the growth of the global animal genetics market in the forthcoming years. In addition, increasing populations generates massive demand for animal-based protein, which further benefits the market.

The global animal genetics market has been segmented on the basis of region and product and services. The sole objective of providing such an all-inclusive report is to offer a deep insight into the market.

Global Animal Genetics Market: Notable Developments

The global animal genetics market has gone through a few developments in the last few years. These market developments make a manifestation of how and what is influencing the growth of the global animal genetics market. One such development is mentioned below:

Get Brochure of the Report @ https://www.tmrresearch.com/sample/sample?flag=B&rep_id=6133

Some of the key market players of the global animal genetics market are

Global Animal Genetics Market: Growth Drivers

High Demand for Animal Protein Places the Market on a High Growth Trajectory

The global animal genetics market is estimated to experience considerable growth over the review period. Such stellar growth of the market is attributed to the augmented adoption of genetic technologies and strict implementation of animal welfare regulations.

Likewise, livestock population has witnessed a substantial rise together with awareness related to the existence of animal genetic disorders. Besides, the need to cater to the unmet demands of animal protein is likely to add fillip to the global animal genetics market over the forecast timeframe.

Buy this Premium Report @ https://www.tmrresearch.com/checkout?rep_id=6133&ltype=S

With an objective to produce better milk and food products, there has been an escalation in the research and development activities by several scientists. Genetic modifications are likely to emerge as another factor supporting the expansion of the global animal genetics market in forthcoming years.

The market is also prophesized to be fuelled by rapid expansion of urbanization and rise in population, which place massive demand for animal protein. Increased adoption of various advanced genetic practices like embryo transfer, artificial insemination (AI) for production of modified breed on a large scale is estimated to favor the market in the years to come.

On the other hand, the dearth of properly skilled technicians and professional with expertise in genetic services is estimate to impede the growth of the global animal genetics market in years to come. Furthermore, strict regulations related to genetic engineering of animals together with high cost of animal testing is likely to obstruct the growth of the market.

Global Animal Genetics Market: Regional Outlook

Asia Pacific, the Middle East and Africa, South America, Europe, and North America comprise the major regions of the global animal genetics market.

Considering geographies, North America is likely to play a dominant role in the global animal genetics market over the assessment timeframe. Such regional supremacy is ascribed to the presence of a large number of well-known companies of the global animal genetics market. In addition, the presence of a well-established livestock industry is likely to propel the North America animal genetics market to prominence in the near future.

Check Table of Contents of this Report @ https://www.tmrresearch.com/sample/sample?flag=T&rep_id=6133

The global animal genetics market is segmented as:

Products and Services

About TMR Research

TMR Research is a premier provider of customized market research and consulting services to business entities keen on succeeding in todays supercharged economic climate. Armed with an experienced, dedicated, and dynamic team of analysts, we are redefining the way our clients conduct business by providing them with authoritative and trusted research studies in tune with the latest methodologies and market trends.

Contact:

TMR Research,

3739 Balboa St # 1097,

San Francisco, CA 94121

United States

Tel: +1-415-520-1050

Visit Site: https://www.tmrresearch.com/

See the rest here:

Animal Genetics Market Latest Trends and Future Growth of Industry Analysis Report to 2028 - BioSpace

DUBLIN--(BUSINESS WIRE)--The "Cell Therapy - Technologies, Markets and Companies" report from Jain PharmaBiotech has been added to ResearchAndMarkets.com's offering.

The cell-based markets was analyzed for 2018, and projected to 2028. The markets are analyzed according to therapeutic categories, technologies and geographical areas. The largest expansion will be in diseases of the central nervous system, cancer and cardiovascular disorders. Skin and soft tissue repair as well as diabetes mellitus will be other major markets.

The number of companies involved in cell therapy has increased remarkably during the past few years. More than 500 companies have been identified to be involved in cell therapy and 309 of these are profiled in part II of the report along with tabulation of 302 alliances. Of these companies, 170 are involved in stem cells.

Profiles of 72 academic institutions in the US involved in cell therapy are also included in part II along with their commercial collaborations. The text is supplemented with 67 Tables and 25 Figures. The bibliography contains 1,200 selected references, which are cited in the text.

This report contains information on the following:

The report describes and evaluates cell therapy technologies and methods, which have already started to play an important role in the practice of medicine. Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation is replacing the old fashioned bone marrow transplants. Role of cells in drug discovery is also described. Cell therapy is bound to become a part of medical practice.

Stem cells are discussed in detail in one chapter. Some light is thrown on the current controversy of embryonic sources of stem cells and comparison with adult sources. Other sources of stem cells such as the placenta, cord blood and fat removed by liposuction are also discussed. Stem cells can also be genetically modified prior to transplantation.

Cell therapy technologies overlap with those of gene therapy, cancer vaccines, drug delivery, tissue engineering and regenerative medicine. Pharmaceutical applications of stem cells including those in drug discovery are also described. Various types of cells used, methods of preparation and culture, encapsulation and genetic engineering of cells are discussed. Sources of cells, both human and animal (xenotransplantation) are discussed. Methods of delivery of cell therapy range from injections to surgical implantation using special devices.

Cell therapy has applications in a large number of disorders. The most important are diseases of the nervous system and cancer which are the topics for separate chapters. Other applications include cardiac disorders (myocardial infarction and heart failure), diabetes mellitus, diseases of bones and joints, genetic disorders, and wounds of the skin and soft tissues.

Regulatory and ethical issues involving cell therapy are important and are discussed. Current political debate on the use of stem cells from embryonic sources (hESCs) is also presented. Safety is an essential consideration of any new therapy and regulations for cell therapy are those for biological preparations.

Key Topics Covered

Part I: Technologies, Ethics & Regulations

Executive Summary

1. Introduction to Cell Therapy

2. Cell Therapy Technologies

3. Stem Cells

4. Clinical Applications of Cell Therapy

5. Cell Therapy for Cardiovascular Disorders

6. Cell Therapy for Cancer

7. Cell Therapy for Neurological Disorders

8. Ethical, Legal and Political Aspects of Cell therapy

9. Safety and Regulatory Aspects of Cell Therapy

Part II: Markets, Companies & Academic Institutions

10. Markets and Future Prospects for Cell Therapy

11. Companies Involved in Cell Therapy

12. Academic Institutions

13. References

For more information about this report visit https://www.researchandmarkets.com/r/7h12ne

View post:

The Cell Therapy Industry to 2028: Global Market & Technology Analysis, Company Profiles of 309 Players (170 Involved in Stem Cells) -...

14 May 2020by eub2-- last modified 14 May 2020

Patents on plants and animals derived from conventional breeding can be fully prohibited in Europe. This is the result of a verdict published today by the Enlarged Board of Appeal, the highest legal body of the European Patent Office (EPO).

Advertisement

The Board concluded that plants and animals obtained by 'essentially biological processes' are not patentable, with the exception of patent applications filed before July 2017. This verdict is in line with the interpretation of European patent law as decided by the 38 member states of the EPO in 2017. No Patents on Seeds! welcomes the verdict but is also demanding further political decisions to close still existing loopholes. Access to biological diversity needed for further breeding must not be controlled, hampered or blocked by any patents.

"For more than ten years we have been fighting against patents such as those on broccoli, tomatoes, peppers, melons and cereals. Therefore, we welcome this verdict in the name of the European public, gardeners, farmers and consumers. Knowledge of methods of breeding plants and animals continues to evolve as a common good from the activities of farmers and breeders over centuries, it is not invented by industry. In future, conventionally bred plants and animals have to be kept available for further breeding," Martha Mertens says for Friends of the Earth Germany.

"We hope the new verdict will help to put an end to a decade of complete legal absurdity and chaotic decision-making at the EPO. However, there is still a huge risk that big corporations, such as Bayer (previously Monsanto) will try to abuse patent law to take control of our daily food," says Katherine Dolan for ARCHE NOAH. "The problem is not yet solved. Further political decisions still have to be taken to close the existing loopholes."

Indeed, there are still reasons for concern. As a recent report from No Patents on Seeds! shows, clear definitions are needed to distinguish patentable technical inventions from the random processes used in conventional breeding in order for existing prohibitions to be effective. Unless there are adequate definitions, 'technical toppings' such as those describing random mutations, can still be used to claim plants and animals as 'inventions'. There are several examples showing how companies easily escape the current prohibitions, e.g. European patents on barley and beer, melons or lettuce.

"Processes of genetic engineering are fundamentally different from those used in conventional breeding," explains Christoph Then for No Patents on Seeds! "The differences need to be spelled out in clear rules and decision making at the EPO."

As patent research shows, hundreds of patents on conventional breeding are pending. Just recently around 100 new patent applications were identified, claiming basil, pepper, manioc and barley as well as cattle, sheep and pigs. If conventionally bred plants and animals are patented as 'inventions', they cannot be used for further breeding without the permission of the patent holder. However, access to biological diversity is crucial for breeding, as also shown in statements made by breeding companies and quoted in the No Patents on Seeds! report.

No Patents on Seeds! will now extend its European network to encourage politicians to take further decisions before end of the year. The European coalition, comprising around a dozen civil society organisations, demands that, as long as final decisions are not taken, all respective pending patent applications are halted as decided by the President of the EPO in 2019.

The member organisations of NO PATENTS ON SEEDS! are concerned about the increasing number of patents on plants, seeds and farm animals and their impact on farmers, breeders, innovation and biodiversity.

See the rest here:

European Patent Office gives green light to prohibit patents on plants and animals - EUbusiness

Covid-19 has changed life as we know it. It has also accelerated already rapid trends in innovation and collaboration across the scientific community.

As the pandemic spreads across the globe, researchers are racing to develop diagnostics, vaccines and treatments. In the pursuit of new solutions to tackle SARS-CoV-2, the novel coronavirus that causes Covid-19, researchers have been turning to machine learning, AI and high-throughput experimental automation that aid in development. Another powerful tool they are using to accelerate the process is CRISPR. This gene-targeting and gene-editing technology, based on the mechanism that bacteria naturally use to fight viruses, is already proving useful in our joint fight against this new virus.

CRISPR Advances Covid-19 TestingWe know early detection of SARS-CoV-2 is essential to isolating infected patients and managing appropriate healthcare responses. Recently, researchers at MIT published a rapid CRISPR-Cas13-based COVID-19 detection assay protocol.Since CRISPR can be modified to target nearly any genetic sequence, it can be used to detect SARS-CoV-2 RNA in a patient sample. This assay utilizes an RNA-targeting CRISPR nuclease to help scientists detect the SARS-CoV-2 RNA from patient samples within 60 minutes. More recently, an improved assay was developed by researchers at MIT that was shown to provide faster and more robust results.

Utilizing another CRISPR nuclease that is thermostable, they developed a test that in one step copies the viral RNA in a patient sample, such as saliva, into the more stable DNA and then specifically identifies a SARS-CoV-2 gene sequence. Performing this point-of-care assay requires minimal lab equipment and resources, as it only needs a few reagents and a heat source, delivering results in as little as 40 minutes. Supplementing existing tests with new CRISPR-based approaches can broaden accessibility to Covid-19 testing, a key strategy for stopping the spread through track and trace efforts, as outlined by the World Health Organization.

CRISPR Helps Engineer Future TreatmentsPreviously, the genome-engineering power of CRISPR has been directed at fighting genetic diseases. But more recently, its also being harnessed to fight infectious diseases, now including the new coronavirus.

Understanding how a pathogenic disease operates at the host-pathogen interface is critical to developing new treatments. CRISPR-based genome engineering enables researchers to study how SARS-CoV-2 interacts with human cells and generate the appropriate cell models that could lead to faster discovery of a potential new treatment or an existing drug combination that may provide a treatment solution. Once a potential treatment is identified, CRISPR makes the next step drug target screening more efficient, advancing us more quickly to a viable treatment option.

As an example of this approach in action, researchers are exploring if CRISPR can be used to verify the functional relevance of human genes recently identified to interact with SARS-CoV-2 proteins. The investigation of the molecular mechanisms of the novel virus can ultimately help identify drug combinations that have the best potential to treat those infected.

Current Fight for the Future of Human HealthGenome engineering has been rapidly harnessed by academic and non-profit institutions, the biopharma industry, and scientific pioneers to develop Covid-19 testing and treatment solutions. CRISPR-based genome engineering enables researchers to study how SARS-CoV-2 interacts with human cells and generate the appropriate cell models that could lead to faster discovery of a potential new treatment or an existing drug combination that may provide a treatment solution.

Beyond this, the unprecedented innovation taking place in response to the Covid-19 pandemic will provide a foundation for improving human health in the future. Additionally, as technologies and understanding mature, new approaches, such as engineered cell therapies, will become part of the toolkit in future responses to global health challenges.

The current scientific response is representative of the future of life sciences a future where we integrate multiple technologies and disciplines including high throughput experimental automation, machine learning and agile, programmable tools such as CRISPR to fundamentally change our approach to research and development. We are seeing a new bar being set on the speed of science as the research community comes together, leveraging these technologies to respond to the Covid-19 pandemic at unprecedented velocity. Once the public health crisis subsides and the research halted by the pandemic resumes, the need for these transformative tools, technologies and approaches to life science research and development will be greater than ever.

Photo: wildpixel, Getty Images

See the article here:

How CRISPR can help us win the fight against the pandemic - MedCity News

tilialucida - stock.adobe.com

A new report from the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) has given insight into how the cell based meat industry is stuck in its R&D phase. The report demonstrates that there is still plenty of mystery in the fledgling industry, as food tech competes to premier and dominate the market from the onset.

The GAO states: Specific information about the technology being used, eventual commercial production methods, and composition of the final products are not yet known. It has found that the technology and methods are still in development and said FDA and USDA do not have clarity about whats going on with the secretive R&D projects.

The report cites the following issues, which we have summarized, as needing further clarity:

Many questions of course remain to be answered at this stage and vegconomist will keep you informed of developments. Although it is still debatable as to how vegan cultured meat really is, it clearly has the potential to drastically reduce the devastating impact of traditional animal farming, and remove animals from the food system.

Related

Read the original post:

GAO report Highlights Barriers in Getting Cell Based Meat to Market - vegconomist - the vegan business magazine

The recent exchanges on Ethiopias acceptance of genetically modified (GM) crops and the resulting report of USDA praising the steps our country has taken continue to be informative. My understanding of the debates surrounding GM foods suggests that neat explanations about their usefulness grossly disregard the muddy footprints and messy stories of the technology while the voices of vilification and blanket rejection tend to thrive more on emotional appeal than rigorous science. Lets start with the basics.The 21st century is said to be the century of biology and ecology. Thus, for Ethiopia, as one of the globes top 50 centers of biodiversity, where better to capitalize on than in understanding and developing its crop and animal varieties and fulfill its long-held potential of being Africas breadbasket. Ethiopia is one of the few centers where domestication of crops was practiced at the dawn of agriculture and the country has contributed to the worlds collection of cultivable species such crops as Teff, coffee, enset, sorghum, millet, etc. It means that our farmers are not new to the genetic modification of organisms since every domestication effort involves selective breeding and recombination of desired characteristics. We also have adopted several foreign plant species (maize, wheat, barley, tomatoes, potatoes, pepper, etc.) some of them only a few centuries ago, without much consideration for their effects on our indigenous species.Despite these impressive records, our agricultural system stayed firmly rooted in its ancient practices which suffer from abysmal efficiency and very poor productivity. As a result, Ethiopia remains a net importer of crops both for human consumption and for its expanding industries, and there seems to be no natural end to this depressing trend. The consequence is not only a shrinking of profit base for many of the industries but also the misplaced use of the meager hard currency obtained from the export of some raw materials with all the negative impacts on our capacity in importing more useful technologies.

Ironically, Ethiopia has no shortage of cultivable/irrigable land or population able or willing to participate in modern agricultural practices. In fact, Ethiopias farming community is estimated to be above 80% of the population but is unable to feed itself properly let alone supply raw materials for the manufacturing sector. The production by small scale farmers in Ethiopia is demonstrably incapable of keeping pace with the population growth as tens of millions of our people still depend on food handouts every single year and many more live in precarious situations. Therefore, it is pertinent that the country becomes self-sufficient at least for feeding the population with all possible means. And, this is not a very hard task given the scale of its cultivable land and the disproportionately large population whose livelihood is dependent on farming.The most relevant question is thus how to end this absurdity and persistent tragedy without drastically affecting the livelihood of our farmers and disrupting the biodiversity balance. For a very long period of time, Ethiopia lacked the capacity to introduce mechanized farming and other relevant agricultural technologies. Further, it lagged far behind many (African) countries in developing its policies and relevant practices with regard to the application of plant genetic engineering technology. Arguably the most unhelpful effort on part of the Ethiopian government in the last decade has been the introduction of the Biosafety Proclamation No. 655/2009. It is possible that this proclamation was enacted as a genuine effort to protect the local farmers and the countrys agriculture sector from control by a few foreign biotech industries and create a formidable safeguard against potential fallouts from untended consequences of releasing GM crops. However, it is clear from the outset that the proclamation lacked proper scrutiny by all the relevant stakeholders, not least farmers representatives or experts from agricultural research centers in the country. In addition, it failed to recognize the potential of local agro-biotechnology research and innovation and was oblivious to the rapidly changing focus of the debate and policy shifts surrounding this emerging technology from around the world. Thus, our Biosafety Proclamation No. 655/2009 was, by international standards, relatively outdated as soon as it was hastily passed by the parliament (hence the justification for a later amendment as Proclamation No. 896/2015).It is unclear why modern GM organisms are so divisive and treated as highly toxic materials that should be feared and avoided at all costs. Rigorous analysis done by scientific institutions such as the UK Royal Society and the U.S. National Academy of Sciences has demonstrated that such organisms are at least as safe as their counterparts produced by conventional breeding techniques. For example, the GM cotton that Ethiopia is said to have started cultivating is the widely known Bt variety. In short, Bt is abbreviated from Bacillus thuringiensis, a bacterium species that naturally occurs in soil and produces highly specific insecticidal proteins. This bacterium has been in use, in one form or another, as the most effective, naturally occurring, and environmentally friendly bioinsecticide for more than half-century. Bt spray is currently the dominant bioinsecticide in the world and is authorized for use even by organic farmers worldwide. Therefore, we are talking about a well-characterized gene of a bacterium (which might as well be dwelling in our soils all along). Plants expressing this gene have been tested for more than two decades in several countries and in a wide range of ecological settings for the properties they have been designed for, with no confirmed case of ill effect as food or feed.I suspect that Ethiopia has been misled or pressured into adopting an overly cautious interpretation of the precautionary principle as was the case in the past in some EU countries. In my opinion, the EU and its policies on GM products (even as progressive as they currently are) cannot be a good lead for Ethiopia. For one, farming practices in the EU are already highly productive even without the need for the introduction of GM. In addition, the sheer proportion of the population involved in the agricultural sector in Ethiopia means that unreasonable restrictions on agricultural biotechnology can have far-reaching consequences. For Ethiopia, the better place to look for inspiration is other developing countries around the world in Latin America, Asia, and in the continent of Africa itself for our capacities and needs are likely to be similar.

India, for example, started commercial farming of Bt-cotton in 2002 and at the moment, about 25% of its agricultural land is covered with this variety, the highest proportion in the world. In our continent, South Africa is the pioneer in providing permits for the commercial cultivation of GM crops for GM cotton and maize starting in 1997. Egypt has been commercially farming Bt-maize hybrid since 2008, using seeds procured from South Africa (it has since suspended the cultivation due to the lack of proper biosafety laws and other local issues). Ghana, Nigeria, Cameroon, and, our neighboring countries, Sudan, Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, and Mozambique have all tested and/or adopted the cultivation of GM crops. Furthermore, Nigeria, Kenya, and Uganda are pursuing various genetic modifications to the cassava plant, a staple crop for over half a billion people around the world. It is disingenuous, to say the least, to assert that all of these countries are either threatened or duped into accepting this technology to the detriment of the wellbeing of their population and ecosystems.Ethiopia, on the other hand, despite having several, experienced agricultural research institutions, is missing out for far too long on the development of its genetic research capacity and utilization of available biotechnologies, especially as compared to many of these African countries. As a commentary on this site made it clear, the Ethiopian team negotiating the Cartagena Protocol, led by Dr. Tewolde-Birhan Gebre-Egziabher, played a key role in formulating a strong African position and had become the continents de-facto representative. This had been appreciated and acknowledged by several African countries at that time. Whether this fact can make Ethiopia assume a Pan-Africanist leadership position in the environmental issues is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. What is important is the fact that the Cartagena Protocol aims mainly to provide an adequate level of protection to worldwide biodiversity by placing a stringent control on the transboundary movement, transit, handling and use of all living modified organisms that may have adverse effects on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity. What it is not is an outright ban on the development, test or use of GM organisms for food or feed. In addition, several of the major African countries have since moved on and have come to realize that application GM crops, transgenic technology, and genetic engineering know-how could have a transformative effect on parts their economies provided that these are supported by a strong monitoring regimen. As a result, and contrary to its supposed pan-African leadership, Ethiopia is currently an outlier in the continent when it comes to the exploration of this powerful technology that can potentially transform the living standards of millions of people. Many of the countries that are said to be hesitant in accepting this agricultural biotechnology lack either the capacity to adapt and manage it or the actual need for a rapid transformation of their agricultural practices (they are either food self-sufficient or have no industrial base to supply to or both). In other words, we may as well have once been the continents leading voice against GM organisms but it has become apparent that we are leading the wrong league and it is not where we belong it is unbecoming to our great nation.What Ethiopia urgently needs is a dynamic regulatory system and strong scientific capacity for the evaluation, authorization, and monitoring of imported GM crops. It also needs to rebuild and expand its capability for fundamental research with the aim of developing local GM species using state-of-the-art methodology. Public-private biotechnology partnerships should be encouraged to work on genetic identification and improvements even in our own indigenous species of plants and animals. Furthermore, since we are negotiating for accession to the World Trade Organization, it is the most relevant time to substantially revise or repeal the Biosafety Proclamation No. 655/2009 (including its latest incarnation, Proclamation No. 896/2015) and streamline other relevant laws in accordance with international standards.

To this writer, the question is not to be why Ethiopia allowed the commercial cultivation of Bt-cotton and has authorized a confined field trial of Bt-maize. It is whether it had conducted a thorough analysis of the existing problems in the sector and identified the effectiveness of these particular strains of GM crops as cost-effective and sustainable solutions. It is not a case of re-inventing the wheel but of identifying our desirable targets and requirements, learning from the front-runners, and applying an appropriate level of precautionary principles. The temporary setbacks in Burkina Faso, Africas largest producer of cotton at one point, and some regions in India demonstrate that the process of introducing GM crops is far from being a turn-key situation. It requires the collaboration of laboratory scientists, policymakers, market leaders, and farmers (end-users) in identifying the required crop characteristic and quality that is suitable for the specific condition of the locality.In conclusion, agricultural gene-modification technology has sufficiently demonstrated its worth after more than two decades of commercial application and this is reflected in its widespread global adoption.Therefore, the excessive hesitance of its acceptance by Ethiopia and campaigners that support this stance is unjustifiable either socially, economically, or more importantly, scientifically.

Main Image: Children at a farm in Hawzen, Tigray region. Ethiopia Observer file.

This article is published under aCreative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International licence. Please cite Ethiopia Observer prominently and link clearly to the original article if you republish. If you have any queries, please contact us at ethiopiaobserver@protonmail.com. Check individual images for licensing details.

See the rest here:

Why Ethiopia needs to embrace gene-modification technology - ethiopiaobserver.com

During a March 15, 2020 interview, beginning at the 27:40 time point, Dr Ralph Baric, noted coronavirus scientist at the University of North Carolina, said the following when asked about the animal origin of the human COVID-19 pandemic:

As far as I know they [the Chinese] have not identified the actual reservoir species. There were reports about pangolins [scaly anteaters] as being potentially being the intermediate host, but pangolins viruses are 88-90% identical to SARS-2 [COVID-19] in comparison civet and racoon dog strains of SARS coronavirus were 99.8 identical to SARS coronavirus from 2003. In other words, you are talking about a handful of mutations between civet strains, racoon dog strains and human strains in 2003. Pangolins have over 3,000 nucleotide changes - no way they are the reservoir species [for COVID-19], absolutely no chance.

Here is what Dr Baric was saying.

It was logical to conclude that the coronavirus from the human 2003 SARS outbreak could have originated in animals because the coronavirus circulating in the civet and racoon dog populations was 99.8 per cent the same as the coronavirus eventually found in humans. That would, therefore, require only a relative handful of naturally-occurring mutations to jump to humans.

In contrast, pangolin coronaviruses are only 88-90 per cent the same as COVID-19. The huge number of naturally-occurring mutations required for pangolins to act as a reservoir species and intermediate host for COVID-19 would make it practically impossible.

Despite that, an article published by scientists from Guangzhou, China on May 7, 2020 in the prestigious journal Nature directly contradicts the comments made by Dr Baric, concluding:

The isolation of a coronavirus that is highly related to SARS-CoV-2 [COVID-19] in pangolins suggests that they have the potential to act as the intermediate hosts for SARS-CoV-2 [COVID-19].

The Guangzhou scientists concede that the bat coronavirus RaTG13, which is actually BtCoV/4991, has about a 96 per centsequence identity to SARS-CoV-2 [COVID-19] at the whole-genome level and it is reasonable to assume that bats are the native host of SARS-CoV-2 [COVID-19].

Agreeing with Dr Baric, the authors admit that, although genetically similar, it is unlikely that coronaviruses usually found in pangolins are directly linked to the outbreak because of their overall substantial sequence differences from COVID-19.

The Guangzhou group states, however, that the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of a pangolin coronavirus is nearly identical to the same structure in COVID-19, having only a single amino acid difference.

The Chinese scientists claim that a pangolin coronavirus appears to have donated the RBD to COVID-19, presumably through some type of recombinant event occurring between a bat coronavirus and a pangolin coronavirus inside a pangolin host.

The close identity of COVID-19s RBD to that of pangolins has been widely reported, but the recombinant scenario suggested by the Guangzhou research team is purely speculatively for which they provide no supporting data.

Chinas own scientists may have inadvertently stumbled upon the truth. A far more likely explanation is that the pangolin RBD was inserted into a bat coronavirus by genetic engineering.

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

See original here:

Here`s what China`s scientists have to say about the origin of COVID-19 - WION

Todays recognized facts in science are incomplete because they ignore spirit, will, and emotions. But more and more scientists have the courage to transfer knowledge from quantum physics and philosophy to everyday life. Dr. Ulrich Warnke explains how consciousness and subconscious mind control reality formation and shows how we activate these abilities in ourselves as it is written in many mystical texts. The key to a new world creation are certain states of consciousness that we can learn. This gives us effective tools to change our living conditions for the better. Source.

Ulrich Warnke (* 1945), photo, is a German biologist. He studied biology, physics, geography and pedagogy and received his doctorate in 1973. He taught as a senior academic at the Saarland University and has been retired since March 2010. One of his focal points is the effect of electromagnetic vibrations and fields, including light, on organisms. [Playlist with videos]

Wikipedia [which is a by a clan-like group of higher educated students, people, scientists, run, maintained and constantly updated website, where all info that does not fit within the mainstream [=wrong] concept of science is named pseudo-science or worse, and frequently even removed]: His statements on questions of the importance of quantum physics experiments are controversial. In his books he tries to correlate quantum physical experiments and results with spiritual experiences.

My comment: this sentence unveils that the author(s) of the Wikipedia article does/do not know by experience which spiritual experience is meant, or worse: that spiritual experiences are imaginations. Spirituality is real and not a belief or a religion, but a state of being as a part of the total existence, to be experienced in every day life, during work, in meditation and/or contemplation. An authentic spiritual experience cannot be acted.

Also Carl Gustav Jung had kundalini experiences and in his Red Book he is explaining the process of it, via texts and drawings, paintings. I prefer to name kundalini an evolutionary experience, instead of spiritual experience, though it is both, but I chose this to avoid silly remarks of those who do/did NOT experience it. One of the results of this process is a deeper sense for reality, wholeness, and oneself. Scientists are not, generally, aware of a wholeness, because they did NOT experience this, are evolutionary (far) back in the, in the meantime normal, human process of evolution especially in younger people and sometimes even children. That means that these scientists, who are still in the majority, show a lack of ethics, and absence of awareness, where also quantum physics work with. This has created the madness, the absolute chaos we live in, today. Science, as one could expect, does not exist any more, and IF, it is rejected as pseudo-science and ridiculed. They, who make themselves guilty of that, expose themselves as silly, ignorant, but are, logically, not even aware of that, because they belong somewhere in the lower degrees of the human evolution:

Spiritual Evolution

Reason for creating this blog article, is the tweet that I found coincidentally today, on May 14, 2020, and in which the subtitle of the website The World Foundation of Natural Science is ridiculed, because of the terms divine and the name of what we learned to categorize as saint: Francis of Assisi. One cannot find anything on the Wikipedia page, on not any page or website, that could categorize publications of a website that mentions the name of Francis of Assisi, to be based on conspiracy theories, as if the term spiritual, or divine, belongs to those who believe in something that does not exist: God. God does indeed not exist as a human-like being on a cloud and no I do not believe in a church, but I do believe in the church of nature, earth, Life, Universe, All Existence. That church is not a building where you can go in or out, but where one is constantly in, even if one does not realize it, or even denies it. Francis of Assisi is mentioned on the website of the World Foundation of Natural Sciences because of his view on nature and the environment. Very honourable. One cannot say that the one who tweets and writes about people in the way he is used to, is honourable. On the contrary. He is even creating conspiracy theories himself around a website that is not hiding its convictions and views on life and nature, and that is undeniable related with an unsolved problem in the persons own unconsciousness.

The only reason that this person was able to find the link to the newsletter of the World Foundation is this (my) blog, and I suspect him for being in this blog more often, as the stats of my blog show from which countries there have been searchings. I know where he lives. Why I suspect him of visiting my blog? Because of the facts that follow after. One of these is his tweet of today, about a newsletter that nobody else has shared, than me.

In the following excerpts, by Dr. Mae-Wan Ho , one can learn to understand more about science, real science. What has become out of what once was science and what has lost the most essential facets of what once was science. Mainstream science is not science, but a deformed clone of what once was science: Frankenstein science.

I found the name of Dr. Mae-Wan Ho in the newsletter of The World Foundation of Natural Science, the newsletter that has been ridiculed by the one who tweeted about it and who has marked it as based on conspiracy theories. He wants, he writes in the tweet, real science. Well. The newsletter contains 31 evidence based facts in the references. With other words: the so-called twitter professor, dressed in an oversized white blouse on his Twitter profile picture, is lying. To underline that: here is Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, with her view on real science.

.

The End of Bad Science and Beginning Again with Life (Excerpts)By: Dr. Mae-Wan Ho (1941-2016) Paragraph: The two-way connection between science and society

Genetic engineering biotechnology is not just about food production. It is about any and every way of exploiting life and our life-support system for profit. It is the ultimate in the dominant way of life that knows the monetary cost of everything and the value of nothing.17

There is a two-way connection between science and society. Science is both shaped by the politics and the mores of society and it can reinforce them. And nowhere is it more clearly seen in the mechanistic, instrumental worldview that pervades the scientific mainstream and the dominant culture at large.

The mechanistic paradigm of western science is really a direct legacy of the Judaeo-Christian tradition. The tradition inspired the search for eternal laws, ordained by God, which could make the universe move in predictable, mechanical ways. Through Copernicus, Galileo and Descartes, this strand of thought culminated in Newtons mathematical laws of mechanics. Mechanical explanations seem so compelling that every event in nature came to be seen in a mechanical perspective.

Another strand in the legacy of the Judaeo-Christian tradition is that human beings are supposed to be created in the image of God and to have immortal souls, while animals and the rest of nature are to be used by human beings. Descartes established the dualistic separation of human beings from nature, of mind from body and matter from spirit. He maintained that only human beings can reason, that animals are unfeeling machines; and condoned cruel experiments on dogs and cats. Francis Bacon, similarly, urged that it was our right to extend our power and dominion over the universe.18

Thomas Hobbes went further. For him, nothing exists except matter and motion, the universe including human being are to be explained mechanically. He argued that human beings are ruled purely by their appetites and aversions, and without a powerful king to restrain and channel those impulses, our lives would be poor, nasty, brutish and short. In other words, absolute government is necessary to prevent the war of each against all to which natural selfishness inevitably leads19. Hobbes was writing when mercantilism reached its high point in Europe, and brought great power to those princes and merchants who successfully accumulated vast quantities of gold and other precious metals.

Hobbes influence has passed down to us via Charles Darwin in an age that saw the birth of capitalism and the expansion of the free market under the military might of the British Empire. Nature became ultimately reduced to isolated atoms jostling and competing in the struggle for survival of the fittest. In its present-day form, neo-Darwinian sociobiology has changed very little from social Darwinism. Neo-liberal economic theory is in many ways much more pernicious than Adam Smiths laissez-faire economics, which is based on competition tempered by moral restraint20. And so, through the self-fulfilling prophecy, mechanistic science has created a dysfunctional social milieu and a globalized economy which is destroying our planet and failing to serve the physical and spiritual needs of the vast majority of humanity21. That was why fifty thousand people from all walks of life and of all ages took to the streets at the World Trade Organization conference in Seattle at the end of November, 1999.

It is clear that the mechanistic paradigm has failed the reality test in life as in science. But the discredited paradigm is still perpetrated by mainstream academic institutions as though no alternatives exist.

Paragraph: Frankenstein science

Mechanistic biology has reached its logical conclusion when organisms including human beings are to be genetically manipulated and cloned. The first human clone has been created, by injecting the genetic material of a human being into a cows egg22, a scene reminiscent of Mary Shelleys prophetic parable of Frankenstein.

Dr. Frankenstein, in a role not unlike the contemporary genetic engineer, is a scientist obsessed with mastery over nature; so much so that he attempts to create the perfect human being. Instead, he created a monster. Mary Shelleys classic is as much a parable of the mechanistic science that inspires the deed as it is of the scientist playing God.

All species are being genetically manipulated. Millions of transgenic mice are being created to serve as dubious models of human diseases, and an increasing number have to be sacrificed to make room for more. Livestock are humanized to provide spare organs for transplanting into human beings, or engineered and cloned as bioreactors to produce pharmaceuticals and industrial chemicals in their milk, blood, urine and semen, and with tens of thousands of failures and abnormalities.23

Apart from the potential hazards of creating new viruses that cross species barriers, the excessive suffering inflicted on the animals violates the most basic moral code of human society. Michael Fox strongly questions the right of human beings to interfere so profoundly with the inherent nature or telos of other species24. Indeed, each species has its own intrinsic value, its own purpose in the scheme of nature, which we violate at our own peril. This is also the most abiding ecological wisdom which western science has lost touch with, and is only now rediscovering.

The organic revolution and the new ethic of science

Genetic determinism offers a simplistic, reductionist description which is a travesty of the interdependence and complexity of organic reality. It has no concept of the organism as a whole, nor of societies or ecosystems. That is one reason why genetic engineering, at least in its current form, can never work. It is based on misconceptions that organisms are machines, and on a denial of the complexity and flexibility of the organic whole.

This brings us to the kind of science appropriate to society, which can transcend the existing dominant ethos, to support the necessary transition to sustainable ways of life, and to connect with the organic uprising that is coming from the grassroots all over the world. Many remarkable individuals and local communities are indeed changing their own lives and the world around them for the better. They all do so by learning from nature and recognizing that it is the symbiotic, mutualistic relationships which sustain ecosystems and make all life prosper, including the human beings who are active, sensitive participants in the ecosystem as a whole.25

The same organic revolution has been happening in western science over the past thirty years. Jim Lovelocks Gaia theory, for example, invites us to see the earth as one super-organism26. Even more remarkable is the message from quantum theory: that we may be inseparably entangled with one another and with all nature, which we participate in co-creating. In other words, the universe is an entangled whole consisting of organisms that are themselves wholes. From my own work, I have shown that the organism is so perfectly whole that it approaches quantum coherence: a state of both maximum local freedom and global cohesion27. The organisms activities are fully coordinated from the molecular to the macroscopic, and that is why, with a special imaging technique invented in my laboratory, we can see the living, moving organism as a liquid crystalline being.

It is this holistic, organic perspective that can enable us to negotiate our path to a sustainable future. It also provides the basis of a new ethic of science that can reshape society and transform the very texture and meaning of our lives. Seattle has shown us that things can be different. Society does not have to be ruled by the dominant culture. Science can transcend the dominant status quo to reshape society for the public good, which is also the private good. We begin to appreciate how the purpose of each organism and species is entangled with that of every other. Our humanity is a function of this entangled whole, and we cannot do arbitrary violence to one another, nor to the nature of other species without violating our own nature.

.

References of the article:

17. See Ho, 1998, 1999 (note 2).18. See Fox, M. (1999). Beyond Evolution, Chapter 5, The Lyons Press, New York.19. See Korten, D.C. (1998). The Post-Corporate World, Life After Capitalism, Kumarian Press, West Hartford and Berett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco.20. See Korten, 1998 (note 20).21. See Mander, J. and Goldsmith, E. (1996). The Case Against the Global Economy, And For a Turn Toward the Local, Sierra Club Books, San Francisco.22. Fears that a baby could be cloned Ian Cobain, Daily Mail, 17 June, 1999.23. See Ho, M.W. (2000). Towards a new ethic of science. In Ethical Careers Guide for Young Scientist, Scientist for Global Responsibility, London.24. Fox, 1999 (note 19).25. See Korten, 1998 (note 20); also, Hawken, P., Lovins, A. and Lovins, L.H. (1999). Natural Capitalism,26. Lovelock, J.E. (1988). The Ages of Gaia: A Biography of Our Living Earth, Norton, New York.27. Ho, M.W. (1993, 1998). The Rainbow and The Worm, The Physics of Organisms, World Scientific, Singapore.

Complete article.

Related article: How the fifth generation wireless standard 5G contributes to the corona pandemic

Like Loading...

Related

Excerpt from:

Science is dead, long live 'Frankenstein science' - stopthefud

William Dembski and Robert J. Marks developed the concept of active information to measure the extent to which a search function appears pre-programmed to find some target. Inspired by the theory of intelligent design, this metric has proved useful in exposing when genetic algorithms dont truly model the power of Darwinian evolution, but rather cheat due to a programmers guidance, leading to a predetermined outcome. As explainedhere, active information works as follows:

Exogenous Information (I) represents the difficulty of a search in finding its target with no prior information about its location. Active Information (I+) is the amount of information smuggled in by intelligence to aid the search algorithm in finding its target. Endogenous Information (Is) then measures the difficulty the search will have in finding its target after the addition of Active Information. Thus, I+= I Is.

Two new papers in the journalBIO-Complexityshow how active information is useful in new areas, helping us to better understand evolution and its limits.

In recent years proponents of non-Darwinian evolution have advanced ideas about natural genetic engineering, in which organisms can induce targeted, beneficial mutations in their own genomes in response to selection pressure. Last month inBIO-Complexity, computer scientist Jonathan Bartlett published an article, Measuring Active Information in Biological Systems. He addressed an important related question: How can we determine if a mutation is random and undirected, or if it was directed? In address to this question, he finds new applications for the concept of active information.

Active information tells us how much knowledge a search function has embedded in it about the location of the target. In the context of studying the effects of mutations on an organism, Bartlett explains: What active information measures is the alignment of the genome itself to the problem of finding viable genetic solutions to selection pressures. Thus, in some cases a mutation may be completely random, meaning that it occurred due to mechanisms that were not preprogrammed to help the organism solve a problem. In other cases, a mutation may not be entirely random, meaning that preprogrammed mechanisms internal to the organism directed the mutation to provide some potential benefit. Bartlett explains that non-random, directed mutations are essentially a reflection of the presence of active information in a genome to produce beneficial mutations:

This is wholly compatible with Behes First Rule of Adaptive Evolution, which states that evolution will break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain. [16] The question that is posed by active information is a separate one. Does the genome contain information about what changes are likely to yield benefit? It may be that the most likely way to yield benefit is to blunt or break some particular system. If active information is present, then the blunting and breaking will be measurably tilted towards blunting and breaking systems that are likely to yield selection benefit by doing so.

The goal of active information is not to be a universal quantification of all aspects of information in biology, but rather to assess the narrow question of the information that cells contain that assist in their own evolution.

Bartlett notes that because living organisms tend to optimize across many variables over different timescales, measuring the amount of information could be difficult. However, he explains that the well-defined system of theadaptive immune system provides an environment where active information measurements can be readily calculated. He uses this observation to produce a general model for calculating active information in genomic mutations:

The methodology described for the somatic hypermutation system can be generalized to any mutational system for which the following are reasonable parameters:

Lastly, Bartlett applies his method to an example offered by proponents of Darwinian evolution to supposedly demonstrate the power of random mutation and natural selection. The example is Richard Lenskis well-knownE. coliLong Term Evolution Experiment (LTEE) and the evolution of the Cit+ phenotype (the ability ofE. colito update and metabolize citrate). As Bartlett explains, the first time Lenski and his team observed the evolution of the Cit+ phenotype, it required 31,500 generations to appear. However, in their paper,Hofwegen et al. (2016)witnessed the same trait arise in only about 12 generations and 30 days because of selection pressures. Bartlett predicts that the trait arose due to active information in the genome, responding to selection and thereby predisposingE. colito evolve such a trait. Bartlett finds:

E. colicontributes approximately 12.4 additional bits of information towards the search for the Cit+ mutation when under selection. This number is relative to the ordinary predisposition ofE. colito produce this mutation when not under selection, which has not been determined.

Bartlett shows that it is not random mutation alone that generates such complex traits inE. coli. What this indicates is that classical Darwinian evolution is not the mechanism at work here. Instead, preprogrammed mechanisms are designed to allow an organism to rapidly adapt to increase selection pressures. Were these preprogrammed mechanisms intelligently designed? Thats a separate question for another day, but what Bartlett has shown is that Darwinism didnt produce this feature; something far smarter did. Intelligent design ideas are bearing fruit in our understanding of how evolution works.

A second paper inBIO-Complexitypublished just this week, Generalized Active Information: Extensions To Unbounded Domains, by Daniel Andres Diaz-Pachon and Robert J. Marks, further explores the utility of the concept of active information. They first respond to a criticism of active information made by Olle Hggstrm. The Swedish mathematician claimed that there is absolutely no a priori reason to expect that the blind forces of nature should produce a fitness landscape distributed [uniformly]. They reply by observing, It is not that out-of-equilibrium explanations are not allowed, it is that they must be accounted for.

They then explain that active information can help us detect instances where probabilities depart from expected uniform distributions:

Active information can be viewed as a generalized instantiation of anomaly detection otherwise known as novelty filtering. The status quo of probabilistic uniformity is set and any significant deviation is flagged as novel. The degree of deviation from normalcy is measured by the active information. [A]ctive information is the difference of the information for an event under equilibrium and nonequilibrium.

As they observe, Active information can also be seen as a statistical complexity measure. That is because it meets criteria previously laid out by mathematicians for building such metrics, including the fact that Active information determines the information gap between the search of a target by pure chance and the input of an expert/dumb programmer. In light of these results, they predict that active information can be applied to build a useful model of population genetics.

Photo: From Richard Lenskis terrificLTEE, by Brian Baer and Neerja Hajela [CC BY-SA 1.0],via Wikimedia Commons.

Read more from the original source:

New Papers Explore the Utility of Active Information - Discovery Institute

Currently more than 80 countries have expressed interest in acquiring Heberon. Photo: CIGB

Since the appearance, March 11, of the first cases of COVID-19 in Cuba, the countrys Ministry of Public Health (Minsap) has reported that the inclusion of Recombinant Human Interferon Alpha 2b in treatment protocols for these patients has shown positive results.

Details on the effectiveness of the product were presented by Dr. Eulogio Pimentel Vzquez, director of the Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (CIGB), affiliated with the BioCubaFarma Enterprise Group, where the medication was first produced in the late 1980s.

"The strength of the Cuban health system, and its close ties with the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, in our social system that prioritizes the people's health, makes possible the medications availability for all Cubans."

According to Dr. Pimentel, in accordance with the Minsap treatment protocol, this product, in combination with other drugs, is used as soon as a case is confirmed, and not with patients in serious or critical condition.

Data released April 14 shows that 93.4% of patients testing positive for SARS-COV-2 had been treated with Heberon (the commercial name of Recombinant Human Interferon Alpha 2b). Only 5.5% reached serious condition. The mortality rate reported by Minsap on that date was 2.7%, while for patients with whom the drug was used, the rate was 0.9%. On this same date, on the international level, 15 to 20% of patients were reported in serious condition, while the mortality rate was over 6%.

"The data shows that the protocol in our country is effective, and interferon plays a key role in these results."

Referring to the medications use around the world, the doctor noted that important reports of preclinical and clinical evidence have appeared in several countries. One recent scientific article refers to a study conducted in Wuhan, China, regarding its use with medical personnel. Of the individuals included in the study, 2,944 received the drug and 3,387 did not. Fifty percent of those not treated contracted the disease, while there were no cases identified among those who benefited from Cuban interferon.

At this time, more than 80 countries have expressed interest in acquiring Heberon, reflecting confidence in its usefulness in confronting the pandemic.

Read this article:

Cuban interferon proven effective against COVID-19 Cuba Granma - Official voice of the PCC - Granma English

Global Biologic Therapeutics Market: Snapshot

The branch of science that deals with manufacturing medicines and pharmaceutical products based on biological origins is called biological therapeutics. Any pharmaceutical drug product manufactured from semi-synthesized and biological sources is included under this field. Owing to rapid advances experienced by this sector, a distinct biologic therapeutics market has formed. This market is mainly being driven by a rising demand for better healthcare treatments occurring all over the world.

Know the Growth Opportunities in Emerging Markets

The global biological therapeutics market mainly comprises of derivatives extracted from whole blood and other blood components, organs and tissue transplants, stem cell therapy, human breast milk, fecal microbiota, human reproductive cells, and antibodies. Several biological materials could are also extracted from other animals.

The global biological therapeutics market not only deals with extracted biologic materials from the market, but also involves providing treatments based on the use of these materials. Most biologic therapeutic substance include individual components such as thrombolytic agents, interferons, monoclonal antibodies, additional products, interleukin-based products, haematopoietic growth factors, hormones, and therapeutic enzymes. Materials used for producing biopharmaceuticals might also be derived from recombinant E. coli or yeast cultures, mammalian cell cultures, plant cell cultures, and mosses.

The global biologic therapeutics market is boosted through the presence of cancer, diabetes, and another coronary heart diseases. A growing geriatric population also has been responsible for making the market gain extensive revenue in the form of quality treatment processes. However, the market might be restrained due to high cost of extraction of the biologic materials. Nevertheless, extensive research and development carried out by many businesses in this market might offset the restraints substantially.

Global Biologic Therapeutics Market: Overview

The global biologic therapeutics market is predicted to benefit from the rising applications of biological products. Biological products could be made of sugars, nucleic acids, proteins, or complex combinations of these substances, or may be living components such as cells and tissues. Biological products are used to prevent diseases, diagnose diseases, or treat or cure medical conditions.

Global Biologic Therapeutics Market: Key Trends and Opportunities

First and foremost, increasing reimbursement for biologics is predicted to positively influence the biologic therapeutics market in the upcoming years. Medical insurance companies and state-run insurance schemes are increasingly accepting claims against biologic therapeutics. Biologic therapeutics are gaining popularity due the efficacy of biologic therapeutic drugs and fewer side effects than chemical-based drugs. This is because biologic drugs are obtained from natural sources such as plants, or even living components such as cells and tissues of animals, microorganisms, or humans. These fragments are further treated to make therapeutic products such as blood components, vaccines, and recombinant therapeutic proteins.

Increasing prevalence of chronic diseases such as cancer, diabetes, and coronary artery diseases and a growing geriatric population are some other factors contributing to the biologic therapeutics market. In addition, mounting clinical trials and innovative research and development practices to develop novel drugs is boosting the growth of biologic therapeutics market.

On the flip side, manufacturing difficulties due to complexities of drug molecules is challenging the growth of biologic therapeutics market. Nevertheless, increasing research and development in the pharmaceutical sector and rising applications of biologics is anticipated to provide new opportunities to this market.

Global Biologic Therapeutics Market: Market Potential

The Genetic Technology module for TechVision Opportunity Engine provides the most recent R&D advancements and developments while looking into opportunities for profit in the exploding genetic technology field via joint ventures, acquisitions, and technology transfer. The entire range of genetic technology applications covered in the module includes latest developments in omics technologies, which include genetic, cellular, and alternative therapies; genetically modified plants and animals, and sequencing technologies.

The health and wellness cluster of genetic technology techvision opportunity engine looks into developments across several areas, which include genetic engineering, drug discovery and development, regenerative medicine, cosmetic procedures, nanomedicine, drug delivery, smart healthcare, pain and disease management, and personalized medicine.

Order this Report TOC for Detailed Statistics

Global Biologic Therapeutics Market: Geographical Outlook

As per the reports analysis, the worldwide biologic therapeutics market could see a classification into North America, Europe, Asia Pacific, Latin America, and the Middle East and Africa. North America, among them, could secure a leading position due to a robust research infrastructure and presence of expert researchers and scientists for biotechnology research. Europe is a key market for biologic therapeutics due to high level of biotechnology research and pioneering research in the field of biotechnology. Asia Pacific is likely to emerge as a significant market for biologic therapeutics with increasing advancement in biotechnology research.

Global Biologic Therapeutics Market: Competitive Landscape

The worldwide biologic therapeutics market is predicted to witness the prominence of several key players, namely Pfizer Inc., Novartis Global, Smith Medical, Concord Biotech, H. Lundbeck A/S, AstraZeneca, Merck & Co. Inc., GlaxoSmithKline plc, Aurobindo Pharma Ltd., and Retractable Technologies Inc. Market players could resort to common business strategies, viz. product innovation, cutting-edge developments, and acquisitions to push up growth in the market.

Read this article:

Biologic Therapeutics Market Dynamics, Segments, Size and Demand, 2017 2025 - Cole of Duty

A biohacking is the desire to understand the body and mind that you have been given and using everything at an instrument that conducts high-frequency alternating current through a patients body that generates heat energy. Mostly, the devices are classified as monopolar or bipolar, which can be used for fulgurating tissue, cutting, coagulating or desiccating. It is an electrosurgical device. Due to repeated application, high cost, and displacement problems associated with conventional devices these devices are preferred. The electrosurgical device is an electrical controlled, and it also provides safety and efficiency and burn-reduction tracking.

To Get This Report At Beneficial Rates: https://www.premiummarketinsights.com/sample/TIP00021883

The biohacking market is anticipated to grow in the market by the advancement of new technologies. In addition, with rising demand for these devices is the key application for the growth of the industry. However, there is less awareness about this new device in the market. Furthermore, it has a superior ability to cut and seal and is rising demand in the forecast period. It has increased demand for minimally invasive surgeries that has the opportunity for market growth.

MARKET SEGMENTATION

The biohacking market is segmented on the basis of product, application and by end user. Based on product the market is segmented as sensors, smart drugs, strains and others. On the basis of application the market is categorized as synthetic biology, genetic engineering, forensic science, diagnosis & treatment, drug testing and others. On the basis of end user the market is categorized as pharmaceutical & biotechnological companies, forensic laboratories and others.

Some of the key players of Biohacking Market:

Apple Inc,Behavioral Tech,Fitbit, Inc.,HVMN Inc,InteraXon Inc.,Modern AlkaMe,Moodmetric,Synbiota, Inc.,The ODIN,Thync Global Inc.

Get Discount for This Report @ https://www.premiummarketinsights.com/discount/TIP00021883

Fundamentals of Table of Content:

1 Report Overview1.1 Study Scope1.2 Key Market Segments1.3 Players Covered1.4 Market Analysis by Type1.5 Market by Application1.6 Study Objectives1.7 Years Considered

2 Global Growth Trends2.1 Biohacking Market Size2.2 Biohacking Growth Trends by Regions2.3 Industry Trends

3 Market Share by Key Players3.1 Biohacking Market Size by Manufacturers3.2 Biohacking Key Players Head office and Area Served3.3 Key Players Biohacking Product/Solution/Service3.4 Date of Enter into Biohacking Market3.5 Mergers & Acquisitions, Expansion Plans

4 Breakdown Data by Product4.1 Global Biohacking Sales by Product4.2 Global Biohacking Revenue by Product4.3 Biohacking Price by Product

5 Breakdown Data by End User5.1 Overview5.2 Global Biohacking Breakdown Data by End User

About Premiummarketinsights:

Premiummarketinsights.com is a one stop shop of market research reports and solutions to various companies across the globe. We help our clients in their decision support system by helping them choose most relevant and cost effective research reports and solutions from various publishers. We provide best in class customer service and our customer support team is always available to help you on your research queries.

Contact Us: Call: +912067274191Email: [emailprotected]

Original post:

Biohacking Market Current Scenario with International Forecast Trends to 2025 | Apple Inc,Behavioral Tech,Fitbit, Inc.,HVMN Inc,InteraXon Inc.,Modern...

If you cannot engineer the organism, engineer its microbiome.

Since scientists began exploring how to solve problems using synthetic biology, by focusing on microbial symbionts, a whole universe of possibilities has opened up. We have seen a hangover cure, synthetic probiotics for humans, and even microbes that help plants fix their own nitrogen. Now the focus is on bees to get their engineered probiotic, an idea that may save the insects from disease and insulate consumers from food shortages.

Domesticated bees and other pollinators play a significant role in growing many foods, although how much is debated. A significant percentage of Americas crops between 7% and 35% relyto some extent on bees. Wheat, corn and rice are wind-pollinated. Lettuce, beans and tomatoes are self-pollinated. But in some crops, bees are essential. Honeybees have a tremendous financial importance, not only for their honey but as the insects that enable the reproduction of (many) flowering plants. As wild insects cannot be relied upon to pollinate thousands of acres of monocultures, crop producers employ beekeepers to bring their hives close to their plants. This gave birth to migratory beekeeping, a practice now essential for cultivation of plants such as almond trees on a commercial scale.

Honeybees have evolved into a managed livestock, with a complex role in agriculture and established production and management practices. Beekeepers need to maintain healthy colonies. All bee colonies decline significantly in size during the winter months, but overwinter losses have increased over the past 15 years, and now hover around 40%. These persistently high mortality rates have fedinaccurate speculations about the cause, often blaming one class of pesticides, neonicotioids as the primary culprit. The evidence doesnt support that claim. The driver of bee health problems is known and its not pesticides nor agricultural production models; its disease.

Honeybees are susceptible to many infections from parasites and viruses. In fact, the co-infection with mite parasites and RNA viruses is particularly destructive for bees and accounts for a large portion of colony losses. The most common external parasites are the Varroa mites (scientific name Varroa destructor), which feed on the fat bodies of the bees. The deformed wing virus is another common hazard. This RNA virus uses the Varroa mites as disease vectors and infects the bee bodies, leading to developmental deformities.

Varroa infection treatment is difficult. Common methods include pesticides to which Varroa started developing resistance mechanical screening of bees, as well as teaching the bees to recognize and kill infected pupae. A more selective and effective treatment could save bees and agricultural resources, and this treatment might be already present in the bees gut microbiome.

In animals, DNA stores the genetic material, and RNA molecules are short-lived and execute specific functions. Ribosomal RNA has structural role in ribosomes, transport RNA carry amino acids, and messenger RNA carries the information needed to synthesize proteins. In contrast, many viruses carry their genetic information in RNA molecules. To defend against RNA viruses, cells have developed a sophisticated system called RNA interference, or RNAi. This complex molecular machinery recognizes double-stranded RNA and breaks it down.

Bees possess an efficient RNAi machinery that protects them from intruders at a molecular level. And researchers can use this system to protect bees against mites and viruses. If we insert RNA complimentary to the deformed wing viruss genome, it will form a double-stranded hybrid molecule. The RNAi machinery can now shred the virus genome to pieces, ending thus the virus infection. The same principle can be used to target specific parasite genes. And this brought forth the idea of injecting bees with RNA to protect against Varroa mites.

There are several problems with administering RNA to individual bees. RNA is a notoriously unstable and difficult to administer molecule. The treatment is short-termed. There are off-target effects. And its almost impossible to treat entire hives. Ideally, the bees would maintain the ability to produce the suitable RNA for a long time (or permanently), but would express it only in case of infection is happening. In theory it should be possible to insert the RNA gene in the genome of the honeybees under very tight control. In practice, though, this would be extremely tough. But while the process of genetically engineering insects is not very practical, the technology to modify bacteria is quite mature.

Bees, as every organism, have a rich microbiome. It should be possible modify one of these microbes to deliver the RNA cure to its bee hosts. This is exactly the idea researchers from the University of Texas explored in a recent article published in Science. Sean Leonard and his collaborators genetically modified the bacterium Snodgrassella alvi wkB2, one of the most abundant microbes found in the honeybee gut, to continuously deliver double stranded RNA.

The researchers first verified that engineered bacteria can establish themselves in the bees gut. They tested whether the modified S. alvi can deliver RNA to their host, and if this RNA can stimulate an RNAi response. As these early experiments were positive, the scientists tried to use the new probiotic to treat deformed wing virus and Varroa mite infections. Their results showed that the administration of the engineered microbe improved survivability, while the microbe by itself didnt seem to harm healthy bees.

This work from Leonard and the rest of the University of Texas team is an encouraging proof of principle. Their study shows that bee probiotics can confer parasite and virus resistance for several days to individual bees, though they dont show yet if such a treatment will work well on a hive level. Such an approach has the potential to be a versatile and generalized cure: the beekeepers could store and administer specialized probiotics for any possible outbreak. Bee probiotics would be very specific to the disease they teat and they would have minimal environmental impact (contained within the hives and disappearing over time).

Would honeybee probiotics get regulatory clearance? The question is a bit complicated. In the US, they would likely be regulated in same way as engineered human probiotics, which are already on the market. But the honey produced by treated bees and the pollinated crops are in regulatory uncharted territory, so nothing is assured as this issue is more ideological than science-based. The food products are definitely not GMOs as the bee or crop DNA would not be affected but regulators might nonetheless under political pressure to require proof about environmental and food safety, even though there is no logical scientific basis for requiring such information as there would be no detectable difference in honey derived from such bees. Most probably, countries with tougher GMO restrictions (such as in the EU) will be as skeptical of probiotics from RNA-modified bees as they are of other genetic engineering technology, and are unlikely to approve them.

Insects are organisms with immense financial, ecological, and social importance. Synthetic biology may provide ways to protect or control insect populations without the use of harmful chemicals, destroying habitats, or introducing invasive species ways that we currently employ with well-documented consequences. Engineering the microbiome is a way to solve biological problems by bypassing the hurdles of transforming complex multicellular organisms, a back door to make synthetic biology easier. And the honeybee back door is now pried open.

Kostas Vavitsas, PhD, is a Senior Research Associate at the University of Athens, Greece. He is also a steering committee member of EUSynBioS. Follow him on Twitter @konvavitsas

See the original post here:

Disease is the greatest threat to bee health. Can we protect them through genetically engineered probiotics? - Genetic Literacy Project

KING OF PRUSSIA, Pa. and SIOUX FALLS, S.D., April 8, 2020 /PRNewswire/ --Global biotherapeutics leader, CSL Behringand innovative human antibody development company SAB Biotherapeutics(SAB) announced today their partnership to combat the coronavirus pandemic with the rapid development of SAB-185, a COVID-19 therapeutic candidate on track for clinical evaluation by early summer. The partnership joins the forces of CSL Behring's leading protein science capabilities with SAB's novel immunotherapy platform capable of rapidly developing and producing natural, highly-targeted, high-potency, fully human polyclonal antibodies without the need for blood plasma donations from recovered patients.

The therapeutic candidate, SAB-185, is generated from SAB's proprietary DiversitAb platform producing large volumes of human polyclonal antibodies targeted specifically to SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. Driven by advanced genetic engineering and antibody science, SAB's novel approach, leveraging genetically engineered cattle to produce fully human antibodies, enables a scalable and reliable production of targeted, higher potency neutralizing antibody product than has been previously possible. SAB's approach has expedited the rapid development of a novel immunotherapy for COVID-19 deploying the same natural immune response to fight the disease as recovered patients, but with a much higher concentration of targeted antibodies.

"COVID-19 is a nearly unprecedented public health crisis," said CSL Behring's Executive Vice President and Head of R&D Bill Mezzanotte, M.D. "That's why we're combining our leading capabilities in plasma product development and immunology with external collaborators to help find multiple, rapid solutions. In the near-term, SAB Biotherapeutics' novel immunotherapy platform provides a new and innovative solution to rapidly respond without the need for human plasma adding a different dimension to the industry-wide plasma-derived hyperimmune alliance effort we recently launched for the COVID-19 crisis. For future pandemics, SAB's platform may allow us to even more rapidly respond to patients' needs."

"Our targeted high-potency immunotherapies leverage the native immune response thereby providing a highly-specific match against the complexity, diversity and mutation of a disease," said Eddie J. Sullivan, PhD, SAB Biotherapeutics president, CEO and co-founder. "Our partnership with CSL Behring shifts our development trajectory to more rapidly scale-up and delivery of our highly targeted and potent COVID-19 therapeutic candidate, and deploy our unique capabilities to help combat this crisis. We have a successful preclinical track record for addressing infectious disease targets including Ebola, MERS, and SARS with our proprietary platform and appreciate that this collaboration with a global biopharmaceutical powerhouse will magnify the potential impact of a COVID-19 immunotherapy and provide an important framework for establishing sustainable solutions for the future."

CSL Behring has provided seed funding to offset some initial development costs that were funded by SAB in good faith, responding to the global pandemic as quickly as possible. SAB has already secured approximately $7.2 million in funding through an interagency agreement with the Joint Program Executive Office for Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Defense (JPEO - CBRND) and Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA)to support SAB to complete manufacturing and preclinical studies. CSL Behring will then commit its clinical, regulatory, manufacturing and supply chain expertise and resources to deliver the therapeutic to the market as soon as possible, on terms to be agreed with SAB.

Earlier this year, the companies announceda collaboration to investigate SAB's platform technology as a new source for human immunoglobulin G (IgG) and the potential for new therapies to treat challenging autoimmune, infectious and idiopathic diseases by leveraging SAB's DiversitAb platform.

About CSL Behring CSL Behring is a global biotherapeutics leader driven by its promise to save lives. Focused on serving patients' needs by using the latest technologies, we develop and deliver innovative therapies that are used to treat coagulation disorders, primary immune deficiencies, hereditary angioedema, inherited respiratory disease, and neurological disorders. The company's products are also used in cardiac surgery, burn treatment and to prevent hemolytic disease of the newborn. CSL Behring operates one of the world's largest plasma collection networks, CSL Plasma. The parent company, CSL Limited (ASX:CSL;USOTC:CSLLY), headquartered in Melbourne, Australia, employs more than 26,000 people, and delivers its life-saving therapies to people in more than 70 countries. For more information, visit http://www.cslbehring.com and for inspiring stories about the promise of biotechnology, visit Vita http://www.cslbehring.com/Vita

About SAB Biotherapeutics, Inc.SAB Biotherapeutics, Inc. (SAB), headquartered in Sioux Falls, S.D. is a clinical-stage, biopharmaceutical development company advancing a new class of immunotherapies leveraging fully human polyclonal antibodies. Utilizing some of the most complex genetic engineering and antibody science in the world, SAB has developed the only platform that can rapidly produce natural, highly targeted, high-potency, immunotherapies at commercial scale. The company is advancing programs in autoimmunity, infectious diseases, inflammation and exploratory oncology. SAB is rapidly progressing on a new therapeutic for COVID-19, SAB-185, a fully human polyclonal antibodies targeted to SARS-CoV-2 without using human donors. SAB-185 is expected to be ready for evaluation as early as summer 2020. The company was also recently awarded a $27 million contract from the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) to leverage its unique capabilities as part of a Rapid Response Antibody Program, valued at up to $27 million. For more information visit: http://www.sabbiotherapeutics.com.

View original content to download multimedia:http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/csl-behring-and-sab-biotherapeutics-join-forces-to-deliver-new-potential-covid-19-therapeutic-301037503.html

SOURCE CSL Behring

Read more:

CSL Behring and SAB Biotherapeutics Join Forces to Deliver New Potential COVID-19 Therapeutic - P&T Community

The "CAR T-Cell Therapy for Multiple Myeloma - Market Insights and Market Forecast - 2030" report has been added to ResearchAndMarkets.com's offering.

This report delivers an in-depth understanding of the CAR T-Cell Therapy use for Multiple Myeloma as well as the CAR T-Cell Therapy market trends for Multiple Myeloma in the 6MM i.e., United States and EU5 (Germany, Spain, Italy, France and the United Kingdom).

The Multiple Myeloma CAR T-Cell Therapy market report provides current treatment practices, emerging drugs, CAR T-Cell Therapy market share of the various CAR T-Cell Therapies for Multiple Myeloma, the individual therapies, current and forecasted Multiple Myeloma CAR T-Cell Therapy market Size from 2017 to 2030 segmented by seven major markets. The Report also covers current Multiple Myeloma treatment practice/algorithm, market drivers, market barriers and unmet medical needs to curate best of the opportunities and assesses underlying potential of the market.

Reasons to Buy

Report Highlights

Key Topics Covered:

1. Key Insights

2. Executive Summary

3. CAR T-Cell Therapy Market Overview at a Glance

3.1 Market Share (%) Distribution of CAR T-Cell Therapy for MM in 2030

4. CAR T-Cell Therapy Background and Overview

4.1 Introduction

4.1.1 CARs Generations

4.1.2 Genetic Engineering of T-Cells

4.1.3 How CAR T-Cell Therapy Works

4.2 The promise of CAR T-cell targeting B cell maturation antigen (BCMA) in multiple myeloma

4.3 Current challenges in CAR T

4.3.1 Therapeutic side effects

4.3.2 CAR T-cells lack of success

4.4 CAR T-cell therapy: Route to reimbursement

4.5 Unmet needs

5. CAR T-Cell Therapy for Multiple Myeloma (MM): 6 Major Market Analysis

5.1 Key Findings

5.2 Market Size of CAR T-Cell Therapy in 6MM

5.2.1 Market Size of CAR T-Cell Therapy by Therapies

6. Market Outlook

7. Emerging Drug Profiles for Multiple Myeloma

7.1 bb2121: Celgene Corporation

7.1.1 Product Description

7.1.2 Research and Development

7.1.3 Product Development Activities

7.2 JNJ-68284528 (LCAR-B38M): Janssen Research & Development

7.2.1 Product Description

7.2.2 Research and Development

7.2.3 Product Development Activities

7.3 P-BCMA-101: Poseida Therapeutics

7.3.1 Product Description:

7.3.2 Research and Development

7.3.3 Product Development Activities

7.4 CAR-CD44v6: MolMed S.p.A.

7.4.1 Product Description

7.4.2 Research and Development

7.4.3 Product Development Activities

7.5 JCARH125 (Orvacabtagene autoleucel): Celgene Corporation

7.5.1 Product Description

7.5.2 Research and Development

7.5.3 Product Development Activities

7.6 Descartes-08: Cartesian Therapeutics

7.6.1 Product Description

7.6.2 Research and Development

7.7 CT053 : CARsgen Therapeutics)

7.7.1 Product Description

7.7.2 Research and Development

7.7.3 Product Development Activities

Companies Mentioned

For more information about this report visit https://www.researchandmarkets.com/r/auj3ij

View source version on businesswire.com: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20200409005373/en/

Contacts

ResearchAndMarkets.comLaura Wood, Senior Press Managerpress@researchandmarkets.com For E.S.T Office Hours Call 1-917-300-0470For U.S./CAN Toll Free Call 1-800-526-8630For GMT Office Hours Call +353-1-416-8900

Read the original post:

CAR T-Cell Therapy for Multiple Myeloma - Global Market Insights and Market Forecast to 2030 - ResearchAndMarkets.com - Yahoo Finance

MIAMI, Florida With coronavirus (COVID-19) cases increasingdramatically in the United Statessome 435,000 cases as of Thursdaythe nation now has the most cases globally and is desperate for a drug to effectively treat the virus.

Unlike other forms of coronavirus, like the common cold and influenza, there is yet no proven medication to treat COVID-19. The possibility of a vaccine to treat the virus is at least a year away, according to most scientists best estimates.

In recent weeks, there have been claims, including from President Donald Trump and members of his administration, that a drug, hydroxychloroquine, normally used to treat malaria and lupus, is effective in treating COVID-19.

Two weeks ago, Trump at one of his coronavirus task-force press conferences, optimistically said the drug has potential as a drug to treat COVID-19. However, at the same press conference the top U.S. infectious disease expert, Dr. Anthony Fauci, while agreeing that the drug could have a positive effect with COVID-19 patients, cautioned that it needed to be tested before it can be generally prescribed for coronavirus.

Last Sunday at another coronavirus task-force press conference, President Trump again touted the use of hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19 although testing of the drug hasnt been completed.

What do I know, Im not a doctor, Trump said Sunday. But I have common sense. In promoting the use of the drug, the president has often stated, What have you got to lose?

One of the Trump administrations strongest backersof the drug is Trade Adviser Peter Navarro, who according to reports that surfaced after Sundays press conference, clashed with Dr. Fauci over the use of the drug. Dr. Fauci continuesto be concerned about recommending the drug based only on unscientific, or as he puts it anecdotalevidence.

Navarro, on the other hand, despite not having formal medical training, claimed in a CNN interview on Monday that reports of studies on the drugs use, which he had collected, were enough to recommend the drug widely.

The American Medical Associations president, Dr. Patrice Harris, also said she wouldnt prescribe the drug for coronavirus patients, because the risks of severe side effects were great and too significant to downplay without large studies showing the drug is safe and effective for such use.

Nonetheless, some doctors are actually prescribing Hydroxychloroquine to patients with COVID-19. Research studies are now beginning to test if the drugs truly help COVID-19 patients, and the Food and Drug Administration has allowed the medication as an option for doctors to consider for patients who cannot get into one of these studies.

Dr. Harris and other doctors claim the drug has serious side effects, especially affecting the heart rhythm, and still want more testing conducted before its clear that the drug works against the virus and where the side effects are concerned.

Cubas Interferon Alpha 2B

Meanwhile, a drug developed in Cuba has been proving to have positive results in treating COVID-19 patients. The drug, Interferon Alpha 2B, is among 22 drugs developed in Cuba since 1986 by its Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (CIGB) and used as a treatment for HIV-AIDS, hepatitis B and C, herpes zoster or shingles, dengue and different types of cancers.

It is also highly recommended by medical specialists for its ability to fight the COVID-19 virus. During the onset of the virus in Wuhan province, the Chinese authorities found it exceptional in destroying the virus from thousands of its citizens who contracted the disease at the earliest stages.

Since the success of this antiviral drug has become public knowledge, Cuba has been flooded with requests from across the globe, including, Africa, Europe, Latin, and South America and Caribbean nations.

Evidence tuberculosis vaccine BCG prevents COVID-19 infection

Recently reports surfaced that the BCG vaccine given to counter tuberculosis (TB) may provide protection against COVID-19 and significantly reduce death rates in countries, including most Caribbean countries,with high levels of this vaccination.

A study of 178 countries conducted by an Irish medical consultant in conjunction with epidemiologists at the University of Texas indicated countries with BCG vaccination programs have far fewer coronavirus cases by a factor 10, compared to countries without such programs.

The BCG vaccine is still widely used in developing countries, where scientists have found, along with preventing TB, it alsoprevents infant deaths from a variety of causes, and sharply reduces the incidence of respiratory infections like the coronavirus.

Most Caribbean-Americans residing in South Florida bearthe scars of the BCG vaccine on their upper arms, as the vaccine was and still is mandatory for attending public schools in the Caribbean.

See the article here:

Tension Builds Over Drug To Treat COVID-19 - caribbeannationalweekly.com

One in four Britons think the coronavirus was probably created in a lab, research suggests.

Scientists from Kings College London asked more than 2,000 people what they believed to be true about the somewhat mysterious strain.

A quarter (25%) of those surveyed thought the coronavirus is probably man-made, a conspiracy theory circulating the internet.

Early research suggests the infection is mild in four out of five cases, however, it can trigger a respiratory disease called COVID-19.

A member of staff gives directions at a coronavirus testing centre for NHS staff at an IKEA in Gateshead, Tyne and Wear. (Getty Images)

The Kings scientists surveyed 2,250 people aged between 18 and 75.

Of the participants who thought the coronavirus was probably created in a lab, 12% admitted to meeting up with friends during the UKs lockdown.

This is more than double the 5% of participants who socialised with loved ones, but were convinced of the strains natural origin.

Latest coronavirus news, updates and advice

Live: Follow all the latest updates from the UK and around the world

Fact-checker: The number of COVID-19 cases in your local area

Explained: Symptoms, latest advice and how it compares to the flu

Boris Johnson has enforced draconian measures that only allow Britons to leave their home for very limited purposes, like exercising or shopping for essentials.

The prime minister, who is in intensive care with coronavirus complications, has repeatedly stressed people are not to socialise with those outside of their home.

Nearly a quarter (24%) of the Kings participants who believed the coronavirus was probably manufactured thought too much of a fuss is being made about the pandemic.

This is compared to one in 10 (10%) of those who believed the strain is natural.

Emerging at the end of last year, only the relatively small number of people worldwide who have encountered the virus are thought to have immunity against it.

The race is on to develop a vaccine that will enable herd immunity, allowing the public to safely go back to their normal routine.

The survey participants who thought a jab will be available within three months were nearly four times as likely to have met up with friends during the lockdown than those of the opinion a vaccine will take longer.

Numerous pharmaceutical companies around the world are working to develop a jab, however, scientists have been upfront one will not be ready for this outbreak.

A vaccine may become available, however, if the infection turns out to be seasonal.

People have generally got the message about how serious the threat from the virus is and the importance of the measures being required of them, said study author Professor Bobby Duffy.

But at a time when the government is warning it may bring in more severe restrictions if enough people dont follow the rules, this research shows there is a significant minority who are unclear on what some of them are, as well as many who still misjudge the scale of the threat from coronavirus or believe false claims about it.

And this matters how we see current realities and the future is often related to how we strictly we follow the guidelines and our attitudes to the lockdown measures.

A man wears a mask outside a closed electrical-goods shop in the centre of Munich. (Getty Images)

Story continues

The coronavirus is thought to have emerged at a seafood and live animal market in the Chinese city Wuhan, capital of Hubei province, at the end of 2019.

The market is said to have sold a range of dead and alive animals, including bats, donkeys, poultry and hedgehogs.

Most of those who initially became unwell at the start of the outbreak worked at, or visited, the Wuhan market.

This has led scientists to believe the new coronavirus jumped from an animal into a human while the two were in close contact.

The coronavirus is one of seven strains of a class of viruses that are known to infect humans.

Another strain is severe acute respiratory syndrome (Sars), which killed 774 people during its 2002/3 outbreak.

Sars is thought to have started in bats and jumped into humans via masked palm civets.

Research suggests the new coronavirus shares more than 96% of its DNA with a strain detected in horseshoe bats and may have reached humans via pangolins.

Despite the evidence, conspiracy theories have arisen suggesting the strain could have been engineered.

To debunk this, scientists from Scripps Research in San Diego analysed the DNA of the virus and others like it.

They specifically looked at proteins on the surface of the viruses that allow them to enter human cells.

Results suggested the coronavirus evolved to target a receptor on human cells called ACE2.

This targeting is so effective, the scientists concluded it was the result of natural selection and not genetic engineering.

The coronavirus genetic backbone is also distinct from other pathogens. The scientists argued if one were to manufacture a disease, they would work off a backbone that is known to cause ill health.

By comparing the available genome sequence data for known coronavirus strains, we can firmly determine that [the new strain] originated through natural processes, said study author Dr Kristian Andersen.

A woman wears a mask while walking dogs in Palma, Spain. (Getty Images)

Since the coronavirus outbreak was identified, more than 1.5 million cases have been confirmed worldwide,according to Johns Hopkins University.

Of these cases, over 339,700 are known to have recovered.

Globally, the death toll has exceeded 89,900.

The coronavirus mainly spreads face-to-face via infected droplets expelled in a cough and sneeze.

There is also evidenceit may be transmitted in faecesandcan survive on surfaces.

Although most cases are mild, pneumonia can come about if the coronavirus spreads to the air sacs in the lungs.

This causes them to become inflamed and filled with fluid or pus.

The lungs then struggle to draw in air, resulting in reduced oxygen in the bloodstream and a build-up of carbon dioxide.

The coronavirus has no set treatment, with most patients naturally fighting off the infection.

Those requiring hospitalisation are given supportive care, like ventilation, while their immune system gets to work.

Officials urge people ward off the coronavirus bywashing their hands regularlyand maintainingsocial distancing.

Read the rest here:

One in four Britons 'think the coronavirus was probably created in a lab' - Yahoo Sports

Most of us have been taught to understand the word "historian" to refer to a specialist who writes about the past.

One of the greatest - if not the greatest - historians alive today is a 44-year-old man by the name of Yuval Harari, currently lecturing at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel.

Five years ago, Harari changed the meaning of "history" by publishing a book about the future - Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow.

The title of this prophetic book is pregnant with meaning. It combines two beings - earthly and divine - to produce an omnipotent hybrid called "Domo Deus".

In palaeontology, the prefix "homo" refers to creatures that evolved into the human family. In classical Latin, "Deus" meant "god". Thus, Harari's book envisions a future where man can appropriate the powers of "god", and therefore become a human-god or "Homo Deus".

In the first chapter, Harari writes about the "anti-death" scientific research under way at the well-known American company Google.

In 2009, one of the leading anti-death researchers at Google, Bill Maris, fervently believed it would be possible, through genetic engineering, for a human being to live until he is 500 years old.

That idea rests on a fundamental transformation of the meaning of "death" that has taken place in the mind of man - from the understanding of death as a mysterious occurrence preordained by a deity to death understood as, according to Harari, "a technical problem that we can and should solve".

Read the rest here:

Fear of global plagues and greed for money are as old as mankind - SowetanLIVE

The Chinese New Year is a time to visit families and ancestral lands. It began with the Little Year (January 17 to 24), followed by the main Spring Festival (January 25 to February 4), and ended with the Lantern Festival (February 5 to 8).

As people were getting ready to travel in December 2019, pneumonia cases started showing up in hospitals across the Hubei Province of central China, especially in Wuhan, Chinas ninth most populous city with about 11 million people about the size of Bengaluru. Both Bengaluru and Wuhan are also denoted as Beta level cities by the Globalization and World Research Cities Network (GaWC), a think tank that charts the relationships of world cities to globalization. Both are cities that link moderate economic regions to the world economy.

But let us go back in time to when people were possibly making their New Year travel bookings, a new virus was jumping from bats into humans either directly or through an intermediate animal host. Its spread in the human population timed perfectly with the New Year travel season, which spread it, first in China and then elsewhere.

Going back further to March 2019, researchers in Wuhan and Beijing, who were studying viruses in batswrotealmost prophetically in the journalViruses:it is highly likely that future SARS- or MERS-like coronavirus outbreaks will originate from bats, and there is an increased probability that this will occur in China.

And even before that in 2018, researchers had discovered two novel coronaviruses from bats in eastern China that looked very similar to the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) coronavirus that emerged in China in December 2002 and then disappeared by mid-2003, leaving about 8000 people infected and 774 dead.

Coronaviruses belong to a family of viruses that infect animals and humans, are distinguished by their crown-like (corona) appearance under a microscope, and cause a flu-like disease. Besides SARS-CoV, the family included the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) virus and at least four other viruses endemic in the human population.

The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), later renamed SARS coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) due to its genetic similarity with the SARS virus, was established as the cause of a new disease called coronavirus infectious disease 2019, or COVID-19.

The World Health Organization (WHO) has declared COVID-19 to be a pandemic.As ofApril 7 2020, there are over 1.4 million confirmed cases and 80,000 deaths attributed to it in 184 countries. The pandemic is still growing in USA, Europe and other parts of the world, leaving the global economy, markets and supply chains in disarray.

The year 2020 is the Chinese Year of the Rat. It will be long remembered as the Year of the Bat.

As of April 8, 2020, India is early on the COVID-19 curve with about 4643 confirmed casesand 149 deaths; a 21-day nationwide lockdown is in place till April 14. There are no clear estimates on the scale of the impending outbreak, but all models point to tens of lakhs to crores of infections in India. Simulations on lockdown suggest repeats at national, state and regional levels. These would have to balance public health needs against the economic and humanitarian crisis, which has left so many without food, shelter and security.

A KPMG Indiareport Potential Impact of COVID-19 on the Indian Economy, says COVID-19 is unique in that it is a supply, demand and market shock. It further adds that the outbreak has disrupted manufacturing supply chains and sharply curtailed energy and commodity demand. China is Indias second-largest trading partner, with total trade pegged at $92.68 Bn, which includes $74.72 Bn in imports and $17.95 Bn in exports. This amounts to 13.7% of Indias total imports and 5.1% of its exports.

Also read: It is not COVID-19 alone, but also the environment and the economy

Though COVID-19 is a significant challenge, it also presents an opportunity. How must India prepare itself for the post-COVID world? My central argument is that India must start addressing health security as a matter of national security. It must build local capacity to reduce its dependence on imports and supply chains. It must also invest in public health preparedness and health research.

With the disruption in China, the most vulnerable sectors for India are electronics and pharmaceuticals, both of which impact our critical healthcare sector. India imported over 70% of its bulk drugs and their active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs), amounting to $2.4 Bn, from China in 2018-19. Though this problem was highlighted by the National Security Advisor in November 2014, the continued dependence on China is worrisome, especially with a looming health crisis. In February this year, the government put together a list of 38 drug raw materials that it wantslocally produced, including fermentation process-based ingredients for antibiotics, vitamins and hormone drugs. It would also be important to address bottlenecks such as environmental clearances and tax concessions for the local industry.

India must also increase its allocation to healthcare and focus on public health. The FY 20-21 budget allocation for health is Rs. 69,000 crores, a public spending of 1.6% of GDP, even after the National Health Policy 2017 called for an increase to 2.5% of GDP. According to WHO, India ranks 184 out of 191 countries on its public spending on healthcare as a percent of GDP. Contrast this to Indias military spending pegged at Rs. 471,378 crores, almost seven times its health budget.

TheAyushman BharatPM Jan Arogya Yojana(AB-PMJAY) scheme to provide free healthcare to 10 crores families (50 crore people) is a promising addition, but disappointments include drastic cuts to the health insurance scheme (Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojana) and no increase for communicable diseases. The National Rural Health Mission (NRHM), which includes many health schemes, also received marginally less than last year.

India is projected to be a hotspot for zoonotic, vector-borne and drug-resistant infections. With over 1.3 Bn people, 536 Mn livestock and 851 Mn poultry, it has the worlds highest density of each, and is thus a ripe ecosystem for pathogen exchange. There are 117 species of bats in India, but what viral secrets they hold remain unknown. A recent study by the National Centre for Biological Sciences, Bengaluru to start addressing this remains mired in controversy.

Our lessons from COVID-19 should be to strengthen the public health infrastructure, invest in One Health science to understand the animal-human disease interface and modernize our approach to R&D. An independent National Centre for Pathogen Research, with a broad mandate for inter-disciplinary work from pathogen discovery to characterization and product development is needed for India. This may work in close partnership with organizations such as the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) and the National Centre for Disease Control (NCDC), which have developed core expertise in outbreak investigation and diagnostics.

The 2002 SARS outbreak is estimated to have caused global economic losses of $40 Bn. For COVID-19, the UNs trade and development agency UNCTAD puts notional losses at $1 Trillion. There are an estimated 631,000 to 827,000 yet-to-be-discovered viruses in animal reservoirs with zoonotic potential. The Global Virome Project aims to expand virus discovery to reduce their future impact on human populations, but their biggest challenge is the cost estimated to be $1.2 Bn.

Would this not be a sensible investment to make in the post-COVID world?

[Shahid Jameel, Ph.D., was Head, Virology Group at the International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology, New Delhi. He is now CEO of the DBT/Wellcome Trust India Alliance].

Related: [Interview] Taking One Health approach to tackle zoonoses crucial for India

Banner image:A typically crowded marketplace in India before the COVID-19 pandemic struck. Photo from Unsplash.

Excerpt from:

[Commentary] In the post-COVID world, health security must be a matter of national security - Mongabay-India

Alain Mrieux, founder of BioMrieux.

Latest update: April 1, 2020, at 4:47 pm ET.

Businesses around the world are shifting into overdrive to help battle the coronavirus, providing everything from rubber gloves and ventilators to diagnostic tools and, hopefully soon, vaccines. While the pandemic continues to wreak havoc, large corporations and small businesses are developing creative solutions to halt the spread of the virus.

Just as automakers famously shifted to make tanks and planes during World War II, todays global giants LVMH, Ford and GE to name a few are retooling their production lines to help make everything from hand sanitizers to respirators. On the medical front, there are more than three dozen COVID-19 vaccines under development, a smart move considering that two out of every three vaccines for infectious diseases fail, according to a study by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Forbes will continue to update this list of private companies and how they are stepping up to fight the COVID-19 pandemic:

Testing:

Abbott Laboratories: Abbott Park, Illinois healthcare firm obtained emergency FDA authorization for its 5-minute coronavirus testing kit on March 27, with plans to start manufacturing 50,000 kits a day.

Alphabet: Through its healthcare arm Verily, Googles parent company launched a website where users can find nearby testing sites in four California counties.

Jeff Bezos.

Amazon: Jeff Bezos retail behemoth invested $20 million in the Amazon Web Services Diagnostic Initiative, which aims to speed up delivery of COVID-19 tests to the market.

BioMrieux: French biotech company, founded by billionaire Alain Mrieux,received emergency FDA approval for its subsidiarys new testing kit, which cuts testing times for the virus down to 45 minutes.

Carbon: California-based 3D printing unicorn backed by Russian tech investor Yuri Milner will soon be distributing testing swabs and face shields to hospitals in the Bay Area.

Cepheid: Sunnyvale, California molecular diagnostics company gained emergency FDA authorization for its new 45-minute COVID-19 testing kit.

Copan Diagnostics: Family-owned company located at the heart of Italys hard-hit Lombardy region makes diagnostic swabs for testing, airlifting 500,000 swabs to the U.S.

DiaSorin: Italian biotech company owned by billionaire Gustavo Denegri obtained emergency authorization from the FDA for its new 60-minute testing kit for COVID-19.

Mammoth Biosciences: South San Francisco-based biotech startup, founded by three 30 Under 30 alums, prototyped a rapid test by using the gene-editing tool Crispr to detect the disease.

Mesa Biotech: San Diego biotech business obtained FDA approval for its new 30-minute testing kit for COVID-19.

Puritan Medical Products: Maine-based diagnostic maker, one of the worlds largest makers of diagnostic swabs along with Italys Copan Diagnostics, is reportedly increasing production to make one million COVID-19 testing swabs a week.

Treatments:

AbbVie: North Chicago-based, publicly traded pharma firm is collaborating with authorities in the EU, the U.S. and China on experimental use of its HIV drug lopinavir/ritonavir to treat COVID-19.

AIM Immunotech: Florida-based pharmaceutical company announced on March 9 it would begin experimental testing of its chronic fatigue syndrome drug rintatolimod as a treatment for COVID-19 in Japan, at the National Institute of Infectious Diseases and the University of Tokyo.

Algernon Pharmaceuticals: Vancouver-based pharmaceutical firm is requesting FDA approval to begin trials of its chronic cough medication ifenprodil as a treatment for COVID-19.

AlloVir: Houston-based cell and gene therapy company is collaborating with Baylor College of Medicine to discover and develop T-cell therapies to fight COVID-19.

Apeiron Biologics: Vienna-based biotech firm started small-scale trials of its immunotherapy treatment on COVID-19 in China in February.

Ascletis: Hangzhou, China pharmaceutical company announced results of clinical trials of its antiviral drug danoprevir on COVID-19 patients in China; the small-scale study found that danoprevir combined with ritonavir is safe and well tolerated in all patients.

Bioxytran: Boston-based biotech outfit is developing a viral inhibitor to treat COVID-19.

Celltrion: South Korean healthcare firm is developing an antiviral treatment for COVID-19 as well as rapid self-testing kits that would provide results within fifteen to twenty minutes.

Cocrystal Pharma: Bothell, Washington pharma outfit is developing antivirals to treat COVID-19 using patents it recently acquired from the Kansas State University Research Foundation.

CytoDyn: Vancouver, Washington biotech firm announced preliminary results from three days of testing its antiviral drug leronlimab on COVID-19 patients in New York; the company stated in a press release that test results from the first four patients suggests immunological benefit within three days following treatment with leronlimab.

Eli Lilly: Indianapolis pharma company is partnering with Vancouver-based biotech outfit AbCellera to develop antibody-based treatments for COVID-19.

Emergent BioSolutions: Maryland drugmaker is developing treatments derived from the antibodies found in the blood of people who tested positive for the disease.

EUSA Pharma: British pharmaceutical firm initiated trials of its siltuximab antibody treatment on COVID-19 patients at the Papa Giovanni XXIII hospital in Bergamo, Italy; the company released initial data on April 1 showing that one third of patients experienced clinical improvement with reduced need for oxygen support and a further 43% saw their disease stabilise.

Fujifilm Toyama Chemical: Tokyo-based conglomerates flu drug favipiravir has shown promising results in early clinical trials on COVID-19 patients in China, and the company is investing $83 million in its biological manufacturing capabilities.

Gilead: The Californian biotech giant initiated clinical trials in March for its antiviral drug remdesivir on patients in the U.S.

Harbour BioMed: Cambridge, Massachusetts biomedical firm announced a collaboration with New Yorks Mount Sinai Health System to develop new human antibodies to treat COVID-19.

I-Mab Biopharma: Shanghai-based biopharma outfit announced it would begin clinical trials of its TJM2 antibody treatment on COVID-19 patients in the United States, with plans to expand to other countries affected by the pandemic.

ImmunoPrecise: Canadian life sciences company is teaming up with New York-based AI startup EVQLV Inc on researching antibody-based therapies and a vaccine for COVID-19.

Innovation Pharmaceuticals: Wakefield, Massachusetts biopharma firm is researching the use of its drug brilacidin part of a category of investigational new drugs called defensin mimetics, which could have antimicrobial effects as both a treatment and a vaccine for COVID-19, in separate efforts with a major U.S. university and with the Department of Health and Human Services.

ISR Immune System Regulation: Swedish immunotherapy firms subsidiary, ISR HBV, is conducting toxicological studies to determine whether its Immunolid ISR50 treatment could be used against COVID-19.

Kamada: Israeli pharmaceutical company is working on an antibody-based treatment for COVID-19 using the blood plasma of patients who recovered from the disease.

Mateon Therapeutics: Californian biopharma firm is testing a number of antiviral drugs as potential treatments for COVID-19 and is preparing to submit an application to the FDA in order to begin clinical trials on patients.

Merck KGaA: Darmstadt, Germany-based pharma multinational donated a supply of its multiple sclerosis drug interferon beta-1a to the French National Institute of Health and Medical Research in Paris for clinical trials on COVID-19 patients. The companys North American life sciences arm, MilliporeSigma, is supplying several vaccine efforts with reagents and other essential raw products for vaccine development.

Mesoblast: Australian medical firm is working with authorities in the U.S., Australia, China and Europe to evaluate the use of its remestemcel-L drug to treat COVID-19.

Mylan: Pennsylvania-based pharmaceutical firm restarted production of hydroxychloroquine, a drug used to fight lupus, malaria and arthritis, at its West Virginia factory; the drug is being tested as a treatment for COVID-19 in human trials in New York.

Pluristem Therapeutics: Haifa, Israel-based medical company is developing a cell-based therapy to treat COVID-19, announcing on March 30 it had dosed three Israeli patients under a compassionate use program, with plans to enroll more.

Leonard Schleifer.

Regeneron Pharmaceuticals: Westchester, New York biotech outfit, run by billionaires Leonard Schleifer and George Yancopoulos, is conducting clinical trials of its rheumatoid arthritis drug sarilumab, developed with French firm Sanofi, on patients in New York.

Roche: Swiss pharma titan, part-owned by billionaire Maja Oeri, is testing its arthritis drug tocilizumab to treat patients in China and received FDA approval to begin U.S. trials.

Roivant Sciences: Swiss pharma company is working with U.S. authorities to begin trials of its antibody treatment, gimsilumab, on COVID-19 patients.

Takeda: Japanese medical firm is working on hyperimmune therapy using blood plasma from previously infected patients.

Vir Biotechnology: The San Francisco-based firm is collaborating with Biogen and Chinese medical firm WuXi Biologics to manufacture antibodies that could treat the virus.

Vaccines:

AJ Vaccines: Danish vaccine developer is working on a COVID-19 vaccine that could hit the market in 2021.

Altimmune: The company is developing a novel intranasal vaccine for the coronavirus, making it one of three firms based in Gaithersburg, Maryland along with Emergent Biosolutions and Novavax thats working on treatments and vaccines for COVID-19.

Arcturus Therapeutics: San Diego-based vaccine maker is developing a COVID-19 vaccine with researchers at the Duke-National University of Singapore medical school in Singapore.

Biocad: Russian drug developer is researching a COVID-19 vaccine, with animal trials scheduled for late April.

Thomas and Andreas Struengmann.

BioNTech: German biotech firm backed by billionaire twins Thomas and Andreas Struengmann is working to develop a coronavirus vaccine in partnership with Pfizer and Fosun Pharma, chaired by billionaire Guo Guangchang.

CanSino Biologics: Tianjin, China-based pharma company isstarting clinical trials for its COVID-19 vaccine, using the vaccine technology deployed to develop the Ebola vaccine.

Codagenix: Melville, New York biotech firm is teaming up with the Serum Institute of India to develop a live-attenuated COVID-19 vaccine, which uses a live but weakened form of the virus.

Dietmar Hopp.

CureVac: German firm, funded by billionaire Dietmar Hopp and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, received $87 million from the European Commission to scale up development of its coronavirus vaccine.

Dyadic: Jupiter, Florida company is collaborating with the Israel Institute for Biological Research on both treatment and a vaccine against COVID-19, using the firms gene expression platform.

Dynavax: Emeryville, California vaccine maker is working with the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) and the University of Queensland to develop a COVID-19 vaccine.

EpiVax: Providence-based immunology firm is working with the University of Georgia and Miramar, Florida biotech outfit Generex on separate COVID-19 vaccine efforts.

ExpreS2ion: Danish biotech company received a grant of nearly $1 million from the European Union to develop a vaccine for COVID-19.

GeoVax: Atlanta-based medical company is collaborating with Wuhan-based BioVax to jointly produce a COVID-19 vaccine.

GlaxoSmithKline: British pharma titan is partnering with CEPI and Chengdu, China-based Clover Pharmaceuticals to use its pandemic vaccine adjuvant platform which boosts the immune response in patients receiving a shot to speed up development of COVID-19 vaccines.

Greffex: Houston-based genetic engineering firm is preparing to begin animal trials for its COVID-19 vaccine.

Heat Biologics: North Carolina biopharma company is developing a COVID-19 vaccine with the University of Miami.

iBio: Newark, Delaware biotech upstart is collaborating with Beijing-based CC-Pharming on the rapid development of a COVID-19 vaccine.

Inovio: Plymouth Meeting, Pennsylvania biotech business received $11.9 million in funding from the Department of Defense to rapidly produce a DNA vaccine for COVID-19 with drugmaker Ology Bioservices.

Johnson & Johnson: The companys pharma unit, Janssen, will start manufacturing its vaccine developed with the Department of Health and Human Services this month, with human trials set to begin by September and a public rollout hoped for early 2021. The company and the federal government are investing more than $1 billion in the vaccine effort.

Medicago: Quebec City-based biotech company received more than $7 million from the Canadian and Quebec governments to fund development of its COVID-19 vaccine.

Moderna: Massachusetts biotech company was the first tobegin human trials of its vaccine on March 16 in Seattle and could deploy it to health workers for emergency use by the fall.

Novavax: Maryland-based vaccine maker received $4 million in funding from CEPI to accelerate development of its vaccine candidates, with clinical trials expected in the late spring.

Sanofi: French medical firm is working with the federal government and Massachusetts-based Translate Bio to expedite its coronavirus vaccine, using technology previously used to develop one for SARS.

Sorrento Therapeutics: San Diego-based biotech firm is teaming up with Cambridge, MA gene therapy company SmartPharm Therapeutics to develop a gene-encoded COVID-19 vaccine; its also working with Chinese drugmaker Mabpharm on a fusion protein treatment for the disease.

Takis Biotech: Italian startup with just 25 employees is developing a vaccine with Stony Brook-based Applied DNA Sciences, with plans to begin human trials before the end of the year.

Themis Bioscience: Austrian biotech firm is part of a group, with the Institut Pasteur and the University of Pittsburgh, which received $4.9 million in initial funding from CEPI to build a COVID-19 vaccine modeled on the vaccine for measles.

Tonix Pharmaceuticals: New York-based pharma outfit is researching a potential COVID-19 vaccine based on the virus that causes horsepox.

Vaxart: San Francisco vaccine manufacturer Vaxart is working with Emergent Biosolutions to develop and manufacture an oral vaccine that can be taken as a tablet.

Vaxil: Israeli biotech startup began preclinical trials for its COVID-19 vaccine candidate.

Zydus Cadila: Indian pharma company announced it would fast-track development of a COVID-19 vaccine in February.

Protective Equipment And Sanitizer:

Anheuser-Busch InBev: The worlds largest beer company is making more than one million bottles of hand sanitizer from surplus alcohol at its breweries around the world.

Giorgio Armani.

Armani: Billionaire Giorgio Armanis luxury fashion brand converted all production at its Italian factories to manufacture single-use medical overalls on March 26.

Bacardi: The Bermuda-based spirits giant converted production at nine production facilities in Mexico, France, England, Italy, Scotland, Puerto Rico and the continental U.S. to make hand sanitizer.

BrewDog: Independent beermaker is making hand sanitizer at its distillery in Scotland.

Bulgari: The Italian luxury jeweler is manufacturing hand sanitizer with its fragrances partner, ICR, with plans to make hundreds of thousands of bottles by May.

Sandro Veronesi.

Calzedonia Group: Italian retail clothing group, owned by billionaire Sandro Veronesi, converted production at several plants in Italy and Croatia to manufacture masks and medical gowns, with initial production of 10,000 masks a day.

Cantabria Labs: Spanish health products and cosmetics firm converted production at one of its factories to make hand sanitizer.

Consomed: Tunisian mask and medical equipment maker put all of its workers, more than 70% of which are reportedly women, on quarantine inside the companys Kairouan factory to maximize production of protective gear.

Decathlon: Sporting goods empire founded by French billionaire Michel Leclercq partnered with Isinnova, a small engineering and design firm based in Italy, to convert snorkeling masks into respirators.

Diageo: The maker of Johnnie Walker whisky and Smirnoff vodka donated two million liters of ethyl alcohol, a byproduct of the distillation process, to hand sanitizer manufacturers.

Fanatics: Billionaire Michael Rubins online sportswear retailer converted its baseball jersey factory in Pennsylvania to make masks and gowns for medical workers.

Fiat Chrysler Automobiles: The multinational automaker announced on March 23 it would begin installing capacity to produce masks, which will be initially distributed in the U.S., Canada and Mexico.

Fippi: Italian diapers producer worked with the Lombardy region and the Polytechnic University of Milan to convert its factory to make up to 900,000 masks a day, which will go to frontline health workers facing a devastating outbreak in the region.

See original here:

Coronavirus Business Tracker: How The Private Sector Is Fighting The COVID-19 Pandemic - Forbes