>> ohio congressman bob latta talks about the newly released republican broad band plan, that's today from the free state foundation's annual conference live at 9:30 on c-span2, on-line at c-span.org or listen free on the c-span radio app. this week in congress, the senate is in session with no votes until mid june. the senate continues today and continues authorizing funding for science and technology research that could help the u.s. compete with china and votes are planned for more of president biden's nominees including the head of medicare and medicaid services and assistant attorney general for civil rights at the justice department. watch live senate coverage today at 3 p.m. eastern on

c-span2. >> everybody at this time we take a much closer look at coronavirus, the pandemic that began in late february, early march, now well into a year, and today we want to focus on various treatments. joining us from millburn, new jersey ed silverman, a columnist and senior writer with stat news. let's start with treatments and therapeutics and vaccines, outline the differences, if you could, please. >> good morning, thanks for having me. so, basically the therapeutics are -- she is are monoclonal antibodies and designed to mimic, restore or enhance the body's immune system. the antibodies, rather, in the immune system. so it's really an artificial way of triggering the immune system to attack or help attack a disease, the vaccine stimulates the antibodies. so, they're working in certain

ways to -- in different ways, but ultimately to do something similar, which is get the bodies, antibodies moving towards a disease that needs to be fended off. >> let's look at the numbers, operation warp speed put in place by the trump administration and you can see the difference courtesy of gao, available on its government website. the vaccine development and its manufacturing totalling nearly 13 billion dollars, you compare that to therapeutics development and its manufacturing at just over $2 billion. why the disparity? >> well, first of all, the gao report that you cited was issued, i believe, a few months ago and not all the numbers were in. the numbers have gone up for both categories, i know that hhs has an office called barta that has awarded contracts for therapeutic development and

says that the numbers above $8 billion at this point. the-- but the reason, but vaccines have gone up also since then and the reason that there's a disparity is that-- well, a few reasons, one, in an ideal world, it would be great to have a preventative tool, which a vaccine is supposed to be, rather than therapeutic because that's when people are already sick, of course. so, let's emphasize whatever we can do to develop preventative tools and that's the philosophy, if you will, behind vaccine investment, but the reality, of course, is people get sick, and you need treatment, but what happens in the covid pandemic over the past year is that the thought was that let's look at existing drugs. moano colonel antibodies, and see if we can repurpose one 0

are more of those, monoclonal, before they're hospitalized, for instance, and serious and have to be hospitalized. and it makes sense to go after that product and initially the federal government wanted to do that and pursued it with contracts to different companies to repurpose or develop something that was on their shelf and at the same time though, there was a lot of interest, as we've subsequently seen in vaccines for the reasons i mentioned. you want a preventative tool. there was at the time the need to place different bets. the vaccine producing any kind of processes whether it's monoclonal antibodies, therapeutics or vaccines for prevention is complicated and expensive for those reasons and you don't want to put all of your eggs in one basket. so the issue initially was,

let's go down two tracks simultaneously and it's particularly thought because the vaccine production usually takes longer than x number of months, but that did happen in this case with the covid vaccine. so, a year on or a little more than a year from the time this activity began, we've now seen we've had various vaccines that are able to help prevent the coronavirus in varying degrees, but that's, of course, lessened the need over time to look at monoclonal antibodies and other therapeutics. just last week the hhs office said that, stop accepting what they call pitches or bids from companies that want to get funding, federal funding for developing some of these therapeutics and they didn't offer much explanation for that.

and it was a little surprising, because the federal government, in two different ways, has earmarked, targeted, billions of dollars to the cares act. for instance, to develop different products, including therapeutics, but i do think it reflects the belief now that we have enough vaccines, at least enough choices, i'm not talking about-- but we have enough choices that if there is enough vaccinations, hopefully they'll be fewer cases of covid that develop. it's a little hard to know if that's the right because we've discussed many times over the past several months, there are new variants of the coronavirus emerging all the time. you don't know what to expect so saying we may not need therapeutics or as much

investments in therapeutics later on, i'm not them, but i would think that we may want to keep our eye on that just the same. >> we're talking with ed silverman, he writes for stat news and has covered the pharmaceutical industry, writes for the star ledger, news day. we want to focus on treatment on coronavirus. if you have tested positive for covid-19 call 202-748-8000 and others. 202-748-8001 and as always we at that i can your tweets and your comments on our social media pages including facebook.com/c-span. and regeneron is out with an ad, one of the treatments for coronavirus. let's watch. >> hi, wanda, how are you? >> honey, i'm calling-- >> why, when did you find out? >> they just called.

>> where are you? >> i'm home and i'm scared. >> what are you doing now? >> i don't know what to do. told me to quarantine and call if they get worse. >> did they tell you about monoclonal antibodies? >> what? monoclonal antibodies. it will keep you out of the hospital. >> we'll see. >> aunt wanda, you have diabetes, you need to call your doctor now and see if you can get monoclonal antibodies. don't wait. please call your doctor now. >> i'm calling now, honey. >> good. >> i'll call you back and tell you what she says. >> i'll be waiting. >> and what is your reaction to that ad? and why is it necessary for a drug maker to advertise something like this? >> well, there are a few things going on, of course.

you could view that as an extent it's almost a public service monument because there's a need for greater awareness of the threats of the coronavirus, whether it's testing or vaccination. so, i think it could fall into that category, again, if you'd like to view it that way. you know, the company is still a company and it has the opportunity to promote its products. whether or not any one company decides to accept a lower than market price, and i'm not suggesting that's what regeneron is doing here, but they're promoting their brand, their ability to deliver, not just necessary products, but doing so in a crisis, that's good for their image so that's-- that builds confidence or the

idea to build confidence among investors. i also think that the -- there's an element of old-fashioned marketing that the pharmaceutical industry is trying to change its image more broadly because of all the criticism it's taken for pricing debacles over the past few years. so, regeneron has not really been targeted that much as other companies have, but it feeds into that psychology. >> and before we get to callers, i want to share with you, what the state assistant attorney general in washington state talked about during a hearing, a congressional hearing last month. looking at some of the scams with covid-19 treatment. here is cynthia alexander. >> one area of particular concern for our office has been the marketing of

unsubstantiated covid treatments. we've investigated a number of individuals and businesses engaged in this conduct and we used the combination of enforcement tools including cease and desist notices from the attorney general, warning letters and lawsuits in our effort to stop this conduct and our consumer in washington. early in the pandemic, a washington company began promoting a virus destroying drink to consumers and the chief research director sent in an e-mail. >> i think this drink is promising for protection from this pandemic i'm giving it to my pregnant wife and 19-month-old daughter daily. we received complaints with an allergy clinic treatment with covid-19. and when i asked what they were offering. >> they said immune system boosting. we had a cease and desist letter in one days and cease and desist letter in one case and a warning letter in the

other case. >> and the washington assistant attorney general, how are investigators able to track these scams? >> well, there are different ways. to a large extent the same with any kind of scam. you get complaints from people who are suspicious, even though they may not have ordered or tried such a product, but they've seen that the marketing pitches. then you get complaints from people who are -- who took that step and made the mistake to order something that is not proven. and then they get concerned because perhaps there's harm or feel they got ripped off because there's no effect. and then you have others who are watching in the industry and know very well that certain efforts that they just described really can't have any positive effect and could even have harmful effects and want

to alert regulators and law enforcement to that sort of product, that kind of scam. those are the obvious, usual ways that occur. but it's like, as i said, any opportunity to make money is going to cause a scam to come up and when we have a global pandemic, it's going to be like whack-a-mole, those scams are going to be popping up all over the place for quite a while, unfortunately. >> we welcome our listeners on c-span radio, we're talking treatments for covid-19. our guest is joining us from new jersey and writes for stat news. charlie is on the phone from haywood, california. good morning. >> good morning, what a fascinating subject matter. i have a question as to if ed has any opinions about hydrogen peroxide and if that is any kind of interesting process in this covid-19 pandemic. >> thank you, charlie. ed silverman?

>> i don't have anything to suggest that we should be looking at that product to treat covid. i don't recall reading any medical literature that indicated that there's evidence to that effect. >> but you have written about remdesivir. so specifically, what does that drug do? remdesivir is developed by gilead science, known in the industry as an anti-viral company. they develop treatment for very widespread infections, diseases such as hepatitis c and hiv/aids and remdesivir is a product they were testing earlier for ebola virus and decided, the company decided to try it for covid-19 and the testing determined that it

could help some patients who had contracted the virus. so it's not a preventative tool though, it's a therapeutic and there's been some back and forth debate about the extent of the effectiveness over the years, over the past year, but the fda did get out early and authorize emergency use for the product and later the world health organization seemed to be contradictory, but in any event remdesivir is widely used in many countries around the world although-- in some countries, too. >> i was going to ask if our viewers had tested positive or recovered from covid-19. 202-248-8000. our focus is on treatment for covid-19ment let me ask you about the role that plasma has played in dealing with covid-19.

can you explain? >> well, last-- i can't remember which month, the last spring convalescent plasma popped up as a potential treatment to try and combat the coronavirus. but it was a very premature notion. there was some belief that by using that as a tool, it could have a positive effect and, you know, science is not always perfect. you have to have a notion of experiments and testing. you want to be able to prove a theory. in this case, it wasn't fully proven, but because of that this year, this is still in the early stages of the pandemic, a year ago, the early stages, it's really a compressed period of time, isn't it? but there's a lot of concern and fear and anxiety where the federal government, the u.s.

government it was looking where to invest as we discussed a few minutes ago, treatments, vaccine, so convalescent plasma popped up and it was embraced for a time, but it really never panned out. in fact, just last friday, few days ago, the lancet, widely respected medical journal in the u.k., came out with analysis of the use of convalescent plasma, there was no effect, unfortunately and a few thousand patients given the convalescent plasma, there was no difference, significance to suggest that could be useful unfortunately. it's another one of these instances with good intentions in this case, an idea is floated and some pursue it, but

unfortunately, as i said, it hasn't panned out. >> keith is joining us, huntsville, missouri. good morning, you're next. keith, are you with us? >> yes, yes. >> good morning. go ahead, please. >> anyway, i had tested positive for covid back in september and was admitted to the hospital with treatment of remdesivir, the doctor had indicated the normal course of treatment was five days and most people came around. i didn't. so they completed another five days and after that, i was still on oxygen and matter of fact i was on oxygen the whole time i was there. they sent me home with oxygen. one of the things that i notice that they had to do was because of the-- along with the steroids they treated me with, they had to give me insulin and, you know, it just threw my body out of

whack like that. i don't know, you know, if it really did anything, you know? so-- >> keith, did you have any side effects during that 10-day treatment plan? >> no, it was just, just oxygen. you know, i was just being treated for oxygen. the side effects were my -- i believe it was from the steroids, they said. >> right. my levels were going out of whack and i, you know, they had to treat me with insulin. >> how are you doing today? >> i still have some residual, you know, breathing effects, but i also had a little bit of diminished capacity even before i went in. >> keith, thanks for the call. let's hear from clarence as well. somebody who tested positive for coronavirus joining us from charlotte, north carolina. what's your story? >> well, i caught it last year and i had pneumonia with it and

i was in the hospital almost three weeks with it and i think they gave me remdesivir and everything else to help me to try to get over. i was in the hospital three weeks and been out of the hospital since then, but i came out of the hospital with -- with my lungs messed up. i'm still seeing a specialist today. my lungs, i'm still coughing from it. i've still got after effects for six or seven months now and my breathing is not back. they had me on oxygen machine when i first came out and took that off after two months. my breathing is not back and been having seen a lung specialist for the last four months and they've had me on everything they can have me on to try to -- last week i just took a bounce at my lungs and--

i'm still going through it now. it's a deadly disease. it's a deadly disease. clarence, thanks for sharing your story. good luck to you. ed silverman, from both of those callers, what are you hearing? >> well, the first caller reminds me that in reality, each of us in our own way is something of a laboratory because in this case, we're dealing with a new virus that we've not seen before that was being transmitted extremely rapidly and in different ways attacking so many different parts of the body, but with each person, this could be different effects, different harmful effects of the virus and it became a huge scientific guessing game and as the first caller said, he was given remdesivir two different courses, treatment courses, and

apparently, from what he indicated, didn't help that much, if at all. and at the same time though, it does help other people. but you have to fight and say, it helped certain people, but what were they experiencing, what adverse effects were they having and one harmful effect and versus other harmful effects caused by the virus. all of these mysteries popped up over the past year, year and a half, and we're still, in some respects, trying to sort out exactly what happens when the virus hits us and what's the best way to attack it and treat it. so that's one thought from the first caller, the second caller, unfortunately, he hits home that this is a very deadly

disease. i think there were a lot of people who didn't take it seriously at first, unfortunately. and unfortunately, i think there are still some people who aren't fully convinced for whatever reason. but unless you know someone or you yourself end up in a hospital, to live through it and get on c-span and talk about it, maybe it's not that apparent, but it's real, and it's not going to change just because someone wants to look the other way, unfortunately. >> brad is joining us from tennessee. you're on with ed silverman who is in new jersey this monday. good morning, brad. >> good morning, how are you guys doing? >> fine, thank you, how are you? >> doing good. i have a question. okay, personally, i take medications and my question is, can you all tell me which covid-19 vaccination if i wanted to take one would be the most effective for people, like

me, that's taking medications? >> brad, what kind of medication are you taking and do you have any other pre-existing conditions? >> well, i take cholesterol medicine for one thing and i don't want to go into it over the phone, you know, but i just -- i'm hesitate to take the vaccine because, well, for one thing i've heard that it can cause side effects or if you're on medications that i do take. >> thank you for the call. and ed silverman, i realize you're not a physician, you're a reporter, but to his point, can you answer it? >> sure. well, yes, i'll repeat the comment, i'm not a physician. if i were in your position, let's say, i would want to do two of three things. first talk to whatever physician that i'm seeing, whether it's your internist or a specialist and say, look,

here is my chart. let's just make sure that we're up-to-date. here is what conditions i have and what medications i'm taking and let's see if there's any research that indicates. you can google certain things using key words like cholesterol medication and covid vaccines and see what pops up. i've not done that and i don't know the answer to your specific questions. i think that that level of curiosity would behoove you and i'd encourage you to talk to whatever doctor you're seeing as i said to see if they can find anything that pertains to your specific question. before i even get to the point of-- before anyone gets to the point of which vaccine might be best. you want to establish if there's any particular concern in general and each vaccine is different and different studies have been conducted for those vaccines. to what extent any of them showed a harmful interaction with the use of a cholesterol

medication, i honestly don't know, but it's the kind of question na you're asking, but i would push your doctor or doctors to took into it on your behalf and candidly, i know the internet is a guessing game sometimes, whether it's medicine or law, anything else, there are certain things that we don't do that for a living so we may not know what we're looking at, but it's not an all or nothing situation. shouldn't necessarily believe everything that you're researching, but i wouldn't ignore it as a useful tool as a starting point. >> and finally, a quick follow-up, there's the moderna, pfizer, johnson & johnson vaccine, will there be a fourth? >> in the united states? >> in the u.s. >> could be because novavax and others are pursuing its

vaccine. we right now in the united states we're hitting a point where it appears that we're going to have sufficient supplies for two reasons, one good, a lot people have gotten vaccinated. the other not so good because there are some people who apparently won't get vaccinated. so if you do that math and try to subtract, well, we have what we need or will need. on the other hand as i mentioned before there are variants of virus. right now we're hitting the warmest part of the year. come october, it's going to get cooler in many parts of the country when we typically see respiratory disease emerge. we think of it as the. you -- as the flu season until now. and for cold weather and variants, it could change the picture a little bit and there for might see more cases pick up, more transmission if people aren't vaccinated. so, i'm cautious in saying that

it never hurts to have another authorization granted because that means we have just one more tool in our tool kit should we need it. >> we will conclude on that note reminding our listeners and viewers reminding that ed writes for stat news, a senior and columnist. >> thank you for having me, stay safe. >> shortly we'll take you to a live conversation with ohio conversation bob latta, he's speaking this morning at a telecom conference hosted by the free state foundation. and it was expected at 9:30. it's running a little late and we'll have that live. >> joining out of wisconsin is charlie sikes editor at large from the