northwest, central ohio, you know, i know there's a lot of areas in my district that don't have broadband. it's so important we get it out there, and it's so important, after we've seen what happened with covid, because we saw everything from telemedicine to teleeducation, people working at home. it's been absolutely essential that broadband be out there. and so i think this is an issue that's not republican or democrat or independent. it's all of our issue. >> watch "the communicators" with congressman bob latta tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. at this time we take a much closer look at coronavirus, the pandemic that began in late february, early march and we want to focus on various treatments. joining us now is ed silverman. he is a columnist for stata new -- statin news -- staten

news. guest: thank you for having me. basically, therapeutics are either monoclonal antibodies designed to mimic, restore or enhance the body's immune response. the antibodies rather in the immune system. it is an artificial way of training the immune system to attack the disease. the vaccine stimulates the antibodies. they are in different ways to do something similar, which is get the body's antibodies moving towards a disease that needs to be sent out. host: let's look at the numbers -- operation warp speed put in

place by the trump administration, the vaccine daba element -- development totaling nearly $13 billion. compare that to therapeutics manufacturing at $2 billion. why did disparity -- the disparity? guest: that study was issued a few months ago and not all the numbers were in. barda has awarded contracts for therapeutic development, and it says the number is above $8 billion at this point, but that seems to have gone up also since then. the reason there is a disparity is -- there are a few reasons. in an ideal world it would

be nice to have a preventive rather than a therapeutic. let's emphasize whatever we can do to develop preventative tools. that is the philosophy behind vaccine investment. the reality of courses when people get sick, you need treatments. what happened in the covid pandemic over the past year is initially the thought was, let's look at existing drugs. monoclonal antibodies, see if we can repurpose one or more of those for treating covid-19 patients before they are hospitalized for instance but showing signs of developing serious covid. it makes sense to go after those kinds of products, and initially the federal government pursued it with contracts two different

companies to -- to different companies. at the same time, there was a lot of interest in vaccines for the reasons i have mentioned. you want a preventative tool. of course, there was at the time the need to place different bets. producing these products is time-consuming and expensive. you do not want to put all your eggs in one basket. the issue was let's -- vaccine production usually takes a lot longer than x number of months, but that happened with the covid vaccines. a little more than a year from the time a lot of this activity

began, we have various vaccines that are able to help prevent the coronavirus in varying degrees, but that has lessened the need over time to look at monoclonal antibodies and other therapies. barda said they would stop accepting pitches and needs from companies who want federal funding for developing some of these therapeutics -- and bids from companies who want federal funding for developing some of these therapeutics. they have earmarked billion's of dollars through 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, but we have enough choices that if there is enough vaccination, hopefully there will be fewer cases of covid that develop. it is hard to know if that is the right step because as we have heard discussed over the past several months, there are new variants of the coronavirus emerging over time. we do not know what to expect, so saying we might not need therapeutics or as much investment in therapeutics later on, i would think we may want to keep our ion that. -- our eye on that. host: we are talking to ed silverman. he has written for the new york journal and new york newsday.

we are dividing our phone lines as follows -- if you have tested positive for covid-19, call (202) 748-8001 -- (202) 748-8000. for all others, call (202) 748-8001. regeneron is out with a new ad -- let's watch. [video clip] ♪ >> hi, how are you? >> i have covid. >> when did you find out? >> they just called. >> where are you? >> i'm home and i am scared. >> what are you doing? >> i don't know what to do. >> did they tell you about monoclonal antibodies? it is a treatment that can help keep you out of the hospital. you are high-risk!

you have diabetes! time matters! you need to call your doctor now and to see if you can get monoclonal antibodies. don't wait. please call your doctor now. >> i'm calling now, honey. i will call you back and to tell you what she says. >> i will be waiting. ♪ host: what is your reaction to that ad and why is it necessary for a drugmaker to advertise something like this? guest: there are a few things going on of course. you could take the view that to an extent it is almost a public service announcement, because there is a need for greater awareness of the threats of coronavirus whether it is testing or vaccination, i think it could fall into that category if you would like to view it that way.

the company is is still a company and it has the opportunity to remote its product -- promote its product. whether or not anyone company decides to accept a lower than market price, i am not suggesting that is what regeneron is doing here, they are also promoting their brand, their ability to deliver, not just a necessary products, but doing so in a crisis. that is good for their image. builds confidence. the idea is to build confidence among investors. i also think that there is an element of old-fashioned marketing the pharmaceutical industry is trying to change its image more broadly because of

all the criticism it has taken for pricing debacles over the past few years. regeneron has not really been targeted that much as other companies have, but it sees into that psychology. host: i want to share with you what washington state talked about at a congressional hearing last month looking at some of the stands with covid-19 treatment. here is cynthia alexander. [video clip] >> the marketing of unsubstantiated covid treatments -- we have investigated a number of businesses engaged in this conduct. cease and desist orders, warning letters, to protect our consumers in washington. early eight in the pandemic, a company started promoting a

virus destroying drink to consumers. in any mail sent to washingtonians, they said " i think this drink is so effective i am giving it to my pregnant wife daily so click the link below>" we also heard about -- click the link below." we also heard about an allergy clinic who was offering treatment for covid-19. these two matters we resolved with a cease and desist letter. host: that from the washington state assistant attorney general. how are state investigators able to track these scams? guest: well, there are different ways. to a large extent, the same as any kind of scam. you get complaints from people who are suspicious, even though they may not have tried such a

product, but they have seen the marketing pitches. then you get complaints from people who may have taken that step and made the mistake of ordering something that is not proven. then they get concerned because perhaps there is harm or they just feel they got ripped off so there is no effect. then you have others watching it who are in the industry and know very well that certain efforts of the sort that she just described really cannot have any kind of positive effect. and they wanted to alert regulators and law enforcement to that sort of scam. those are the obvious, usual ways that occur. as i said, any opportunity to cause a scam to come up, we have a global pandemic, it is going to be like lacrimal. scams -- like whack-a-mole.

host: our guest is joining us from new jersey. charlie is on the phone from hayward, california. caller: what fascinating subject matter! i have a question as to if ed has any opinions on hydrogen peroxide and if that has any interesting process in this covid-19 pandemic. host: thank you, charlie. ed silverman? guest: i do not have anything to suggest that we should be looking at that product to treat covid. i do not recall reading any medical literature that has indicated that there is evidence to that effect. host: but you have written about

remdesivir. what does that drug do? guest: remdesivir is developed by alien sciences known in the industry as an antiviral company. they develop treatments for very widespread infectious diseases like hepatitis c and hiv-aids. remdesivir is a product that was tested earlier for the ebola virus. the company tried it for covid-19, and it testing determined it could help some patients who had contracted the virus. it is not a preventative tool, but it is a therapeutic. there has been some back-and-forth debate about the extent of its effectiveness over the years -- over the past year -- but the fda did get out

early and authorize emergency use for the product. the who seemed to be contradictory, but remdesivir is now widely used in many countries around the world. host: if our viewers have tested positive are recovered from covid-19, tell us how your treatment worked or did not work at (202) 748-8000. our focus this hour is on treatment for covid-19. let's talk about the role plasma has played in treating covid-19. can you explain? guest: i cannot remember which month, but last spring convalescent plasma popped up as a possible treatment to try and combat the coronavirus, but it was a very premature

notion. there were some who believed that by using that tool, you could have a positive effect. science is not always perfect. you have to have this notion of experiment and testing in order to prove a theory. in this case, it was not fully proven. this was is still in the early stages of the pandemic, if you can call a year ago the early stages. there was a lot of concern, fear and anxiety. the u.s. government was looking at the best way to invest in treatments, vaccines, so convalescent plasma popped up, and it was embraced for a time, but it really never panned out. in fact, two days ago, the lancet, which is a widely

respected medical journal published in the u.k., came out with an analysis of the use of convalescent plasma, showing that there really was no effect virtually. they compared 2000 patients given convalescent plasma to those who were not. there was no statistical significance to suggested that it could be useful unfortunately. it is another one of these instances where with good intentions in this case, and the idea is floated, -- an idea is floated, some pursue it, but it does not pan out. host: casey joins us, huntsville, missouri. are you with us? point to maintain our over 40-year commitment of congressional coverage. you can finish watching this at our website c-span.org. we take you live