Dr. Robert Wallace Malone (born 1959)

"Dr. Robert Malone holds the reins of his stallion, Jade II Da Sernadinha, on his horse farm in Madison, Va., on Wednesday July 22, 2020. Malone, who serves as a consultant to a Pentagon-funded program that develops medications to protect American troops from biological threats, believed enough in famotidine’s efficacy and safety as a COVID-19 drug that, when he contracted the disease, he took it himself. He reported on his LinkedIn page that he’d figured out the proper dose and became “the first to take the drug to treat my own case." (AP Photo/Steve Helber)"[HM002J][GDrive]

Wikipedia 🌐 Robert W. Malone 

Born in Santa Clara  /  Mother's maiden name is "Adams"

https://www.ancestry.com/discoveryui-content/view/7330192:5247?tid=&pid=&queryId=0955201d1408b92c38510a8c1ec54455&_phsrc=llt652&_phstart=successSource 


Married to Dr. Jill Glasspool-Malone (born 1960) 


Google Maps : [HW008Z][GDrive

ASSOCIATIONS - People

ASSOCIATIONS - Companies and Institutions

ASSOCIATIONS - Events

Saved Wikipedia (Aug 31, 2021, 1:50PM EST) - "Robert W. Malone"

Source : [HK008J][GDrive] / live link :  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_W._Malone 

Robert Wallace Malone is an American virologist and immunologist. His work has focused on mRNA technology, pharmaceuticals, and drug repurposing research. During the COVID-19 pandemic, he has been criticized for promoting misinformation about the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines.

Early life and education

Robert Malone graduated from the University of California Davis, and received his MD from Northwestern University.[1]

Career

In the 1980s, while a researcher at the Salk Institute, Malone conducted studies on messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) technology, discovering that it was possible to transfer mRNA protected by a liposome into cultured cells to signal the information needed for the production of proteins.[2][3] In the early 1990s, he collaborated with [Dr. Jon Asher Wolff (born 1956)], [Dr. Dennis A. Carson (born 1936)], and others on a study that first suggested the possibility of synthesizing mRNA in a laboratory to trigger the production of a desired protein.[4] Malone claims to be the inventor of mRNA vaccines, although credit for the distinction is more often given to later advancements by [Dr. Katalin Karikó (born 1955)] or [Dr. Derrick James Rossi (born 1966)],[5][2][6][7] and was ultimately the result of the contributions of hundreds of researchers, of which Malone was but one.[8]

Malone has served as director of clinical affairs for Avancer Group, a member of the scientific advisory board of [EpiVax], assistant professor at the University of Maryland Baltimore school of medicine, and an adjunct associate professor of biotechnology at Kennesaw State University.[9] He was CEO and co-founder of Atheric Pharmaceutical,[10] which in 2016 was contracted by the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases to assist in the development of a treatment for the Zika virus by evaluating the efficacy of existing drugs.[11][12][13][14] Until 2020, Malone was chief medical officer at Alchem Laboratories, a Florida pharmaceutical company.[15]

COVID-19

In early 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic, Malone was involved in research into the heartburn medicine famotidine (Pepcid) as a potential COVID-19 treatment following anecdotal evidence suggesting that it may have been associated with higher COVID-19 survival. Malone, then with Alchem Laboratories, suspected famotidine may target an enzyme that the virus (SARS-CoV-2) uses to reproduce, and recruited a computational chemist to help design a 3D-model of the enzyme based on the viral sequence and comparisons to the 2003 SARS virus.[16][17] After encouraging preliminary results, Alchem Laboratories, in conjunction with New York's Northwell Health, initiated a clinical trial on famotidine and hydroxychloroquine.[16] Malone resigned from Alchem shortly after the trial began and Northwell paused the trial due to a shortage of hospitalized patients.[15][18]

Malone received criticism for propagating COVID-19 misinformation, including making unsupported claims about the alleged toxicity of spike proteins generated by some COVID-19 vaccines;[3][7][19] using interviews on mass media to popularize self-medication with ivermectin;[20] and tweeting a study by others questioning vaccine safety that was later retracted.[3] He said LinkedIn suspended his account over what he claimed were posts he had made questioning the efficacy of some COVID-19 vaccines.[21] Malone has also claimed that the Pfizer–BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines could worsen COVID-19 infections.[22]

With another researcher, Malone successfully proposed to the publishers of Frontiers in Pharmacology a special issue featuring early observational studies on existing medication used in the treatment of COVID-19, for which they recruited other guest editors, contributors, and reviewers. The journal rejected two of the papers selected: one on famotidine co-authored by Malone and another submitted by physician Pierre Kory on the use of ivermectin.[18] The publisher rejected the ivermectin paper due to what it claimed were “a series of strong, unsupported claims” which they determined did “not offer an objective nor balanced scientific contribution.”[18] Malone and most other guest editors resigned in protest in April 2021, and the special issue has been pulled from the journal's website.[18]

Malone was critisized for falsely claiming that the FDA had not granted full approval to the Pfizer vaccine in August 2021.[23]

Selected publications

References

Directory information (publicly available)

Davis, California : [HW006Y][GDrive]
2010 - 2020 residencesSource : [HD003G][GDrive]
  • Name :   Robert Wallace Malone   /   Birth Date :   Oct 1959
  • Residence Date :   2017-2020   :   355 Hebron Valley Rd   /   Madison, Virginia, USA   /   22727
  • Second Residence Date :   2010-2020   :   10029 Hatton Ferry Rd 1   /   Scottsville, Virginia, USA   /   24590
  • Third Residence Date :   2010-2020   :   10029 Hatton Ferry Rd Unit 1   /   Scottsville, Virginia, USA   /   24590
  • Fourth Residence Date :   2017-2018   :   1438 N Main St   /   Madison, Virginia, USA   /   22727
1994 residencesSource : [HD003H][GDrive]
  • Name :   Robert W Malone   /   Birth Date :   Oct 1959
  • Address :   4328 Arthur Ave # 2   /   Brookfield, IL   /   60513-2308
  • Second Residence Date :   1994   :   516 Hudson CT   /   Davis, CA   /   95616-2859
  • Third Residence Date :   1994   :   1016 Bienville St   /   Davis, CA    /   95616-2903
1993 residencesSource : [HD003I][GDrive]
  • Robert W Malone /   [Robert Malone]   /   Birth Date :   20 Oct 1959
  • Residence Date :   1993   :   1016 Bienville St   /   Davis, CA   /   95616-2903
  • Second Residence Date :   1993   :   516 Hudson CT   /   Davis, CA   /   95616-2859
  • Third Address :   716 Hudson St   /   Davis, CA   /   95616-2925

2011 (est) resume (found via VeriPages.com) for "Robert Malone, Md, Ms (Lion)"

Saved as PDF : [HD0047][GDrive

 Image of page (the resume part) : [HD0048][GDrive

Position:  Medical Director, Vaccines at [Beardsworth Consulting Group, Inc.]  /   Editor in Chief at Journal of Immune Based Therapies and Vaccines  /   Consultant at Chesapeake PERL  /   Consultant, Vaccines and Biologics at RWMaloneMD.com (Self-employed)  /   President at RW Malone MD LLC

Location :   Greater Atlanta Area

Work:

  • [Beardsworth Consulting Group, Inc.] since Mar 2010  /   Medical Director, Vaccines
  • Journal of Immune Based Therapies and Vaccines since Feb 2009  /   Editor in Chief
  • Chesapeake PERL since 2008   /   Consultant
  • RWMaloneMD.com (Self-employed) since Oct 2007  /   Consultant, Vaccines and Biologics [, and President]
  • Accelovance Oct 2008 - Oct 2009  /   Medical Director, Vaccines
  • PATH 2008 - 2009  /   consultant
  • EpiVax Dec 2007 - Oct 2008  /   Senior Director, Vaccines and Therapeutics
  • Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Nov 2006 - Dec 2007  /   Director, Clinical Development/Medical Affairs, Influenza
  • Summit Drug Development Services Oct 2005 - Oct 2006  /   Senior Medical Director
  • Gene Delivery Alliance, Inc. Apr 2001 - Oct 2005  /   President and founder.
  • Dynport Vaccine Company, LLC Oct 2002 - Oct 2003  /   Associate Director, Clinical Research
  • University of Maryland, Baltimore School of Medicine, Dept. of Jan 1997 - Aug 2000  /   Assistant Professor
  • University of California, Davis Department of Medical Pathology, Oct 1993 - Jan 1997  /   Assistant Professor , Pathology
  • UC Davis Medical Center Jul 1992 - Sep 1993  /   Research Fellow
  • Vical 1989 - 1989  /   Scientist
  • Salk Institute 1986 - 1989  /   Graduate Student
  • Michael Charmichael Construction Oct 1978 - Jan 1980  /   Foreman, Shingling crew

Education:

  • University of California, Davis - School of Medicine 1991 - 1992  /   Medical Internship, Pathology
  • Northwestern University - The Feinberg School of Medicine 1984 - 1991
  • University of California, San Diego 1986 - 1988  /   M.S., Biology
  • University of California, Davis 1982 - 1984  /   B.S, Biochemistry

Interests:

  • Vaccine development, Biotechnology, Clinical Development, Polynucleotide delivery, Gene therapy, DNA vaccines, Electroporative delivery, Federal Grants and Contracts, Proposal Development, Regulatory Affairs

Honor & Awards:

  • • Trainee Investigator Award, American Federation for Clinical Research (4/93), • Bank of America-Giannini Foundation Medical Research. Fellow (6/92 to 6/93), • Henry Christian Award for Excellence in Research, American Federation for Clinical Res. (5/92), • UCDMC Medical Scholars Grant (7/92 to 7/93), • First Place, Northwestern AOA Research Symposium competition for Medical Students (1989) , • USPHS Pre-Doctoral Fellowship (1986-1988), • San Diego Supercomputer Grant for RNA structure modeling (1988), • Northwestern University MD../Ph.D. Scholarship (1984-1986), • Dean's List, UC. Davis (1982-1984), • President's Undergraduate Fellowship Grant for investigation of oncogene expression in breast tumor tissue. UC. Davis (9/83-6/84), • Edmonson Summer Fellowship, Department of Pathology, UC. Davis Medical School (1984)

2017-biography-omicsonline-org : "Robert W. Malone - CEO,  Clinical Trails, Atheric Pharmaceutical, USA"

Source : [HW006Q][GDrive]    (Note :  WRAIR = "Walter Reed Army Institute of Research"  )

" Robert W. Malone, M.D., M.Sci.  CEO, CSO,  co-founder and board of manager member of Atheric Pharmaceutical, LLC. Dr. Malone has extensive research and development experience in the areas of clinical trials, vaccines, gene therapy, bio-defense, and immunology.  He has over twenty years of management and leadership experience in the academia, pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries.  His FDA, HHS, and DoD agency knowledge is extensive.  Dr. Malone is an internationally recognized scientist and is known as one of the original inventors of “DNA Vaccination.”  Dr. Malone holds numerous fundamental domestic and foreign patents in the fields of gene delivery, delivery formulations, and vaccines.  He has over fifty peer-reviewed publications, has been an invited speaker at over thirty-five conferences, has chaired numerous conferences and he has sat on numerous study sections.  Dr. Malone is in the Harvard Medical School Global Clinical Scholars Program in 2015-2016. In August 2014, colleagues at the Department of Defense/Defense Threat Reduction Agency asked Dr. Malone to step in and help NewLink manage the Ebola project and develop the contracts necessary to move the "orphan" PHAC/rVSV ZEBOV vaccine forward quickly.  Dr. Malone got the project on track, recruited our client Focus Clinical Trials to team with USAMRIID/WRAIR to develop the immunoassays, put WHO leadership in touch with Pentagon leadership to expedite the initial WRAIR clinical trials, recruited the government of Norway to help fund the clinical research, used social media (LinkedIn) to recruit Merck Vaccines to join the project, recruited a management team, and lead the development of the BARDA and DTRA contracts - yielding over 200M$ in resources.  Those were frightening times, but now we have a remarkably effective vaccine, developed in record time. Dr. Malone was CEO and co-founder of RW Malone MD, LLC, a very successful consulting and development firm focused on clinical trials and USG medical countermeasure proposal capture and management.  As a capture and proposal manager, Dr. Malone has an extraordinary funding record.  In the past five years, he has been involved in ten billion dollars of successful government contracts and awards."

2017  (March) resume/CV : "Robert W. Malone, MD, MS"

Resume : [HL0080][GDrive

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE

Dr. Malone is internationally recognized as one of the original inventors of “DNA Vaccination.” He holds numerous fundamental domestic and foreign patents in the fields of gene delivery, delivery formulations, and vaccines, has over fifty publications, has served as an invited speaker at over thirty conferences, has chaired numerous conferences, and has sat on numerous US Federal study sections.

Dr. Malone has extensive research and clinical development experience in the areas of clinical trials design and implementation, vaccines, gene therapy, biodefense, and immunology. He has over twenty years of management and leadership experience in academia, pharmaceuticals and biotechnology. His NGO, HHS, NIH, and DoD contract and grant knowledge is extensive, and he has helped many groups and companies to capture and manage multi-million dollar awards with these sponsors, including almost 10 billion dollars won in the last five years. Dr. Malone has superior leadership skills, and has often brought diverse teams together to tackle complex problems, and develop innovative solutions.

In 2014, Dr. Malone built and led the initial team, under NewLink Genetics, that took the Canadian rVSVZEBOV-G Ebola vaccine from an abandoned vaccine candidate to funding in the 100 million USD range. He led the team that implemented effective stockpiling strategies, project planning and clinical trials development for dosing strategies. He also set up the initial acquisition talks between Merck Vaccine and Newlink, which led to the sale, research collaboration, and successes of the development of the rVSVZEBOV-G Ebola vaccine.

In 2016, Dr. Malone started a new company: Atheric Pharmaceutical, LLC. Atheric™ Pharmaceutical LLC is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the rapid development and commercialization of repurposed drugs to prevent and treat Zika and other Flavivirus disease. Atheric's lead drug products are reformulated broad spectrum antiviral drugs that inhibit autophagy-dependent viral replication as well as other virus-cell interactions. Atheric is committed to providing broad-spectrum medical countermeasures for Zika and other neglected tropical diseases. Provisional patents for these indications have been filed with the USPTO. The lead drug candidates are approved or allowed by FDA/EMA for use during pregnancy, and cross the placenta enabling clinically significant pharmacodistribution to both mother and fetus. While CEO of Atheric, Dr. Malone has led research teams that have conducted an extensive analysis of drug compounds –working closely with USAMRIID, published two papers in PLoS NTD, have three more papers on Zika in preparation, has filed nine patents with due diligence performed for field of use, conducted in-vitro screening of compounds, and has identified lead drug candidates for prophylactic and therapeutic indications.

Dr. Malone is licensed to practice medicine in the state of Maryland, USA and holds a Doctorate of Medicine from Northwestern University Medical School.

He graduated from Harvard Medical School, Global Clinical Scholars Research Training Program in 2016. His pathology internship was completed at UC Davis. Dr. Malone has served as Adjunct Associate Professor of Biotechnology at Kennesaw State University, as faculty (Associate Professor) at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, as faculty at the University of Maryland, Medical School and at UC Davis. He holds a MS from UC San Diego in Biology and a BS in Biochemistry from UC Davis.

SUMMARY OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS / SKILLS

  • A senior executive and scientist with a highly successful track record of leading bench and discovery research through FDA Phase I, II, and III clinical trials, protocol development and submission, and related regulatory submissions including pIND and IND.
  • Significant expertise in drug development and delivery.
  • Experienced capturing and managing large federal contracts (including BARDA) with over 9 billion in ID/IQ awards and 562 million government contracts won and/or managed in the last five years.
  • Domestically trained, Maryland Licensed Physician/Scientist.
  • Expertise in pathology, infectious disease, pandemic clinical trials, influenza, regulatory affairs, project management, biodefense, HIV and Ebola.
  • Significant expertise with federal contracting, grants, international NGO health related research and development coupled with professional relationships at CDC, DoD, HHS (BARDA, CDC, FDA and NIAID).
  • Prior and current service on many federal study sections and oversight boards involving infectious disease, vaccine, and biodefense.
  • Experienced Business Development Professional, project manager, capture/proposal manager, color team reviewer and editor for projects valued from 10M$ up to 1B$ US, with experience managing processes and teams in a wide variety of non-profit and for-profit corporate cultures including both matrix and traditional environments.
  • Highly skilled in fostering a culture of innovative problem solving within project teams.
  • DoD Secret Clearance authorized.
  • Graduated from the Harvard Medical School Global Clinical Scholars Research Training Program, a year-long program focused on international clinical research. This program combines on-site (London & Boston) as well as distance learning, with an average of 15h per week lecture and practicum exercises. The 2016 class included approximately 150 other MD and PhD-level participants from around the world.

WORK EXPERIENCE

  • Atheric Pharmaceutical, LLC.
      • CEO, and Co-founder.
          • Feb 2016-present. Atheric™ Pharmaceutical LLC is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the rapid development and commercialization of re-purposed drugs to prevent and treat Zika and other Flavivirus disease.
  • RW Malone MD, LLC
      • CEO and Consultant 2001-Present
      • Proposal development, strategic leadership, partnership development, Consulting services in Government Contracting Consulting services in Commercial Intelligence and due diligence, FDA Phase I, II, and III clinical trials, protocol development and submission, and related regulatory submissions including pIND and IND. Provided business development, proposal management, clinical development and medical affairs support for vaccines-related business operations
      • Projects include:
          • Ebola vaccine project for NewLink/[BioProtection Systems Inc.] (rVSVdG ZEBOV vaccine project), resulting in well over 100M USD non-dilutive capital to NL/BPS. This also included working with the World Health Organization as well as initial set up of the licensing deal to Merck Vaccines of the rVSVdG ZEBOV vaccine.
          • Served as Medical Director, [Beardsworth Consulting Group, Inc.], half time position on retainer (2010 – 2013)
          • Service on federal biotechnology/vaccines proposal study sections
          • Served as Editor-In-Chief of Journal of Immune Based Therapies and Vaccines 2007-2012
          • Service on Safety Monitoring Committee, Phase 1 safety/immunogenicity of novel Influenza vaccine
          • Consulting support for multiple vaccine-focused clinical sites in US and Latin America
          • Served as Medical Director, Vaccines with Accelovance, Inc. (2008 – 2009)
          • Served as medical monitor for multiple seasonal and pandemic (H1N1) studies
          • Reviewed and edited clinical protocols
          • Examples of multi-year contract clients include Accelovance, Avancer, [Beardsworth Consulting Group, Inc.], Chesapeake Perl, Corium, ITS, ITT-Exelis, [EpiVax], Jean Brown Research, Quest Diagnostics (Focus), PaxVax, SAI, Soligenix, TASC, Univ of MA.
          • Commercial intelligence work for two of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world (subcontractor).
          • Partnering with Galloway and Associates ([Dr. Darrell Ray Galloway (born 1946)]) 2012-2014
          • Acting as Managing Director, Clinical Development and Government Affairs for the Avancer Group. ( April 2012 – 2016.)
          • Proposal development (patch-based vaccine delivery, Tularemia vaccine, CDC contract for clinical trials site development, international government and NGO contract and grant solicitations) – Aeras Global TB Vaccine Foundation 2003-2005
          • Proposal development (plague vaccine- HHS), Technical diligence – VaxGen Corporation
          • Consulting services for [EpiVax], 2005-present [which is 2017] (member, Scientific Advisory Board)
          • Consulting services for [Aldevron]   2001-2005 (operating as Gene Delivery Alliance) 
          • Business and proposal development in the areas of Bioinformatics and Life Sciences (including telemedicine) and research at the University of Bern, Switzerland
          • Consulting services for Molecular Histology, Inc. with the title of Medical Director
          • Consulting services for MSD, Inc. for business/ technology development planning
  • Kennesaw State University
      • Adjunct Associate Professor 2009-2013
  • [Beardsworth Consulting Group, Inc.]
      • Medical Director, Vaccines (RW Malone MD, LLC under contract to Beardsworth)
      • 2010-2013, Dr. Malone functioned as the in-house medical vaccine expert for medical monitoring and Scientific Liaison
          • Medical liaison to investigator sites including oversight of clinical monitoring
          • Provided medical monitoring input including CRF review, 24x7 accessibility to site personnel, assess enrollment waiver requests, SAE review, etc.
          • Safety Officer and Medical Representative on project teams
          • Medical consultant to clients
          • Business development/proposal writing/government contracting
  • [Solvay pharmaceuticals unit] (currently Abbvie)
      • Director, Clinical Development/Medical Affairs, Influenza 2006-2007
          • Led an extended clinical team (both internal and CRO components), providing project and clinical trials management oversight, serving as primary author on clinical protocols, strategic documents including clinical development plans, DSMB/SMC charters, and all clinical documents required to support IND filing
          • Support and review of outcomes including safety data assessment
          • Generated and managed cost projections and budgetary oversight, providing strategic management and serving as a communication hub for clinical aspects of a $300 million USD federal contract to develop and license a cell-based influenza vaccine
          • Solvay’s US Government contract for cell-based influenza vaccine was terminated around the end of 2007. At which point the cell-based influenza vaccine project was dissolved.
  • Summit Drug Development Services
      • Senior Medical Director 2005-2006
          • Directed due diligence assessments and strategic drug development planning and prepared regulatory submissions and implemented, monitored, and analyzed clinical trials for clients (oncology, vaccines, biologicals, cell/stem cell therapies)
          • Primary author of three pIND, two IND, an Appendix M submission
          • Served as proposal manager and primary author for a 129M USD federal contract submission focused on pandemic influenza.
  • [AERAS Global TB Vaccine Foundation]
      • Director, Business Development and Program Management 2004-2005
          • Initially serving as consultant, provided leadership primarily focused on tuberculosis vaccine development and proposal development to NGO (B&M Gates), USG (CDC, NIH, DoD).
  • [DynPort Vaccine Company, LLC]
      • Associate Director, Clinical Research 2002-2003
          • Served as liaison between product development teams and clinical research support groups
          • Prepared planning documents and product development plans
          • Participated in and supported safety review and assessment of smallpox vaccine product.
          • Identified new technologies relevant to product development teams, facilitating integration of same in product development plans
          • Created documents for clinical trials including investigator brochures. Prepared proposal solicitations, technical review of subcontractor proposals. Performed technical review of potential subcontractors, new technologies
          • Assisted business development group in strategic evaluation and planning concerning new business opportunities and managed in-house Publication
  • [Intradigm Corporation]
      • Co-Founder (one of three co-founders), CSO, Board of Director Member 2000-2001
          • Helped to secure $2.3 million in V.C. funding, including monies from the Novartis Venture Fund, ETP Venture Capital Fund and the State of Maryland
          • Performed facilities set-up, infrastructure set-up and Intellectual Property Development
          • Business and technology development planning, including in-depth business and scientific plan
  • USUHS
      • Dept of Surgery, Clinical Breast Care Program (CBCP) through the Henry M. Jackson Foundation
      • Chief of Laboratory Science and Director of Tissue Banking 2000-2001
          • Worked closely with architect firm to design space, set-up laboratory facilities for the Clinical Breast Care Project, including new facilities design (tissue banking facilities, laboratory, animal rooms, animal surgical suite, office suites) at USUHS and Windber Medical Center, PA
          • Hired faculty, technicians, staff for CBCP at both sites, including writing and initiating job descriptions, job interviews, hiring decisions, set-up for re-locations
          • Laboratory Supervisor: Tissue banking immunology, cell culture, gene transfer, genetic vaccination research, animal research
          • Set-up equipment and laboratory purchases, including vendor price quotes, equipment specs
          • Wrote initial budgets and supervised equipment purchases; wrote animal protocols and grants
  • University of Maryland, Baltimore School of Medicine, Dept. of Pathology
      • Assistant Professor 1997-2000
          • Set-up and ran successful research laboratory in immunology (genetic vaccination) and gene transfer.
  • University of California, Davis Department of Medical Pathology
      • Assistant Professor 1993-1997
          • Director and Founder, Gene Therapy Program (pulmonary, dermal, heart, liver, mucosal and parenteral vaccines)
  • Medical Pathology, UC Davis Medical
      • Research Fellow, Pathology Resident 1991-1993
  • [Vical Incorporated]
      • Research Scientist 1989
          • Set up Vical’s molecular biology laboratory
          • Initiated and carried out research in non-viral gene therapy and DNA vaccination
          • Inventor of “naked DNA” gene therapy. (see issued patents for details)
          • Inventor of DNA vaccination (see issued patents for details)

TEACHING EXPERIENCE

Kennesaw State UniversityAssociate Professor:BTEC 4490 Experimental Design and Analysis (2009): Survey course focused on advanced product development and regulatory aspects of biotechnology and vaccines products.University of Maryland, Medical SchoolAssistant Professor:Fundamentals of Molecular Biology (Graduate Course, Winter 2000)Host defenses and Infectious Diseases, small group instructor Year 2 Medical School core curriculum.1998, 1999
University of California, DavisAssistant Professor:MD 410A/410B. General Systemic Pathology (1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996)PTX 202. Principles of Pharmacology and Toxicology-Lecturer (1995, 1996)BCM 214-414. Molecular Medicine-Lecturer (1995, 1996)IM 295 Cytokines-Lecturer (1996)IDI 280. Molecular Basis of Disease-Lecturer (1996)
University of California, San DiegoBiology 111. Cell Biology (Fall 1988). Teaching Assistant under Dr. M. MontalBiology 123. Embryology laboratory (Spring 1988). Teaching Assistant under Dr. C.Holt
Santa Barbara City CollegeComputer Laboratory (Spring 1981) Teaching Assistant

PROFESSIONAL OFFICES AND MEMBERSHIPS

  • American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene Member (ASTMH): 2016-present
  • Harvard Medical School Alumni
  • Virginia Bio: 2016-present
  • IEEE Genomics and Bioinformatics Working Group Member: 2002
  • Northern Virginia Technology Council BioMedTech Committee: Co-chair: 2002 – 2003
  • Intradigm, Corp. – a new start-up from Novartis, Inc.: Scientific Advisory Board: 2000 – 2001
  • Novartis, Inc. (GTI/Systemix & Pharmacokinetics): Scientific Advisory Board and External Portfolio Reviewer: 1999 – 2001
  • University of Maryland, Medical School: Pathology Education Policy Committee: 1999 – 2000
  • UC Davis:
      • Education Policy Committee Graduate Group in Comparative Pathology: 1996 – 1/1997
      • Member, Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Graduate Group: 1993 – 1/1997
      • Member, Comparative Pathology Graduate Group: 1995 – 1/1997
      • Boehringer Mannheim: Scientific Advisory Board: 1992 – 1993

EDUCATION

  • HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL Global Clinical Scholars Research Training Program
      • A year-long comprehensive program that combines on-site (London, Boston) and distance learning, with an average of 15h per week lecture and practicum exercises. 2015-2016.
  • UC DAVIS, RESEARCH FELLOWSHIP, funded by Bank of America- Giannini Foundation Medical
      • Research: 1992 – 1993
      • Postgraduate Fellowship Award
  • UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS, MEDICAL CENTER: 1992
      • Clinical Pathology Internship
  • NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY MEDICAL SCHOOL: 1991
      • Doctor of Medicine
  • UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO: 1988
      • Master of Science, Biology
  • UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS: 1984
      • Bachelor of Science, Biochemistry
  • LICENSURE / CERTIFICATIONS
      • Physician and Surgeon, State of Maryland License 1997-present. #DOO55466

SPECIALTY POSTGRADUATE COURSEWORK

  • Walter Reed Healthcare System, Department of Clinical Investigation: Research Course: 2000
  • USUHS: Rodent Handling and Techniques Laboratory: 2000
  • USUHS: Animal Protocol Writing Workshop: 2000
  • University of Maryland: CIPP 909 Research Ethics: 1999
  • University of Maryland: Primate Handling Course: 1999
  • University of Maryland: Biohazard US Training Course: 1999
  • University of Maryland: Chemical Training Course: 1999
  • University of Maryland: Radiation Training Course: 1999
  • Anne Arundel Community College: Computer Programming in C: 1999
  • Bowdoin College: Annual Course in Flow Cytometry: 1998
  • University of Maryland Office of Human Resource Services: The Magic of Conflict” Conflict Management Workshop: 1998
  • University of California, Davis: Laboratory Animal Handling Course: 1994 – 1997
  • University of California, Davis: Biohazard US Training Courses: 1994 – 1997
  • University of California, Davis: Chemical Training Courses: 1994 – 1997
  • University of California, Davis: Radiation Training Courses: 1994 – 1997

EDITORIAL BOARDS

  • Chairperson and scientific reviewer for Department of Defense, U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command, for “Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs (DMRDP). 2012
  • Editor-In-Chief, Journal of Immune Based Therapies and Vaccines. 2009 – 2012, Editor: 2012-present
  • Committee member and reviewer for NIH/NAIAD Committee for Development of Technologies that Accelerate the Immune Response to BioDefense Vaccines. 2011
  • Chair and reviewer for NIH/NAIAD: Partnerships in Biodefense Immunotherapeutics. 2011
  • NIH/NAIAD Committee member and reviewer for Development of Technologies to Facilitate the Use of, and Response to Biodefense Vaccines,” Special Emphasis panel. 2010
  • Gene Therapy/Molecular Biology International Society. 1997 – 2014

Reviewer for:

  • Numerous peer-reviewed journals on infectious disease, public health 2016
  • Nucleic Acids Research: 2001 – 2002
  • Molecular Therapy: 1999 – 2001
  • NIH Study Section K01 Breast Cancer Study Section: July 1997
  • NIDDK Special Emphasis Panel Review Committee for Competing Continuation Program Project:  April 1999 and April 1998
  • NIAID Study Section “Innovative Grant Program for Approaches in HIV Vaccine Research”: June  1998

ACADEMIC HONORS

  • DNA Vaccine Recognizes Robert W. Malone, MD, MS, 2013
  • Trainee Investigator Award, American Federation for Clinical Research: 1993
  • Bank of America – Giannini Foundation Medical Research Fellow: 1992 – 1993
  • Henry Christian Award for Excellence in Research, American Federation for Clinical Research: 1992
  • UCDMC Medical Scholars Grant: 1992 – 1993
  • First Place, Northwestern AOA Research Symposium Competition for Medical Students: 1989
  • USPHS Pre-Doctoral Fellowship: 1986 – 1988
  • San Diego Supercomputer Grant for RNA Structure Modeling: 1988  [ I think this is it ... https://www.newspapers.com/image/390622176 ]
  • Northwestern University MD/ PhD Scholarship: 1984 – 1986
  • Dean's List, UC Davis: 1982 – 1984
  • President's Undergraduate Fellowship Grant for Investigation of Oncogene Expression in Breast Tumor Tissue: 1983 – 1984
  • Edmonson Summer Fellowship, Department of Pathology, UC Davis Medical School: 1984

PATENTS SUBMITTED:

  • Application No.   /     Filing   Date   /    Title    /   MLB Docket No.
  • 62/292,296   /   2/6/16   /   “Use of Anti-Malarial Compounds for prevention or Treatment of ZIKV Infection”   /   11985-5004
  • 62/294,355   /   2/12/16   /   “Methods for Preventing Guillain-Barre Syndrome and/or Microcephaly”   /   115985-5001
  • 62/301,147   /   2/29/16   /   “Methods for Preventing Diseases of the Central Nervous System”   /   115985-5002
  • 62/304,211   /   3/5/16   /   “Methods for Preventing Diseases of the Central Nervous System”   /   11985-5005
  • 62/304,214   /   3/5/16   /   “Methods for Preventing Diseases of the Central Nervous System”   /   11985-5006
  • 62/330,142   /   4/30/16   /   “Compositions of Matter and Methods for Preventing Infection and Disease Caused by Arbovirus”   /   11985-5007
  • 62/357,923   /   7/1/16   /   “Methods of Use of Piperaquine Metabolites”   /   115985-5009

PATENTS ISSUED:

  1. Lipid-mediated polynucleotide administration to deliver a biologically active peptide and to induce a cellular immune response. [Dr. Philip Louis Felgner (born 1950)], [Dr. Jon Asher Wolff (born 1956)], Rhodes GH, Malone RW, [Dr. Dennis A. Carson (born 1936)]. US Pat. Ser. No. 7,250,404. issued 7/31/07
  2. Lipid-mediated polynucleotide administration to reduce likelihood of subject's becoming infected. [Dr. Philip Louis Felgner (born 1950)], [Dr. Jon Asher Wolff (born 1956)], Rhodes, Malone RW, [Dr. Dennis A. Carson (born 1936)]. US Pat. Ser. No. 6,867,195. issued 3/15/05
  3. Generation of an immune response to a pathogen. [Dr. Philip Louis Felgner (born 1950)], [Dr. Jon Asher Wolff (born 1956)], Rhodes GH, Malone RW, [Dr. Dennis A. Carson (born 1936)]. US Pat. Ser. No. 6,710,035. issued 3/23/04
  4. Expression of exogenous polynucleotide sequences in a vertebrate, mammal, fish, bird or human [Dr. Philip Louis Felgner (born 1950)], [Dr. Jon Asher Wolff (born 1956)], Rhodes GH, Malone RW, [Dr. Dennis A. Carson (born 1936)]. US Pat. Ser. No. 6,673,776. issued 1/6/04
  5. Methods of delivering a physiologically active polypeptide to a mammal. [Dr. Philip Louis Felgner (born 1950)], [Dr. Jon Asher Wolff (born 1956)], Rhodes GH, Malone RW, [Dr. Dennis A. Carson (born 1936)]. US Pat. Ser. No. 6.413.942 issued 7/2/02
  6. Induction of a protective immune response in a mammal by injecting a DNA sequence. [Dr. Philip Louis Felgner (born 1950)], [Dr. Jon Asher Wolff (born 1956)], Rhodes GH, Malone RW, [Dr. Dennis A. Carson (born 1936)]. US Pat. Ser. No. 6,214,804 issued 4/10/01
  7. DNA vaccines for eliciting a mucosal immune response. Malone, RW. and Malone, JG US Pat. Ser. No. 6,110,898 issued 8/29/00
  8. Formulations and methods for generating active cytofectin: polynucleotide transfection complexes Nantz M, Bennett M, Balasubramaniam RP, Aberle AM, Malone RW. US Pat. Ser. No. 5,925,623  7/20/99
  9. Cationic Transport Reagents. Bennett M, Nantz M, and Malone RW. US Pat. Ser. No. 5,892,071 issued 4/06/99
  10. Polyfunctional cationic cytofectins, formulations and methods for generating active cytofectin: polynucleotide transfection complexes. Nantz M, Bennett M, Balasubramaniam RP, Aberle AM, Malone RW. US Pat. Ser. No. 5,824,812 issued 10/20/98
  11. Cationic Transport Reagents. Bennett M, Nantz M, and Malone RW. US Pat. Ser. No. 5,744,625  issued 4/28/98
  12. Generation of antibodies through lipid mediated DNA delivery. [Dr. Philip Louis Felgner (born 1950)], [Dr. Jon Asher Wolff (born 1956)], Rhodes GH, Malone RW, [Dr. Dennis A. Carson (born 1936)]. US Pat. Ser. No. 5,703,055. issued 12/30/97
  13. Induction of a protective immune response in a mammal by injecting a DNA sequence. [Dr. Philip Louis Felgner (born 1950)], [Dr. Jon Asher Wolff (born 1956)], Rhodes GH, Malone RW, [Dr. Dennis A. Carson (born 1936)]. US Pat. Ser. No. 5,589,466. issued 12/31/96
  14. Delivery of exogenous DNA sequences in a mammal . [Dr. Philip Louis Felgner (born 1950)], [Dr. Jon Asher Wolff (born 1956)], Rhodes GH, Malone RW, [Dr. Dennis A. Carson (born 1936)]. US Pat. Ser. No. 5,580,859. issued 12/3/96
  15. Cationic Transport Reagents. Bennett M, Nantz M, and Malone RW. US Pat. Ser. No. 5,527,928. issued 6/18/96

PUBLICATIONS

  1. Malone RW, Soloveva V, Bulitta JB, Jiao Y, Glasspool-Malone J, Dean N, et al. Accelerated Discovery and Development of Re-purposed Licensed Drugs for Zika Virus Prophylaxis and Therapy
Science Translational Medicine. 2016; In Preparation.
  1. Schneider AB, Malone RW, Guo J, Homan J, Linchangco G, Witter Z, et al. Molecular evolution of Zika virus as it crossed the Pacific to the Americas. Cladistics. 2016; 12: 10.1111/cla.12178
  2. Malone RW, Homan J, Callahan MV, Glasspool-Malone J, Damodaran L, Schneider Ade B, et al. Zika Virus: Medical Countermeasure Development Challenges. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2016;10(3):e0004530.
  3. Klase ZA, Khakhina S, Schneider Ade B, Callahan MV, Glasspool-Malone J, Malone R. Zika Fetal Neuropathogenesis: Etiology of a Viral Syndrome. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2016;10(8):e0004877.
  4. Homan J, Malone RW, Darnell SJ, Bremel RD. Antibody mediated epitope mimicry in the pathogenesis of Zika virus related disease. PLoS Negl Trop Dis, submitted to (preprint in bioRxiv). 2016.
  5. De Groot AS, Einck L, Moise L, Chambers M, Ballantyne J, Malone RW, et al. Making vaccines "on demand": a potential solution for emerging pathogens and biodefense? Hum Vaccin Immunother.  2013;9(9):1877-84.
  6. Byrnes CK, Malone RW, Akhter N, Nass PH, Wetterwald A, Cecchini MG, et al. Electroporation enhances transfection efficiency in murine cutaneous wounds. Wound Repair Regen. 2004;12(4):397-403.
  7. Glasspool-Malone J, Steenland PR, McDonald RJ, Sanchez RA, Watts TL, Zabner J, et al. DNA transfection of macaque and murine respiratory tissue is greatly enhanced by use of a nuclease inhibitor. J Gene Med. 2002;4(3):323-2.
  8. Glasspool-Malone J, Steenland P, McDonald RJ, Sanchez RA, Watts TL, Zabner J, et al. Marked enhancement of macaque respiratory tissue transfection by aurintricarboxylic acid. J Gene Med.  2002;4(3):323-2.
  9. Glasspool-Malone J, Malone RW. Enhancing direct in vivo transfection with nuclease inhibitors and pulsed electrical fields. Methods Enzymol. 2002;346:72-91.
  10. Drabick JJ, Glasspool-Malone J, King A, Malone RW. Cutaneous transfection and immune responses to intradermal nucleic acid vaccination are significantly enhanced by in vivo electropermeabilization. Mol Ther. 2001;3(2):249-55.
  11. Somiari S, Glasspool-Malone J, Drabick JJ, Gilbert RA, Heller R, Jaroszeski MJ, et al. Theory and in vivo application of electroporative gene delivery. Mol Ther. 2000;2(3):178-87.
  12. Glasspool-Malone J, Somiari S, Drabick JJ, Malone RW. Efficient nonviral cutaneous transfection. Mol Ther. 2000;2(2):140-6.
  13. Colosimo A, Goncz KK, Holmes AR, Kunzelmann K, Novelli G, Malone RW, et al. Transfer and expression of foreign genes in mammalian cells. Biotechniques. 2000;29(2):314-8, 20-2, 24 passim.
  14. Kisich KO, Malone RW, Feldstein PA, Erickson KL. Specific inhibition of macrophage TNF-alpha expression by in vivo ribozyme treatment. J Immunol. 1999;163(4):2008-16.
  15. Glasspool-Malone J, Malone RW. Marked enhancement of direct respiratory tissue transfection by aurintricarboxylic acid. Hum Gene Ther. 1999;10(10):1703-13.
  16. Berlyn KA, Ponniah S, Stass SA, Malone JG, Hamlin-Green G, Lim JK, et al. Developing dendritic cell polynucleotide vaccination for prostate cancer immunotherapy. J Biotechnol. 1999;73(2-3):155-79.
  17. Ahearn A, Malone RW. Models of Cationic Liposome Mediated Transfection. Gene Therapy and Molecular Biology (Dec., 1999) Vol 4. Gene Therapy and Molecular Biology 1999;4.
  18. Malone JG, Bergland PJ, Liljestrom P, Rhodes GH, Malone RW. Mucosal immune responses associated with polynucleotide vaccination. Behring Inst Mitt. 1997(98):63-72.
  19. Bennett MJ, Aberle AM, Balasubramaniam RP, Malone JG, Malone RW, Nantz MH. Cationic lipid-mediated gene delivery to murine lung: correlation of lipid hydration with in vivo transfection activity. J Med Chem. 1997;40(25):4069-78.
  20. Montbriand PM, Malone RW. Improved method for the removal of endotoxin from DNA. J  Biotechnol. 1996;44(1-3):43-6.
  21. Freedland SJ, Malone RW, Borchers HM, Zadourian Z, Malone JG, Bennett MJ, et al. Toxicity of cationic lipid-ribozyme complexes in human prostate tumor cells can mimic ribozyme activity. Biochem Mol Med. 1996;59(2):144-53.
  22. Bennett MJ, Aberle AM, Balasubramaniam R, P., Malone JG, Nantz MH, Malone RW.  Considerations for the design of improved cationic amphiphile-based transfection reagents. . Journal of Liposome Research 1996;6(3):545-65.
  23. Balasubramaniam RP, Bennett MJ, Aberle AM, Malone JG, Nantz MH, Malone RW. Structural and functional analysis of cationic transfection lipids: the hydrophobic domain. Gene Ther. 1996;3(2):163-72.
  24. Aberle AM, Bennett MJ, Malone RW, Nantz MH. The counterion influence on cationic lipidmediated transfection of plasmid DNA. Biochim Biophys Acta. 1996;1299(3):281-3.
  25. Schenborn E, Oler J, Goiffon V, Balasubraniam R, Bennett M, Aberle A, et al. Tfx-50 Reagent, a new transfection reagent for eukaryotic cells. 1995.
  26. Hickman MA, Malone RW, Sihc TR, Akitad GY, Carlsonc DM, Powelle JS. Hepatic gene expression after direct DNA injection. Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews. 1995;17(3):265-71.
  27. Bennett† MJ, Malone RW, Nantz MH. A flexible approach to synthetic lipid ammonium salts for polynucleotide transfection. Tetrahedron Letters. 1995;36(13):2207-10.
  28. Bennett MJ, Nantz MH, Balasubramaniam RP, Gruenert DC, Malone RW. Cholesterol enhances  cationic liposome-mediated DNA transfection of human respiratory epithelial cells. Biosci Rep.   1995;15(1):47-53.
  29. Malone RW, Hickman MA, Lehmann-Bruinsma K, Sih TR, Walzem R, Carlson DM, et al.  Dexamethasone enhancement of gene expression after direct hepatic DNA injection. J Biol Chem.  1994;269(47):29903-7.
  30. Hickman MA, Malone RW, Lehmann-Bruinsma K, Sih TR, Knoell D, Szoka FC, et al. Gene expression following direct injection of DNA into liver. Hum Gene Ther. 1994;5(12):1477-83.
  31. Dwarki VJ, Malone RW, Verma IM. Cationic liposome-mediated RNA transfection. Methods Enzymol. 1993;217:644-54.
  32. [Dr. Jon Asher Wolff (born 1956)], Malone RW, Williams P, Chong W, Acsadi G, Jani A, et al. Direct gene transfer into mouse muscle in vivo. Science. 1990;247(4949 Pt 1):1465-8.
  33. Malone RW, [Dr. Phillip Louis Felgner (born 1950)], Verma IM. Cationic liposome-mediated RNA transfection. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1989;86(16):6077-81. [SEE BELOW IN EVIDENCE TIMELINE]
  34. Malone RW. mRNA Transfection of cultured eukaryotic cells and embryos using cationic liposomes. Focus. 1989;11:61-8.
  35. [Dr. Murray Briggs Gardner (born 1945), Malone RW, Morris DW, Young LJ, Strange R, Cardiff RD, et al. Mammary tumors in feral mice lacking MuMTV DNA. J Exp Pathol. 1985;2(2):93-8.
  36. Faulkin LJ, Mitchell DJ, Young LJ, Morris DW, Malone RW, Cardiff RD, et al. Hyperplastic and neoplastic changes in the mammary glands of feral mice free of endogenous mouse mammary tumor virus provirus. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1984;73(4):971-82.

PUBLISHED ABSTRACTS: Over 40 published  ( CHAIRPERSON/ORAL PRESENTATIONS BY INVITATION: Over 40 Invitations ) 

(Only the most recent events listed)
  • Chairperson, Repurposing drugs. International Conference on Zika Virus. Washington, DC Feb 22- 25, 2017.
  • Accelerated Discovery and Development of re-purposed licensed drugs for Zika virus outbreak antiviral rophylaxis and therapy. International Conference on Zika Virus. Washington, DC Feb 22- 25, 2017.
  • Bridging the Sciences: Zika Virus. Speaker. Zika Virus: Accelerating Development of Medical Countermeasures by Re-purposing Licensed Drugs, Emery, Atlanta, GA 1-3 May, 2016
  • World Vaccine Conference. Speaker/Round table- Zika virus: Challenges for Medical Countermeasure Development Washington, DC. 29-31 March, 2016
  • The World Health Organization (WHO) Consultation for Zika Virus: Research and Development. Presentation of Drug Development TPP. Geneva, Switzerland. 12-14 March, 2016
  • Vaccines R&D, Keynote Speaker: Ebola Vaccine in 12 months, Global Village, and the Need for Speed. Baltimore, MD. 2-4 November, 2015
  • World Vaccine Conference Speaker. Current USG contracting Opportunities and Initiatives from the point of View of Vaccine Developers. Washington, DC. 24-26 March, 2014
  • World Vaccine Conference Session Chair, Washington, DC. 24-26 March, 2014 Preclinical and Clinical Vaccine Research.
  • Conference Organizer and Coordinator: MODELING WORKSHOP, 2013
  • The World Health Organization (WHO) Global Action Plan for Influenza Vaccines. Robert W Malone, MD, MS "Vaccine Production Strategies: Ensuring Alignment and Sustainability" Geneva, Switzerland. 12-14 July 2011 Invited speaker [ downloaded here : https://www.who.int/influenza_vaccines_plan/resources/malone.pdf   2011-07-world-health-organization-influenza-vaccines-malone-production-alignment-sustainability.pdf  .....  video recording is here https://vimeo.com/30252721  ] 

RECENT STUDY SECTIONS:

  • Chairperson and scientific reviewer for Department of Defense, U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command, for “Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs (CDMRP), Defense Medical Research And Development Program (DMRDP), 2012
  • Chairperson and reviewer for NIH/NAIAD Committee on Partnerships in Biodefense Immunotherapeutics, Fall 2011.
  • Committee member and reviewer for NIH/NAIAD Committee for Development of Technologies that Accelerate the Immune Response to BioDefense Vaccines, Fall 2011.
  • NIH/NAIAD Committee member and reviewer for Development of Technologies to Facilitate the Use of, and Response to Biodefense Vaccines,” Special Emphasis panel, 2010

BOOK CHAPTERS

  • Malone RW. "Present and Future Status of Gene Therapy.' Intro Chapter in Advanced Gene Delivery: From Concepts to Pharmaceutical Products. Editor: Allain Rolland. Harwood Academic Pub. 1998.
  • Malone RW. Toxicology of non-viral gene transfer. Editor, Walsh B. In: Non Viral Therapeutics:  Advances, Challenges and Applications for Self-Assembling Systems. Boston: IBC’s Biomedical Library Series. (1996) 4.1

Five Year Performance: Grants and Contracts   ( Grants and Contracts   /   Role   /   Year   /   Awarded amount  ) 

  • Awarded to What a Smoke: Development of a Standardized Electronic Cigarette for Clinical Research
      • Capture manager, Proposal manager and Technical Proposal lead author
      • 2016   /   In Negotiation
  • IDIQ Award to TASC by U.S. Army for Medical Product Research and Development. (W81XWH-15-D-0042)
      • Capture manager, lead author.
      • 2016   /   $5 Billion
  • Awarded to [BioProtection Systems Inc.] (New Link Genetics): DTRA Contract for Ebola Medical Countermeasure.
      • Capture manager, Proposal manager lead author.
      • 2015   /   $8 Million base, $5.2 M option
  • Awarded to What a Smoke: Development of a Standardized Electronic Cigarette for Clinical Research
      • Proposal manager and Technical Proposal lead author.
      • 2015   /   $350,000
  • Award to [BioProtection Systems Inc.] (Newlink): contract to support the development and manufacturing of its VSV-EBOV (Ebola) vaccine candidate, including a new 330-subject Phase 1b study. Options for base grant.
      • Capture Manager, Proposal manager and Technical Proposal lead author.
      • 2015    /   $18 Million
  • Award to [BioProtection Systems Inc.] (Newlink): contract to support the development and manufacturing of its VSV-EBOV (Ebola) vaccine candidate, including a new 330-subject Phase 1b study.
      • Capture Manager, Proposal manager and Technical Proposal lead author.
      • 2014   /   $30 Million
  • Award to Soligenix: NIAID contract for "Development of Vaccine Formulations Effective against NIAID Priority Pathogens." (HHSN272201400039C)
      • Proposal manager and Technical Proposal lead author.
      • 2014   /   $24.7 Million
  • Awarded to Kai Research and Benchmark Research: contract for Support Annual Influenza Vaccine Serology Testing - for the CDC.
      • Developed the plan, assembled the team, formulated the contract and helped produce the final product.
      • 2013   /   $2.8 million base period, 5 total renewable years
  • IDIQ Award to Excelis: Combating Weapons of Mass Destruction Research and Technology Development from Defense Threat Reduction Agency. (HDTRA1-14-D-0005)
      • Capture manager, lead author for CBRN section.
      • 2013   /   $4 Billion
  • Awarded to Nanotherapeutics: Defense Department contract for Medical Countermeasures Advanced Development.
      • Original thought leader, Pre-Proposal manager and Technical Proposal lead author.
      • 2013   /   $427 million
  • Awarded to Soligenix: BARDA Contract (Advanced Development of OrbeShield in GI ARS)
      • Tech Watch: proposal development. Proposal manager and Technical Proposal lead author.
      • 2013   /   $26 million
  • Awarded to Vaxin: Contract by BARDA to develop next generation Anthrax Vaccine.
      • Proposal manager and principal scientific author.
      • 2011   /   $21 million
  • TOTAL Flexible IDIQ Awards 2011-2016 9 Billion
  • TOTAL Award Amounts (excluding IDIQ awards) 2011-2016 562 Million

2021 (June) updated full resume/CV : "Robert W. Malone, MD, MS"

Resume : [HL0081][GDrive]  

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE

An original inventor of core mRNA and DNA vaccination technology (1989), Dr. Malone is a specialist in clinical research, medical affairs, regulatory affairs, project management, proposal management (large grants and contracts), vaccines and biodefense. This includes writing, developing, reviewing and managing vaccine, bio-threat and biologics clinical trials and clinical development strategies. He has been involved in developing, designing, and providing oversight of approximately forty phase 1 clinical trials and twenty phase 2 clinical trials, as well as five phase 3 clinical trials. He has served as medical director/medical monitor on both phase 1, phase 2 and phase 3 clinical trials, including those run at a well known vaccine-focused Clinical Contract Research Organizations. He has served as principal investigator on some of these. Examples of his infectious disease pathogen advanced (clinical phase) development oversight experience include HIV, Influenza (seasonal and pandemic), Plague, Anthrax, VEE/EEE/WEE, Tularemia, Tuberculosis, Ebola, Zika, Ricin toxin, Botulinum toxin, and Engineered pathogens. In many cases, this experience has included vaccine product development, manufacturing, regulatory compliance, and testing (manufacturing release and clinical) aspects. In most cases, his oversight responsibilities have included clinical trial design, regulatory and ethical compliance, and laboratory assay strategy, design, testing and performance.

Dr. Malone has a history of assembling and managing expert teams that focus on solving complicated biodefense challenges to meet US Government requirements. He was instrumental in enabling the PHAC/rVSV ZEBOV (“Merck Ebola”) vaccine to move forward quickly towards BLA and (now recently granted) licensure. Dr. Malone got the project on track in support of DoD/DTRA and NewLink Genetics, recruited organizations to team with USAMRIID/WRAIR to develop the immunoassays, put WHO and Norwegian government philanthropic leadership in touch with Pentagon leadership to expedite the initial WRAIR clinical and ring vaccination trials, recruited a management team, recruited Merck vaccines to purchase the product candidate from NewLink, helped write and edit the clinical trials developed by the World Health Organization and lead the development of the BARDA and DTRA contracts - yielding over 200M$ in resources. Dr. Malone’s early involvement in this project allowed for the Merck vaccine to be developed very rapidly.

Currently, Dr. Malone is leading a large team since January 10, 2020, focused on clinical research design, drug development, computer modeling and mechanisms of action of repurposed drugs for COVID-19 treatment. This work has included multiple manuscripts summarizing most recent findings relating to famotidine and overall insights into the mechanism of COVID-19 disease, and others focused on celecoxib and famotidine are being reviewed for publication. He has developed and wrote the initial clinical trial design: A Single Center, Randomized, Double Blinded Controlled Crossover Observational Outpatient Trial of the Safety and Efficacy of Oral Famotidine for the Treatment of COVID-19 in Non-Hospitalized Symptomatic Adults. Another project he has been involved with is a DTRA/DOMANE-funded development and performance of a virtual outpatient clinical trial designed to test new monitoring and data capture technology while using COVID19 as a live-fire example. He has helped open two IND fo famotidine and celecoxib use for treatment and prevention of COVID19 disease including an associated drug master file, and has enabled teaming/pharmaceutical supply arrangements with two major pharmaceutical firms.

Dr. Malone is an internationally recognized scientist and is the original inventor of mRNA Vaccination, DNA Vaccination, and multiple non-viral DNA and RNA/mRNA delivery technologies. Dr. Malone holds numerous fundamental domestic and foreign patents in the fields of gene delivery, delivery formulations, and vaccines: including DNA and RNA/mRNA vaccines. His expertise includes virology, immunology, molecular biology, pathology and pharmacology.

Scientifically trained at UC Davis, UC San Diego, and at the Salk Institute Molecular Biology and Virology laboratories, Dr. Malone received his medical training at Northwestern University (MD) and Harvard University (Clinical Research Post Graduate Fellowship) medical schools, and in Pathology at UC Davis. Dr. Malone is currently finishing up his board certification in medical affairs (BCMAS).

He has extensive research and development experience (bench to bedside) in the areas of pre-clinical discovery research, clinical trials, vaccines, gene therapy, bio-defense, repurposing drugs for infectious diseases, high throughput screening and immunology. He has over twenty years of management and leadership experience in academia, pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries, as well as in governmental and non-governmental organizations. He often serves as study section chairperson for NIAID contract study sections relating to biodefense medical product development. He is currently a topic editor for the journal Frontiers in Pharmacology, in the area of “Treating COVID-19 With Currently Available Drugs.”

Dr. Malone has approximately 100 peer-reviewed publications and published abstracts and has about 12,000 citations of his peer reviewed publications, as verified by Google Scholar. His google scholar ranking is “outstanding” for impact factors. He has been an invited speaker at over 50 conferences, has chaired numerous conferences and he has sat on or served as chairperson on numerous NIAID and DoD study sections.


SUMMARY OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS / SKILLS

  • Inventor of mRNA and DNA vaccination.
  • Inventor of lipid mediated and naked mRNA delivery (transfection).
  • Inventor of in-vivo electroporation (particularly for skin delivery).
  • A senior executive and scientist with a highly successful track record of leading bench and discovery research through FDA Phase I, II, and III clinical trials, protocol development and submission, and related regulatory submissions including pIND and IND.
  • Significant expertise in drug development and delivery.
  • Specialist in Medical Affairs.
  • Special in Regulatory Affairs.
  • Domestically trained, Maryland Licensed Physician/Scientist.
  • Experienced capturing and managing large federal contracts (including BARDA) with over 9 billion in ID/IQ awards and almost a billion USD in government contracts won and/or managed in the last decade.
  • Expertise in pathology, infectious disease, pandemic clinical trials, influenza, regulatory affairs, project management, biodefense, HIV and Ebola. A verified list of capture is available upon request.
  • Significant expertise with federal contracting, grants, international NGO health related research and development coupled with professional relationships at CDC, DoD, HHS (BARDA, CDC, FDA and NIAID).
  • Prior and current service on many federal study sections and oversight boards involving infectious disease, vaccine, and biodefense.
  • Experienced and formally trained as a Business Development Professional, project manager, capture/proposal manager, color team reviewer and editor for projects valued from 10M$ up to 1B$ US, with experience managing processes and teams in a wide variety of non-profit and for-profit corporate cultures including both matrix and traditional environments.
  • Highly skilled in fostering a culture of innovative problem solving within project teams.
  • DoD Secret Clearance authorized.
  • Expert witness experience, with extensive training from some of the top attorneys/law firms in the USA.
  • Rated outstanding for impact factors, by Google scholar.
  • Graduated from the Harvard Medical School Global Clinical Scholars Research Training Program with distinction, a year-long program focused on international clinical research. This program combines onsite
(London & Boston) as well as distance learning, with an average of 15h per week lecture and practicum exercises.
  • Dr. Malone is currently working on becoming board certified in medical affairs (BCMAS). The BCMAS program is the certification program developed by the Accreditation Council for Medical Affairs (ACMA).

RW Malone MD, LLCCEO and Principal Consultant: 2001-PresentDr. Malone has been involved in developing, designing, and providing oversight of approximately forty phase-1 clinical trials and twenty phase-2 clinical trials, as well as five phase 3 clinical trials. He has served as medical director/medical monitor on approximately forty phase-1 clinical trials, and on twenty phase-2 clinical trials, including those run at vaccine-focused Clinical Research Organizations. He has served as principal investigator on some of these. Providing business development, proposal management, clinical trials development, expert witness, regulatory and medical affairs support for pharmaceutical, vaccinesrelated and biologics companies as well as related regulatory submissions including pIND and IND.Projects include:
  • Led a large team since January 10, 2020, focused on drug development, computer modeling and mechanisms of action for COVID-19 and is now preparing a manuscript summarizing most recent findings relating to famotidine and overall insights into the mechanism of COVID-19 disease.
  • Accelerated COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines: ACTIV Therapeutics Clinical Working Group, NIH. Invited Participant. June, 2020-present.
  • Clinical trials protocol development: Developed and wrote initial clinical trial design: A Single Center, Randomized, Double Blinded Controlled Crossover Observational Outpatient Trial of the Safety and Efficacy of Oral Famotidine for the Treatment of COVID-19 in Non-Hospitalized Symptomatic Adults.
  • Proposed is a DOMANE/WRAIR joint development and performance of outpatient clinical trial designed to test new monitoring and data capture technology while using COVID19 as a live-fire example.
  • Opening IND for famotidine use for treatment and prevention of COVID19 disease with associated am drug master file.
  • Principal Regulatory Consultant, Clinical Network Services (CNS)/Novotech, 2018-2019.

Regulatory, clinical and business development support.
  • Served as an expert witness with specialized training, 2017 - present.
  • Ebola vaccine project for NewLink/[BioProtection Systems Inc.] (rVSVdG ZEBOV Ebola vaccine project), resulting in well over 100M USD non-dilutive capital to NL/BPS. This also included working with the World Health Organization as well as initial set up of the licensing deal to Merck Vaccines of the Ebola vaccine.
  • Served as Medical Director, [Beardsworth Consulting Group, Inc.], half time position on retainer, 2010 – 2013.
  • Service on federal biotechnology/vaccines proposal study sections (multiple).
  • Served as Editor-In-Chief of Journal of Immune Based Therapies and Vaccines 2007-2012
  • Service on Safety Monitoring Committee, Phase 1 safety/immunogenicity of novel Influenza vaccine
  • Consulting support for multiple vaccine-focused clinical sites in US and Latin America.
  • Served as Medical Director, Vaccines with Accelovance, Inc. (2008 – 2009).
  • Served as medical monitor for multiple seasonal and pandemic (H1N1) studies.
  • Review and edit clinical protocols.
  • Examples of multi-year contract clients include Accelovance, Alchem Laboratories, Avancer, [Beardsworth Consulting Group, Inc.], Chesapeake Perl, Corium, DOAR, ITS, ITT-Exelis, [EpiVax], Jean Brown Research, Opgen, Quest Diagnostics (Focus), PaxVax, SAI, Soligenix, TASC, Univ of MA.
  • Commercial intelligence work for two of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world (subcontractor).
  • Partnering with Galloway and Associates ([Dr. Darrell Ray Galloway (born 1946)]) 2012-2014.
  • Acting as Managing Director, Clinical Development and Government Affairs for the Avancer Group. April 2012 – 2016.
  • Proposal development (patch-based vaccine delivery, Tularemia vaccine, CDC contract for clinical trials site development, international government and NGO contract and grant solicitations) – Aeras Global TB Vaccine Foundation 2003-2005.
  • Proposal development (plague vaccine- HHS), Technical diligence – VaxGen Corporation.
  • Consulting services for [EpiVax], 2005-2018 (member, Scientific Advisory Board), 2020.
  • Consulting services for - [Aldevron] 

  • 2001-2005 (operating as Gene Delivery Alliance).
      • Business and proposal development in the areas of Bioinformatics and Life Sciences (including telemedicine) and research at the University of Bern, Switzerland.
      • Consulting services for Molecular Histology, Inc. with the title of Medical Director.
      • Collaboration with [Inovio Pharmaceuticals, Incorporated], including incorporation of company in the USA.
      • Consulting services for MSD, Inc. for business/ technology development planning.
  • Alchem Laboratories
    • Chief Medical Officer
    • This position was as a consultant, but then full time FTE. Consulting for Alchem and/or its CEO: 2012 – 2019. CMO 11/2019 to 4/2020.
    • • Led a high through-put screening and research team for drug development 2019-2020.
    • • Dr. Malone began modeling and focusing on the Plpro (papain-like protease) and Mpro (main protease) of then novel coronavirus (now SARS-CoV-2) using computational tools including Modeller to generate homology-modeled crystal structures for the SARS-CoV-2 Plpro and Mpro. Which generated a candidate list for COVID-19, which was reduced to a few candidates, based on binding sites, safety, licensure, efficacy, bioavailability of drug candidates.
    • • Lead the discovery and development of famotidine for the Treatment of COVID-19.
    • • Technical Lead/writer for funded full proposal under BAA-18-100-SOL-00003 Amendment 15 entitled: “A Multi-site, Randomized, Double-Blind, Multi-Arm Historical Control, Comparative Trial of the Safety and Efficacy of Hydroxychloroquine, and the Combination of Hydroxychloroquine and Famotidine for the Treatment of COVID-19 in Hospitalized Adults.”
    • • Developed and wrote initial clinical trial design for a comparative trial of the safety and efficacy of hydroxychloroquine, and the combination of hydroxychloroquine and famotidine for the treatment of COVID-19 in hospitalized adults.
  • Atheric Pharmaceutical, LLC
  • CEO, and Co-founder.
  • Feb 2016-Dec 2017. Atheric™ Pharmaceutical LLC was a biopharmaceutical company focused on the rapid development and commercialization of re-purposed drugs to prevent and treat Zika and other Flavivirus disease. Optimization of high through-put screening techniques for anti-viral drug development.
  • Kennesaw State University
    • Adjunct Associate Professor 2009-2013
  • [Beardsworth Consulting Group, Inc.]
    • Medical Director, Vaccines (RW Malone MD, LLC under contract to Beardsworth),   2010-2013
    • Dr. Malone functioned as the in-house medical vaccine expert for medical monitoring and Scientific Liaison
      •  Medical liaison to investigator sites including oversight of clinical monitoring
      • Provided medical monitoring input including CRF review, 24x7 accessibility to site personnel, assess enrollment waiver requests, SAE review, etc.
      • Safety Officer and Medical Representative on project teams
      • Medical consultant to clients
      • Business development/proposal writing/government contracting
  • Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc [aka Solvay pharmaceuticals unit]  (currently Abbvie)
      • Director, Clinical Development & Medical Affairs, Influenza 2006-2008
          • Led an extended clinical team (both internal and CRO components), providing project and clinical trials management oversight, serving as primary author on clinical protocols, strategic documents including clinical development plans, DSMB/SMC charters, and all clinical documents required to support IND filing. Support and review of outcomes including safety data assessment
          • Generated and managed cost projections and budgetary oversight, providing strategic management and serving as a communication hub for clinical aspects of a $300 million USD federal contract to develop and license a cell-based influenza vaccine
          • Solvay’s US Government contract for cell-based influenza vaccine was terminated around the end of 2007.
          • At which point the cell-based influenza vaccine project was dissolved.
  • Summit Drug Development Services
      • Senior Medical Director 2005-2006
          • Directed due diligence assessments and strategic drug development planning and prepared regulatory submissions and implemented, monitored, and analyzed clinical trials for clients (oncology, vaccines, biologicals, cell/stem cell therapies). Primary author of three pIND, two IND, an Appendix M submission.
          • Served as proposal manager and primary author for a 129M USD federal contract submission focused on pandemic influenza.
  • [AERAS Global TB Vaccine Foundation]
      • Director, Business Development and Program Management 2004-2005
          • Initially serving as consultant, provided leadership primarily focused on tuberculosis vaccine development and proposal development to NGO (B&M Gates), USG (CDC, NIH, DoD).
  • [DynPort Vaccine Company, LLC]
      • Associate Director, Clinical Research 2002-2003
          • Served as liaison between product development teams and clinical research support groups.
          • Prepared planning documents and product development plans.
          • Participated in and supported safety review and assessment of smallpox vaccine product.
          • Identified new technologies relevant to product development teams, facilitating integration of same in product development plans.
          • Created documents for clinical trials including investigator brochures. Prepared proposal solicitations, technical review of subcontractor proposals. Performed technical review of potential subcontractors, new technologies.
          • Assisted business development group in strategic evaluation and planning concerning new business opportunities and managed in-house Publication.
  • [Intradigm Corporation]
      • Co-Founder (one of three co-founders), CSO, Board of Director Member 2000-2001
          • Intradigm was a biotechnology company that develops gene therapeutic technology based on RNA interference. Intradigm merged with Silence Technologies in 2009 and the merged company is now publicly traded. Silence Technologies is involved in developmental research of targeted RNAi therapeutics for the treatment of serious diseases.
          • Dr. Malone co-founded and helped to secure $2.3 million in V.C. funding, including monies from the Novartis Venture Fund, ETP Venture Capital Fund and the State of Maryland. Performed facilities set-up, infrastructure set-up and Intellectual Property Development. Business and technology development planning, including in-depth business and scientific plan.
  • Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences
    • Dept of Surgery, Clinical Breast Care Program (CBCP) through the Henry M. Jackson Foundation
    • Adjunct Associate Professor
    • Chief of Laboratory Science and Director of Tissue Banking 2000-2001
    • Worked closely with architect firm to design space, set-up laboratory facilities for the Clinical Breast Care Project, including new facilities design (tissue banking facilities, laboratory, animal rooms, animal surgical suite, office suites) at USUHS and Windber Medical Center, PA
    • Hired faculty, technicians, staff for CBCP at both sites, including writing and initiating job descriptions, job interviews, hiring decisions, set-up for re-locations
    • Laboratory Supervisor: Tissue banking immunology, cell culture, gene transfer, genetic vaccination research, animal research.
  • University of Maryland, Baltimore School of Medicine, Dept. of Pathology
    • Assistant Professor 1997-2000
    • Set-up and ran successful research laboratory in immunology (genetic vaccination) and gene transfer.
  • University of California, Davis Department of Medical Pathology
    • 1991-1997
    • Assistant Professor 1993-1997
    • Director and Founder, Gene Therapy Program (pulmonary, dermal, heart, liver, mucosal and parenteral vaccines).
    • Research Fellow, Pathology Resident 1991-1993
  • [Vical Incorporated]
    • Research Scientist 1989
      • Set up Vical’s molecular biology laboratory.
      • Initiated and carried out research in non-viral gene therapy and DNA vaccination.
      • Inventor of “naked DNA” gene therapy. (see issued patents for details).
      • Inventor of DNA vaccination (see issued patents for details).
      • Inventor of “mRNA” gene therapy. Salk institute.
      • Inventor of mRNA vaccination. Salk institute.

LICENSURE / CERTIFICATIONS

  • Physician and Surgeon, State of Maryland License 1997-present. #DOO55466

BOARD OF DIRECTOR POSITIONS:

  • Discovery Cure, Inc. Founding Board of Director. 2018-2020
  • [EpiVax], Scientific Advisory Board, 2012-2019.

EDUCATION

  • HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL Global Clinical Scholars Research Training Program (fellowship)
      • A year-long comprehensive program that combines on-site (London, Boston) and distance learning, with an average of 15h per week lecture and practicum exercises. 2015-2016. Graduation with distinction (top 5% of graduating class).
  • UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS: RESEARCH FELLOWSHIP, 1992 – 1993
      • Postgraduate Fellowship Award
  • UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS MEDICAL CENTER: 1992
      • Clinical Pathology Internship
  • NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY MEDICAL SCHOOL: 1991
      • Doctor of Medicine
  • UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO: 1988
      • Master of Science, Biology
  • UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS: 1984
      • Bachelor of Science, Biochemistry

TEACHING EXPERIENCE

  • Kennesaw State University
  • Associate Professor:

BTEC 4490 Experimental Design and Analysis (2009): Survey course focused on advanced productdevelopment and regulatory aspects of biotechnology and vaccines products.University of Maryland, Medical SchoolAssistant Professor:Fundamentals of Molecular Biology (Graduate Course, Winter 2000)Host defenses and Infectious Diseases, small group instructor Year 2 Medical School core curriculum.1998, 1999University of California, DavisAssistant Professor:MD 410A/410B. General Systemic Pathology (1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996)PTX 202. Principles of Pharmacology and Toxicology-Lecturer (1995, 1996)BCM 214-414. Molecular Medicine-Lecturer (1995, 1996)IM 295 Cytokines-Lecturer (1996), IDI 280. Molecular Basis of Disease-Lecturer (1996)University of California, San DiegoBiology 111. Cell Biology (Fall 1988). Teaching Assistant under Dr. M. MontalBiology 123. Embryology laboratory (Spring 1988). Teaching Assistant under Dr. C.HoltSanta Barbara City CollegeComputer Laboratory (Spring 1981) Teaching Assistant

PROFESSIONAL OFFICES AND MEMBERSHIPS

  • Royal Society of Medicine, Fellow 2020-Present.
  • Harvard Medical School Alumni, 2016- present.
  • American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene Member (ASTMH): 2016-2018.
  • Virginia Bio: 2016-2018
  • IEEE Genomics and Bioinformatics Working Group Member: 2002
  • Northern Virginia Technology Council BioMedTech Committee: Co-chair: 2002 – 2003
  • Intradigm, Corp. – a new start-up from Novartis, Inc.: Scientific Advisory Board: 2000 – 2001
  • Novartis, Inc. (GTI/Systemix & Pharmacokinetics): Scientific Advisory Board and External Portfolio Reviewer: 1999 – 2001
  • University of Maryland, Medical School: Pathology Education Policy Committee: 1999 – 2000
  • UC Davis:
      • Education Policy Committee Graduate Group in Comparative Pathology: 1996 – 1/1997
      • Member, Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Graduate Group: 1993 – 1/1997
      • Member, Comparative Pathology Graduate Group: 1995 – 1/1997
      • Boehringer Mannheim: Scientific Advisory Board: 1992 – 1993

EDITORIAL BOARDS

  • Topic Editor, Frontiers in Pharmacology (Respiratory Pharmacology): “Treating COVID-19 with Currently Available Drugs,” 2020-2021.
  • Editor-In-Chief, Journal of Immune Based Therapies and Vaccines. 2009 – 2012, Editor: 2012.
  • Gene Therapy/Molecular Biology International Society. 1997 – 2014.
  • Reviewer for: Numerous peer-reviewed journals on infectious disease, public health 2016 to present.
  • Nucleic Acids Research: 2001 – 2002.
  • Molecular Therapy: 1999 – 2001.

ACADEMIC HONORS

  • Harvard Medical School, Global Clinical Scholar Post Graduate: graduation with distinction (top 5% of graduating class).
  • “DNA Vaccine” Recognizes Robert W. Malone, MD, MS, 2013.
  • Trainee Investigator Award, American Federation for Clinical Research: 1993.
  • Bank of America – Giannini Foundation Medical Research Fellow: 1992 – 1993.
  • Henry Christian Award for Excellence in Research, American Federation for Clinical Research: 1992.
  • UCDMC Medical Scholars Grant: 1992 – 1993.
  • DNA and RNA Transfection and Vaccination (Abstract). First Place, Northwestern AOA Research Symposium Competition for Medical Students: 1989.
  • USPHS Pre-Doctoral Fellowship: 1986 – 1988.
  • San Diego Supercomputer Grant for RNA Structure Modeling: 1988.
  • Northwestern University MD/ PhD Scholarship: 1984 – 1986.
  • Dean's List, UC Davis: 1982 – 1984.
  • President's Undergraduate Fellowship Grant for Investigation of Oncogene Expression in Breast Tumor Tissue: 1983 – 1984.
  • Edmonson Summer Fellowship, Department of Pathology, UC Davis Medical School: 1984.

PATENTS ISSUED:

  1. Lipid-mediated polynucleotide administration to deliver a biologically active peptide and to induce a cellular immune response. Assigned to Vical, Inc and licensed to Merck. No. 7,250,404, date of issue: 7/31/07 Cited in 105 articles.
  2. Lipid-mediated polynucleotide administration to reduce likelihood of subject's becoming infected. Assigned to Vical, Inc and licensed to Merck. US Pat. Ser. No. 6,867,195 B1, date of issue: 3/15/05.
  3. Generation of an immune response to a pathogen. Assigned to Vical, Inc and licensed to Merck. US Pat. Ser. No. 6,710,035, date of issue: 3/23/04. Citations: 37 articles.
  4. Expression of exogenous polynucleotide sequences in a vertebrate, mammal, fish, bird or human Assigned to Vical, Inc, licensed to Merck. US Pat. Ser. No. 6,673,776, date of issue: 1/6/04.
  5. Methods of delivering a physiologically active polypeptide to a mammal. Assigned to Vical, Inc, licensed to Merck. US Pat. Ser. No. 6.413.942, date of issue: 7/2/02. (cited in 150 articles).
  6. Induction of a protective immune response in a mammal by injecting a DNA sequence (includes mRNA). Assigned to Vical, Inc, licensed to Merck. US Pat. Ser. No. 6,214,804, date of issue: 4/10/01. Cited in 359 articles.
  7. DNA vaccines for eliciting a mucosal immune response (includes mRNA). US Pat. Ser. No. 6,110,898, date of issue: 8/29/00. Cited in 40 articles.
  8. Formulations and methods for generating active cytofectin: polynucleotide transfection complexes. US Pat. Ser. No. 5,925,623 7/20/99.
  9. Cationic Transport Reagents. US Pat. Ser. No. 5,892,071 issued 4/06/99.
  10. Polyfunctional cationic cytofectins, formulations and methods for generating active cytofectin: polynucleotide transfection complexes. US Pat. Ser. No. 5,824,812 issued 10/20/98.
  11. Cationic Transport Reagents. US Pat. Ser. No. 5,744,625 issued 4/28/98.
  12. Generation of antibodies through lipid mediated DNA delivery. Assigned to Vical, Inc, licensed to Merck. US Pat. Ser. No. 5,703,055, date of issue: 12/30/97. Cited in 463 articles.
  13. Induction of a protective immune response in a mammal by injecting a DNA sequence (includes mRNA). Assigned to Vical, Inc, licensed to Merck. US Pat. Ser. No. 5,589,466, date of issue: 12/31/96. Cited in 889 articles.
  14. Delivery of exogenous DNA sequences in a mammal (includes mRNA). Assigned to Vical, Inc, licensed to Merck. US Pat. Ser. No. 5,580,859, date of issue: 12/3/96. Cited in 1234 articles.
  15. Cationic Transport Reagents. US Pat. Ser. No. 5,527,928, date of issue: 6/18/96. Of note: Cationic Lipid-Mediated RNA and DNA Transfection. 1988 patent application, Salk institute assignee, patent abandoned without inventor permission or knowledge. Inventor: Robert Malone. Available upon request.

PUBLICATIONS (selected)

  1. Famotidine and Celecoxib COVID-19 Treatment Without and With Dexamethasone; Retrospective Comparison of Sequential Continuous Cohorts, Submitted to Nature, Scientific Reports, May 2021. Robert W Malone, Kevin M Tomera, Leo Egbujiobi, Joseph K Kittah . Preprint at Research Square https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-526394/v1 .
  2. More Than Just Heartburn: Does Famotidine Effectively Treat Patients with COVID-19? Malone RW. Dig Dis Sci. 2021 Feb 24:1–2. doi: 10.1007/s10620-021-06875-w. PMID: 33625612; PMCID: PMC7903029.
  3. COVID-19: Famotidine, Histamine, Mast Cells, and Mechanisms.  Malone RW, et. al. Frontiers in Pharmacololgy, 23 March 2021. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2021.633680
  4. COVID-19: Famotidine, Histamine, Mast Cells, and Mechanisms.  Malone RW, et al DO.Res Sq. 2020 Jun 22:rs.3.rs-30934. doi: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-30934/v2. Preprint.PMID:  32702719 https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-30934/v2 Cited in 26 articles.
  5. Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients Treated With Celecoxib and High Dose Famotidine Adjuvant Therapy Show Significant Clinical Responses (July 8, 2020). Tomera, K, Malone, R and kittah, J.  Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3646583 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3646583 . Cited in 8 articles.
  6. Medical Countermeasures Analysis of 2019-nCoV and Vaccine Risks for Antibody-Dependent
  7. Enhancement (ADE). Ricke, D.O.; Malone, R.W. Preprints 2020, 2020030138 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202003.0138.v1). May, 2020 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3646583
  8. Molecular evolution of Zika virus as it crossed the Pacific to the Americas. Schneider AB, Malone RW, et al. Cladistics. 2017; 12: 10.1111/cla.12178
  9. Zika Virus: Medical Countermeasure Development Challenges. Malone RW, et al. PLoS Negl Trop Dis.  2016;10(3):e0004530. Cited in 70 articles, viewed over 54,000 times, full PDF downloaded over 11,000 times.
  10. Zika Fetal Neuropathogenesis: Etiology of a Viral Syndrome. Klase ZA, Khakhina S, Schneider Ade B, Callahan MV, Glasspool-Malone J, Malone R. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2016;10(8):e0004877. Cited in 51 articles, viewed over 13,000 times.
  11. Antibody mediated epitope mimicry in the pathogenesis of Zika virus related disease. Homan J, Malone RW, et al. BioRxiv. 2016.
  12. Making vaccines "on demand": a potential solution for emerging pathogens and biodefense? De Groot AS, Einck L, Moise L, Chambers M, Ballantyne J, Malone RW Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2013;9(9):1877-84.
  13. Electroporation enhances transfection efficiency in murine cutaneous wounds. Byrnes CK, Malone RW, et al. Wound Repair Regen. 2004;12(4):397-403.
  14. DNA transfection of macaque and murine respiratory tissue is greatly enhanced by use of a nuclease inhibitor. Glasspool-Malone J, …, Malone RW. J Gene Med. 2002;4(3):323-2.
  15. Marked enhancement of macaque respiratory tissue transfection by aurintricarboxylic acid. Glasspool-Malone J, …, Malone RW. Gene Med. 2002;4(3):323-2.
  16. Enhancing direct in vivo transfection with nuclease inhibitors and pulsed electrical fields. Glasspool-Malone J, Malone RW. In Gene Therapy Methods: Methods Enzymol. 2002;346:72-91
  17. Cutaneous transfection and immune responses to intradermal nucleic acid vaccination are significantly enhanced by in vivo electropermeabilization. Drabick JJ, Glasspool-Malone J, …, Malone RW. Mol Ther. 2001;3(2):249-55. Cited in 192 articles.
  18. Theory and in vivo application of electroporative gene delivery. Somiari S, Glasspool-Malone J, … Malone RW. Mol Ther. 2000;2(3):178-87. Cited in 345 articles.
  19. Nucleic acid vaccination with a single SIV can protect rhesus macaques from oral challenge with pathogenic SIVMAC239. Gary Rhodes, … Robert Malone, et al. Journal of Medical Primatology 29.3-4 (2000).
  20. Efficient nonviral cutaneous transfection. Glasspool-Malone J, …, Malone RW. Mol Ther. 2000;2(2):140-6. Cited in 138 articles.
  21. Transfer and expression of foreign genes in mammalian cells. Colosimo A, …, Malone RW, et al. Biotechniques. 2000;29(2):314-8, 20-2, 24 passim. Cited in 188 articles
  22. Specific inhibition of macrophage TNF-alpha expression by in vivo ribozyme treatment. Kisich KO, Malone RW, …, Erickson KL. J Immunol. 1999;163(4):2008-16. Cited in 131 Articles.
  23. Marked enhancement of direct respiratory tissue transfection by aurintricarboxylic acid. Glasspool-Malone J, Malone RW. Hum Gene Ther. 1999;10(10):1703-13
  24. Developing dendritic cell polynucleotide vaccination for prostate cancer immunotherapy. Berlyn KA, …, Malone RW J Biotechnol. 1999;73(2-3):155-79
  25. Models of Cationic Liposome Mediated Transfection. Gene Therapy and Molecular Biology. Ahearn A, Malone RW. Vol 4. Gene Therapy and Molecular Biology 1999;4
  26. Feline dendritic-like cells: Isolation, culture, and genetic modification using monocytic precursors. Malone, J. G., Watts, T. L., Hale, A., & Malone, R. W. (1998, January). In JOURNAL OF LEUKOCYTE BIOLOGY (pp. 63-63): FEDERATION AMER SOC EXP BIOL.
  27. Mucosal immune responses associated with polynucleotide vaccination. Malone JG, …, Malone RW. Behring Inst Mitt. 1997(98):63-72
  28. Delivery of exogenous DNA sequences in a mammal. [Dr. Philip Louis Felgner (born 1950)], …, R Malone, [Dr. Dennis A. Carson (born 1936)]. Biotechnology Advances. 1997 15 (3-4), 763-763
  29. Cationic lipid-mediated gene delivery to murine lung: correlation of lipid hydration with in vivo transfection activity. Bennett MJ, …, Malone RW, Nantz MH. J Med Chem. 1997;40(25):4069-78
  30. Improved method for the removal of endotoxin from DNA. Montbriand PM, Malone RW. J Biotechnol.  1996;44(1-3):43-6. Cited in: 43 articles
  31. Toxicity of cationic lipid-ribozyme complexes in human prostate tumor cells can mimic ribozyme activity.Freedland SJ, Malone RW, et al. Biochem Mol Med. 1996;59(2):144-53
  32. Considerations for the design of improved cationic amphiphile-based transfection reagents. Bennett MJ, …, Malone RW. Journal of Liposome Research 1996;6(3):545-65
  33. Escherichia coli beta-glucuronidase and Photinus pyralis luciferase reporter. Ayar, S. F., & Malone, R. W.  (1996, November). In CLINICAL CHEMISTRY (Vol. 42, No. 11, pp. 35-35).
  34. Structural and functional analysis of cationic transfection lipids: the hydrophobic domain.  Balasubramaniam RP, …, Malone RW. Gene Ther. 1996;3(2):163-72. Cited in 172 articles.
  35. The counterion influence on cationic lipid-mediated transfection of plasmid DNA.Aberle AM, Bennett MJ, Malone RW, Nantz MH. Biochim Biophys Acta. 1996;1299(3):281-3
  36. Direct gene tranfer into mouse muscle in vivo. N Shafee, ..., RW Malone, et al. International Journal of Virology 2 (1), 33-38
  37. A flexible approach to synthetic lipid ammonium salts for polynucleotide transfection. MJ Bennett, RW Malone, MH Nantz. Tetrahedron letters 36 (13), 2207-2210
  38. Tfx-50 Reagent, a new transfection reagent for eukaryotic cells. Schenborn E, …, Malone RW, et al. 1995
  39. Hepatic gene expression after direct DNA injection. Hickman MA, Malone RW, et al. Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews. 1995;17(3):265-71
  40. Ribozyme and messenger-RNA delivery using cationic liposomes RW MALONE 1995/1/5 Conference  JOURNAL OF CELLULAR BIOCHEMISTRY Pages 206 Publisher WILEY-LISS
  41. Cholesterol enhances cationic liposome-mediated DNA transfection of human respiratory epithelial cells.  Bennett MJ, …, Malone RW. Biosci Rep. 1995;15(1):47-53
  42. Dexamethasone enhancement of gene expression after direct hepatic DNA injection. Malone RW, et al. J Biol Chem. 1994;269(47):29903-7
  43. Gene expression following direct injection of DNA into liver. Hickman MA, Malone RW, et al. Hum Gene Ther. 1994;5(12):1477-83. Cited in 306 articles.
  44. Cationic liposome-mediated RNA transfection. Dwarki VJ, Malone RW, Verma IM. Methods Enzymol.  1993;217:644-54. Cited in 88 articles.
  45. Successful gene transfection of respiratory epithelium invitro using polyamine containing cationic lipids. CB Robinson, RW Malone, J Jessee, G Gebeyehu, R Wu AMERICAN REVIEW OF RESPIRATORY DISEASE 147 (4), A546-A546
  46. Direct gene transfer into mouse muscle in vivo. [Dr. Jon Asher Wolff (born 1956)], Malone RW, et al. Science. 1990;247(4949 Pt 1):1465-8. Cited in 4,695 articles.
  47. Cationic liposome-mediated RNA transfection. Malone RW, [Dr. Phillip Louis Felgner (born 1950)], Verma IM. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1989;86(16):6077-81. Cited in 717 articles.
  48. mRNA Transfection of cultured eukaryotic cells and embryos using cationic liposomes. Malone RW.  Focus. 1989;11:61-8
  49. High levels of messenger RNA expression following cationic liposome mediated transfection tissue culture cells. Malone R, Kumar R, [Dr. Phillip Louis Felgner (born 1950)]. NIH Conference: “Self-Cleaving RNA as an Anti-HIV Agent” (Abstract). Washington, DC June 1989.
  50. A novel approach to study packaging of retroviral RNA by RNA transfection (Abstract). RW Malone, [Dr. Phillip Louis Felgner (born 1950)], I. Verma. RNA Tumor Viruses, May 17-18, 1988. Cold Spring Harbor
  51. Mammary tumors in feral mice lacking MuMTV DNA. [Dr. Murray Briggs Gardner (born 1945)], Malone RW, …, Cardiff RD, et al. J Exp Pathol. 1985;2(2):93-8
  52. Hyperplastic and neoplastic changes in the mammary glands of feral mice free of endogenous mouse mammary tumor virus provirus. Faulkin LJ, …, Malone RW, et al. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1984;73(4):971-82.

PUBLISHED ABSTRACTS: Over 50 published


CHAIRPERSON/ORAL PRESENTATIONS BY INVITATION: Over 40 Invitations

(Only the most recent events listed)
  • Vaccines R&D, 2019. Keynote Speaker, Panel Moderator: Boston, MA. 18-20 November, 2019.
  • Repurposing drugs for Infectious Disease Outbreaks. International Conference on Zika Virus. Washington, DC Feb 22-25, 2017 (Chairperson)
  • Accelerated Discovery and Development of re-purposed licensed drugs for Zika virus outbreak antiviral prophylaxis and therapy. International Conference on Zika Virus. Washington, DC Feb 22-25, 2017. (Oral Presentation)
  • Zika Virus: Accelerating Development of Medical Countermeasures by Re-purposing Licensed Drugs. Bridging the Sciences: Zika Virus. Emery, Atlanta, GA 1-3 May, 2016. (Oral Presentation)
  • Speaker/Round table- Zika virus: Challenges for Medical Countermeasure Development. World Vaccine Conference. Washington, DC. 29-31 March, 2016.
  • The World Health Organization (WHO) Consultation for Zika Virus: Research and Development. Presentation of Drug Development TPP. Geneva, Switzerland. 12-14 March, 2016. (Oral Presentation)
  • Keynote Speaker: Ebola Vaccine in 12 months, Global Village, and the Need for Speed. Vaccines R&D, Baltimore, MD. 2-4 November, 2015. (Keynote Speaker)
  • Current USG contracting Opportunities and Initiatives from the point of View of Vaccine Developers. World Vaccine Conference, Washington, DC. 24-26 March, 2014. (Oral Presentation)
  • World Vaccine Conference, Washington, DC. 24-26 March, 2014 Preclinical and Clinical Vaccine Research. (Session Chair)
  • PHEMCE Modeling Workshop “Operational Decision Making using Innovative Modeling, Analysis, and Visualization Tools”, Sponsored by Deloitte. 2013 (Conference Co-Organizer and Coordinator/Oral Presentation)
  • "Vaccine Production Strategies: Ensuring Alignment and Sustainability" The World Health Organization (WHO) Global Action Plan for Influenza Vaccines. Geneva, Switzerland. 12-14 July 2011 (Oral Presentation)

RECENT STUDY SECTIONS (selected):

  • Accelerated COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines: ACTIV Therapeutics Clinical Working Group, NIH. Invited Participant. June, 2020-present.
  • Chairperson, NIH/NIAID/DMID Special Emphasis Panel, Development of Vaccines to Combat Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria September 2019.
  • Chairperson, NIH/NIAID Special Emphasis Panel, December 2018.
  • Reviewer, NIH/NIAID Special Emphasis Panel, December 2017.
  • Chairperson and scientific reviewer for Department of Defense, U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command, for “Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs (DMRDP), 2012.
  • Committee member and reviewer for NIH/NIAID Committee for Development of Technologies that Accelerate the Immune Response to BioDefense Vaccines. 2011
  • Chair and reviewer for NIH/NIAID: Partnerships in Biodefense Immunotherapeutics. 2011
  • NIH/NIAID Committee member and reviewer for Development of Technologies to Facilitate the Use of, and Response to Biodefense Vaccines,” Special Emphasis panel. 2010
  • Chairperson and scientific reviewer for NIH/NIAID Omnibus BAA 2017-1: Research Area 5 (N01) ZAI1-KP- M-C6 (Topic 5: Advanced Development of Vaccine Candidates for Biodefense and Emerging Infectious Diseases), September 2017.
  • Scientific reviewer for NIH/NIAID Special Emphasis Panel/Scientific Review Group 2017/08 ZRG1 IMM-R (12) B (Non-HIV Microbial vaccines), June 2017.
  • Chairperson and scientific reviewer for Department of Defense, U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command, “CDMRP: Defense Medical Research & Development Program (DMRDP), 2012.
  • Chairperson and scientific reviewer for NIH/NIAID Committee on Partnerships in Biodefense Immunotherapeutics, Fall 2011.
  • Committee member and reviewer for NIH/ NIAID Committee for Development of Technologies that Accelerate the Immune Response to BioDefense Vaccines, Fall 2011.
  • NIH/ NIAID Committee member and reviewer for Development of Technologies to Facilitate the Use of, and Response to Biodefense Vaccines,” Special Emphasis panel, 2010.
  • NIH Study Section K01 Breast Cancer Study Section: July 1997
  • NIDDK Special Emphasis Panel Review Committee for Competing Continuation Program Project:  April 1999 and April 1998
  • NIAID Study Section “Innovative Grant Program for Approaches in HIV Vaccine Research”: 1998

BOOKS AND BOOK CHAPTERS

  • Malone RW. "Present and Future Status of Gene Therapy.' Intro Chapter in Advanced Gene Delivery: From Concepts to Pharmaceutical Products.” Editor: Allain Rolland. Harwood Academic Pub. 1998, republished 2014.
  • Enhancing direct in vivo transfection with nuclease inhibitors and pulsed electrical fields. Glasspool-Malone J, Malone RW. In Gene Therapy Methods: Methods Enzymol. 2002;346:72-91
  • Malone RW. “Toxicology of non-viral gene transfer”. Editor, Walsh B. In: “Non-Viral Therapeutics: Advances, Challenges and Applications for Self-Assembling Systems.” IBC’s Biomedical Library Series. (1996) 4.1

EVIDENCE TIMELINE

1979 (Feb 17) - Wedding! Robert W. Malone to Jill Glasspool

PDF of transcript info :  [HL007Z][GDrive]

Image (full page) : [HL007X][GDrive]  / Clip above : [HL007Y][GDrive]

1984 to 1986 - "Northwestern University MD/ PhD Scholarship


1984 : "Hyperplastic and Neoplastic Changes in the Mammary Glands of Feral Mice Free of Endogenous Mouse Mammary Tumor Virus Provirus"

Full Journal of the National Cancer Institute (Sep, 1984) - [HG00E5][GDrive]

Leslie J. Faulkin ,4 Dan J. Mitchell, Lawrence J. T. Young, David W. Morris, Robert W. Malone,5 [Dr. Robert Darrell Cardiff (born 1935)] , and [Dr. Murray Briggs Gardner (born 1945)] 5, 6

https://www.pmid2cite.com/pmid-to-doi-converter : No DOI for PMID 6090752 

ABSTRACT - Laboratory colonies of feral mice ( Mus musculusdomesticus ) have been established with specific mouse mammary tumor virus ( MUMTV ) genotype , including colonies lacking any proviral DNA ( ev ) or carrying only a single copy of MUMTV DNA ( ev * ) . No evidence of a decline in reproductive capacity has been observed in the first 8 generations . Both the ev ' and ev* mice showed normal mammary gland development and the development of hyperplastic lesions in the older females . The mice were very resistant to spontaneous or chemically induced mammary tumors . However, the occurrence of 1 mammary tumor in an ev mouse indicates that mammary neoplasias can occur in the absence of MUMTV DNA . The few tumors that do occur in the ev mice provide a unique opportunity to study the neoplastic process in the absence of proviral DNA . –JNCI 1984 ; 73 : 971-982 .

The evolutionary conservation of genetically transmitted retrovirogenes has suggested that they may provide a critical function for normal development ( 1 ) . In the MuMTV system , specifically, it has been speculated that MuMTV expression may be required for normal functioning of the mammary gland. Bent velzen and Hilgers ( 2 ) hypothesized that MuMTV germinal provirus was associated with a mam gene, analogous with src of the avian sarcoma virus. They proposed that controlled expression of this gene was essential for normal mammary gland development, whereas uncontrolled expression ( as after exogenous infection with MuMTV ) resulted in mammary neoplasia ( 2).

COnversely, the great variation in endrogenous MuMTV restruction patterns in inbred mouse strains and individual wils mice implied a lack of selective advantage of these genes (3). This belief was supported by the finding of several apparently normal feral mice lacking detectabl eMuMTX provirus in their liver DNA (2). COhen and Varmus *3) thus favored the hypothesis that endogeneous proviruses were acquired by multiple independent infections of germ cells, and they saw no funcitonal ruole for proviral DNA in normal growth and deveopment. 

To determine whether enogeneous MuMTX provirueses are essential to normal development of the mammary gland and/or the development of mammary hyperplasia and neoplasia, we have studies these featres in a coloony of selectively bred feral mice that are totaly free of endogenous MuMTV copies in their cellular genome ( 5 ) . For ease of discussion we have labeled these endogenous virus -negative mice " ev ." In the ev mice , mammary gland development and function are compared to other feral mice homozygous for a single MuMTV provirus labeled " ev ” and to well established strains of inbred mice carrying multiple MUMTV proviruses ( 5 ) . In addition , we describe the formation in the mammary tissue of the ev and ev * mice of hyperplastic and neoplastic lesions that, although infrequently seen , are similar to those of laboratory mice ( 6 , 7 ) . We confirmed by Southern blot analysis that the ev' and ev * mouse colonies bred true for this trait and that the tumor DNA in these mice showed no alteration from the germ line MuMTV genotype. 

[...]

1985 (February) - Journal of Experimental Pathology : "Mammary tumors in feral mice lacking MuMTV DNA"

. Summer 1985;2(2):93-8.

[Dr. Murray Briggs Gardner (born 1945)],   R W Malone, D W Morris, L J Young, R Strange,  [Dr. Robert Darrell Cardiff (born 1935)],  L J Faulkin, D J Mitchell

Abstract :   Two mammary tumors developed in feral mice treated with dimethylbenzanthracene. The tumors, livers, and spleens of these animals contained no MuMTV proviral DNA. Neither tumor had amplified or rearranged int-1 or int-2 loci. This demonstrates that mammary tumorigenesis can occur in mice in the absence of endogenous and exogenous MuMTV.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3023583/


Full pDF : https://www.researchgate.net/publication/20131864_Mammary_tumors_in_feral_mice_lacking_MuMTV_DNA/link/56c9e78a08aee3cee53f9439/download 

1985-02-journal-of-experimental-pathology-mammary-tumors-in-feral-mice-lacking-mumtv-dna.pdf

1985-02-journal-of-experimental-pathology-mammary-tumors-in-feral-mice-lacking-mumtv-dna-pg-93

1985-02-journal-of-experimental-pathology-mammary-tumors-in-feral-mice-lacking-mumtv-dna-pg-94

NOTE : Gallo - 1998 Interview , mentioning Murray Gardner

https://faceofaids.ki.se/archive/1988-170

1988 (Dec 04) - Los Angeles Times : "High Hopes for Primate Research : Monkey Doctors on Front Line in War Against AIDS"

Including because Dr. Malone was being mentored by Murray Gardner of UC Davis.   ... Dr. Gardner was associated with Dr. Robert Gallo. 

Article located here : [Dr. Murray Briggs Gardner (born 1945)]

1989  (August) - Research in PNAS : "Cationic liposome-mediated RNA transfection"

(1989). "Cationic Liposome-mediated RNA Transfection". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 86 (16). 

PNAS August 1, 1989 86 (16) 6077-6081; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.86.16.6077  /  Source PDF : [HG00EW][GDrive

Authors :  R W Malone  /  Dr. Philip Louis Felgner (born 1950)   /  Dr. Inder Mohan Verma (born 1947)   /  

Abstract  :   "We have developed an efficient and reproducible method for RNA transfection, using a synthetic cationic lipid, N-[1-(2,3-dioleyloxy)propyl]-N,N,N-trimethylammonium chloride (DOTMA), incorporated into a liposome (lipofectin). Transfection of 10 ng to 5 micrograms of Photinus pyralis luciferase mRNA synthesized in vitro into NIH 3T3 mouse cells yields a linear response of luciferase activity. The procedure can be used to efficiently transfect RNA into human, rat, mouse, Xenopus, and Drosophila cells. Using the RNA/lipofectin transfection procedure, we have analyzed the role of capping and beta-globin 5' and 3' untranslated sequences on the translation efficiency of luciferase RNA synthesized in vitro. Following transfection of NIH 3T3 cells, capped mRNAs with beta-globin untranslated sequences produced at least 1000-fold more luciferase protein than mRNAs lacking these elements."  [  ...  ]

The wide variety of methods to introduce genetic material into cells includes relatively simple manipulations like mixing high molecular weight DNA with calcium phosphate, DEAEdextran, polylysine, or polyornithine. Other methods involve electroporation, protoplast fusion, liposomes, reconstituted viral envelopes, viral vectors, or microinjection. In nearly all cases DNA has been introduced into cells because of its inherent stability and eventual integration in the host genome. By comparison, progress in introducing RNA molecules into cells has been very slow and restricted to a few cases (1-4). Inability to obtain sufficient amounts of intact RNA and its rapid degradation have been a major hindrance in the past. The limitation of obtaining sufficient quantities of RNA can now be alleviated by synthesizing large amounts of RNA in vitro, using bacteriophage RNA polymerases (5).

Since we were interested in studying the cis- and transacting factors influencing both the translational efficiency and the stability of eukaryotic mRNAs, we undertook the development of a reliable method to efficiently introduce RNAs into cells. We report the use of RNA transfection mediated by lipofectin (a liposome containing a cationic lipid) for efficient and reproducible RNA introduction and expression in tissue culture cells. The RNA/lipofectin complex can be used to introduce RNA into a wide variety of cells, including fibroblasts, hematopoietic cell lines, F9 teratocarcinoma cells, JEG choriocarcinoma cells, PC12 pheochromocytoma cells, amphibian cells, insect cells, and a variety of cells grown in suspension.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Tissue Culture and Plasmids. All the cell lines used were obtained from the American Type Culture Collection and grown in either Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium (DMEM) + 10% fetal calf serum or RPMI 1640 medium + 10%o fetal calf serum. Drosophila KC cells were obtained from Michael McKeown (Salk Institute) and maintained in D22 medium (Whittaker M. A. Bioproducts).

Cloning procedures were carried out essentially as described (6). T7 RNA polymerase transcription templates, as well as various mRNAs produced from them, are outlined in

Fig. 1. Xenopus laevis f3-globin sequences were derived from the plasmid pSP64 T (7), with the 5' f-globin sequences obtained as the HindIII/Bgl II fragment and the 3' /3-globin sequences released as the Bgl II/EcoRI fragment. These 3' sequences include a terminal polynucleotide tract of A23C30. The Photinus pyralis luciferase sequences were obtained as the HindIII/BamHI fragment ofpJD206 (8), and they include 22 bases of luciferase cDNA sequence preceding the open reading frame, as well as 45 bases of cDNA sequence downstream of the termination codon, but they are devoid of the luciferase polyadenylylation signal. The 30-nucleotide poly(A) tail of the plasmid Luc An was obtained from pSP64 An. All transcripts were generated from the T7 RNA polymerase promoter (9).

RNA Synthesis and Purification. The capped RNAs were transcribed from a linearized plasmid DNA in a reaction mixture containing 40 mM Tris HCl at pH 8.0, 8 mM MgCl2, 5 mM dithiothreitol, 4 mM spermidine, 1 mM ATP, 1 mM UTP, 1 mM CTP, 0.5 mM GTP, 0.5 mM m7G(5')ppp(5')G (New England Biolabs), T7 RNA polymerase (New England Biolabs) at 4000 units/ml, RNasin (Pharmacia) at 2000 units/ ml, and linearized DNA template at 0.5 mg/ml for 60 min at 370C. Transcription reaction mixtures were treated with RQ1 DNase (2 units/,ug of template; Pharmacia) for 15 min at 370C, and, after extraction with phenol/chloroform, the samples were precipitated with ethanol/NaOAc. Uncapped RNAs were prepared in a similar fashion, except that m7G(5')ppp(5')G was omitted and the GTP concentration was raised to 1 mM. Radioactive RNA was prepared without capping as described above by adding 4 ,uCi (1 Ci = 37 GBq) of [32P]UTP per ag of template DNA. All RNA species used for the data presented herein were prepared in bulk, using reactions yielding 0.1-1 mg of purified RNA.  [...]

1990 (March) - Science Magazine : "Direct gene transfer into mouse muscle in vivo"

1990 Mar 23;247(4949 Pt 1):1465-8. doi: 10.1126/science.1690918.  :   PDF Download :  [HP007R][GDrive]

Authors :

Abstract

"RNA and DNA expression vectors containing genes for chloramphenicol acetyltransferase, luciferase, and beta-galactosidase were separately injected into mouse skeletal muscle in vivo. Protein expression was readily detected in all cases, and no special delivery system was required for these effects. The extent of expression from both the RNA and DNA constructs was comparable to that obtained from fibroblasts transfected in vitro under optimal conditions. In situ cytochemical staining for beta-galactosidase activity was localized to muscle cells following injection of the beta-galactosidase DNA vector. After injection of the DNA luciferase expression vector, luciferase activity was present in the muscle for at least 2 months."

1989 - (Source - Twitter) ... Dr. Robert Malone working with Dr. Gary Rhodes (who was hired to replace Dr. Malone )  - Tweet Aug 13, 2021

@RWMaloneMD  :  "So, this mRNA vaccine proof of principle experiment is from one of the patent's - priority date 1989. I wrote the patent disclosures and drafts of patent. Gary Rhodes did a lot of the work - and I helped him with design (after I left Vical) - he was hired to replace me."

See : Dr. Gary Harvey Rhodes (born 1944) 

Source : [HT00CC][GDrive


1989 - (Source - Twitter) ... Dr. Robert Malone working with Dr. Gary Rhodes (who was hired to replace Dr. Malone )  - Tweet June 15, 2021

"University of California, Davis photo from my gene therapy and vaccine laboratory group circa mid-1990s at the Department of Pathology in the School of Medicine. From left to right are Dr. Jay Hecker, myself, and Dr. Gary Rhodes. "    

See : Dr. Gary Harvey Rhodes (born 1944)

1989 (March) - Initial US Patent application (Accepted in 1996) .. "INDUCTION OF A PROTECTIVE IMMUNE RESPONSE IN A MAMMAL BY INJECTING A DNA SEQUENCE "

Inventors: [Dr. Philip Louis Felgner (born 1950)], Rancho Santa Fe, Calif.; [Dr. Jon Asher Wolff (born 1956)], Madison, Wis.; [Dr. Gary Harvey Rhodes (born 1944)], Leucadia, Calif.; Robert W. Malone, Chicago, Ill., [Dr. Dennis A. Carson (born 1936)], Del Mar, Calif. 73) Assignees: [Vical Incorporated], San Diego, Calif.; Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, Dane, Wis. 

Patent Number: 5,589,466 45) Date of Patent: Dec. 31, 1996   /   PDF Source : [HG00F1][GDrive]  

1989 (March 21) US Patent Serial no 326305  -->   1990 (Jan 19)  US Patent Serial no 467881   -->   1990 (March 21) US Patent 496991  -->  1993 (Jan 25)  

1990 (March 23) - Los Angeles Times : "Biotech Firm Takes the Simple Route to Gene Therapy Success"

Full newspaper page : [HN01WM][GDrive]  /   Text form [HN01WX][GDrive]  /  Mentioned : Dr. Philip Louis Felgner (born 1950)  /  Dr. Jon Asher Wolff (born 1956)   /  Dr. Robert Wallace Malone (born 1959)   /    Vical Incorporated   /   

Also mentioned  :  Dr. Dennis A. Carson (born 1936)   /  Dr. Karl Yoder Hostetler (born 1939)   /  Dr. Douglas Daniel Richman (born 1943)   

The experiment was so elementary, and the results so surprising, that researchers working with San Diego’s Vical Inc. couldn’t really believe what they were seeing. It all seemed too simple.

They had been injecting submicroscopic fatty globules containing DNA or RNA into mice to see what would happen. The idea was that the fat globules, called liposomes, would be taken up by cells. The cells would use the genetic material inside to make proteins they couldn’t otherwise make.

The researchers found moderate success with that, but the rigors of science demanded that the experiment have a “control” portion--injecting the raw DNA or RNA into the mice to show that the liposomes themselves were making it possible for the new genes to be incorporated into the cell’s processes.

It turned out the cells like the raw material even better and began making the new proteins for as long as six months.

“This was a big surprise, and that’s really what you’re looking for in this area,” said [Dr. Philip Louis Felgner (born 1950)], director of product development at Vical. Felgner worked on the experiment with [Dr. Jon Asher Wolff (born 1956)] and others at the University of Wisconsin at Madison.

Researchers spent several months longer trying to find flaws in their methods or their conclusions. The literature of science is littered with examples of experimental results that deserved the label of too good to be true, explained [Dr. Karl Yoder Hostetler (born 1939)], vice president for research and development at Vical.

“We didn’t want any fiascoes,” he said.

Vical hopes that the results of this checking and double-checking, reported in today’s issue of the journal Science, will convert the company from a bare-bones start-up to a major player in the ranks of San Diego’s biotechnology community.

The company, which was founded in 1987, hopes to find financing to more than double its scientific staff of 22 as a result of the study. It is talking with several large drug companies to see if any would like to buy into the follow-up studies on the new gene transfer method, said Vical President Wick Goodspeed.

Some familiar names in San Diego science and business have played a role in Vical. Among them:

[Dr. Karl Yoder Hostetler (born 1939)], who is on leave from his longtime post as professor of medicine in residence at UC San Diego. His specialties include investigating ways to use lipid chemistry to improve the effectiveness of drugs.

[Dr. Douglas Daniel Richman (born 1943)], a founder and scientific adviser to the firm. Richman is a professor in residence of medicine and pathology at UCSD, specializing in virology and clinical trials of AIDS treatments.

[Dr. Dennis A. Carson (born 1936) ], also a scientific adviser to the firm. Carson recently resigned as head of the division of clinical immunology at Scripps Clinic to become head of UCSD’s new institute for research on aging.

Timothy Wollaeger, chairman of the board. Wollaeger formerly was senior vice president in charge of finance and administration for Hybritech Inc., the monoclonal antibody firm whose success was capped in 1986 with its $485-million acquisition by Eli Lilly & Co.

Howard E. (Ted) Greene, a director of Vical. He formerly was chief executive officer for Hybritech. Greene and Wollaeger were the driving forces behind Biovest Partners, a venture capital firm that financed several San Diego biotech firms.

W. Larry Respess, a Vical director. A leader in biotech patent law, he formerly was general counsel of Gen-Probe and Hybritech.

Until now, the best combination of science and business for Vical has been the multi-year research contract it received last summer from Burroughs Wellcome Co. to develop new forms of AZT for AIDS therapy. The study is investigating the idea that encasing AZT in fat globules would make it more powerful within the body.

The gene-insertion technique reported in Science this week is being suggested as a way to cause the body to generate proteins that would block persistent viral infections, ranging from AIDS to herpes. It also is seen as having potential use as a way to trigger cells to immunize the body against diseases, researchers say.

Vical is calling the new method “gene therapeutics,” to distinguish it from the traditional goal of gene therapy, which uses viruses to insert missing genes into the genetic codes of people with genetic diseases.

The so-called retroviral method has proved difficult and slow, despite several years of intense effort by research groups around the country, including a group led by Dr. Theodore Friedmann at UCSD.

Because retroviruses insert their own genetic code into the cells of their host, the method is also expected to be problematic as a gene therapy technique--since some scientists worry that this could harm the patient irreversibly in some unforeseen way.

Inserting the genes themselves into muscle cells--without any retroviral carrier--avoids this stumbling block entirely, [Dr. Philip Louis Felgner (born 1950)] said. The genes do their work of producing proteins, called expression, but they don’t seem to affect the cell’s own genetic structure, he said.

“People have worked in the gene therapy area for years assuming that a rather complex viral delivery system would be required in order to get expression. And we have found that you can do it very simply,” Felgner said.

It was the slowness of the gene therapy field that led Felgner’s collaborator,  of the University of Wisconsin, to decide less than two years ago to get out of it altogether, Wolff said in a telephone interview.

Wolff was an assistant professor and a researcher in Friedmann’s UCSD lab before going to Wisconsin as an assistant professor of pediatrics and medical genetics in 1988.

“I had pretty much planned to get out of the gene therapy field because I got discouraged with the retroviral approach. Scientifically, it wasn’t very challenging,” he said. “Everybody was doing the same thing, and nothing was working that well.”

The results of the research contract with Vical, begun in January, 1989, have rekindled his enthusiasm, [Dr. Jon Asher Wolff (born 1956)] said.

He believes that, in the end, genetic therapies will involve a variety of techniques, not just the Vical method. But he and [Dr. Philip Louis Felgner (born 1950)] acknowledge that they expect some resistance to their ideas from the traditional gene therapy community.

“You’re talking about somebody who has spent his life in this field, and who would like to make the real breakthroughs that are going to allow it to be used in patients with diseases,” Felgner said. “There’s quite a bit at stake.”

Other collaborators with Wolff and Felgner on the research were [Dr. Robert Wallace Malone (born 1959)] of Vical and Phillip Williams, Wang Chong, Gyula Acsadi and Agnes Jani in Wisconsin.

Vical is planning to try to patent the technique, even though it involves no novel or complex steps unfamiliar to molecular biologists. In essence, it involves preparing DNA or RNA with standard techniques and then injecting it in the conventional way into muscle.

“The reason why we have patent position is that it was such a total surprise. Some of those things are the best patents you can get,” Felgner said. “Nobody who was ‘skilled in the art’ would have ever thought that what we have accomplished here was even possible. Nobody would have even thought to do the experiment.”

1991 (June) - Receiving Medical Degree from Northwestern

https://ia802205.us.archive.org/3/items/annualcommenceme1991nort/annualcommenceme1991nort.pdf

annualcommenceme1991nort-malone-hl.jpg

1993 - Methods in Enzymology : "Cationic liposome-mediated RNA transfection" 

V J Dwarki 1,   R W Malone,   [Dr. Inder Mohan Verma (born 1947)]

1994 (Nov)

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7961986/

J Biol Chem

. 1994 Nov 25;269(47):29903-7.

Dexamethasone enhancement of gene expression after direct hepatic DNA injection

R W Malone 1, M A Hickman, K Lehmann-Bruinsma, T R Sih, R Walzem, D M Carlson, J S Powell

Affiliations expand

Abstract

The critical physiological functions of the liver make hepatocytes important targets for therapeutic gene delivery. This study reports significant gene expression following direct injection of plasmid DNA into the livers of rats and cats. Transfection was characterized using luciferase and Lac Z expression from plasmids with the cytomegalovirus immediate early promoter/enhancer (CMV IE) or the Rous sarcoma virus long terminal repeat (RSV LTR). Dexamethasone treatment enhanced and prolonged transfected gene expression, possibly by activating gene expression. Southern analysis of total DNA extracted from liver at various times following injection detected persistent unintegrated plasmid DNA which maintained a prokaryotic methylation pattern. This study demonstrates the feasibility of direct DNA injection in the experimental analysis of hepatic gene expression in vivo.

1994 (Dec) - Human Gene Therapy : "Gene expression following direct injection of DNA into liver"

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7711140/

Hum Gene Ther

. 1994 Dec;5(12):1477-83. doi: 10.1089/hum.1994.5.12-1477.

M A Hickman 1, R W Malone, K Lehmann-Bruinsma, T R Sih, D Knoell, F C Szoka, R Walzem, D M Carlson, J S Powell

Affiliations expand

Abstract

The liver is an attractive target tissue for gene therapy. Current approaches for hepatic gene delivery include retroviral and adenoviral vectors, liposome/DNA, and peptide/DNA complexes. This study describes a technique for direct injection of DNA into liver that led to significant gene expression. Gene expression was characterized in both rats and cats following injection of plasmid DNA encoding several different proteins. Luciferase activity was measured after injection of plasmid DNA encoding the luciferase gene (pCMVL), beta-galactosidase (beta-Gal) activity was evaluated in situ using plasmid DNA encoding Lac Z (pCMV beta), and serum concentration of secreted human alpha-1-antitrypsin was measured following injection of plasmid DNA encoding this protein (pRC/CMV-sHAT). Several variables, including injection technique, DNA dose, and DNA diluent, were investigated. Direct injection of pCMVL resulted in maximal luciferase expression at 24-48 hr. beta-Gal staining demonstrated that the majority of transfected hepatocytes were located near the injection site. Significant concentrations of human alpha-1-antitrypsin were detected in the serum of animals injected with pRC/CMV-sHAT. These findings demonstrate the general principle that direct injection of plasmid DNA into liver can lead to significant gene expression.

1995 (Feb) - "Cholesterol enhances cationic liposome-mediated DNA transfection of human respiratory epithelial cells"

\https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7647291/

. 1995 Feb;15(1):47-53. doi: 10.1007/BF01200214.

M J Bennett 1, M H Nantz, R P Balasubramaniam, D C Gruenert, R W Malone

PMID: 7647291

 DOI: 10.1007/BF01200214

Abstract

Cationic liposome transfection reagents are useful for transferring polynucleotides into cells, and have been proposed for human pulmonary gene therapy. The effect of adding cholesterol to cationic lipid preparations has been tested by first formulating the cationic lipid N-[1-(2,3-dioleoyloxy)propyl-N-[1-(2-hydroxy)ethyl]-N,N-dimethyl ammonium iodide (DORI) with varying amounts of dioleoylphosphatidylethanolamine (DOPE) and cholesterol. Cholesterol was found to enhance lipid-mediated transfection in both the respiratory epithelial cells and mouse fibroblasts. These findings will facilitate nucleic acid transfection of many cell types including differentiated epithelial cell monolayers, and therefore may be useful for examining gene regulation in various cell types and for developing pulmonary gene therapy.

1996 (Jan) - Journal of Biotechnology : "Improved method for the removal of endotoxin from DNA"

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8717385/

. 1996 Jan 26;44(1-3):43-6. doi: 10.1016/0168-1656(95)00091-7.

P M Montbriand 1, R W Malone

Abstract

Contaminating endotoxin in solutions used in gene therapy and genetic immunization can result in various deleterious effects both in vitro and in vivo. In order to avoid such complications, attempts were made to characterize the extent of the problem of endotoxin contamination and develop a solution to this problem. After screening for endotoxin in plasmid DNA preparations using the Limulus Amoebocyte Lysate (LAL) assay, nearly half of all samples displayed high endotoxin levels. Therefore, a simple one-step procedure was developed for the removal of endotoxin using a polymyxin B resin.

1996 (Feb)

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8597581/

Biochim Biophys Acta


. 1996 Feb 16;1299(3):281-3. doi: 10.1016/0005-2760(95)00230-8.

The counterion influence on cationic lipid-mediated transfection of plasmid DNA

A M Aberle 1, M J Bennett, R W Malone, M H Nantz

Affiliations expand

Abstract

A panel of DOTAP analogs was prepared by altering the anionic counterion that accompanies the trimethylammonium polar domain. The transfection of plasmid DNA into NIH3T3 cells and mouse lung was examined using the counterion analogs. The in vitro transfection activity decreased as follows: DOTAP.bisulfate > trifluoromethanesulfonate approximately equal to iodide approximately equal to bromide > dihydrogenphosphate approximately equal to chloride approximately equal to acetate > sulfate. A similar activity trend was observed in vivo.

1996 (Feb) - Gene Ther : "Structural and functional analysis of cationic transfection lipids: the hydrophobic domain"

. 1996 Feb;3(2):163-72.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8867864/ 

R P Balasubramaniam 1, M J Bennett, A M Aberle, J G Malone, M H Nantz, R W Malone

Abstract

Cationic lipids (cytofectins) have gained widespread acceptance as pharmaceutical polynucleotide delivery agents for both cultured cell and in vivo transfection, and the cytofectins DOTAP and DC-Cholesterol are being tested in clinical human gene therapy trials. This study reports the effects of modifications in the hydrophobic domain of a prototypic cytofectin (DORI), including modifications in lipid side-chain length, saturation, and symmetry. A panel of related compounds was prepared and analyzed using DNA transfection, electron microscopy, and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). Lipid formulations were prepared with dioleoylphosphatidylethanolamine (DOPE) as unsonicated preparations and sonicated preparations. Transfection analyses were performed using cultured fibroblasts, human bronchial epithelial, and Chinese hamster ovarian cells as well as a mouse model for pulmonary gene delivery. In general, cytofectins containing dissymmetric hydrophobic domains were found to work as well or better than the best symmetric analogs. Optimal side-chain length and symmetry varied with cell type. Compounds with phase transitions (Tc) above and below physiological temperature (37 degrees C) were tested for DNA transfection activity. In contrast to previous reports, cytofectin Tc was not found to be predictive of transfection efficacy. Pulmonary treatment with free DNA was found to be at least as effective as treatment with commonly used cytofectin:DNA complexes. However, cytofectins that incorporate a hydroxyethylammonium moiety in the polar domain were found to enhance in vivo gene delivery relative to free DNA.

1996 (September) - Annual Virology Conference, Baltimore USA - With Redfield and Birx

in same group with -  Dr. Robert Ray Redfield Jr. (born 1951)  / Dr. Deborah Birx   /  Dr. Flossie Wong-Staal (born 1946)    /  

Source (text only) : [HI0046][GDrive]   

[HI0046][GDrive]Page 28 - Text : " GENE THERAPY AND IMMUNE THERAPY Chairpersons: Daniel Zagury, Robert Redfield Speakers: 12:10 p.m. Clinical Use of Genetic Immunizations for HIV Therapy 218 Douglas Jolly-Viagene, Inc., San Diego, California 12:25 p.m. Hematopoietic Stem Cell Based Gene Therapy for AIDS 219 Uwe Junker-Systemix, Palo Alto, California 12:40 p.m. Sustained Mutilineage Engraftment of Highly Purified Human Marrow 220 Stem Cells In Vivo Curt Civin-Johns Hopkins University, School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland 12:55 p.m. Preclinical and Clinical Studies of Gene Transfer into Murine, Primate 221 and Human PB and BM Long Term Repopulating Cells Cindy Dunbar-NHLBI/NIH, Bethesda, Maryland 1:10 p.m. An AIDS Gene Therapy Trial in HIV-1 Discordant Identical Twins 222 Richard Morgan-National Center for Human Genome Research/NIH, Bethesda, Maryland 1:20 p.m. Alternative Systems for In Vivo Gene Delivery and Genetic 223 Immunization Robert Malone-University of California, Department of Chemistry, Davis, California 1:40 p.m. Hematopoietic Progenitors Derived from Human Fetal Liver, Cord 224 Blood and Adult Bone Marrow Have Intrinsically Different Growth Properties Zwi Berneman-University of Antwerp, Division of Hematology, Edegem, Belgium 1:55 p.m. In Vivo Gene Transfer in Hematopoietic Cells Using a Non-Viral 225 Delivery System Alain Thierry-NCI/NIH, Laboratory of Tumor Cell Biology, Bethesda, Maryland 2:10 p.m. Results of a Phase II Double-Blinded, Multi-Center, Placebo Controlled 226 HIV Therapeutic Vaccine Trial Deborah Birx-Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, Maryland 2:25 p.m. Interacting Tat and INFa: Key Molecules in the Control of HIV-1 227 Induced Immune Suppression and Anti-HIV-1 Chemokine Secretion Daniel Zagury-Universite Pierre et Marie Curie, Laboratoire de Physiologie Cellulaire, Paris, France "

1997 (Feb) - Behring Inst Mitt : "Mucosal immune responses associated with polynucleotide vaccination"

Source : [HI0048][GDrive

Authors : [Dr. Jill Glasspool-Malone (born 1960)]1, Bergland PJ, Liljestrom P, [Dr. Gary Harvey Rhodes (born 1944)], [Dr. Robert Wallace Malone (born 1959)]

Affiliations : "Gene Therapy Program, Medical Pathology, University of California, Davis 95616, USA. "

Behring Institute Mitteilungen, 01 Feb 1997, (98):63-72  /  PMID: 9382771 

NOTE : We cannot find a copy of this paper, either free or for purchase, available on the internet as of Jan 3 2022. 

Abstract : A variety of gene delivery technologies can be used to express antigens within somatic tissues, resulting in systemic humoral and cellular immune responses. This observation has led to the development of polynucleotide vaccine preparations for stimulation of systemic immunity. Mucosal immune responses are functionally distinct from systemic immune responses, and are stimulated by antigen presentation within specialised mucosal-associated inductor tissues. We hypothesize that mucosal genetic vaccine will require gene transfer methods which target mucosal-associated inductor tissues such as the oropharyngeal Waldeyer's ring or intestinal Peyer's patches. We have tested this hypothesis by expressing a test antigen using a replication-defective recombinant Semliki Forest Virus (SFV) preparation. Mice treated with recombinant SFV via an intravascular or intratracheal route generated systemic immune responses against the test antigen. In contrast, intranasal inoculation resulted in the production of IgA within pulmonary fluids, one hallmark of a mucosal immune response. These results indicate that transfection of mucosal effector tissues may not be sufficient for the generation of a universal mucosal immune response. Furthermore, the results predict that techniques which target transfection or transduction to mucosal inductor tissues will enable the development of a new class of polynucleotide vaccines which exploit current concepts in mucosal immunology.

1997 (Feb) - J Med Chem : "Cationic lipid-mediated gene delivery to murine lung: correlation of lipid hydration with in vivo transfection activity"

. 1997 Dec 5;40(25):4069-78. doi: 10.1021/jm970155q.

M J Bennett 1, A M Aberle, R P Balasubramaniam, J G Malone, R W Malone, M H Nantz

Affiliations expand

Abstract

A panel of lipidic tetraalkylammonium chlorides has been prepared and screened in studies of both lipid hydration and in vivo mouse transfection. The effect of cationic lipid structure on liposome surface hydration was determined using differential scanning calorimetry. Increases in headgroup steric bulk and the inclusion of cis-unsaturation in the hydrophobic domain led to greater lipid hydration, indicative of a decrease in lipid polar domain associations. Cationic lipids containing hydrogen-bonding functionality in the polar domain exhibited a corresponding decrease in observed lipid hydration, indicative of an increase in lipid polar domain associations. To explore a potential correlation of the hydration data with transfection activity, we examined the in vivo transfection activity of the lipid panel by direct intratracheal instillation of cationic liposome-DNA complexes into BALB/c mice. The more active transfection agents were the lipids that featured headgroup structures promoting close polar domain association in combination with fatty acyl cis-unsaturation. The hydration data suggest that the more effective transfection lipids for mouse lung delivery are those possessing the greatest imbalance between the cross-sectional areas occupied by the polar and hydrophobic domains.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9406597/

1999 (July) - Human Gene Therapy Journal : "Marked enhancement of direct respiratory tissue transfection by aurintricarboxylic acid"

1999 Jul 1;10(10):1703-13. doi: 10.1089/10430349950017707.

1999-07-human-gene-therapy-enhancement-direct-respiratory-tissue-transfection-ac.pdf

1999-07-human-gene-therapy-enhancement-direct-respiratory-tissue-transfection-ac-og-01.jpg

J Glasspool-Malone 1, R W Malone  

Abstract

Simple, nontoxic, and pharmaceutically defined methods for genetic modification of respiratory tissues may enable development of a variety of molecular medicines. Clinical applications for such medicines include treatment of inborn errors of metabolism, interventions for asthma and iatrogenic pulmonary fibrosis, and disease prophylaxis via mucosal polynucleotide vaccination. "Free," "direct," or "naked" plasmid administration is a simple, apparently safe, and pharmaceutically defined gene delivery method. Murine, macaque, and clinical human studies have demonstrated transfection of respiratory tissues after direct application of free plasmid. The aim of this study was to develop a simple and safe alternative to respiratory tissue transduction, and specifically to provide a theoretical framework for developing a category of adjuvants, nuclease inhibitors, that augment the transfection activity of free plasmid. Plasmid employing the human CMV IE promoter/enhancer to drive expression of the Photinus pyralis luciferase reporter protein was administered intratracheally into mouse lung with or without the nuclease inhibitor aurintricarboxylic acid (ATA). Lavage samples and tissue extracts were used to demonstrate inhibition of lung nuclease activity. ATA dose escalation studies were performed using lung homogenate assays to characterize transfection. Potential toxicity was assessed histologically. The data indicate that nucleases present in respiratory fluids accelerate clearance of biologically active plasmid from lung, that intratracheal coadministration of ATA together with plasmid reduces extracellular DNA clearance, and that this treatment results in marked enhancement of reporter protein expression. The effective dose for ATA enhancement of direct lung transfection was 0.5 microg/g mouse weight, and the LD50 was approximately 6 microg/g. These findings provide a theoretical and practical foundation for further development of an alternative gene delivery system: free plasmid-based respiratory transfection technology.

1999 (Aug) - Journal of Biotechnology : "Developing dendritic cell polynucleotide vaccination for prostate cancer immunotherapy"

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10486925/ 

. 1999 Aug 20;73(2-3):155-79. doi: 10.1016/s0168-1656(99)00118-2.

K A Berlyn 1, S Ponniah, S A Stass, J G Malone, G Hamlin-Green, J K Lim, M Cottler-Fox, G Tricot, R B Alexander, D L Mann, R W Malone

Affiliations expand

Abstract

Immunotherapy has been successfully used to treat some human malignancies, principally melanoma and renal cell carcinoma. Genetic-based cancer immunotherapies were proposed which prime T lymphocyte recognition of unique neo-antigens arising from specific mutations. Genetic immunization (polynucleotide vaccination, DNA vaccines) is a process whereby gene therapy methods are used to create vaccines and immunotherapies. Recent findings indicate that genetic immunization works indirectly via a bone marrow derived cell, probably a type of dendritic antigen presenting cell (APC). Direct targeting of genetic vaccines to these cells may provide an efficient method for stimulating cellular and humoral immune responses to infectious agents and tumor antigens. Initial studies have provided monocytic-derived dendritic cell (DC) isolation and culture techniques, simple methods for delivering genes into these cells, and have also uncovered potential obstacles to effective cancer immunotherapy which may restrict the utility of this paradigm to a subset of patients.

1999 (Nov) - Maryland issues medical license to Bob Malone

Saved as PDF : [HG00H6][GDrive

Image of saved query : [HG00H7][GDrive

2000 (Feb 07) - The Philadelphia Inquirer : "Gene therapy's dubious ally"

Full newspaper page : [HN01P3][GDrive]  /  Clip : [HN01P4][GDrive]
Full newspaper page : [HN01P5][GDrive]  /  Clip : [HN01P6][GDrive]

2000 (June 06) - NYTimes : "Despite Ferment, Gene Therapy Progresses"

By Sheryl Gay Stolberg   /   Source : [HN01WS][GDrive]  

Mentioned:  Dr. Harold Eliot Varmus (born 1939)  /   Dr. Robert Wallace Malone (born 1959)   /   Dr. Robert Michael Blaese (born 1939)  /   Dr. William French Anderson (born 1936)  /   Jesse Gelsinger (born 1981)  /     Vical Incorporated   /   

Gene therapy burst into the news last fall, when a teenager from Tucson died in an experiment at the University of Pennsylvania. But while politicians and the press have spent the year focusing on accusations of lax government oversight and shoddily run clinical trials, the science of gene therapy has been making quiet, steady progress.

Little by little, researchers say, they are finding new and better ways to deliver genes to their target cells. Clinical trials of gene-based treatments for hemophilia are showing promise, and certain cancer patients appear to respond to gene therapy. And the field got a big ego boost this spring when French scientists reported they had used gene therapy successfully to treat babies born with defective immune systems.

And so it was with mixed emotions -- worry and regret, enthusiasm and a little bit of defiance -- that 2,500 gene therapy scientists from around the nation, and the world, gathered here this week for the third annual conference of the American Society of Gene Therapy. It has been, they agreed, a roller coaster of a year.

''It's finally coming together,'' said Dr. Savio L. C. Woo, a soft-spoken molecular biologist who, as the society's president, found himself testifying in Congress on more than one occasion in the past several months. ''We are finally seeing this glimpse of hope that this new technology is going to bear fruit in the clinic. And yet we have had this serious setback.''

The setback, of course, was the death of 18-year-old [Jesse Gelsinger (born 1981)], who suffered from a metabolic disorder and had volunteered for an experiment to test gene therapy for babies with a fatal form of the disease. His presence was acutely felt at the conference. In his presidential address, Dr. Woo asked those attending to stand in a moment of silence for ''the young man who has given his life in pursuit of an ideal treatment'' and ''to assure him in spirit that the scientific community is galvanized to do our very best to help fulfill his dream one day.''

Mr. Gelsinger's death has had ripple effects throughout the field. It touched off a discussion of financial conflict of interest in gene therapy experiments, prompting the society to issue guidelines barring members from running clinical trials if they had a financial stake in the companies sponsoring their studies.

It has also caused a slowdown in human experiments; an official from the Food and Drug Administration, which recently issued more stringent regulations to govern the conduct of gene therapy clinical trials, said here that requests to test gene therapy in people had dropped off sharply in recent months.

''The field is in transition,'' said [Dr. Robert Wallace Malone (born 1959)], a researcher at the University of Maryland. ''I think it is transitioning to a more sober, realistic recognition of what is achievable. I believe there is a new humility in the field.''

Dr. Rajendra Kumar-Singh is typical. At 32, Dr. Kumar-Singh is an assistant professor of ophthalmology at the University of Utah and is just starting his career in gene therapy. He is studying treatments for retinitis pigmentosa, an inherited condition that causes blindness. By administering an infusion of gene-altered viruses to baby mice, he said, he has staved off blindness for 10 weeks in animals that would otherwise have lost their sight within 17 days of birth.

But Dr. Kumar-Singh said he would be cautious before testing the therapy in people. ''Perhaps we were moving too fast,'' he acknowledged, echoing the sentiments of some critics, including [Dr. Harold Eliot Varmus (born 1939)], the former director of the National Institutes of Health, who felt gene therapy researchers moved too quickly into clinical trials. Still, Dr. Kumar-Singh is optimistic about gene therapy's future. ''We are seeing a revolution in medicine right now,'' he said, ''and gene therapy is at the forefront of it.''

The idea behind gene therapy is disarmingly simple: to treat or cure disease by giving healthy genes to patients with defective ones. But in the 10 years since the first human experiment was conducted by researchers at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Md., the results have been largely disappointing.

One reason is that scientists have had trouble devising delivery vehicles, called vectors, that can direct genes into the proper cells and get them to function once they are there. Vectors are typically made by inserting genes into deactivated viruses that target certain cells, literally infecting them with healthy DNA.

Mr. Gelsinger's death, however, raised safety questions about one of the most commonly used viruses, adenovirus, which causes the common cold. In most patients, adenovirus produces mild, flulike symptoms. But in Mr. Gelsinger, it provoked a fatal immune response.

Even before Mr. Gelsinger's death, molecular biologists had been turning their attention to a different virus, the adeno-associated virus, or AAV, which is thought to be safer than adenovirus. Now, a team of researchers at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Stanford University and Avigen Inc., a biotech company, is reporting promising results in hemophilia patients who received a genetically engineered form of AAV that contains the gene for production of Factor IX, a protein that is needed to make blood clot.

The team, led by Dr. Katherine High of the Philadelphia children's hospital, began a small safety study after they found the treatment could essentially cure dogs of hemophilia. So far, six patients have been enrolled. The first three received the gene therapy at a dose so low it was not effective in the dogs. But to the scientists' surprise, the patients began expressing minute amounts of Factor IX -- enough that it improved their conditions and reduced their need for the standard hemophilia treatment, injections of Factor IX.

''We were delighted, but skeptical,'' said Dr. Catherine S. Manno, who is running the clinical trial. ''Only after repeated measurements over a period of months did we become convinced that these levels were real.''

Although the hemophilia experiments are still in their early stages, leaders in gene therapy say that, aside from the French work, Dr. High's research is the most exciting in the field. Dr. Donald B. Kohn, an immunologist at Children's Hospital of Los Angeles, said, ''Hemophilia may be within a shot of being cured by this approach.''

The word cure -- the ''C-word,'' as [Dr. Robert Michael Blaese (born 1939)], who performed the first human gene therapy experiment in 1990, calls it -- is one that gene therapy researchers have learned to use with caution.

''We will not talk about cure,'' said Dr. Alain Fischer of the Necker children's hospital in Paris. ''Cure means forever.'' Yet Dr. Fischer's work on babies with a form of severe combined immune deficiency, or SCID (pronounced like skid), is the closest thing gene therapy has seen to a cure. His study provided gene therapy advocates with what they have long lacked: proof, in principle, that the concept can work.

Dr. Fischer's findings, published in April in the journal Science, were a popular topic among the scientists in in Denver. ''The field is now an established principle in medicine,'' said Dr. Theodore Friedmann, a professor of pediatrics at the University of California at San Diego who said he had been pursuing gene therapy since 1968. ''That's the story -- a brand new concept in biomedicine, irretrievable, and it's beginning to work.''

In the Science article, Dr. Fischer recounted the successful treatment of two babies, both of whom had normal immune systems 10 months after receiving gene therapy. In Denver, he told reporters that he had since treated three more children. Of the five, four have had ''a complete or near complete recovery'' of their immune systems, he said. The outlook for the fifth, who had severe complications from infection at the time of treatment, is less certain.

Experts say one reason Dr. Fischer was successful where others had failed is that SCID is particularly suited for gene therapy. The first human gene therapy experiment, conducted by Dr. Blaese and [Dr. William French Anderson (born 1936)], was directed at curing adenosine deaminase, or ADA, deficiency, another form of SCID. But it has been difficult to gauge that study's outcome because a drug, PEG-ADA, is available to children with the disease, and scientists consider it unethical to withdraw the medicine.

In Denver, however, an Italian researcher, Dr. Claudio Bordignon, announced that he had solved that problem by being ''lucky to find a patient who was unlucky'' -- a child who does not respond well to PEG-ADA. The patient, now 5, was given her first infusion of corrective genes in 1996 and was slowly weaned from the drug. She has not taken PEG-ADA for one year now, and her immune system is functioning better now than before, Dr. Bordignon said.

He theorized that the drug might have somehow suppressed the effects of the gene therapy. ''After discontinuation of PEG-ADA,'' he said, ''all the genetically engineered cells have come out.''

Whether, or when, gene therapy will ever become a part of mainstream medicine remains a matter of debate. Most gene therapy experiments are still being conducted in animals, and those being tested in people are producing mixed results.

At the Denver conference, for instance, scientists from [Vical Incorporated], a San Diego company, reported preliminary results from 52 patients who have been enrolled in a 70-patient study of gene therapy for advanced skin cancer. In the study, a gene that alerts the immune system to recognize and kill foreign tissue is administered directly into the patients' tumors.

According to Dr. Deirdre Y. Gillespie, Vical's chief operating officer, 10 percent of patients responded extremely well to the therapy, with their tumors shrinking in size by 50 percent or more. In another 15 percent of patients, the therapy stopped the progression of disease, and the therapy reduced the size of tumors in some of those patients as well.

Those may not sound like spectacular results, but as Dr. Gillespie noted, there is currently no effective treatment for advanced skin cancer, and the patients in the study had failed all other therapies. In a sense then, the cancer study encapsulates the state of gene therapy as a whole.

Dr. Blaese put it this way: ''For the average person, the progress may look to be minor. But you need to put the developments of this field in context. We just started 10 years ago.''

2000 (August) - Journal : "Transfer and expression of foreign genes in mammalian cells"


. 2000 Aug;29(2):314-8, 320-2, 324 passim. doi: 10.2144/00292rv01.


A Colosimo 1, K K Goncz, A R Holmes, K Kunzelmann, G Novelli, R W Malone, M J Bennett, D C Gruenert

Affiliations collapse

Affiliation1

Abstract

The transfer of foreign genes into eukaryotic cells, in particular mammalian cells, has been essential to our understanding of the functional significance of genes and regulatory sequences as well as the development of gene therapy strategies. To this end, different mammalian expression vector systems have been designed. The choice of a particular expression system depends on the nature and purpose of the study and will involve selecting particular parameters of expression systems such as the type of promoter/enhancer sequences, the type of expression (transient versus stable) and the level of desired expression. In addition, the success of the study depends on efficient gene transfer. The purification of the expression vectors, as well as the transfer method, affects transfection efficiency. Numerous approaches have been developed to facilitate the transfer of genes into cells via physical, chemical or viral strategies. While these systems have all been effective in vitro they need to be optimized for individual cell types and, in particular, for in vivo transfection.

https://sci-hub.se/10.2144/00292rv01 

2000-08-biotechniques-transfer-and-expression-of-foreign-genes-iin-mammalian-cells.pdf

2000-08-biotechniques-transfer-and-expression-of-foreign-genes-iin-mammalian-cells-pg-01.jpg

Mol Ther

. 2000 Aug;2(2):140-6. doi: 10.1006/mthe.2000.0107.

Efficient nonviral cutaneous transfection

J Glasspool-Malone 1, S Somiari, J J Drabick, R W Malone

Affiliations expand

Abstract

Preclinical in vivo rodent, porcine, and primate experiments aimed at enhancing nonviral transgene delivery to skin have been performed. These investigations have identified a compound (aurintricarboxylic acid or ATA) that enhances transfection activity of "naked" plasmid and pulsed electrical fields (electroporation or EP) that synergistically boosts transgene expression to an average of 115-fold more than that observed with free DNA (P < 0.00009). When plasmid is intradermally injected with or without ATA, the transfected cells are typically restricted to the epidermis. However, when electroporation is added after the same injection, larger numbers of adipocytes and fibroblasts and numerous dendritic-like cells within the dermis and subdermal tissues are transfected. This advance creates new opportunities for cutaneous gene therapy and nucleic acid vaccine development.

Similar articles


https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10947941/

2000-08-molecular-therapy-vol-2-efficient0-vonviral-cutaneous-transfection.pdf

2000-08-molecular-therapy-vol-2-efficient0-vonviral-cutaneous-transfection-pg-01.jpg


2001 (Feb) - Mol Ther : "Cutaneous transfection and immune responses to intradermal nucleic acid vaccination are significantly enhanced by in vivo electropermeabilization"

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11237682/

. 2001 Feb;3(2):249-55. doi: 10.1006/mthe.2000.0257.

J J Drabick 1, J Glasspool-Malone, A King, R W Malone

Abstract

Naked DNA injection with electropermeabilization (EP) is a promising method for nucleic acid vaccination (NAV) and in vivo gene therapy. Skin is an ideal target for NAV due to ease of administration and the accessibility of large numbers of antigen-presenting cells within the tissue. This study demonstrates that in vivo skin EP may be used to increase transgene expression up to an average of 83-fold relative to naked DNA injection (50 microg DNA per dose, P < 0.005). Transfected cells were principally located in dermis and included adipocytes, fibroblasts, endothelial cells, and numerous mononuclear cells with dendritic processes in a porcine model. Transfected cells were also observed in lymph nodes draining electropermeabilized sites. A HBV sAg-coding plasmid was used to test skin EP-mediated NAV in a murine model. Analysis of humoral immune responses including immunoglobulin subclass profiles revealed strong enhancement of EP-mediated NAV relative to naked DNA injection, with a Th1-dominant, mixed-response pattern compared to immunization with HBV sAg protein that was exclusively Th2 (P = 0.02). Applications for these findings include NAV-based modulation of immune responses to pathogens, allergens, and tumor-associated antigens and the modification of tolerance. 

2001 or later (Date estimated ... ) - "Jill [Glasspool-Malone] actually did the incorporation for Inovio USA back in the day."

Source is a Tweet on 2021 (August 26)  - Originally at   https://twitter.com/rwmalonemd/status/1430929920121835527  , but deleted in late 2021.   Fortunately, last 3000 Robert Malone tweets are backed up here :   [HT00CH][GDrive]

"Another DNA vaccine candidate [referring to Inovio]. Jill actually did the incorporation for Inovio USA back in the day.  We were also very involved in discovery/development of this tech platform when were at UMaryland Baltimore. See   https://t.co/E09qszidjK"

Also suggested by Dr. Robert Wallace Malone (born 1959)'s June 2021 resume :  [HL0081][GDrive]   

"2001-2005 (operating as Gene Delivery Alliance).

  • Business and proposal development in the areas of Bioinformatics and Life Sciences (including telemedicine) and research at the University of Bern, Switzerland.
  • Consulting services for Molecular Histology, Inc. with the title of Medical Director.
  • Collaboration with [Inovio Pharmaceuticals, Incorporated], including incorporation of company in the USA.
  • Consulting services for MSD, Inc. for business/ technology development planning."

2001 (Sep 1) - Molecular Therapy : "Theory and in Vivo Application of Electroporative Gene Delivery"

 Source PDF : [HP009S][GDrive]

2002 (March 07/08) - Present at "RECOMBINANT DNA ADVISORY COMMITTEE"

RECOMBINANT DNA ADVISORY COMMITTEE Minutes of Meeting March 7-8, 2002  :  [HG00FW][GDrive

Note attendance ... 

.... "Management Systems Designers, Inc" appears to be a life sciences effort that was purchased by Lockheed iin 2006 ?  ( https://washingtontechnology.com/2006/12/lockheed-buys-management-systems-designers/353701/

"MSD brings Lockheed Martin capabilities to support life science, national security, and other civil agency missions. Capabilities include systems design, development, and integration; systems engineering; application support; professional services; management consulting; and health and bioinformatics services, Lockheed said. Customers of the 600-person, employee-owned company include the National Institutes of Health, Internal Revenue Service, Defense and Homeland Security departments, and intelligence agencies. The investment bank Stifel, Nicolaus & Co. was MSD's advisor in the deal. MSD will become part of Lockheed Martin's Integrated Systems and Solutions business.

"The proposed acquisition of MSD will strengthen our ongoing initiatives in the growing health care information market," said Bob Stevens, Lockheed Martin's chairman, president and CEO."

Note, today this maybe Leidos ... https://opencorporates.com/companies/us_va/02094381 ... "Leidos Management Systems Designers, Inc."

2002 - "Enhancing direct in vivo transfection with nuclease inhibitors and pulsed electrical fields"

2002-methods-in-enzymology-vol-346-enhancing-direct-in-vivo-transfection-w-nuclease-inhibitors-and-pulsed-electrical-fields.pdf

2002-methods-in-enzymology-vol-346-enhancing-direct-in-vivo-transfection-w-nuclease-inhibitors-and-pulsed-electrical-fields-pg-01.jpg

2002-methods-in-enzymology-vol-346-enhancing-direct-in-vivo-transfection-w-nuclease-inhibitors-and-pulsed-electrical-fields-pg-02

Methods Enzymol  2002

Jill Glasspool-Malone 1, Robert W Malone

2002 (May) - DNA transfection of macaque and murine respiratory tissue is greatly enhanced by use of a nuclease inhibitor

. May-Jun 2002;4(3):323-2. doi: 10.1002/jgm.259.

2002 (May) 

2002-05-the-journal-of-gene-medicine-dna-transfection-of-macaque-and-murine-respiratory-tissue.pdf

2002-05-the-journal-of-gene-medicine-dna-transfection-of-macaque-and-murine-respiratory-tissue-pg-01.jpg

Jill Glasspool-Malone 1, Peter R Steenland, Ruth J McDonald, Rigoberto A Sanchez, Tammara L Watts, Joseph Zabner, Robert W Malone 

Abstract

Background: Nuclease activity present within respiratory tissues contributes to the rapid clearance of injected DNA and therefore may reduce the transfection activity of directly injected transgenes. Most gene transfer technologies transduce or transfect murine tissues more efficiently than corresponding primate tissues. Therefore, it is prudent to assess the utility of novel gene transfer strategies in both rodent and primate models before proceeding with further development.

Methods: This study analyzed the effects of ATA (a nuclease inhibitor) on the direct transfection of macaque and murine lung tissue; compared the levels of DNase activity in murine, primate, and human lung fluids; and tested the inhibitory activity of ATA on the DNase activity present in these samples. Fluorescent microspheres were used to detect areas of transfection in lung.

Results: Intratracheal administration of a nuclease inhibitor (ATA) with naked DNA (0.5 microg ATA/g body weight) enhanced direct transfection efficacy in macaque lung by over 86-fold and by over 54-fold in mouse lung. Hematoxylin and eosin staining showed no apparent tissue toxicity. Moreover, macaque, human, and mouse lung fluids were found to possess similar levels of DNase activity and this activity was inhibited by similar concentrations of ATA. The authors also successfully pioneered the use of carboxylate-modified microsphere tracers to identify areas of transfection and/or treatment.

Conclusion: This work provides evidence that using direct nuclease inhibitors will enhance lung transfection and that nuclease activity is present in all lung fluids tested, which can be inhibited by the use of direct DNase inhibitors.

Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

2003 - 2005 : While at AERAS , Dr. Malone worked with Stefanie Hone (daughter of Dr. David Hone of DTRA)

Source ... RWMalone consulting firm website, testimonials page (captured 2021) : [HC005X][GDrive]   / See Dr. David Michael Hone (born 1960)   

2004 (April) - Smallpox testing in adults (DynPort), special credit given to RW Malone for helping review of "Urticaria, Exanthems, and Other Benign Dermatologic Reactions to Smallpox Vaccination in Adults"

PDF : [HP007W][GDrive]

Authors:

Richard N. Greenberg,1,2 Robert H. Schosser,1,2 Elizabeth A. Plummer,2 Sara E. Roberts,2 Malissia A. Caldwell,2 Dana L. Hargis,2 David W. Rudy,2 Martin E. Evans,1,2 and Robert J. Hopkins3 1 Department of Medicine, Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, and 2 University of Kentucky Medical School, Lexington, Kentucky; and 2 DynPort Vaccine Company, Frederick, Maryland

"A phase 1 smallpox vaccine trial involving 350 adult volunteers was conducted. Of these subjects, 250 were naive to vaccinia virus vaccine (i.e., “vaccinia naive”). Volunteers received a new cell-cultured smallpox vaccine or a live vaccinia virus vaccine. Nine self-limiting rashes (3.6%) were observed in the vaccinia-naive group. None of the vaccinia-experienced patients had a rash. Rashes appeared 6–19 days after vaccination and had 5 different clinical presentations. Five volunteers had urticarial rashes that resolved within 4–15 days, 1 had an exanthem that lasted 20 days, and 1 each presented with folliculitis, contact dermatitis, and erythematous papules found only on the hands and fingers. Volunteers reported pruritus, tingling, and occasional headaches. Relief was obtained with antihistamine and acetaminophen therapy. No volunteer experienced fever or significant discomfort."

Note Acknowledgments :

"We thank Dr. Sandy Geile and Dr. Lloyd Mayer (University of Kentucky Medical School, Lexington), and the University of Kentucky Clinical Research Office, for their assistance with the patients, and Dr. Robert Malone, for reviewing the article in manuscript."

[HP007X][GDrive]
[HP007Y][GDrive]

Because there is a risk that the smallpox virus will be used as a bioterrorism weapon, new cell-cultured smallpox vaccines (CCSVs) are being developed. Live vaccinia virus vaccines have been used in the past, including Dryvax (Wyeth Laboratories). Dryvax production and distribution to civilians ceased in 1983 because of lack of need.  Because it was prepared from calf lymph, Dryvax can no longer be manufactured without extensive safety testing of livestock and US Food and Drug Administration approval, and only old stocks remain.

Studies are being planned or are underway that involve the use of new CCSVs in both children and adults. These studies have raised questions about the safety and adverse-event profile of the vaccine for individuals naive to vaccinia virus vaccine (hereafter, “vaccinianaive”). Until 1971, when the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommendation for vaccination ended, most American infants were routinely vaccinated. Since then, millions of Americans have never been vaccinated. Furthermore, there is a paucity of literature describing vaccinia virus vaccine–related reactions in adults who are vaccinia naive, and descriptions of adverse events are mostly limited to young children and infants.

We recently completed a phase 1 trial involving a new CCSV (DynPort Vaccine Company). One of the more impressive but non–life-threatening side effects observed in this trial was the development of benign, self-limiting rashes. The frequent occurrence of vaccinia-associated rashes has been described in the literature, but color images and descriptions of the varied range of clinical presentations in adults are limited.We describe 9 adults with benign rashes associated with live vaccinia virus vaccination (either Dryvax or a new CCSV). Our volunteers were otherwise asymptomatic, except for itching, tingling sensations, and occasional headaches. No rash was thought to be due to progressive vaccinia, eczema vaccinatum, or generalized vaccinia. These serious reactions are rare but occur at a rate of 3–5 events per 1 million primary vaccinations [1]. The purpose of this article is to alert the general practitioner to these benign rashes, which require no more than symptomatic treatment with antihistamines.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From July 2002 through February 2003, 350 adults (18 years of age) were vaccinated in a phase 1 study of a new CCSV and Dryvax. The phase 1 study was planned primarily to compare the pock take rate and adverse events of this new CCSV with that of Dryvax. A total of 250 volunteers were vaccinia naive and !31 years old, and 100 were vaccinia experienced and 32– 65 years old. One hundred volunteers received Dryvax (2.5105 plaque-forming units administered via 15 percutaneous punctures with a bifurcated needle), and 250 volunteers received the new CCSV (2.5105 plaque-forming units or a dilution of this amount administered via 15 percutaneous punctures with a bifurcated needle). Volunteers had to be HIV antibody negative; free of immunosuppressive drugs; free of an immunosuppressive condition; free of eczema or atopic dermatitis; have normal serum levels of IgM, IgG, and IgA; hepatitis B antigen and hepatitis C antibody negative; and not pregnant. Complete blood count, liver and renal function blood testing, urine analysis, and lipid screening were performed, and uric acid level and blood sedimentation rate were measured. A physical examination was performed during the screening process, and several volunteers with severe acne, nodular skin conditions, or large areas of unhealed skin were excluded. Volunteers were observed for 180 days after vaccination, with periodic examinations performed. The presentations and pictures of the rashes were reviewed with a consulting dermatologist (R.H.S.).CCSV used in the study was derived from the 1932 New York City Board of Health virus seed and was passed in calves until the 1960s, when Connaught Laboratories developed master seeds. Seed 17333 was provided to the US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases in the 1980s, at which time it was plaque-purified and adapted to grow in MRC-5 cells (human diploid lung fibroblast cell line). A derivative of this, referred to as the Salk Institute (TSI) strain, was prepared as a master seed in 1989. TSI has been stored under controlled, secure conditions (!70C) since then and is the seed strain used to produce CCSV. CCSV is made from plaque-purified TSI. 

A comprehensive description of the phase 1 trial is being prepared for publication.

[...]

DISCUSSION

In this study of 350 carefully screened adult volunteers, there were no serious adverse events (e.g., death, cancer, or hospitalization) related to either CCSV or Dryvax. However, 9 volunteers had rashes that were self-limited, benign, and associated mostly with pruritus, tingling, and occasional headaches. Eight of the rashes did not have any pustular components; only volunteer 5051 had folliculitis. None of the rashes had mucosal surface lesions. None of the volunteers had any systemic symptoms other than pruritus and occasional headaches. The volunteers obtained relief from itching with antihistamine treatment.Five of the rashes were thought to be urticarial. Urticaria has been reported after vaccination with vaccinia virus and after inoculation with many other vaccines, including varicella vaccine, pneumococcal vaccine, meningococcal polysaccharide vaccine, Japanese encephalitis vaccine, Haemophilus type b vaccine, and influenza vaccine [2–7]. The cause of urticaria in such cases often remains unknown, but the possibility of an unexpected allergy to a component of the vaccine must always be considered. In 2 instances, urticaria was thought to be due to the gelatin component in the varicella vaccine. Intradermal testing with gelatin resulted in a wheal and flare reaction in both children tested [2]. Urticaria after vaccinia vaccination is uncommon [8] and, in our study, occurred in 5 (1%) of 350 volunteers (250 vaccinia-naive and 100 vaccinia-experienced individuals).Four of the rashes were not urticarial. One of them was an exanthem. The exanthem took more time to resolve than did the urticarial rashes (20 days vs. 6 days). The single exanthem was extensive, with large, confluent areas of erythema, but it was also distinguished by a lack of associated symptoms. One rash was possibly a contact dermatitis due to the bandage adhesive, with both a localized rash and a generalized rash present. Another rash appeared to be folliculitis. Finally, 1 rash that presented as self-limiting erythematous papules localized to the hands remains unusual and unexplained.The rashes appeared during the second week after vaccination and resolved a mean of 11 days later. The rashes occurred in 2 (4%) of 50 vaccinia-naive adults who received Dryvax, in 7 (3.5%) of 200 vaccinia-naive adults who received CCSV, in 0 of 50 vaccinia-experienced adults who received CCSV, and in 0 of 50 vaccinia-experienced adults who received Dryvax.Neff et al. [9] mention that, in their national survey of complications of smallpox vaccination in the United States during 1963—including 765,000 primary vaccinees who were 110 years of age (total survey population of 14 million)—they found 12 patients with a generalized maculopapular rash that appeared 4–10 days after vaccination, all of whom recovered. No more than 2 of these patients were vaccinia-naive adults, and none were vaccinia-experienced adults. Neff et al. [9] found that complications, such as eczema vaccinatum, generalized vaccinia, and others (including benign rashes), occurred much more often among primary vaccinees than among revaccinees, and that the persons at highest risk were !1 year of age. The most common complication was generalized vaccinia, with a prevalence of 20.8 cases per million primary vaccinations.A 4-state survey from 1963 describes 20 cases (in 600,000 vaccinations) of a generalized maculopapular rash of short duration that occurred ∼1 week after vaccination [10]. Results of a national survey reported in 1968 included no specific mention of adults with benign rashes. It is possible that some of the benign rashes were considered to be generalized vaccinia- or erythema multiforme–like rashes [11]. A 10-state survey also conducted in 1968 made no specific mention of benign rashes [12]. These reports provide very little description of benign vaccine-associated rashes.Frey et al. [13] studied 680 vaccinia-naive adults aged 18– 32 years in their trials of Dryvax dilutions. They describe hand lesions that were similar to those seen on volunteer 3017 and a generalized erythematous lesion that was seen in 5 of our subjects. They mention that 37 (5.4%) of 680 volunteers had rashes that appeared on days 7–9 after vaccination and that, for another 67 subjects (10.1%), rashes appeared on days 10–12, for an overall rate of 14.3%. Pustular and vesicular rashes were most common in their study, and rashes were mostly on the chest and back. All rashes resolved spontaneously. Their study suggests that benign rashes with Dryvax are relatively common; however, they did not suggest a cause for the rashes.In a 148-volunteer study involving vaccinia-naive adults, Talbot et al. [14] report 4 participants (2.7%) who developed generalized eruptions and 11 (7.4%) who developed focal eruptions after vaccination with 1 of 3 dilutions (undiluted and dilutions of 1:5 and 1:10) of the Aventis Pasteur smallpox vaccine. Viral cultures of lesion biopsy specimens did not grow vaccinia. A skin biopsy sample obtained from a volunteer with a generalized rash revealed suppurative folliculitis without any evidence of a viral infection. All lesions resolved without scarring.At the time of writing, there is only speculation that some of these rashes may represent a form of vasculitis that is the result of a host response to vaccination. It is possible that some of the rashes could be mild cases of generalized vaccinia. Generalized vaccinia is a syndrome resulting from the viremic spread of virus from the vaccination site. Lesions are similar to those associated with primary vaccination but are usually smaller and rapidly evolve to scarring [1]. None of the rashes described in our volunteers resembled the primary pock lesion. However, no diagnostic tests were conducted as part of this phase 1 trial. Additional studies will be needed to define the cause of these rashes.Our report focuses on a variety of self-limiting skin reactions to vaccinia vaccination. Our findings are important because of the description of the variety of presentations as well as the course of the rashes. The study volunteers were selected after a rigorous screening process and represented an otherwise healthy population of adults. In such a population, there will be a small number of self-limited rashes, such as urticaria and exanthems. Urticarial rashes resolve !1 week after appearance, whereas exanthems may last 13 weeks and can be extensive.
[...]

2004 : BASinc journal 'Current Separations' : "New Medical Director for Clinical Research Facility - Robert W. Malone, M.D. has joined BASi as Medical Director-Principal Investigator for Baltimore CRU."

Source : [HC005V][GDrive]  

"For many years, Current Separations has been the journal of the research laboratories of BASi, covering a wide range of topics such as in vivo sampling, microdialysis, liquid chromatography, electrochemistry and liquid chromatography/electrochemistry. The journal ceased publication in 2007, but hundreds of articles have been archived electronically for your reference."

[...]

Dr. Malone brings us a wide variety of substantial experience, including recent concomitant roles as President and CoFounder of Gene Delivery Alliance (a consulting and IP management firm), and Associate Director, Clinical Research, for [DynPort Vaccine Company, LLC]. He has also served as co-founder, CSO and Board of Directors Member for Intradigm Corporation; Associate Professor of Surgery and Chief of Laboratory Science/Director of Tissue Banking for Uniformed Services University Health Sciences-Clinical Breast Care Program; Adjunct Professor at University of South FloridaDepartment of Chemical Engineering; Assistant Professor at University of Maryland-Baltimore School of Medicine-Dept of Pathology, and Assistant Professor at University of California-Davis Department of Medical Pathology.

Dr. Malone has been issued 11 patents from work generated by him and his co-workers, and has submitted another five that are pending patent approval. Also, he is author of more than 30 publications and 35 abstracts, has penned two chapters for medical publications covering Gene Therapy and Toxicology of Non-viral Gene Transfer, and has served as chairperson and delivered oral presentations at 32 scientific meetings.

Dr. Malone has a Doctor of Medicine from Northwestern University Medical School, a Clinical Pathology Internship from University of California-Davis Medical Center, and has received further training as a Research Fellow and Pathology Resident in Medical Pathology, also at the University California-Davis Medical Center. He is currently a member of the GeneTherapy/ Molecular Biology International Society, the New York Academy of Sciences, The Bioelectrochemical Society, the European Gene Therapy Society and AAAS.

[...]

2004 (Feb 27)

https://www.newspapers.com/image/264661772/?terms=%22Gene%20Delivery%20Alliance%22&match=1

2004-02-27-journal-and-courier-lafayette-indiana-pg-c6-clip-robert-malone.jpg

2008 (Oct 15)

Full newspaper page : [HN01WO][GDrive

2010 (June 25) - BioSpace.com : "Alison Martin, MD and Robert W. Malone, MD Join Beardsworth Consulting Group, Inc. (BCGI)"

Saved as PDF : [HW00AU][GDrive

Regarding :      Beardsworth Consulting Group, Inc.  /  Donna E. Beardsworth (born 1956)  /  Dr. Robert Wallace Malone (born 1959)   

Alison Martin in 2001 NCI book ... https://www.cancer.gov/about-nci/budget/fact-book/archive/2001-fact-book.pdf  

Image of saved article : [HW00AV][GDrive

FLEMINGTON, N.J., June 24 /PRNewswire/ -- [Beardsworth Consulting Group, Inc.] announces the appointments of Alison Martin, M.D. as the company's Scientific Advisor, Oncology and Robert W. Malone, M.D. as the company's Medical Director, Vaccines.

Dr. Alison Martin is one of oncology's respected research leaders with over 20 years of clinical research experience. She joins Beardsworth from the National Cancer Institute (NCI) where she was most recently Head of Genitourinary Cancers and Melanoma Therapeutics in the Clinical Investigations Branch of the Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program (CTEP). Dr. Martin was scientific co-chair along with Dr. Meenhard Herlyn of the 2007 NCI-Community-Oriented Strategic Action Plan for Melanoma Research. She has served as liaison to three of NCI's cooperative groups and been a senior investigator in the Investigational Drug Branch of CTEP. In addition to experience at NCI, Dr. Martin was a team leader in the Office of Oncology Drug Products at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and has experience working with the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries.

[Dr. Robert Wallace Malone (born 1959)] has extensive experience in viral and recombinant vaccines, biodefense, gene delivery and transfer, immunology, tissue and cell culture, and DNA vaccination in both the commercial and government market sectors. An internationally recognized scientist, Dr. Malone is known as one of the original inventors of "DNA Vaccination" holding numerous fundamental domestic & foreign patents in the fields of gene delivery, delivery formulations, and vaccines. His background includes over 25 years of experience in academia and industry, including both founding and working with a wide range of pharmaceutical and biotech companies. He has experience in federal contracting, working with NGO's in health related research and development as well as relationships with CDC, DOD and HHS. Dr. Malone is involved with 15 issued patents, has numerous publications and two book chapters in this field, and serves as editor-in-chief of the Journal of Immune Based Therapies and Vaccines.

"We are honored and excited to have Alison and Robert join the Beardsworth team," said Michael J. O'Brien, President and CEO, Beardsworth. He added, "the increasing demands of Oncology and Vaccine research, individually and together, place Beardsworth in an attractive position given our many years of experience in these two areas. Alison and Robert will provide valuable expertise and vision to the expanding clinical research needs of our growing client base."

As members of Beardsworth's team, Drs. Martin and Malone join other noted industry experts whose collective strategic scope and in-depth knowledge support Beardsworth's mission of delivering superior quality clinical services, on time and on budget.

Headquartered in Flemington, New Jersey, Beardsworth is a privately held contract research organization delivering research and business solutions for clinical research programs since 1986. Focused on complicated trials in complex therapeutic areas, Beardsworth's clinical team expertise, advanced technology platform, and "Investigator Express" process provide clients with a patient-centric approach to study management, patient recruitment and cost-effective solutions. Beardsworth is a WBENC-certified, woman-owned business and registrant with CCR.

      • SOURCE Beardsworth Consulting Group, Inc.

2011 (July) - World Health Organization (Geneva) ( 2nd WHO Consultation of Global Action Plan for Influenza Vaccine)- Robert Malone presents  "Vaccine Production Strategies: Ensuring Alignment and Sustainability"

The World Health Organization (WHO) Global Action Plan for Influenza Vaccines. Robert W Malone, MD, MS Geneva, Switzerland. 12-14 July 2011 Invited speaker

Image : [HT00C9][GDrive]

@RWMaloneMD : "World Health Organization: Vaccine Production Strategies: Ensuring Alignment and Sustainability An invited talk at the World Health Organization that I gave in 2011. And no, they did not think I was a crazy outlier then either. Just now. Truth to power"

Vimeo "" World Health Organization: Vaccine Production Strategies: Ensuring Alignment and Sustainability"

Posted 2011 by  Jill G Malone, PhD

12-14 July 2011 - The World Health Organization (WHO) hosted the second Consultation on the Global Action Plan for Influenza Vaccines to review the progress for the first time since it was developed in 2006. 

More than 100 representatives attended the meeting to review the progress on the key objectives of the plan and to develop a strategic plan of action for the next five years. The main focus of the second consultation was to discuss countries' experience on pandemic preparedness and vaccine production.

Invited speaker: Robert W Malone, MD, MS  

Slide 01 : [HI003N][GDrive]
Slide 04 : [HI003O][GDrive]
Discussing Flublok by Protein Sciences Corporation Slide 06 : [HI003P][GDrive]
Discussing Flublok by Protein Sciences Corporation Slide 07 : [HI003Q][GDrive]
Slide 08 : [HI003R][GDrive]
Slide 09 : [HI003S][GDrive]
Slide 10 : [HI003T][GDrive]
Slide 12 : [HI003U][GDrive]
Slide 14 : [HI003V][GDrive]
Slide 15 : [HI003W][GDrive]

2011 (October 28) -  USA PHE.GOV meeting minutes : "Anthrax Vaccine Working Group Report "Challenges in the Use of Anthrax Vaccine Adsorbed (AVA) in the Pediatric Population as a Component of Post-Exposure Prophylaxis (PEP) By Daniel Fagbuyi, M.D., FAAP Chair, Anthrax Vaccine Working Group" 

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2011

https://www.phe.gov/Preparedness/legal/boards/nbsb/meetings/Documents/102811trans.pdf 

2011-10-28-usa-gov-phe-legal-boards-nbsb-meetings-docs-102811trans.pdf

2011-10-28-usa-gov-phe-legal-boards-nbsb-meetings-docs-102811trans-img-pg-01.jpg

2011-10-28-usa-gov-phe-legal-boards-nbsb-meetings-docs-102811trans-img-pg-02.jpg

2011-10-28-usa-gov-phe-legal-boards-nbsb-meetings-docs-102811trans-img-pg-03.jpg

2011-10-28-usa-gov-phe-legal-boards-nbsb-meetings-docs-102811trans-img-pg-04.jpg

What are "dose pairing studies" ? 

All we know is that there are only two hits for this ... this call on Oct 28 2011 , and a O t 21 2011 speech by the Canadian PM ...

https://www.c-span.org/video/?302114-1/canadian-question-period 

2013 (May 27)

Full newspaper page : [HN01WQ][GDrive

2013 (Sep) - Human Vaccines and Immunotherapeutics :  "Making vaccines 'on demand': a potential solution for emerging pathogens and biodefense?"

Authors / Contributors :

Page 1877  :   [HP009Y][GDrive
Page 1878  :   [HP009Z][GDrive
Page 1879  :   [HP00A0][GDrive
Page 1880  :   [HP00A1][GDrive
Page 1881  :   [HP00A2][GDrive
Page 1882  :   [HP00A3][GDrive

The integrated US Public Health Emergency Medical Countermeasures Enterprise (PHEMCE) has made great strides in strategic preparedness and response capabilities. There have been numerous advances in planning, biothreat countermeasure development, licensure, manufacturing, stockpiling and deployment. Increased biodefense surveillance capability has dramatically improved, while new tools and increased awareness have fostered rapid identification of new potential public health pathogens. Unfortunately, structural delays in vaccine design, development, manufacture, clinical testing and licensure processes remain significant obstacles to an effective national biodefense rapid response capability. This is particularly true for the very real threat of “novel pathogens” such as the avian-origin influenzas H7N9 and H5N1, and new coronaviruses such as hCoV-EMC. Conventional approaches to vaccine development, production, clinical testing and licensure are incompatible with the prompt deployment needed for an effective public health response. An alternative approach, proposed here, is to apply computational vaccine design tools and rapid production technologies that now make it possible to engineer vaccines for novel emerging pathogen and WMD biowarfare agent countermeasures in record time. These new tools have the potential to significantly reduce the time needed to design string-of-epitope vaccines for previously unknown pathogens. The design process—from genome to gene sequence, ready to insert in a DNA plasmid—can now be accomplished in less than 24 h. While these vaccines are by no means “standard,” the need for innovation in the vaccine design and production process is great. Should such vaccines be developed, their 60-d start-to-finish timeline would represent a 2-fold faster response than the current standard.

The Problem: Delayed Response to Emerging Infections and Biowarfare Attacks

According to the Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) Proliferation and Terrorism, medical counter-measures such as vaccines are critically important for protecting first-responders and noncombatant (civilian) populations from the consequences of a bioterror attack. In 2008, Bob Graham (D-FL) and Jim Talent (R-MO), chairs of the WMD commission and authors of World at Risk, reported that the United States was “seriously lacking” in this vital capability.1 The 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic highlighted continued weaknesses in the national preparedness system; as a consequence, Graham and Talent gave US bio-defense preparedness an “F” in their follow-up report, published in 2010.2 The Governmental Accounting Office (GAO) also reported poor inter-agency coordination on biodefense.3,4 As a result of renewed emphasis on biodefense, the United States government has expended substantial resources on protecting the nation against a potential bioterror attack, creating specialized units for planning and preparedness within the Departments of Health and Human Services, Defense, Homeland Security, Agriculture, Commerce and State.

Vaccine production infrastructure has also improved due to significant investments by the Federal government. For example, there are now several federally subsidized “Advanced Development and Manufacturing” production facilities distributed in different regions of the country that are capable of producing millions of doses of protein-based vaccines.5 Unfortunately, despite these important advances in the strategic preparedness of US agencies for biodefense, vaccine design remains a significant obstacle to national biodefense. This is particularly true for the very real threat of as-yet undetermined pathogens for which little is known about their critical antigenic determinants and correlates of immunity, the key parameters used in vaccine design for conventional pathogens.

A Proposed Solution: Design and Delivery of “Vaccines on Demand”

Recent reports6 of a novel H7N9 avian influenza virus emerging in China have led to even greater scrutiny of methods used to respond to infectious disease public health threats and have, in turn, provided for a “live fire” assessment of novel approaches. In 2009–2010, the FastVax group began to discuss whether existing tools and vaccine production platforms could be used to accelerate the development of vaccines for emerging infectious diseases, as illustrated in Figure 1. Traditional vaccine development for previously unknown pathogens takes place on the time scale of years. The accelerated process, as proposed by our group, would begin with analysis of the genomic sequence of an emerging pathogen with immunoinformatics tools, followed by rapid design of an epitope-based vaccine containing the most immunogenic components, using an integrated in silico approach illustrated in Figure 2. Once the vaccine is designed, production and testing would involve a four-step process undertaken by the FastVax consortium arrangement, as described below.

Several constraints affecting the proposed approach bear mentioning; each of these is addressed in turn.

T cell epitope-based vaccines provide the minimal, essential information required for protective immunity T cell epitopes are critical mediators of cellular immunity. They are derived from a pathogen’s proteins via two pathways: (1) intracellular proteins are processed, and their constituent peptides are loaded onto major histocompatability complex (MHC) class I molecules; and (2) exogenous proteins are processed in the proteolytic compartment, and their constituent peptides are loaded onto MHC class II molecules. MHC class I and class II-peptide complexes are then transported to the surface of an APC, where they are exposed to interrogation by passing T cells (CD8+ and CD4+ T cells, respectively). From these different antigen processing and presentation pathways, two distinct T cell responses are generated: (1) a CD8+ cytotoxic T lymphocyte immune response that is critical for pathogen clearance, and (2) a CD4+ T helper immune response that is essential for robust and sustained antibody and cytotoxic T lymphocyte responses. After initial exposure to pathogen, memory T cells are established that respond more rapidly and efficiently upon subsequent exposure.

Because epitopes provide the essential information needed to trigger a protective immune response, epitope-based vaccines can be developed to recreate this response. Given the lengthy process that is usually associated with the development of killed, live-attenuated and whole-subunit vaccine approaches, an epitope-based strategy is one rational alternative, particularly when no vaccine exists and an emerging pathogen threatens human health on a global scale.

T cell epitopes do not protect against infection; however, they may protect against disease There is published evidence demonstrating that epitope-based vaccines can be protective. Vaccination with peptide epitopes stimulates protective immune responses in a range of animal models, including complete protection of BALB/c mice against RSV challenge,8 partial protection of BALB/c mice against Plasmodium yoelii sporozoite challenge,9 partial protection of BALB/c and CBA mice against encephalitis following intracerebral challenge with a lethal dose of measles virus,10 complete protection of BALB/c mice from intraperitoneal HSV challenge,11 high degree of protection of BALB/c mice against infection with malaria or influenza A virus,12 full protection of sheep against BLV,13 and full protection of horses against West Nile Virus.14 Furthermore, experts are generally in agreement that cross-reactive T cell epitopes were responsible for the limited morbidity and mortality associated with pandemic H1N1 in 2009.15-17 The absence of T cell epitopes may be contributing to the rapid spread and significant mortality rate of H7N9 in China.18 T cell epitoperelated immune responses appear to be critically important for reducing morbidity and mortality in human infectious disease.19

No “Fast Track” to vaccine-on-demand approval is currently possible under existing FDA regulations

Epitope-driven vaccines offer distinct advantages that should contribute to a reconsideration of the current vaccine approval process for emergency use. Multiple epitopes derived from more than one antigen can be packaged together in a single cassette. In this way, a broad-based immune response directed against multiple antigenic proteins associated with the pathogen can be elicited without the need to manufacture and administer large quantities of protein, much of which will be immunologically irrelevant or potentially even reactogenic. This is likely to reduce formulation challenges, decrease cost and accelerate the development process. The use of epitopes also helps to mitigate potential safety concerns stemming from the use of intact recombinant proteins that may have undesired biological activity (e.g., enzymes, immunomodulators, cross-reactivity, toxins, etc.). For example, the NP protein of Lassa has been associated with immune-suppressive activity.20 Genome sequencing, immunoinformatics tools and the epitope-driven approach now make it possible to develop vaccines on demand in response to emerging pathogens.

A Four-Step Process to Design and Deliver “Vaccines On Demand”

Step one: Genome-derived, epitope-driven vaccine strategy (GD-EDV). The first step to making “faster vaccines” is to design vaccine immunogens directly from pathogen genomes.21 For example, for emerging influenza strains, the vaccine “payload” is constructed in silico using the pathogen genome sequence provided by the World Health Organization (WHO) or posted on GISAID (http:// platform.gisaid.org/). T cell epitope-mapping algorithms that are integrated in a “vaccine design toolkit” developed by Martin and [Dr. Anne Searls De Groot (born 1956)] are applied to the genome sequences.22 These tools derive and concatenate those epitopes that have a high likelihood of driving an effective T cell response into a “string-of-beads” format for insertion into a vaccine delivery vehicle. The process can be performed in less than 24 h; the exact length of time required for the analysis depends on whether comparisons have to be performed to other existing genomes and epitopes. Tools for carrying out the task have been applied to the development of vaccine candidates for SARS,23 2009 H1N1 pandemic influenza,24 smallpox,25 and a number of other emergent and biowarfare agents, such as West Nile Virus, H. pylori and Burkholderia.7,26-28 Most recently, the tools were applied in May 2013 to the design of a vaccine for H7N9, an emerging avian-origin influenza (Fig. 2).29 The integration of epitope mapping into a step-by-step vaccine design process makes it possible to design vaccines in the shortest time possible once the DNA sequence from the emerging infectious disease or biowarfare pathogen is available. Should errors later be found in the sequence, they may impact one or two epitopes. For an epitope-based string of beads vaccine, the overall impact would be minimal, since T cell epitopes are linear; in contrast, sequence variations may compromise the structural integrity of a whole protein vaccine with negative effects on immunogenicity.

How many epitopes? Available evidence from animal studies suggests that the number of vaccine components (epitopes) required for full protection against disease is a small and definable subset that can be discovered using state-of-the-art computer programs such as the ones described and validated by EpiVax.30,31 We have proposed that any FastVax vaccine would include a minimum of 100 broadly reactive T cell epitopes in several strings, designed to induce multi-functional immune responses that are essential for protective immunity.32 Careful selection of the vaccine components, comprising epitopes covering most common HLA, can provide greater than 99% coverage of diverse human populations.33

Need for adjuvants? Currently, MF59 and AS03, both oil-in-water emulsions, and virosome, a liposome formulation, are three adjuvants licensed for use in seasonal, pre-pandemic and pandemic influenza vaccines. No influenza vaccines containing adjuvant are FDA approved. T cell epitope vaccine responses may be enhanced through genetic immunization. 34 DNA vaccines are self-adjuvanting through co-encoded sequences, and thus many such vaccines do not incorporate traditional adjuvants in their final formulation. A number of strategies that are currently being evaluated may improve DNA vaccine potency for humans, including use of more efficient promoters and codon optimization, addition of traditional or genetic adjuvants, electroporation and intradermal delivery.35

Step two: Manufacturing and production. Reliable, reproducible methods for producing vaccines are currently available. The FastVax consortium favors DNA vaccines because production is scalable, the vaccines are stable at room temperature, manufacturing can be easily distributed to different geographic locations, and the production method is more rapid than many other vaccine manufacturing technologies. Alternative scalable and rapid production methods for accelerated vaccine production include plant-derived vaccines, phage-based vaccines and recombinant vaccines produced in cell culture. Proteins produced using each of these systems have been approved by the FDA for use in humans.

Rapid production of DNA vaccines. The initial vaccine sequence designed in silico can be electronically provided to a production facility, where a cassette representing the vaccine genetic construct(s) is then synthesized and inserted into a standardized DNA vaccine plasmid. A cGMP seed lot of bacteria containing the vaccine plasmid with cassetted payload can be rapidly produced and vialed using existing SOPs for release and characterization assays. An initial manufacturing lot of plasmid vaccine would be produced from the seed lot and used to initiate safety studies. To reduce time to produce sufficient vaccine product, multiple scale-up facilities could be located in different regions of the US. Using current methods of DNA vaccine development, seed lot production would take one to three weeks. Scale-up for DNA production is much more rapid than traditional vaccine designs; only three to four weeks would be required to produce one million doses per facility. See below for discussion of Biological Agents Research Defense Agency (BARDA) appropriations for the construction of distributed vaccine production facilities.

The DNA vaccine delivery platform and rational in silico design provide for a strong safety profile. The DNA vaccine manufacturing process, particularly the efficient and stringent release criteria, allow for a highly pure and well-characterized final product. Rational design permits in silico analysis of the vaccine sequence for identification of potential unfavorable immune responses including regulatory sequences or cross-reactive immune responses. A fundamental principle of rapid biodefense vaccine production is that safety and speed are paramount for eliciting a protective immune response prior to the epidemic.

Delivery vehicle. The bulk vaccine product would then be coated onto premanufactured micro-needle patches that provide direct delivery to the dermis, or would be delivered using another skin-based method such as “scarification.” A number of self-applied patch delivery systems have already been developed. These would be optimal in bioterror and pandemic scenarios, because patches can be pre-manufactured and stored in bulk and do not require refrigeration for delivery or trained practitioners for administration.36 Vaccination centers would not be required, which would minimize transmission of the biothreat organism between patients and health care providers. Alternatively, previously approved electroporation delivery methods37 could be used, though this would take more time and increase the need for vaccine administration personnel training, leading to an escalation of the vaccine administration expense and more protracted timelines.

Step three: Clinical trials. While there are no Phase III or FDA-approved DNA vaccines, there are more than 30 Phase II trials listed in clinicaltrials.gov. FDA approval of a DNA vaccine appears to be on the horizon, but until then, the FastVax DNA vaccine may encounter an additional FDA-associated barrier. Implementation of a previously untested vaccine is only possible after rapidly completing initial clinical testing to the point that “emergency use authorization” can be invoked by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS). In some biodefense scenarios, approximate correlates of protection may have been previously identified; such is the case with Lassa Fever, Ebola, the encephaloviruses, and a number of other “Category A, B and C” biodefense pathogens. In some cases, correlates of protection are unknown, and either an antibody-focused or a T cell-driven vaccine may prove effective. Where antibody-mediated immunity is critically important, T cell-driven vaccines still merit attention as potential adjuncts to more traditional whole-antigen (B cell-driven) approaches, since T cell help drives higher titer, higher affinity antibody responses. Especially in settings where challenge studies cannot be performed in advance of use in humans, licensure may be possible by means of the “Two Animal Rule” in lieu of a human correlate. Rapid clinical testing can be achieved using existing commercial clinical research organizations and clinical site networks such as the Medical Countermeasures Clinical Studies Network currently envisioned by ASPR/ BARDA. Emergency use authorization approval can be based on achievement of “correlates” such as induction of broadly protective T cell or antibody responses, provided an allowed Investigational New Drug (IND) Application is in hand.

One problem facing T cell-driven vaccines that are designed to stimulate HLArestricted human immune responses is that testing for correlates of immunity as described in the “Two Animal Rule” may not demonstrate the true efficacy of the product. Thus alternative approaches may need to be considered.

The MIMIC assay, a comprehensive measurement of localized reactogenicity, could be utilized for initial safety studies and to qualify release of the actual vaccine intended for emergency use.38 Additionally, in pandemic response simulations, “mock up” or example vaccines (in a specific DNA plasmid backbone) and patch delivery system could be submitted for approval by the FDA, and this formulation would be evaluated in the clinic for immunogenicity that recapitulates the influenza correlates of protective immunity already defined by CBER and EMA. Correlates of protective immunity for currently approved influenza vaccines will not serve as a basis for regulatory approval of a DNA vaccine. The FDA would require correlates to be determined for a new influenza vaccine and will not rely on related, but different, vaccines already approved. Advance trials will establish correlates of protection for a FastVax influenza vaccine to serve as a basis for regulatory review in an emergency. In a pandemic, a novel FastVax sequence composition might be rapidly tested in a small, swiftly completed safety and immunogenicity trial, much like EMA precedence for annual influenza vaccine updates.

Step four: Approval and emergency use authorization. One means of obtaining initial FDA review, experience and oversight for the FastVax vaccine-on-demand system would be to firmly establish the immunogenicity of an existing, clinical-trial-ready DNA influenza virus vaccine in a patch or scarification delivery system. Demonstration that the vaccine candidate meets influenza correlates of protection criteria with an acceptable profile in human trials would inform regulatory review for products of similar composition, much as current regulatory policy supports annual marketing re-authorization despite changes in influenza subunit vaccine composition (from trivalent to quadrivalent) to reflect seasonal shifts and drifts.

Timely approval by the FDA to allow distribution of product in response to a rapidly emerging threat would require close cooperation between the vaccine manufacturer and the Agency. The manufacturer can assist by providing clinical safety and efficacy data for a variety of vaccine products based on standardized vaccine platform, manufacturing, specifications, operating procedures and method of delivery. If the manufacturer can establish predictable immunogenicity of epitopes in a demonstrated safe and reproducible vaccine platform and rapidly perform Phase I and Phase II trials establishing safety and immunogenicity in terms of a surrogate endpoint that predicts clinical benefit, the Agency may be able to provide a rapid review and emergency use allowance/authorization; release of the vaccine would then be possible through emergency use authorization by the HHS Secretary.

Scale up. To reduce the time to vaccine production, manufacturing sites could be pre-inspected and maintained at a state of operational readiness. While this would involve redundancy and higher costs, it would allow for the rapid production and scale-up of vaccines at any given moment. Each site would need to utilize the same manufacturing process to ensure consistency across vaccine batches, and entities would need to be willing to share their specific methodologies to harmonize an approach. One site would create the master cell bank (MCB), and then generate the manufacturer’s working cell bank (MWCB) for distribution to all other sites. In order to reduce production time by two weeks, this step would be performed “at risk,” meaning MWCBs would be distributed prior to the completion of testing on either the MCB or MWCB. Sequencing on the MCB could likely be completed before the MWCB goes into fermenter starters. Assuming that a dose would constitute 0.2 mg of DNA vaccine and that each site has several 240 L fermenters (either as back-ups or for parallel growth), one million doses (200 g) per site could be produced in a three- to four-week period. BARDA recently invested hundreds of millions of dollars in distributed influenza vaccine production; adapting these facilities for DNA vaccine production would be an added but not insurmountable expense (as compared with the initial investment).39

An in vitro assay like the MIMIC system could serve as a release characteristic of the multi-site lots that would run in parallel with the patch loading, preventing a single problematic DNA vaccine batch from impeding the release of patches generated with other batches. If the backbonehost system is proven to be rugged with virtually any type of insert, a pilot run would no longer be necessary. Conversely, if the system is not shown to be rugged, then pilot runs would be important, as some inserts can greatly influence stability and growth characteristics. Such pilot runs would need to be undertaken at every facility, most likely with different methods tested, to maximize the likelihood of determining the best method for production.

Summary

A number of technological advances are moving T cell-driven vaccines to the foreground with lessons applicable to influenza T cell-driven vaccine development. Perhaps the most prominent example of this new focus is the expanding use of T cell-driven immunotherapy as an adjunct to cancer therapy. Many of the barriers to effective T cell-driven vaccine development are being addressed and surmounted in clinical cancer trials. For example, dendritic-cell pulsing vaccines using tumor antigens have moved into clinical use.40,41 Outcomes of these types of vaccination protocols have improved as MHC class II epitopes (CD4+ T cell help) were included42 and antibodies against cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen-4 (anti- CTLA-4; see ref. 43) and other anti-T regulatory cell (Treg) agents have been added to the conditioning regimen.

Quite a few T cell-driven vaccines are currently in human clinical trials (reviewed by Gilbert in 2012; see ref. 44). While it is true that infectious disease T cell-driven vaccines have lagged behind T cell-driven vaccines for cancer, the regulatory pathway for T cell vaccines is improving, since more than 250 cancer vaccines that are based on T cell-driven immune responses are in clinical trials.a Furthermore, recent challenge studies have shown that humoral immunity is not required for protection against all human pathogens. This was demonstrated in the case of influenza, following vaccination of study participants with a multi-antigen vaccine. Following exposure to live influenza virus, two of 11 vaccinees and five of 11 control subjects developed laboratoryconfirmed influenza (symptoms plus virus shedding). Symptoms of influenza were less pronounced in the vaccinees and there was a significant reduction in the number of days of virus shedding in those vaccinees who developed influenza (mean of 1.09 d in controls, 0.45 d in vaccinees, p = 0.036)45,46 for a final efficacy of 60%, which is better than many vaccines currently available.

This is a major milestone for T cell vaccines for infectious disease, as it is one of the first vaccines to reach a Phase 2 clinical trial and none have reached Phase 3. While one cannot directly extrapolate from this trial nor the many cancer T cell-driven immunotherapy trials to state that the approach will work for all types of vaccines against infectious disease, successful implementation of the T celldriven approach in a range of contexts suggests that it is worth pursuing.

Immunome-mining (computational immunology) tools have played a major role in the design and development of T cell-driven vaccines for infectious diseases. The process was first termed “vaccinomics” by Brusic and Petrovsky in 2002,47 then “reverse vaccinology” by Rappuoli in 2003,48 and more recently, “immunomederived or genome-derived vaccine design” by Pederson,49 De Groot and Martin,50 and Doytchinova, Taylor, and Flower.51 The concept behind these descriptors is that a minimal set of antigens that induces a competent immune response to a pathogen or neoplasm can be discovered using immunoinformatics, and that administration of these epitopes in the right delivery vehicle and with the correct adjuvant will result in a degree of protection against infection by the pathogen. In short, the T cell-driven approach to developing vaccines is based on these fundamental principles: Payload + Adjuvant + Delivery vehicle = Vaccine.

T cell-driven vaccines also offer some significant advantages over conventional vaccines for infectious diseases. For example, despite strain-to-strain variation at the protein level, immunoinformatics tools can be used to identify highly conserved T cell epitopes that are immunogenic and broadly representative or universal, covering a wide range of variant strains; our group has published results for TB, HIV, smallpox, HCV and H. pylori,16,52-58 and additional evidence can be found in literature published by other gene-to-vaccine researchers (e.g., Sette and Newman, Brusic, Petrovsky, Reche, and He). Concatenation of multiple epitopes, either from a single organism or from multiple pathogens in a single delivery vehicle, has been shown to elicit broad-based immune response directed at the epitopes and is associated with improved efficacy when compared with the whole organism (lysate) in animal challenge studies.59,60 Furthermore, epitope-based vaccines limit the antigenic load, diminishing the need to manufacture and administer large quantities of immunogen, much of which is immunologically irrelevant. In an important advance for T cell-driven vaccines, new tools (e.g., JanusMatrix; see ref. 61) may enable vaccine developers to select potent T effector epitopes, and to differentiate these from Treg-activating epitopes and/or self-cross-reactive epitopes that may lead to immunopathogenic responses (Losikoff P, et al. Forthcoming).62-64

Over the past five years, the authors of this report have advanced a number of T cell-driven vaccines described to the point of formulation and delivery studies. Vaccines for many of the high-priority biodefense pathogens and emerging or re-emerging infectious diseases under development are not currently available, and evidence that T cell-mediated immune response is critically important for protection against these pathogens is emerging.43,65-69

Members of the FastVax consortium are well aware that there are many obstacles to overcome before the proposed “rapid response” or FastVax platform for biodefense vaccines can be implemented. Nonetheless, there is a critical national need for an accelerated vaccine design, development and production process that can be accomplished in weeks, not months, in the event of a serious infectious disease outbreak or biowarfare attack. The development of a rapid response to emerging infectious disease threats, using bestin- class technologies to provide a first line of defense, will contribute to greater biodefense preparedness and a significant improvement in the ability of the US to protect its citizens against pandemic infectious diseases. The need for new vaccines for protecting against bioterror pathogens and emerging infectious disease is great, and we would argue that, for the reasons cited above, the time to advance these vaccines to the clinic is now.

Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest

ADG and WDM are senior officers and majority shareholders at EpiVax, Inc., a privately owned immunoinformatics and vaccine design company located in Providence, RI, USA. LM is an employee and holds stock options in EpiVax. LE and RWM have been paid consultants of EpiVax on vaccine development programs. JB and MC are employees and stockholders at [Aldevron], Inc. The author acknowledge that there is a potential conflict of interest related to their employment and attest that the work contained in this research report is free of any bias that might be associated with the commercial goals of the companies.

Acknowledgments

Funding to support the discussions leading to the development of the FastVax consortium can be attributed to the NIH U19 grant AI082642 (to ADG). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases or the National Institutes of Health.

2015 (Jan 16) - "WCCT to work with NIH institute on human flu research"

Mentioned : Dr. Matthew James Memoli (born 1973)  /   ( Dr. Robert Wallace Malone (born 1959)  (Not specifically mentioned, but noted that Dr. Malone became vice president of this company in 2013 - [HN01WR][GDrive]  ) 

2015 (April 28) - MIT Lincoln Laboratory - "MIT and the Air Force renew contract for operation of MIT Lincoln Laboratory"

https://news.mit.edu/2015/air-force-renew-contract-mit-lincoln-laboratory-0428

2015-04-028-mit-edi-news-2015-air-force-renew-contract-mit-lincoln-laboratory-0428.pdf

2015-04-028-mit-edi-news-2015-air-force-renew-contract-mit-lincoln-laboratory-0428-img-1.jpg

Lincoln Laboratory

April 28, 2015

MIT is pleased to announce that the Air Force has renewed the contract for the continued operation of MIT Lincoln Laboratory, a Department of Defense Federally Funded Research and Development Center (FFRDC). Since 1951, MIT has operated Lincoln Laboratory in the national interest for no fee and strictly on a cost-reimbursement, no-loss, no-gain basis.     

Under the terms of the contract, MIT, a non-profit higher education institution, will ensure that Lincoln Laboratory remains ready to meet research and development challenges that are critical to national security. To this end, the contract provides the framework under which the Department of Defense, civilian, and intelligence agencies may request research, development, and rapid prototyping assistance necessary to meet their distinct missions. The contract was awarded by the Air Force Life Cycle Management Center at Hanscom Air Force Base, Massachusetts, for a term of five years with an option for an additional five years. Although the base contract has an overall ceiling amount of $3.1 billion, the award guarantees only the minimum amount of work stated in the contract (valued at $500,000).

Lincoln Laboratory is a unique resource, as it is the sole national defense laboratory pairing state-of-the-art research and development with rapid hardware prototyping capabilities. Once capabilities and hardware are developed, Lincoln Laboratory, in close coordination with the U.S. government, turns the developed technologies and prototypes over to industry, which then commercializes the technology on the scale necessary to meet national needs.          

More broadly, the contract award is indicative of the Department of Defense’s continuing and prudent recognition of the long-term value of, and necessity for, cutting-edge research and development in service of our national security, even in times of fiscal austerity.

2015 ( November 02-04 in Baltimore, USA  ) - United Scientific Group "Vaccines R&D 2015 Symposium -  A NEW ERA IN VACCINE DISCOVERY"

Major sponsors include: AERAS Global TB Vaccine Foundation 

Speakers  : 

2015 Program : [HI004E][GDrive]  /  Conference Book PDF :   [HI004H][GDrive]   

Archived home page (PDF copy) :   [HI004C][GDrive]    /  Image shown above :   [HI004D][GDrive
SpeakersArchived 2015 speakers page (PDF copy) :   [HI004F][GDrive]    /  Customized Image shown above (highlighting Vanden Bossche :   [HI004G][GDrive

2015 Conference Book PDF   (  Conference Book PDF :   [HI004H][GDrive]    ) 

Page 01 : [HI004I][GDrive]
Page 11 : [HI004O][GDrive]
2015 (Nov 2-4), Baltimore MD, USAVaccines R&D 2015 Symposium"Dr. Robert W Malone, RW Malone LLC, USA"Img : [HI00A5][GDrive
2015 (Nov 2-4), Baltimore MD, USAVaccines R&D 2015 Symposium"Dr. Sayon Roy Felicitating  Dr. Jay A. Berzofsky"Img : [HI00A6][GDrive
2015 (Nov 2-4), Baltimore MD, USAVaccines R&D 2015 Symposium"Dr. Sayon Roy Felicitating  Dr. Robert W. Malone"Img : [HI00A7][GDrive
2015 (Nov 2-4), Baltimore MD, USAVaccines R&D 2015 Symposium"Dr. Samir N. Khleif, Dr. Jay A. Berzofsky and Dr. Robert W. Malone"Img : [HI00A8][GDrive
2015 (Nov 2-4), Baltimore MD, USAVaccines R&D 2015 Symposium"Dr. Jay A. Berzofsky, National Cancer Institute, USA"Img : [HI00A9][GDrive
2015 (Nov 2-4), Baltimore MD, USAVaccines R&D 2015 Symposium"Dr. Robert W. Malone, National Cancer Institute, USA"Img : [HI00AA][GDrive
2015 (Nov 2-4), Baltimore MD, USAVaccines R&D 2015 Symposium"Dr. Jay A. Berzofsky, National Cancer Institute, USA"Img : [HI00AB][GDrive
2015 (Nov 2-4), Baltimore MD, USAVaccines R&D 2015 Symposium" Dr. Robert W Malone, RW Malone LLC, USA"Img : [HI00AC][GDrive
2015 (Nov 2-4), Baltimore MD, USAVaccines R&D 2015 Symposium"Felicitating to Sponsor Dr. Lewis Schrager_AERAS"Img : [HI00AD][GDrive
2015 (Nov 2-4), Baltimore MD, USAVaccines R&D 2015 Symposium"CEO-CSO Group Photo (with Robert Malone)"Img : [HI00AE][GDrive
2015 (Nov 2-4), Baltimore MD, USAVaccines R&D 2015 Symposium"Dr. Bernadette Ferraro, Inovio Pharmaceuticals, USA"Img : [HI00AF][GDrive
2015 (Nov 2-4), Baltimore MD, USAVaccines R&D 2015 Symposium"Dr. Daniel Wattendorf, DARPA Biological Technologies Office, USA"Img : [HI00AG][GDrive

2016 (March 02) - PLOS Neglected and Tropical Diseases : "Zika Virus: Medical Countermeasure Development Challenges"

Full saved PDF : [HP00C5][GDrive]  /    DOI:10.1371/journal.pntd.0004530   /    PMID: 26934531

[Dr. Robert Wallace Malone (born 1959)] 1,2*, Jane Homan 3, [Dr. Michael Vincent Callahan (born 1962)] 4, [Dr. Jill Glasspool-Malone (born 1960)] 1,2, Lambodhar Damodaran 5, Adriano De Bernardi Schneider 5, Rebecca Zimler 6,  James Talton 7, Ronald R. Cobb 7, Ivan Ruzic 8, Julie Smith-Gagen 9, Daniel Janies 5‡,   [Dr. James Miller Wilson V (born 1969)] 10‡, Zika Response Working Group

  1. 1 RW Malone MD LLC, Scottsville, Virginia, United States of America,  (* RWMaloneMD@gmail.com )
  2. 2 Class of 2016, Harvard Medical School Global Clinical Scholars Research Training Program, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America,
  3. 3 ioGenetics, Madison, Wisconsin, United States of America,
  4. 4 Department of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America,
  5. 5 Department of Bioinformatics and Genomics, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, North Carolina, United States of America,
  6. 6 University of Florida, Department of Entomology and Nematology, Florida Medical Entomology Laboratory, Vero Beach, Florida, United States of America,
  7. 7 Nanotherapeutics, NANO-ADM Advanced Development and Manufacturing Center, Alachua, Florida, United States of America,
  8. 8 Analytical Outcomes, Washington Crossing, Pennsylvania, United States of America,
  9. 9 School of Community Health Sciences, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, United States of America,
  10. 10 Nevada  Center for Infectious Disease Forecasting, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, United States of America

Introduction

Reports of high rates of primary microcephaly and Guillain–Barré syndrome associated with Zika virus infection in French Polynesia and Brazil have raised concerns that the virus circulating in these regions is a rapidly developing neuropathic, teratogenic, emerging infectious public health threat. There are no licensed medical countermeasures (vaccines, therapies or preventive drugs) available for Zika virus infection and disease. The Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) predicts that Zika virus will continue to spread and eventually reach all countries and territories in the Americas with endemic Aedes mosquitoes. This paper reviews the status of the Zika virus outbreak, including medical countermeasure options, with a focus on how the epidemiology, insect vectors, neuropathology, virology and immunology inform options and strategies available for medical countermeasure development and deployment.

[...]

2016 (April 16) - LinkedIN article by Dr. Jill Glasspool Malone - "Zika virus: Accelerating development of Medical Countermeasures by repurposing licensed drugs"

Saved as PDF : [HW006R][GDrive]

References:

2016 (Aug) - PLOS Neglected and Tropical Diseases : "Zika Fetal Neuropathogenesis: Etiology of a Viral Syndrome"

Also see : [Zika virus epidemic (2015-2016)]

PMID: 27560129  /   PMCID: PMC4999274  /    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0004877   /    Saved PDF : [HP00C8][GDrive]

Abstract

The ongoing Zika virus epidemic in the Americas and the observed association with both fetal abnormalities (primary microcephaly) and adult autoimmune pathology (Guillain-Barré syndrome) has brought attention to this neglected pathogen. While initial case studies generated significant interest in the Zika virus outbreak, larger prospective epidemiology and basic virology studies examining the mechanisms of Zika viral infection and associated pathophysiology are only now starting to be published. In this review, we analyze Zika fetal neuropathogenesis from a comparative pathology perspective, using the historic metaphor of "TORCH" viral pathogenesis to provide context. By drawing parallels to other viral infections of the fetus, we identify common themes and mechanisms that may illuminate the observed pathology. The existing data on the susceptibility of various cells to both Zika and other flavivirus infections are summarized. Finally, we highlight relevant aspects of the known molecular mechanisms of flavivirus replication.

Conflict of interest statement

I have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: Drs. Robert Malone and Jill Glasspool-Malone are principal stockholders of Atheric Pharmaceutical, LLC. Robert Malone is the managing partner of Atheric Pharmaceutical. Dr. Michael Callahan is the Chief Medical Officer of the Zika Foundation.

Image of Page 01 : [HP00C9][GDrive]
Image of Page 02 : [HP00CA][GDrive]
Image of Page 03 : [HP00CB][GDrive]
Image of Page 04 : [HP00CC][GDrive]

2016 (Dec 11) - The Daily Progress : "THE WAR ON ZIKA: Charlottesville-area biotech firms rising to meet virus challenges"

BY JOSH MANDELL / PDF : [HM002Q][GDrive

Robert W. Malone (from left), Sean J. Hart, and Daniel A. Engel speak about thier research on the Zika Virus. [HM002R][GDrive]

Several biotechnology companies in the Charlottesville area are working to combat the Zika virus.

The Cville Bio Hub, a new biotech networking organization, recently hosted a forum on Zika research at Indoor Biotechnologies. Three scientist-entrepreneurs gave presentations on their work to an audience of about 40, most of whom were affiliated with the biotech industry.

Zika can manifest itself as a mild disease with flu-like symptoms and a rash. But cases of Zika in pregnant women have been linked to microcephaly, a serious birth defect that affects the development of babies' skulls and brains. Zika also has been found to cause some neurological complications in adults, including Guillain-Barre syndrome.

The Zika virus is primarily spread by two mosquito species. It also can be passed through sex from one person to another.

There have been more than 4,000 cases of Zika diagnosed in the United States since 2015, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Most are associated with travel to areas with large outbreaks, such as Brazil and Puerto Rico. However, there were 184 locally acquired mosquito-borne cases in Florida this year, and one was recently reported in Texas.

As of November, Virginia has seen 94 travel-related cases, and no locally acquired cases. But Robert W. Malone, CEO of Atheric Pharmaceutical in Troy, said mosquitoes eventually could bring the virus into the state.

"There's a darned good chance, with this mild winter, that [Zika] is going to come roaring out of Miami next spring," he said.

Malone said it could take a decade for new drugs or vaccines for Zika to be brought to market. That's why his company is exploring ways to use existing drugs to protect people from Zika and treat its complications.

"Drug combinations, not vaccines, are what has made it possible for us to control AIDS," Malone reminded the audience. "To combat a disease like this, you have to use everything."

In its work with the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute for Infectious Diseases, Atheric has found that an inexpensive combination of anti-malarial and anti-worm drugs can prevent infection of the Zika virus. Malone said he believes these drugs, and others, could stop a highly contagious outbreak if they are taken by a large majority of an affected population.

Sean J. Hart, president and chief scientific officer of Lumacyte, recently lent USAMRIID a machine that could facilitate the development of a Zika vaccine.

Hart's company invented Radiance, an analytical device that uses lasers to observe the mass and shape of individual cells. This data can determine if a cell has been infected by the Zika virus.

Radiance can be used to test how well viral material used in vaccines infects different kinds of cells. It has allowed scientists to conduct these tests much more efficiently than traditional laboratory methods.

"This is a clear pain point that we've identified for large pharmaceutical companies," Hart said.

Daniel A. Engel, professor of Microbiology, Immunology and Cancer Biology at the University of Virginia and chief scientific officer of Alexander Biodiscoveries, is currently studying a single protein of the Zika virus. His goal is to develop antibody fragments that would bind with this protein and neutralize the virus, forming the basis of an effective drug.

Alexander Biodiscoveries is collaborating on this project with RioGin — another Charlottesville biotechnology company — and other researchers at UVa and the University of Chicago.

Engel, Hart and Malone's companies are all members of the CvilleBioHub, which will officially launch in January.

Martin D. Chapman, president and CEO of Indoor Biotechnologies, is one of the founders of the CvilleBioHub. He said the organization's website will offer detailed and up-to-date information on every biotech company in the Charlottesville area, providing a useful resource for policymakers and potential investors.

"People don't know a lot about the tremendous work going on here," Chapman said.

Malone said the CvilleBioHub will help startups connect with leaders of the region's more established biotech companies. "It's not enough to just have money," he said. "You need successful entrepreneurs with past success who can mentor."  [...]

2017 (March 03) - Which Licensed Compounds Can Be Used Against Zika?

Mar 3, 2017

Contagion_Live

Robert Malone, MD, MS, CEO/CSO of Atheric Pharmaceuticals, LLC, discusses which existing licensed drug compounds are able to be repurposed for use against Zika.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a42ZDVHIvxQ

Repurposing Drugs to Tackle Emerging Infectious Diseases

Contagion_Live

167,771 views  Apr 28, 2017

Robert Malone, MD, MS, CEO/CSO of Atheric Pharmaceuticals, LLC, discusses the benefits of repurposing drugs for emerging infectious diseases rather than going down the very long, costly road of developing new ones.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o33K9KrOMlg 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVa2to1uBi4 

COVID-19 vaccineGet the latest information from the CDC.

How Effective Does an Anti-Arbovirus Drug Need to Be?

2017-04-28-youtube-com-contagion-live-robert-malone-how-effective-anti-arbovirus-need-to-be-720p.mp4

2017-04-28-youtube-com-contagion-live-robert-malone-how-effective-anti-arbovirus-need-to-be-720p-hits-cover-1080p

Contagion_Live

Robert Malone, MD, MS, CEO/CSO of Atheric Pharmaceuticals, LLC, explains how effective a drug needs to be to generate protection. 

video - HV010S   /   cover - HV010T

2018 (Oct 27-28) ... BARDA Day, Washington DC

https://www.medicalcountermeasures.gov/BARDA/documents/BID2018_ParticipantList.pdf

rick bright / sina bavari / jill malone / "patricia haigwood"  /  

2019 (April 17) -  Summit : ASPR / Strategic Planning and Committees National Biodefense Strategy 

FULL AGENDA - https://www.phe.gov/Preparedness/biodefense-strategy/Documents/summit-detailed-ag-508.pdf 

2019-04-19-usa-gov-aspr-summit-detailed-ag-508.pdf

2019-04-19-usa-gov-aspr-summit-detailed-ag-508-img-pg-01.jpg

2019-04-19-usa-gov-aspr-summit-detailed-ag-508-img-pg-02.jpg

2019-04-19-usa-gov-aspr-summit-detailed-ag-508-img-pg-03.jpg

All transcripts available at https://www.phe.gov/Preparedness/biodefense-strategy/Pages/biodefense-summit-transcripts.aspx 

  • [...]
  • 8:30 am Welcome
      • Victor Dzau, President of the National Academy of Medicine
  • 8:35 am Opening Remarks
      • Kelvin Droegemeier, Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy, Executive Office of the President
  • 8:45 am Importance of the Biodefense Summit
      • Secretary Alex M. Azar II, Department of Health and Human Services
  • 8:55 am Evolution of U.S. Biodefense Policy
      • Robert Kadlec, Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, Department of Health and Human Services
  • 10:00 am The National Biodefense Strategy: Recommendation and Perspective of the Blueprint for Biodefense
      • Governor Tom Ridge, Co-chair of the Blue Ribbon Study Panel on Biodefense
  • 10:15 am Goal 1 – Enabling Risk Awareness to Inform Decision Making across the Biodefense Enterprise
      • “The United States will build risk awareness at the strategic level, through analyses and research efforts to characterize deliberate, accidental, and natural biological risks; and at the operational level, through surveillance and detection activities to detect and identify biological threats and anticipate biological incidents.” 
      • Overview of Goal 1
          • Cindy Bruckner-Lea, Senior Scientist and Manager, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
      • Discussion of Goal 1
          • Noreen Hynes, Associate Professor of Medicine and Public Health, The Johns Hopkins University
          • Sandy Wedgeworth, Director, Public Health Emergency Management, Long Beach Department of Health and Human Service, Long Beach, California
          • Henry Willis, Associate Director, Homeland Security Operational Analysis Center, RAND Corporation
      • The Federal Government is seeking input on strategies to achieve Goal 1 of the National Biodefense Strategy.
      • Discussion Questions:
          • What are the most significant gaps or challenges, either at the national level or within your business sector, related to the implementation of Goal 1 of the Strategy (Risk Awareness)?
          • What are the highest priority actions addressing Goal 1 of the Strategy that would best advance biodefense?
          • What new initiatives are planned by your sector that would contribute to filling gaps in risk awareness and informed decision making as it applies to national biodefense?
          • What proposed initiatives would be most effective in enhancing risk awareness and informed biodefense-related decision making by leaders?
  • 11:05 am Goal 2 – Ensure Biodefense Enterprise Capabilities to Prevent Bioincidents
      • “The United States will work to prevent the outbreak and spread of naturally occurring disease, and minimize the chances of laboratory accidents. The United States will also strengthen biosecurity to prevent hostile actors from obtaining or using biological material, equipment, and expertise for nefarious purposes, consistent with the United States Government’s approach to countering weapons of mass destruction (WMD) terrorism. Goal 2 will ensure we have the capabilities necessary to disrupt plots, degrade technical capabilities, and deter support for terrorists seeking to use WMD. This goal also recognizes the “dual use” natures of the life sciences and biotechnology, in which the same science and technology base that improves health, promotes innovation, and protects the environment, can also be misused to facilitate a biological attack. The United States seeks to prevent the misuse of science and technology while promoting and enhancing legitimate use and innovation.” 
      • Overview of Goal 2
          • Michael Shannon, Director, Office of Management Assessment, National Institutes of Health
      • Discussion of Goal 2
          • William Karesh, Executive Vice President for Health and Policy, EcoHealth Alliance
          • Melissa Morland, Assistant Director of Biosafety, University of Maryland, Baltimore, and former President, American Biological Safety Association
          • James Roth, Director, Center for Food Security and Public Health, Iowa State University
      • The Federal Government is seeking input on strategies to achieve Goal 2 of the National Biodefense Strategy.
      • Biodefense Summit
          • Discussion Questions:
          • What are the most significant gaps or challenges, either at the national level or within your business sector, related to implementation of Goal 2 of the Strategy (Prevention)?
          • What are the highest priority actions addressing Goal 2 of the Strategy that would best advance biodefense?
          • What new initiatives are planned by your sector that would contribute to filling gaps in preventing bioincidents?
          • What proposed initiatives would be most effective in preventing bioincidents?
  • 1:05 pm Goal 3 – Ensure Biodefense Preparedness Enterprise to Reduce the Impacts of Bioincidents
      • “The United States will take measures to reduce the impacts of bioincidents, including maintaining a vibrant national science and technology base to support biodefense; ensuring a strong public health infrastructure; developing, updating, and exercising response capabilities; establishing risk communications; developing and effectively distributing and dispensing medical countermeasures; and preparing to collaborate across the country and internationally to support biodefense.”
      • Overview of Goal 3
          • Rick Bright, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
      • Discussion of Goal 3
          • Laura Evans, Director, Critical Care, Bellevue Hospital Center, NYC
          • Stephen Higgs, Director, Biosecurity Research Institute, Kansas State University
          • Tom Inglesby, Director, Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security
          • Paula Olsiewski, Program Director, Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
      • The Federal Government is seeking individual input on strategies to achieve Goal 3 of the National Biodefense Strategy.
      • Discussion Questions:
          • What are the most significant gaps or challenges, either at the national level or within your business sector, related to implementation of Goal 3 of the Strategy (Preparedness)?
          • What are the highest priority actions addressing Goal 3 of the Strategy that would best advance biodefense?
          • What new initiatives are planned by your sector that would contribute to filling gaps in preparing for bioincidents?
          • What proposed initiatives would be most effective in biodefense enterprise preparedness to reduce the impacts of bioincidents?
  • 2:05 pm Goal 4 – Rapidly Respond to Limit the Impacts of Bioincidents
      • “The United States will respond rapidly to limit the impacts of bioincidents through information-sharing and networking; coordinated operations and investigations; and effective public messaging.” National Biodefense Strategy
      • Overview of Goal 4
          • Lance Brooks, Chief, Department of Biological Threat Reduction, Defense Threat Reduction Agency
      • Discussion of Goal 4
          • John Benitez, Medical Director, Emergency Preparedness, Tennessee Department of Health
          • Christopher J. Kratochvil, Associate Vice Chancellor for Clinical Research at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Vice President for Research at Nebraska Medicine, and Chief Medical Officer at UNeHealth
      • The Federal Government is seeking individual input on strategies to achieve Goal 4 of the National Biodefense Strategy.
      • Discussion Questions:
          • What are the most significant gaps or challenges, either at the national level or within your business sector, related to implementation of Goal 4 of the Strategy (Response)?
          • What are the highest priority actions addressing Goal 4 of the Strategy that would best advance biodefense?
          • What new initiatives planned by your sector that would contribute to filling gaps in our ability to rapidly respond to limit the impacts of bioincidents?
          • What proposed initiatives would be most effective in ensuring fast and effective bioincident response capabilities in the United States?
  • 3:00 pm Advancing Biodefense
      • Timothy A. Morrison, Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Weapons of Mass Destruction and Biodefense, National Security Council
  • 3:25 pm Goal 5 – Facilitate Recovery to Restore the Community, the Economy, and the Environment after a Bioincident
      • “The United States will take actions to restore critical infrastructure services and capability; coordinate recovery activities; provide recovery support and long-term mitigation; and minimize cascading effects elsewhere in the world.”
      • Overview of Goal 5
          • Gary Flory, Agricultural Program Manager, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
      • Discussion of Goal 5
          • Laura Biesiadecki, Senior Director for Preparedness, National Association of County and City Health Officials
          • Marc DeCourcey, Senior Vice President, U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation
          • Nicolette Louissaint, Executive Director, Healthcare Ready
      • The Federal Government is seeking individual input on strategies to achieve Goal 5 of The National Biodefense Strategy.
      • Discussion Questions:
          • What are the most significant gaps or challenges, either at the national level or within your business sector, related to implementation of Goal 5 of the Strategy (Recovery)?
          • What are the highest priority actions addressing Goal 5 of the Strategy that would best advance biodefense?
          • What new initiatives are planned by your sector that would contribute to filling gaps in our ability to recover and restore the community, the economy, and the environment after a bioincident?
          • What proposed initiatives would be most effective in ensuring a robust national capacity to recover from bioincidents?
  • 4:25 pm Cross-cutting Themes
      • Overview Discussion of Cross-cutting Themes
      • Discussion Questions:
          • How can the Federal Government best engage and coordinate with non-Federal stakeholders to fulfill the goals of the Strategy?
          • Are there any new or innovative approaches for either the Federal Government or Stakeholders to take in order to better implement the goals of the Strategy?
  • 4:50 pm Closing Remarks
      • James McDonnell, Assistant Secretary of Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction, Department of Homeland Security
GOAL 1 transcript works...https://www.phe.gov/Preparedness/biodefense-strategy/Pages/goal1-transcript.aspxBut the discssion link...https://www.phe.gov/Preparedness/biodefense-strategy/Pages/goal1-qa-transcript.aspx 2019-04-19-usa-gov-aspr-summit-goal-1-discussion.pdf2019-04-19-usa-gov-aspr-summit-goal-1-discussion-img-1.jpg

Goal 1: Discussion Questions and Answers 

Q&A Moderator: Dr. Cindy Bruckner-Lea, Senior Scientist and Manager, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

  • CINDY BRUCKNER-LEA: Thank you all three for the range of comments and expertise we have here. We are lucky to have them here today. And also all of you. So now I would like to open the floor up to the audience to provide, to share your perspectives regarding goal one and the questions that we are reminded of here in the risk awareness goals. So, yes. And I think we have, could you step up to the microphone? I think, yes there are two on each side.
  • DAN JACOBS: Yes, my name is Dan Jacobs. I'm chairman and CEO of the Federal Market Group and chairman of the Subcontract Management Institute. I want to thank each of you for your contributions and particularly to Dr. Heinz for what was it, bio shield and so forth. That really got us started on a lot of things. Heightened awareness. My concern is that we are not addressing what I consider the greatest single challenge we have today, and that is lack of leadership at every level. We've got a gathering of eagles here. But at the end of the day, people you work for or the people who work for you and who are to execute this plan and the school, they are not qualified as leaders. Stop and think about that. They are very competent in their particular field and so forth, but decision-making, risk management is a critical issue. But you've got to begin, I mean you've got to go there from the outset. Stop and think about the workforce. It's in transition. Our bureau of labor statistics suggests that by 2020 more than 50% of the workforce will be millennials. We are dismissing them. We are not paying attention to them. Most of us here have had mentors through our career. Good ones and bad ones. But we are not training them properly. It's a cookbook training approach. So we've got to pay attention to that. And if we don't, we are at greater risk and we will never get there. But thank you all for your contributions. I'm suggesting every one of you here think about that. We are, most of us were born in the industrial age. We are now in the digital age and if we don't pay attention to those young people, every one of them are just like us who come to work every day wanting to do the right thing and we put them in positions, we train government contracting officers, program project managers and industry as well, but then we put them into a role of responsibility and they haven't any training in critical decision-making and things like this so they can't develop a risk management plan, if we don't train them and invest in that. Thank you.
  •  CINDY BRUCKNER-LEA: Thank you for your comments. Are there others in the audience? Yeah, I see a few others. Someone is heading up. And we will limit, I forgot to mention about two minutes per person. So, we have time to get as much input as we can. And if anyone would like to speak you can line up after those that are at the microphone so we can kind of go through quickly, make sure we get as many as we can. Okay.
  • MARK KORTEPETER: Good afternoon, good morning thanks for all your comments thus far, Mark Kortepeter from the University of Nebraska and my background is both as an infectious disease provider as well as a public health leader and formerly in the military. But one of the things I'm curious, and this goal one, they talk about recognition of surveillance of bio hackers and bio event, and I recently spoke at Grand Rapids Washington Hospital Center and I looked at the audience of the medical residents and really none of them had been anywhere near even college when the anthrax attacks occurred. So I think about your first comment about trying to stop something very early, recognize it very early, so I feel like the healthcare providers across the country are really the tip of the spear, and despite all our fancy surveillance systems and detection devices really it's going to be an individual who makes a connection that something unusual is occurring. So I'm wondering is there something that could be done in terms of national interest in a training platform for care providers across the country, kind of as a tip of the spear to be early recognition sentinels for a new event? Thanks a lot.
  • CINDY BRUCKNER-LEA: Yeah, I think that's an important point. Dr. Heinz, do you have any comments on that, given your medical, from the medical perspective?
  • NOREEN HYNES: Well, okay I think it's very interesting that we have a tendency to be very reactive rather than proactive. And so following the events of 911 and the anthrax attacks, there was a tremendous push to train healthcare providers and being able to recognize high consequence pathogens, including even including questions on their national certifying examinations. This is almost totally disappeared. So I actually agree with Dr. Kortepeter. I do think having a national curriculum that we wanted all healthcare providers, be they physicians, nurse practitioners, physician’s assistants and nurses to know about becomes very critically important. We are rolling out something in collaboration with the state of Maryland at Hopkins to try to train front-line hospital providers and transport folks throughout front-line hospitals and assessment hospitals to recognize high consequence pathogens. We are trying to do this as a first step, but I think Dr. Kortepeter is quite correct. I think we need a national effort.
  • CINDY BRUCKNER-LEA: Okay other comments?
  • ROBERT MALONE: My name is Robert Malone. I'm a consultant but I've worked with over 30 years in discovering new technologies, as an academic I work for nonprofits, I worked for the government, I worked for the IC, worked a lot with DOD. And I suggest for your consideration, personally I like a case study approach. And we kind of lucked out with Zika. But it turns out Zika wasn't really a black swan. But it was pretty close. And our response in those early days, I think could really inform if you're thinking about processes and gaps, what we encountered was a very fragmented ability to process information with an IC that didn't have sufficient analyst capacity that understands bio threats and is able to process that signal that was coming in. That signal as it came in was, you know, CDC had the foreshadowing of it, they published the papers, but they completely missed it and their response was really biased by preconceived notions about things like sexual transmission. But the data were all there. What we end up doing, not that we were so great, but in the gap pulled together a group of folks that cross, DOD, IC and other communities and were able to come it turns out in retrospect pretty accurately analyze that signal and make an assessment. We published it in public access journals, multiple papers, and in retrospect we pretty much got it right. But it was because we had an interdisciplinary group. We did use computational processing. We did take a lot of information in. We very actively reached out to the Latin American communities, the Brazilian communities, got the primary data, approached it without bias, were able to quickly call the sexual transmission risk and made accurate predictions about viable strategies for countermeasures. Fortunately those, we were very skeptical, as a vaccinologist, we were very skeptical about the timelines for vaccine development. So I'm just, not that we were so great, but as they say in the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king. And in this case, we had one eye open. And we were able to make some good calls. But in [MACE] as they all are, it's always the fog of war. When these things happen, and for too many. A diverse group that isn't, that tries really hard to have preconceived notions about the data and digs in hard can analyze these small fragments of unsecure data, of questionable integrity and come up with a reasonable analysis and strategic plan. But I suggest then in closure that that particular series of events could make for superduper case study as you look at what those gaps are because they all presented themselves and it was possible to process that information and come up with accurate predictions. You can look at our papers. But those things were very different decisions were made and analyses were made by existing HHS infrastructure and they missed a lot of stuff.
  • CINDY BRUCKNER-LEA: Thank you so much for those comments. Yeah there's definitely a huge data challenge and how to look at that in an unbiased way and integrate the data is a huge challenge. Yeah?
  • FRED LIKEM:  Yeah, I'm Fred Likem with Washington Institute and a visiting scientist with Lawrence Livermore national lab and I've been working on this stuff for more decades than I will admit to, but I have some general comments and some specific suggestions for each of our three speakers. I think the most important aspect of this bio defense problem is context. And the context as defined is we have to be worried about naturally occurring epidemics, pandemics. We have to be worried about accidents. We also have to be worried about the nature of warfare and the nature may involve peer rivals and their means to take covert, clandestine special operations tactics to deliver weapons of mass destruction, which could be limited use of nuclear, certainly strategic use of bio and most likely as any attack that China or Russia has shown on any neighboring concerns, it will be cyber and the ability to disrupt communications. The other aspect of the future nature of warfare will be that unlike the Cold War, where it was launching missiles at each other's missile silos or command and control centers, certainly there could be some of that, but the more likely limited use of force by peer rivals in particular will include destroying or disrupting the infrastructure for public health, for safety and for food supply and all the things that society going together. So the message that I'm trying to suggest, this is a complex multidimensional problem. But we need to introduce the concept with the strategy of a systematic systems architecture. We have, in addition to those goals, those goals translate into a warning and detection system, which everyone here knows is both based on epidemiology and we are all in the Canary course, and someone was alluding to that, but if we don't get out in front of what we like to call the epidemic curve, and be able to actually be effective and break any kind of change in transmission or further infection, then the ability to control the entire activity is going to be quite disappointing and the other thing to keep in mind is you either can sample, as we have been doing with bio watch on a limited basis as a means to get some more timely warning then syndromic surveillance let’s say might give you, but if you are not prepared to do more extensive sampling, you won't know where the hazards are if in fact it was released. The number one target if you want a strategic target, there is one major one. It's called the New York City subway system and also you all on the West Coast have subway systems as well. Those are both weapons and detection systems and I and my colleagues did some really extensive work after 9/11 with the New York City health Department emergency planners and we were absolutely amazed if you had a hypothetical release, let's say of a communicable disease like smallpox, as to how many generations of transmission would occur, and I will stop there on that one. So specific comments with respect to Dr. Heinz, I thought not surprisingly with her experience a lot of good observations. But remember that we don't control the gain of function and dual use technology. If you look carefully, and I know you have at what the Chinese did when we had a ban on research in that area, they did a lot of the very experiments that we would have wanted to do. And I think, without naming names, the Dutch researcher that misspoke about being able to transfer virulence and human affinity of H5N1 influenza created more damage actually in the final analysis. So just keep in mind that we may want restrictions on young things and educate younger students as they come up and I think Noreen is absolutely right on that. But this is a multiway street.
  • CINDY BRUCKNER-LEA: We need to move on, sorry to limit...
  • FRED LIKEM: The final thing I would just add is really what we are talking about is a kind of set of strategic capabilities going back to the architecture notion where we are going to have both environmental monitoring of some sort and we are going to also have epidemiological investigation. And there needs to be a recognition as to what the court environmental capabilities are going to be, and secondarily, what, after those core capabilities are used, what they are going to have to be augmented with. And a final thing is…
  • CINDY BRUCKNER-LEA: I'm sorry, I'm so sorry we have to move on.
  • FRED LIKEM: I was going to say real quickly with the state with respect to the local government problem you have to have organized your stakeholders and the stakeholders have to get behind you, and as you know already, and back you, otherwise nothing is going to happen, but the box gets checked.
  • CINDY BRUCKNER-LEA: Thank you. Yeah, okay. Next?
  • FEMALE SPEAKER: In keeping with the theme of bio defense as a public issue we have a question from the watchers at the live stream, how can we best incorporate biosafety and bio security into elementary and high school classrooms in the US?
  • CINDY BRUCKNER-LEA: Could we answer very quickly because then I can have just the last, we only have time for one more question.
  • NOREEN HYNES: Just very quickly I think that it's very important to be a part of active STEM education. These are poorly funded now and decreased funding in elementary schools, middle schools and secondary schools, and I think we have to try to bring this back so that we can begin to incorporate this.
  • CINDY BRUCKNER-LEA: So I think, given our schedule we only have time for one more comment or question and others we have online, so there's opportunity to provide input beyond this. I wish we had more time. So go ahead
  • CAROLINE KENNEDY: Hi, my name is Caroline Kennedy. I work at the Mitre Corporation. So addressing one of the challenges at the national level, and thank you to all the panels and specifically the colleague at the Long Beach Department of Health and Human Services, but just want to touch on, that we know these disease threats don't respect borders. They are often international in nature, and with airplane travel being what it is today and movement of migrants and things like that they can quickly cross from other countries into the domestic territory. So I think the challenge that we face is that the discussion about health and bio threats has to be had at the local level because you are right in that it is our local stakeholders who are often first noticing disease incidence, but those quote unquote local stakeholders could be in Ethiopia. They could be in any country around the world operating at a local level. So I think that is a significant challenge to convince federal stakeholders of the importance of the investment internationally and surveillance activities as well. Thank you.
  • CINDY BRUCKNER-LEA: Thank you so much. So I really, I think I'm energized by all the comments and the discussion so far and I think it just reiterates to me how important this area is and the implementation of the strategy is and really I'm looking forward to input. We really need input from all of you who weren't able to provide your comments and thoughts regarding these questions and goal one, please do so on ASPR bio at HHS.gov because we really need, as we said this is such a huge challenge, we need to all join together to really address the risk awareness challenges. So thank you. I think our time is up, correct. Otherwise I'd keep going. Okay.

2018 - 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polly_Matzinger - danger model .. 


2019 (Nov) - Vaccine Summit

https://vaccines.unitedscientificgroup.org/2019/

featured-speakers

Berzofsky

Malone

John R. Mascola 



participants ( https://web.archive.org/web/20221202152335/https://vaccines.unitedscientificgroup.org/2019/participants

Drew Weissman

Vanden Bossche



page1.jpg


2020 (Feb 12) book release : "Novel Coronavirus" - by Malone MD & Jill Glasspool Malone Phd

Source (saved as a PDF in Jan 2022) : [HC005Y][GDrive]

Specifications

Book Synopsis  

This book provides a pragmatic, practical guide full of everyday tips for living in the real world, while doing what you can to avoid contracting the novel coronavirus (COVID-19). The most important thing that anyone can do to reduce the spread of novel coronavirus infection and disease among your community is to protect yourself, and this book is designed to empower each of us to accomplish this. It is also intended to help you to recognize the signs when you or someone else has become infected. It is not intended as a "doomsday", "survivalist" or "prepper" manual. It is written for average people; mothers, fathers, relatives and families, young and old, singles and couples, workers and retired, well off and living from paycheck to paycheck.At various points, this book does delve into more technical aspects of virology, epidemiology and the biology of novel coronaviral disease. These sections are written for the more scientifically adept reader. However, if you are not scientifically minded, please do not let that scare you off. Discussions on how to protect yourself and your family, and how to prepare for the coming epidemic, are written for and easily understood by those without a strong scientific background. The book also has concrete suggestions on how to mitigate risks associated with businesses and the workplace. This includes risk management and continuity planning for businesses.Finally, an introduction to medical countermeasure (drugs, vaccines, antibodies etc.) development options for this novel coronavirus are discussed.A word of caution: overreaction triggering unnecessary panic can be extremely damaging - economically and in other ways. Just as under-reaction is a problem. Please remember to Keep Calm and Carry on.

2020 (April 01) - Medium.com : Robert Malone, MD, MS,  response to Eric Smith's "Last night the world experts on COVID-19 came together: These are their thoughts"

NOTE: [Dr. Robert Wallace Malone (born 1959)] speaks very positively regarding [Dr. Michael Vincent Callahan (born 1962)] at this time

Responded to -   https://medium.com/@erin.smith_2213/last-night-the-world-experts-on-covid-19-came-together-these-are-their-thoughts-53158f79eefd

Saved as PDF : [HM00BB][GDrive]   (  Full JPG Image of this response :   [HM00BE][GDrive]   ) 

   Part 1/2 of JPG Image of this response :   [HM00BC][GDrive]  
   Part 2/2 of JPG Image of this response :   [HM00BD][GDrive]  

"Hello Dr. Smith.

Thank you for this contribution.

Perhaps your title is a bit of an overstatement?

Personally, I would not consider this a comprehensive collection of the world’s experts in COVID-19.

Particularly striking is the lack of representation of the community of scientists and physicians from the PRC, who have been at the forefront of understanding and treating this disease.

Just to provide one western example, my colleague [Dr. Michael Vincent Callahan (born 1962)] ( who currently reports directly to the ASPR in US) has supervised treatment of well over 6000 cases of COVID19, was in country in the PRC assisting, was at the forefront of guiding the US management of the Diamond Princess outbreak, and is currently shuttling between particularly troublesome outbreaks in USA and Washington DC where he is actively involved in advising and guiding policy. I do not see any representation in this group which comes close to the active role and experience which Dr. Callahan is bringing to the clinical and functional management and decision making involved in this pandemic.

There are many voices, many individuals with deep expertise, and many ideas guiding the current response.

Perhaps a bit of humility in the face of our profound ignorance about this disease will go a long way to helping enable the emergence of more effective responses? What we confront is a new virus, closely related to SARS, and COVID19 is a new disease with its own nuances and a very complex pathophysiologic cascade that we are just beginning to understand. We now have a bit over three months of practical experience in managing this pathogen and the associated outbreak. And we are out of time, the wolf is no longer at the door but rather is in the house.

In my personal opinion, more effective response management should begin with acknowledging our ignorance, proceeding as efficiently as possible to evaluate the many innovative response options which are emerging worldwide (and often from the PRC scientific and medical community), and opening ourselves to what are essentially crowdsourced solutions. There are many seasoned outbreak veterans who are quietly working on pragmatic solutions. There are others who are doing a lot of talking and in some cases grandstanding. Perhaps a bit less talking by self styled experts, more listening to those on the front lines, and a bit more doing by actively working on solutions would be in order. We have so little time. Lets just get to work. Like many of us have been quietly doing since early January 2020.

Thank you for considering my comments."

2020 (June 15) - Chemical and Engineering News : "Can Pepcid treat COVID-19? With clinical trials ongoing, doctors try to unravel how famotidine could be working to fight the disease caused by SARS-CoV-2"

"Update: As of Jan. 5, 2022, no study has found Pepcid (famotidine) to be an effective treatment for COVID-19. Doctors recommend vaccination."

by Bethany Halford    /  June 15, 2020 | A version of this story appeared in Volume 98, Issue 25 

Also see : SARS-COV2 famotidine trials (2020)   ;   Mentioned  DOMANE   /   Dr. Robert Wallace Malone (born 1959)   /

The image below is [HP00CE][GDrive]   ;  couldnt save entire source as a PDF. 

Doctors and scientists are studying many existing drugs with the hope of finding therapies they can repurpose to fight COVID-19. Some of these, like Gilead Sciences’ remdesivir, directly go after the virus SARS-CoV-2, which causes the disease. Others, like Incyte’s ruxolitinib, aim to dampen the overactive immune response that characterizes later stages of disease in COVID-19.

And then there are the oddballs. Take famotidine, the active ingredient in the over-the-counter heartburn drug Pepcid. The histamine-H2-receptor antagonist works by preventing stomach acid production. That it would have any activity in an infectious disease is a bit of a head-scratcher.

Doctors first became interested in famotidine after hearing reports that people in China who took the drug for heartburn were surviving COVID-19, while other people who essentially had the same risk factors but were taking different heartburn drugs like cimetidine or omeprazole (sold in the US as Tagamet and Prilosec, respectively) were dying from the disease. Perhaps famotidine was somehow bolstering these patients and improving their chances for survival.

In early April, doctors began a clinical trial at New York’s Northwell hospitals to test that theory. [See SARS-COV2 famotidine trials (2020)] They reasoned that even if evidence for famotidine’s effectiveness was largely anecdotal, the drug has been around since the 1980s and has a good safety profile. If it worked, it would be a fast and cheap way to ease the symptoms of COVID-19.

They decided to use high doses of intravenous famotidine. Their goal was to enroll 1,200 people with moderate to severe COVID-19 and see if those that got famotidine were less likely to die or require a ventilator. Then, in late April, the first news report about the trial appeared in Science. Boxes of Pepcid began to fly off of pharmacy shelves as people sought out any potential remedy during the pandemic.

Shortly afterward, on May 8, a team, led by Columbia University doctors Daniel Freedberg and Julian Abrams, posted a study on the preprint server medRxiv that compared the outcomes of people with COVID-19 who were prescribed famotidine within 24 hours of being admitted to the hospital to those who didn’t get the heartburn drug. They looked at the records of more than 1,600 patients at Columbia University Irving Medical Center between late February and mid-April. Of those, 84 patients received 10–40 mg of intravenous famotidine daily over the course of about 6 days.

The patients who got famotidine fared better. According to the study, they were far less likely to die or require a ventilator—a twofold decrease in risk—than those not receiving the drug. The results were published in the peer-reviewed journal Gastroenterology later in May (2020, DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.05.053).

“This is merely an association, and these findings should not be interpreted to mean that famotidine improves outcomes in patients hospitalized with COVID-19,” the team says in a statement. “It is also not clear why those patients who received famotidine had improved outcomes.”

For clarity on famotidine’s effectiveness, the team recommends awaiting the outcome of the trial going on at Northwell hospitals. “Hopefully the results from this trial will determine whether famotidine is efficacious for the treatment of COVID-19,” the team says in its statement.

Meanwhile, in early June, the journal Gut published a small case series of 10 people who developed COVID-19 and reported taking famotidine during their illness (2020, DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2020-321852). These people were not sick enough to go to the hospital, but their symptoms, such as cough and shortness of breath, improved within a day or two of taking the heartburn drug. It’s a small study, and the researchers acknowledge that it’s not enough to establish there’s any real benefit from taking famotidine for people who have COVID-19. Those authors recommend a clinical trial with famotidine be carried out with patients with milder disease in addition to the trial going on at Northwell hospitals.

Matthew D. Hall, acting director of biology and group leader, Early Translation Branch, at NIH’s National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences :    "I think there’s going to be some intriguing science trying to draw a connection between the activity—if it is proven to have that in patients—and how it’s actually working in the context of SARS-CoV-2 infection."

But the Northwell trial has slowed for two reasons, says Joseph Conigliaro, the physician who is leading it. Cases of COVID-19 in New York have declined, making it challenging to reach the enrollment requirements for the study.

And shifting treatment approaches have further complicated efforts. When the trial began, COVID-19 patients in New York were getting the antimalarial hydroxychloroquine as part of their treatment regimen. So the study was designed to compare patients receiving hydroxychloroquine and famotidine with patients receiving hydroxychloroquine and a placebo. But that standard treatment regimen has changed, and hydroxychloroquine is no longer given routinely. As a consequence, the researchers are looking to modify the study’s protocol, Conigliaro says.

Until the results of the study are in, Conigliaro can’t say whether famotidine works. “As a physician, I can’t tell people ‘go out and buy famotidine, and if you start getting an inkling of anything start taking it,’ ” he says. Even though the drug has long been considered safe, it’s unclear how to guide people to take it in terms of dose and disease stage. “We need to wait for the results of our trial,” he says.

Scientists are meanwhile trying to figure out why a heartburn medicine might also fight COVID-19. Using computational methods, a group in China used SARS-CoV-2 genes to predict the structures of viral proteins. The group then computationally screened existing drugs to see which could potentially act on those protein targets. Their study suggests that famotidine could inhibit the virus’s 3-chymotrypsin-like protease, which plays a role when the coronavirus makes copies of itself while inside the host (Acta Pharm. Sin. B 2020, DOI: 10.1016/j.apsb.2020.02.008).

Similarly, computational chemists at the scientific software company Molecular Forecaster virtually docked a library of 2,700 existing drugs and nutraceuticals to see which fit into a model of the papain-like protease, another key protein in SARS-CoV-2 replication. They were collaborating with scientists working for a US Department of Defense project called [DOMANE]. Famotidine was one of a few drugs that appeared to interact with the protease in the computational studies, says [Dr. Robert Wallace Malone (born 1959)], a physician and consultant who is on the [DOMANE] team.

But other evidence derails those computational studies. Matthew D. Hall, acting director of biology and group leader, Early Translation Branch, at the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS), part of the US National Institutes of Health, points out that his group did studies in cells that show famotidine doesn’t have any ability to fight SARS-CoV-2. “In a direct antiviral assay, we don’t see any activity for any of the compounds in this class,” he says.

As a drug-repurposing candidate, Hall says, famotidine is attractive because it’s safe, affordable, and accessible. But making further conclusions about its usefulness in COVID-19 will require clinical trial data. If those trials show promise, Hall says, “I think there’s going to be some intriguing science trying to draw a connection between [clinical] activity and how it’s actually working in the context of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Understanding the primary mechanism may also drive long-term development of new therapeutics that are more potent.”

[Dr. Robert Wallace Malone (born 1959)] has been working with a team of scientists to get a better understanding of just how famotidine might be working. Results of his team’s study, which have not yet been peer reviewed, appeared on a preprint server on May 23 (Research Square 2020, DOI: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-30934/v1).

Like the NCATS work, the team’s tests showed that famotidine has no effect on SARS-CoV-2’s papain-like protease, nor does it kill the virus. Instead, Malone and colleagues think the drug is working through its usual target—histamine H2 receptors. Famotidine treats heartburn by blocking H2 receptors, which when activated by histamine stimulate cells in the stomach to secrete acid.

Joseph Conigliaro, chief, General Internal Medicine, Northwell Health :  "As a physician, I can’t tell people ‘go out and buy famotidine and if you start getting an inkling of anything start taking it.’ "

But H2 receptors aren’t just in the stomach—they’re all over the body. Malone and colleagues argue that COVID-19 is disrupting mast cells, which release histamine and other signaling molecules in response to an inflammatory or allergic reaction. These cells can be found at the boundary between tissue and an external environment. They’re on the skin and line the gut and lungs. Malone reasons that mast cells could be responsible for the overactive immune response, often described as the cytokine storm, which does damage to patients with severe cases of COVID-19. By blocking the histamine that mast cells release, famotidine can dampen some of that response.

If famotidine is effective in COVID-19, why isn’t the other commonly used H2 blocker, cimetidine? The answer, Malone claims, comes down to pharmacokinetics: famotidine makes it into the bloodstream more readily than cimetidine.

Adrian M. Piliponsky, an immunologist at Seattle Children’s Research Institute who studies mast cells, says that it’s possible mast cells are playing a role in the inflammatory response to COVID-19. He notes that mast cells play a role in infections with other viruses. He thinks the idea proposed by Malone and colleagues merits further study, and he’s interested in seeing the results of the clinical trial.

[Dr. Robert Wallace Malone (born 1959)] also would like to see a comprehensive trial of famotidine in people who are in the early stages of COVID-19. But he doesn’t think the drug alone will resolve the world’s COVID-19 pandemic. “We’re committed to trying to create an outpatient cocktail of drugs that will significantly reduce morbidity and mortality for COVID-19 and have it ready for deployment in the fall,” he says.

In the meantime, doctors are urging caution for people who might see these early results and rush out to stock up on Pepcid. Carl J. Lavie, medical director of cardiac rehabilitation and prevention at the John Ochsner Heart and Vascular Institute, recently cowrote a letter to the editor of Mayo Clinic Proceedings encouraging doctors to wait for the clinical trial results.

He tells C&EN that it’s premature to recommend famotidine just for COVID-19, but he adds, “I also think that it is benign, so it would seem very reasonable to use for upper GI symptoms now” before giving other heartburn drugs like omeprazole.

2020 (July 24)

PDF : [HM002K][GDrive]IMAGE : [HM002L][GDrive]

2021 (Jan) - Digestive Diseases and Sciences: "More than just heartburn: Does famotidine effectively treat patients with COVID-19?" by Dr. Robert W. Malone

Source PDF : [HP00A6][GDrive

Also see :  SARS-COV2 famotidine trials (2020)   

2021 (June 01) - Jill Glasspool-Malone's letter of how Robert Malone's mRNA vaccination technology is "saving the world"

Saved as PDF : [HX0030][GDrive]  /  (Saved PDF with some highlights :  [HX0031][GDrive]   )   

 Image of Page 1 : [HX0032][GDrive

A Scientific Education:  The Early Discoveries of RNA and DNA Vaccination

  • This is a story about academic and commercial avarice. As you read it, you will think it is exaggerated or made up. It is not. It is the story about how the discoveries of DNA and RNA transfection and RNA vaccination were invented. It is also a story of repeated abuse.
  • To begin, Robert W. Malone MD, MS and I have been married 42 years. We met in high school. Please forgive me, if the tone of this letter is angry. It has been a long and tortous journey of repeated financial, and psychological abuse. Even now, THREE decades after, the abuse continues as other take credit for his work and the press (both scientific and lay) refuse to acknowledge his contributions. So yes, I can get worked up over this – I have lived with this amazing mind for decades. I am amazed at how Robert has been able to keep going scientifically despite the hurdles that have been thrown our way – and yet he has. He persists in doing extraordinary research, often without pay and without any institutional support.
  • I am in the unique position of being a witness to the events involved in how RNA vaccination was invented and developed, and how individuals at a research institution and a corporation conspired to strip a graduate student from the credit he deserved in inventing RNA and DNA vaccination/gene transfer back in 1988.
  • The story of non-viral gene therapy and genetic vaccination really started when Dr. Robert Malone was a graduate student at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD) and the Salk, Institute (1986 to 1988). Robert had just finished the first two years of Medical school at Northwestern in an MD/PhD program, when he chose to do his PhD graduate work at UCSD and the Salk Institute. The quality of the investigators, particularly the work of Dr. Verma, was what drew him to UCSD/Salk. Before that, he had been a biochem major at UC Davis and had been involved in some major research in the newly discovered HIV virus, as well as tumor cancer biology and retroviruses. He was already on multiple papers/abstracts prior to starting graduate work at UCSD.
  • At the Salk Institute/UCSD, he did his thesis work under Dr. Inder Verma on RNA structure and DNA/RNA gene transfer. The first realization that DNA in itself can produce an immune response was when Robert began collaborating with a post-doc in Verma’s lab by the name of Dr. Daniel St. Louis in 1987. Dr. St. Louis was working on a hemophilia gene therapy model in rabbits using retro-viral transduction techniques. Dr. St. Louis kept having gene expression stop at about two to three weeks post-treatment and he was sure that this loss of gene expression had to do with the promoter he was using. Dr. St. Louis talked with Robert Malone and Robert got obsessed with this puzzle and spent day and night poring over Dan's data, medical texts and journals. Then, he had a brainstorm. What was going on was that immune responses were shutting down gene expression. It had nothing to do with the promoter Dr. St. Louis was using. He presented all of his work and thoughts to Dr. St. Louis. This was the intellectual exercise that led to Robert discovering RNA and DNA vaccines at that time. Note that Robert is acknowledged in the St. Luis paper (St Louis D, Verma IM.
  • An alternative approach to somatic cell gene therapy. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1988 May;85(9):3150-4. doi: 10.1073/pnas.85.9.3150. PMID: 3283738; PMCID: PMC280161).
  • In fact, Robert talked with me extensively about using retroviral vectors for genetic vaccination during this time, but thought that the dangers of retroviral vectors were too great and that the FDA would not allow for this to be licensed. However, this intellectual challenge led to this idea of using DNA and RNA delivery for vaccines. By spring 1988, his ideas about DNA and RNA vaccination were cohesive and formed the basis for the research plan that Vical later developed.
  • As a witness to what these ideas represented and the timeline of when the ideas and experiments were performed, I know that Robert was obsessed with gene transfer and immune responses long before he went to work for Vical in 1989. Robert’s first paper on RNA/cationic liposome transfection (PNAS) (which now has 747 citations) as well as published papers on RNA/DNA/cationic liposome transfection and embryonic transfection, were researched and written in 1988. I even have a journal entry dated in 1988, where I write briefly of Robert’s ideas regarding genetic vaccination.
  • But let’s take a step back further in time. In 1980, the Bayh-Dole Act was passed by Congress. It fundamentally changed the nation's system of technology transfer by enabling universities to retain title to inventions and take the lead in patenting and licensing groundbreaking discoveries. It allowed inventors to profit from their patents. It was truly a brave new world in biotechnology.
  • This was a time of great excitement about the potential of biotechnology and the money to be made by Universities, inventors and venture capitalists alike. Biotech capitalists were looking for new ideas and San Diego was flush with venture capital funding for biotech. Professors were cashing in on deals to consult and sell their intellectual property. One such person was Dr Inder Verma, a powerful scientist at the Salk Institute, with a joint appointment at UCSD. Dr. Verma was also extremely influential at NIH, NIAID and NCI.
  • Fast forward to 2018, and remember that Dr. Verma has become infamous for his abuse and harassment of post docs and employees, particularly women. This was due to a large investigation and an article in Science Magazine about his serial sexual misconduct and harassment of those under him, abuse that went on for decades (“Famed cancer biologist allegedly sexually harassed women for decades” Science Magazine, 2018). This abuse includes harassing and stalking long after people left his laboratory, which has been well documented. As one woman interviewed put it, “He’s going to hurt me. I need grants.” His behavior was to threaten people, if they didn’t do what he wanted. As a very important person in science and at NIH, he followed through on these threats.
  • As Robert was the only graduate student in a 20-person post-doc lab, Robert was very vulnerable to Dr. Verma’s harassment. Gender abuse is just one facet of cyclic abusive behavior, and Dr. Verma set up a cycle of abusive behavior towards Robert early on. Examples of the typical workplace behavior included Dr. Verma routinely offering grant applications and papers that he was to review to Robert, with instructions to “read them for ideas.” Something Robert refused to do, and was so upset about it, that he spoke to the Salk human resources officer. Which of course, infuriated Dr. Verma. Not only was nothing was done to stop this predatory behavior by the institution, but they informed Dr. Verma that Robert had complained.
  • Dr. Verma would also put multiple people on the same project to compete against each other in the lab. Tensions among the post-docs were always high and explosive, with people having to hide experiments, notebooks and data – because of the fear of competition from WITHIN the laboratory. It was not unusual for post-docs to accuse each other of sabotaging experiments. But beyond that, Dr Verma harassed Robert. He threatened that he would kill his career, etc., if he didn’t comply with his demands, if he didn’t include him on patent disclosures, etc.
  • Back to the story of RNA/DNA transfection and vaccination… Robert’s research had primarily been done at the Salk, although, he was a graduate student at UCSD. Patent disclosures were filed on the RNA transfection/gene transfer technologies, which Dr. Verma and the Salk, as well as UCSD were very excited about -as they saw the commercial potential. But UCSD was also involved, as the early RNA transfection work had been done with frog embryos salvaged from a class at UCSD that Robert was a teaching assistant in.
  • Attorneys from these two institutions (Salk and UCSD) began fighting, as there was no protocol in place for what to do when a graduate student who worked at both institutions made significant discoveries. Who would own the patent rights for Robert’s work? Dr. Verma and the Salk attorney were threatening Robert that they would “ruin” his career or somehow financially punish him if he involved UCSD in the patent applications. The Salk attorneys were furious that Robert had sent patent disclosures to UCSD as well as themselves. The attorney for UCSD was threatening that they would come after Robert financially or even his position of graduate student, if he didn’t get the Salk to include UCSD on the patent as an assignee.
  • While this was going on, Robert had, with Dr. Verma’s permission, set up a collaboration with Syntex/Dr. Phil Felgner in January, 1988. To do this, Robert contacted Dr. Felgner and laid out his plans for the use of the cationic lipids for in-vitro mRNA transfection. Other letters that Robert wrote to Dr. Felgner clearly lay out some of the core principles of the experiments, as well as sending him a signed summery of Robert’s ideas about in-vitro and in-vivo RNA transfection, using RNA as a drug and ideas around new as to synthesize, as well as stabilizing RNA (this letter is available for viewing, upon request). This summer was also sent to UCSD and Salk lawyers as disclosures. Some months later, the Salk CEO Dr. DeHoffman called Robert into a meeting with Dr. Verma at which Roberrt was accused of having set up a collaboration with Syntex unilaterally and without Dr. Verma’s knowledge or approval. In the meeting, Robert described what actually happened. This was that Dr. Tony Hunter had tipped Robert off about Syntax lipids and Inder had approved of the collaboration. Inder denied this - because he was under pressure to run all inventions via the for-profit arm of the Salk (SIBIA). So, Inder lied. Robert went to Tony Hunter about this after and was told "of course Inder lied, what would you expect him to do.” Later in 1988, Dr. Felgner shared Robert’s ideas with Dr. Jon Wolff and we believe Dr. Felgner expressed these ideas as Felgner’s own and didn’t credit Robert…
  • Back to the Salk. This conflict over the patent disclosures went on for months – back and forth. A frothy mix of attorneys and full professors trying to exert influence over who would own Robert’s work. Robert was a graduate student, with no status or power within the University structure. Dr. Verma also threatened Robert that he would never graduate and would not be able to find work once he left the Salk, unless he cut off communication with the UCSD attorney about the patent disclosures. Dr. Verma reiterated that he would see to it, that Robert would not get a NIH/NIAID grant ever, if he left the lab. By all accounts, in the years that followed, this threat was acted upon…
  • Tensions were high. Robert as a graduate student felt disempowered, harassed and was a pawn in a battle much larger than himself. It was literally not possible for Robert to continue his graduate degree, due to the level of harassment, abuse and threats of lawsuits by the institutions involved. Writing this, it seems unbelievable. But I was there. It happened. I actually kept a detailed journal at the time. We have boxes of data, memos, patents disclosures, drafts, etc. all boxed up and ready to share. I will be glad to send much of this documentation upon request and some of it can be found on the attached documents. These are actually just a portion of the documents I have saved and can send more if, wanted.
  • Robert went to his UCSD graduate advisor (Dr. Deborah Spector), who was frankly skeptical and dismissive of both his claims of abuse and his research. He was told that he had been warned about Dr. Verma, so this was his fault for going to work for him. Because Inder had a “reputation” for being difficult. This, of course, is a classic “blame the victim” mentality.
  • His thesis proposal was met with skepticism, as his thinking and research (concerning mRNA 5’ and 3’ untranslated region interactions) was so far ahead that the committee didn’t understand it and couldn’t be bothered to take the time to understand it prior to the meeting. The meeting went on for five hours, where he was grilled extensively and it left him shaken. This was the research which has since resulted in thousands of citations. Work that was done at the Salk/UCSD, that opened up a new avenue of research and is now saving the world. The lack of support or even understanding at UCSD was appalling. Then the fact that those who did understand it used his research to further their own agenda without acknowledging his contributions was abusive.
  • In the end, he stepped away from getting his doctorate, settled for an “all but dissertation,” and ended up with a masters before going to work at Vical and then going back to complete medical school. Note that the papers that were published from his work at the Salk/UCSD are critical in understanding RNA expression as well as DNA and RNA vaccination. The first paper published from his graduate work at the Salk entitled, “Cationic Liposome-mediated RNA transfection” (PNAS) has 747 citations alone and that is just the start of the many papers and patents that ended up being published by Vical, but all or the majority of the work had been conducted at the Salk. This work is now considered seminal in the discovery and development of DNA/RNA transfection and as well as the discovery of DNA and RNA vaccination. The paper “Direct gene transfer into mouse muscle in vivo,” published in 1990 (but much of the work was done at the Salk) has almost 5,000 citations. The Vical Patent, which has work done at the Salk in it, has 1200 citations. The papers and patents that were published from his period at the period at the Salk/UCSD have approximately 6,300 citations. Yet, he came away from the experience without a PhD due to being threatened by attorneys from both institutions and due to the abuse from Dr. Verma.
  • At one point in 1988, Robert felt so abused, that he went to the UCSD mental health clinic, who diagnosed him with severe PTSD from the abuse. The mental health professional told Robert that his levels were the same as someone coming back from Vietnam. There are records somewhere at UCSD that diagnosed a student with severe abuse from his thesis advisor/attorneys and yet that information was not disclosed to UCSD human resources. Nor was Robert encouraged to seek outside help from the graduate department in dealing with this. In our 45 years together, I have never witnessed anywhere the level of abuse that Robert endured. I can’t describe how much Dr. Verma’s abuse affected Robert.
  • Yes- Robert’s seminal research at the Salk Institute and continued at Vical and then after is now saving the world from COVID-19. The patents clearly define the discovery of mRNA transfection and vaccination, as do many of the early papters.
  • Despite 6,300 citations from his published work during this time (1988-1990), he did not end up with a PhD. As Pfizer, University of Wisconsin (WARF), Vical, Merck and now the University of PA take credit for this work, go back to the data and the written word. Always go to the data. It was the Salk where much of the discoveries happened. Data that clearly show he should have been primary inventor on all those patents that Vical filed. Patents that were generated from the patent disclosures filed at the Salk Institute. Disclosures that the Salk attorneys determined Robert should be the sole inventor on. The patent application from the Salk were withdrawn and Robert never told. Which, of course is against the law and University of California (UCOP) policy. Note that Robert asked to see the application in 1991 and the cover letter to Robert does not even imply that the patent had been abandoned (which it had). The Salk withdrew the patent, knowing that Vical wished to LICENSE the patent. Why did they do that? How much was Dr. Verma (at the time, also a paid advisor to Vical) involved in that decision? But I am jumping ahead of myself again. Back to the timeline.
  • When Robert decided to leave the PhD program, he took a position at a brand-new company called Vical, Inc. in January 1989. He did this for me, so that I could finish my undergraduate degree, as well as so he could continue his research, before returning to medical school in Sept 1989. The plan was this would be a temporary position (8 months duration). Dr. Phillip Felgner recruited Robert into Vical to continue his research and set up a gene delivery/DNA/RNA program. Robert had already been collaborating with Dr. Felgner, who had supplied him with cationic lipids for his experiments. But Robert had the ideas, designs and experiments for this program. The program came from his bench at the Salk. Dr. Felgner was a chemist, not a molecular virologist. Dr. Felgner then became his supervisor.
  • Robert was put in charge of molecular biology and then immunology (the only employee in this section being himself), with only ten people at the company. In order to quickly ramp up the program, Dr. Felgner encouraged Robert to bring over all his reagents, plasmids and stocks from the Salk Institute.
  • The fact that Robert brought over all his research materials, including DNA/RNA constructs, plasmids, reporter genes, cell lines, cationic lipid formulations (“Lipofectin”) was why the results came so quickly at Vical, as that initial transfection and DNA/RNA vaccine work was just an extension of what Robert had been working on previously at the Salk Institute. Privately, Robert has always said that it was like casting pearls before swine, as they had no idea the gift they were given. Later we were told that the reason Vical and Merck never pursued RNA vaccination was because they couldn’t make RNA after Robert resigned from Vical.
  • In early 1989, soon after joining Vical, Robert had been working on in-vivo cationic liposomal transfection and needed to perform blinded rodent studies. Vical did not have animal resources set up yet. Thus, he designed the experiments, made up the plasmids, DNA, RNA and reagents, wrote out directions and sent samples to Dr. Wolff at the University of Wisconsin who injected rats with blinded samples. We still have those lab books, set of directions, etc. Robert had cloned the plasmids (at the Salk institute as well as Vical) and worked up all of the reagents himself, He stocked the Vical lab with his stocks from the Salk, which he had transferred to Vical. Dr. Wolff's role was to perform the animal treatments, as Vical, Inc had yet to set up their animal facilities. As a negative control, Robert had included naked RNA. Later, he designed and performed confirmation experiments with plasmid DNA. Imagine his surprise when the negative control came out positive! They repeated the experiments and the same results were obtained. I have documentation that shows that Robert designed these studies and that he supplied the reagents, which were shipped to Dr. Wolff at University of Wisconsin. I have always wondered why Dr. Wolff was even put on all those patents as he contributed nothing to the intellectual design of those initial experiments. If you look at the pages of research data, and the letters/instructions sent with samples, it is clear who did the work. Robert sent blind samples to Dr. Wolff. These lab books clearly document Dr. Wolff's lack of significant intellectual contribution to this project and that much of the work happened at the Salk Institute. The lab books also document that those first experiments were designed and the regents/RNA came from Robert’s bench.

The History after Vical

  • This history is important, because Dr. Verma, as well as Felgner/Wolf continued to use his influence to negatively impact Robert’s academic career. When Robert left Vical in August, 1989, he was threatened with legal action by Vical. Vical’s directions to Robert were to not talk about the results to anyone or to continue his research that he had begun at the Salk, if he wanted to avoid legal trouble with Vical. Thus, as Robert was quite intimidated and already traumatized by what happened at the Salk, he did not try to assert his primary role in the initial discoveries. This was also because he felt that there were enough people like Dr. Gary Rhodes at Vical, to ensure his pivotal role in the discoveries would not be overlooked. However, he didn't realize that such people didn't have the power or the guts to stand up for what was right.
  • Thus, he was shocked when the inventor of DNA vaccines (himself) was not even put on the initial papers published by Merck on DNA vaccination. Even though he had been consulting with Vical scientists and had been involved in the design of the experiments. How did this happen? The story is that Merck bought the technology/patents from Vical and got the data from the experiments. Merck then repeated the experiments under Drs. M. Liu/Ulmer and published without ANY of the researchers from Vical or the Salk who had done the initial work and came up with the ideas. Have you ever heard of where the patent inventors aren't included on the proof of principle papers? One would say, it just doesn’t happen… but it did. Those with the “gold” hold the power in both the corporate and scientific worlds.
  • Even worse… What happened to those Salk patent disclosures and filed application that Robert wrote, which preceded the Vical patents?
  • Vical knew they were going to have to license from the Salk, we have planning documents from Vical to that effect. The Salk and Vical patents were filed on the same day at the USPTO (3/21/89) – we know the two institutions were working together. This filing date could not be coincidental. Documents that clearly lay out Vical’s knowledge that they had to deal with the issues of the patent application and disclosures that were owned by the Salk. Even worse, in 1991, when Robert inquired about the filing, he was told in the cover letter that the filing date was 3/29/89. They literally lied by falsifying the filing date in the cover letter, as it was the same as the Vical patent filing date. This shows that the Salk and Vical were working together in filing the patents, as the patents were all filed from both institutions on the SAME day.
  • So, our understanding is that they cut a deal with Dr. Verma shortly after Robert left. Vical hired Dr. Verma as a consultant/advisor to the Vical board (some of the details were written up in a local San Diego newspaper). Then Dr. Verma had the Salk institute quietly abandon the patent application(s) already filed. Yep- those patent disclosures and application were disappeared by the Salk. Despite that the Bayh-Dole act requires that inventors get notified if an assignee decides to not pursue a patent, the Salk never told Robert that they had abandoned the patents. So, Robert was never able to continue those patent applications on his own.
  • Who profited from this? Dr. Verma, and of course, Vical. But also, Dr. Verma’s professional friend Dr. Hostetler, a founder and chief scientific officer of Vical, as well as other investors/founders of Vical. Dr. Verma made his money off of these ideas through his formal role at Vical, which included monetization and we believe, stock options. With this act, the fate of Robert being denied acknowledgment of his primary role in the discoveries was set. When Salk abandoned those patents, Robert was not able to receive any formal credit or financial compensation for his discoveries. Dr. Verma, Dr. Felgner, Dr. Wolff all became rich off of Robert’s work, while we, including our child, literally starved during his last two years of medical school and continued to have financial issues throughout the next decade.
  • In the early 1990s. Vical, Inc. successfully sold the intellectual property to Merck. Vical had altered their business plan based on these early successes of DNA gene therapy/genetic vaccination. In fact, the company had completely switched its business focus to genetic vaccination and gene therapy due to Robert's discoveries. This was not the business plan that it had originally been set-up to do Which was antiViral lipid formulations – with Dr. Doug Richman and calcitonin analogs – with Karl Hostetler, ergo the name Vi – Cal).
  • The proof of principle experiments in a murine influenza model were completed and the results were very promising (under the guidance of Dr. Gary Rhodes at Vical). Merck agreed to license the DNA vaccine patent for 30 million, but only if they could repeat the experiments in-house and not cite the Vical researchers for their work. Which is what they did. Merck also used their huge public relations team to promote this new vaccination discovery. They also promoted their own team headed by Dr. Margaret Liu at the expense of the real researchers (Robert and others at Vical). Merck’s early press releases were all about their team and their “discoveries.” RNA vaccines were evidently dropped, because of Vical and Merck’s inability to make RNA after Robert left.
  • A deeper delve into that history: Dr. Gary Rhodes and Dr. Suezanne Parker set-up up the mouse model for Merck and trained the Merck staff. Robert had trained and helped Rhodes and Parker to design the original vaccine experiments. Then these initial experiments were literally repeated under the Merck team. This set of experiments was what was published with Dr. Margaret Liu as senior author. The Vical employees involved were left off the paper, including Robert. However, note that on the patents, only Vical affiliates and Dr. Jon Wolf are listed as inventors. No one from Merck is. This is because no one from Merck came up with the ideas, or the proof of principle, only the money to buy them. Robert's name (the person who had the idea and proposed the set of experiments to be performed) was not included on the initial DNA vaccination paper published by Merck. For the non-viral gene therapy paper that was published in Science, Vical designated Wolff as primary author and that was that (Wolff, 1990). Robert was listed as second author. He had no choice in the matter, because he resigned from Vical. Thus, Dr. Wolff was given access to the primary data, RNA constructs, etc and wrote the paper. Dr. Wolff didn't come up with the idea of RNA, DNA gene transfer or vaccination, nor did he design the experiments or make the plasmids in those early experiments. But Wolff did get permission from Vical to write the paper and be the lead author that was eventually published. Robert was listed as second author, despite having done almost all of the primary research, made the RNA, designed the use of luciferase, as well as having the original idea. Robert left Vical in disgust, over Dr. Felgner and Dr. Wolff taking credit for his work, as outlined in his letter of resignation. Robert finished his medical degree in 1991 and then did a pathology internship at UC Davis.
  • When all the Vical patents were originally written, the order of inventors was Felgner, Malone, Wolff and Verma (which everyone knew was wrong – as the ideas were mostly from Robert). Without telling Robert, while the patents were still applications, Vical changed the order of authorship in 1990-91, so the Robert was almost last in authorship (I believe there are 10 total US patents from this work, all with a priority date of 3/21/1989). That priority date of all those patents is three months after Robert left the Salk Institute. At that time, he was the only person on this project at Vical. Just reflect on that. As the only molecular virologist at Vical – all those issued patents (10+) all had a priority date of March 1989, when Robert was the ONLY employee at Vical on the project.
  • Robert has contributed more to the basic understandings of non-viral gene (mRNA and DNA) vaccination and delivery technologies than anyone I know. However, Robert has been unable to gain that much funding through Federal sources for work continuing in DNA/RNA vaccination or gene therapy despite having almost 100 papers, book chapters and issued patents. He had NIH grants reviewed by Dr. Felgner rejected. Throughout the years, Dr. Felgner Dr. Wolff, Dr. Ulner and Dr. Lieu continued to inflate their roles as primary inventor of DNA vaccines. While Robert continued to have Vical insist that he could not speak to the topic… At one point, Vical sent Robert a “cease and desist” letter – insisting that he not work in any of the fields that were on the Vical patents. This after, getting the Salk to abandon their patent applications that Robert had filed.
  • Finally, in 1999 Robert challenged NIH to explain why Dr. Felgner was reviewing his grants, as there was a conflict of interest. After a thorough investigation, NIH agreed that Dr. Felgner was obviously biased against Robert and he was assured that Dr. Felgner would not review his grants in the future. After inventing non-viral gene therapy and both mRNA and DNA vaccination, Robert has never been able to secure funding from NIH for work in this field.
  • He also had a NIAID official let him know in a phone conversation as to why he was never able to win a grant, even when his scores were very competitive (some of the grants were scored excellent but were still triaged by the NIH administration) and should have been funded. He was told that “someone” up high but outside of NIH had put a block on his ability to get grants. The NIH administrator referenced was told that Robert had “mental health issues,” (which outside of the PTSD from the abuse at the Salk, wasn’t and isn’t true) and therefore, they were not to award him grants. I was there in the room when that conversation happened. We surmise it was Dr. Verma who had told this to NIAID/NIH. No one outside of a few people at UCSD/Salk knew of Robert seeking medical help through the UCSD system, which lead to his diagnosis of PTSD from abuse at the Salk/UCSD. At that point, Robert decided to leave academia (2002) and we have either had our own company or worked for others since. So, basically – all evidence suggests that “Verma’s Institution” (the Salk) was directly responsible for Robert not being able to procure NIH grant funding for over a decade after he left the Salk Institute.
  • The RNA transfection and vaccination research conducted at the Salk was so ahead of its time, that it only NOW recognized thirty plus years later. This work is again being credited to the likes of Dr. Verma, Dr. Wolff and Dr. Felgner or to employees at Merck or Pfizer and now the University of Pennsylvania. The Wiki pages for DNA, RNA vaccination/transfection don’t even mention Robert’s name. Let me repeat that: WIKI HAS NO MENTION OF ROBERT MALONE. There is no “Wiki page” or Google page for Robert Malone, unlike for Katalin Karikó. This frankly makes me sick. As the Univ of PA pushes for their scientists to win the Nobel and has obviously campaigned her accomplishments tirelessly, I have been absolutely shocked and sickened. As an aside, rumor has it that the Univ of PA put in a nomination for their scientists for the Nobel, but as there is no institution for Robert, so no one put in a nomination for him. So, the joke in this family is that Robert will be the “Rosalind Franklin” of RNA vaccines. If the Nobel is ever given for this technology, it will not to go Robert.
  • For decades, Robert and I tried everything to get the scientific world to pay attention to mRNA vaccination. We wrote papers, a had patent issued in 2001 for mucosal mRNA vaccination, spoke at conferences to no avail. Robert could not get enough funding to continue to work as a scientist, despite thousands of citations of his work.
  • Now people who had nothing to do with the actual invention are taking credit for it! Not only that, but Stat news, NY Times, and other big newspapers are writing about Dr. Katalin Karikó as if she invented mRNA vaccines, rather than the very small improvements she has made to the existing technologies. BTW- some mRNA vaccine companies like CureVac, do not even use her added chemical in their mRNA vaccine formulations! Robert devoted much of his life to moving this technology forward. People like Dr. Verma and Dr. Felgner, along with companies like Vical and Merck and now the Univ of PA and Moderna and others take credit for his work. It is depressing. So often, biotechnology companies/academia in the United States control the flow of marketing and scientific information. They decide (based on their own corporate structure), who will and will not get to be authors, the rank of authors or even who gets credit for those ideas published. However, companies dare not exclude individuals who deserve to be on a patent.
  • Robert has always said that: "the most important thing is the science and saving lives, not who gets credit.” But this is beyond who invented what, it is the derailment of a career, the ability to conduct science and a scientific legacy. This is a story about academic theft.
  • I know that this letter may seem to be over-reaching or over-bearing but please consider it in the light that it was written. For years, I have known the “real" story. I have witnessed the cover up of who the real discoverer and hero of this important scientific and medical breakthrough was. I have seen Robert, one of the few people who could have moved RNA vaccines forward early on, unable to secure funding, or get grant funding due to the actions of the Salk, and/or Vical employees. I have witnessed Robert being explicitly told by Vical attorney’s that they would come after him, if he continued work that he started as a graduate student. I hope that you also can understand how disheartening and disturbing it is to see someone be largely unknown by the scientific establishment because of abuses by individuals to secure their own place in the history books, avarice or because of a personal vendetta.
  • With the mRNA and DNA transfection/vaccination discoveries so long ago, the kudos again are going to others for Robert’s discoveries. Robert has likened what has happened to him over the past thirty years as to getting repeatedly intellectually raped. Because in the end, what he suffered through resulted in significant PTSD. It harmed him emotionally. It took him years to recover from what happened while he was a graduate student at the Salk, UCSD and then what happened at Vical. He was abused. It is painful.
  • I hope that somewhere, someone is just a little ashamed. What happened was wrong and tragic. The events surrounding what Dr. Verma did are criminal, in my opinion. That the Salk aided Dr. Verma in silencing a young scientist is shocking, as well as criminal. That UCSD allowed their attorneys to bully a young graduate student and did nothing to help him deal with Dr. Verma as well as the attorneys from the Salk is also just wrong. But in the end, the behavior of Vical and how they promised Robert that they would license the Salk technology, but then didn’t. In fact, Vical paid off Dr. Verma by making him an advisor– and then the patent by the Salk was abandoned without informed Robert.
  • These events happened.
  • Sincerely,  Jill   (  Dr. Jill Glasspool-Malone  )

2021 (June 23) - Malone, previously on Tucker Carlson

https://www.foxnews.com/transcript/tucker-carlson-tonight-wednesday-june-23 

2021 (June 24) interview on Chicago's Morning Answer : "Vaccine specialist Robert W Malone, MD on all things COVID-19 vaccination"

Live link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyjuSog8VoY   /  Downloadable 720p copy : [HV00J9][GDrive]  /  Image of download page : [HV00JA][GDrive] 

Note Malone begins speaking at 3:30

2021 (July 12) - Interview on "The Ripple Effect (Ricky Varandas)" : "#338 (Dr. Robert W. Malone | The Inventor of mRNA Vaccines Speaks Out)"

Live link was  : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8lTQu8JdFo  (Note - This has been deleted, as of Oct 5 2021 )  /  Downloaded video at 720p : [HV00JB][GDrive]

"Dr. Robert W. Malone is the inventor of the mRNA vaccines, DNA vaccine technology, and RNA as a drug. Dr. Malone has close to 100 peer-reviewed publications, has over 11,477 citations of his peer reviewed publications, has been an invited speaker at over 50 conferences, has chaired numerous conferences and he has sat on or served as chairperson on numerous NIAID and DoD study sections. Dr. Malone has an amazing resume, and should be considered one of the most creditable & respected voices in regards to the mRNA tech used in the COVID vaccines, and instead, Dr. Malone has been censored & suppressed on many platforms. Please help by sharing this interview everywhere."

Lots of talk about wine (yawn) ... just fast forward to ... 13:05 (to 16:22) ... this is the main part where Malone is talking about Gardner and how Gardner proved HIV was from an animal  ...

NOTES:

2021 (August) - RWMaloneMD.com : Blog post : "Discovery of mRNA" by Jill Glasspool Malone, PhD, President, RW Malone MD LLC

Source : [HC005W][GDrive

Mentioned : Dr. Philip Louis Felgner (born 1950)   /  Dr. Jon Asher Wolff (born 1956)  /  

Friends and colleagues:

I am writing to you to ask your assistance in helping to correct a misrepresentation in the mainstream media news - one that is essentially fake news. This in regards to a series of newspaper and scientific review articles about the discovery of mRNA vaccines. I write in the first person because I have been a direct witness to these many events.

By way of introduction, Robert Malone and I have been married for 42 years. Through ups and downs, good and bad, we have always been partners. Is this unique? No. Many people find a life partner; work and play together as a team. What maybe is unique is our commitment to working together for the betterment of society. I am very lucky. Robert is brilliant. More than brilliant – he is someone that can take facts and use them to see into the future. Pattern recognition. As a life partner, I am vigilant in my protection of Robert – both of his reputation, his health and as a person. It is with that sense of needing to help shield him that I write this letter. Our careers are as independent researchers; we don’t have the luxury of an academic institution. There is no infrastructure behind us to place articles, apply for awards and provide institutional support. Our consulting business and our philanthropic research relies on our support of each other, what we have built, and the revenue that we generate through our consulting practice. I write this letter as a way to help tell our friends about a great wrong that has been done to Robert.

As a young scientist, Robert saw into the future. He saw the future of RNA as a drug in 1987. Then in early in 1988, he foresaw the future of the use of mRNA for vaccination, as well as DNA vaccination. He did this in the worst of situations. As a graduate student, without support of his thesis advisor and being in an abusive work/student environment. 

But this letter is not about that period so much as now. However, a little back history is needed. 

Robert is the inventor of mRNA vaccination. The documentation is clear, as is the patent record. In 1986, while at the Salk Institute/UC San Diego as a MD (Northwestern)/PhD (Salk/UCSD) student, Robert worked with RNA for his dissertation. His work with RNA had actually begun much earlier while he was working at UC Davis in 1983. That experience taught Robert how to work with RNA and keep it from degrading, at a time when very few scientists were working with RNA. At the Salk, his early work included structure and modeling analysis, but it soon expanded beyond that. In 1987, he invented lipid mediated mRNA transfection and in 1988 at the Salk, he confirmed those results in-vivo. But the situation in the lab was not healthy. The harassment got to the point, where Robert literally was diagnosed with severe PTSD from abuse at the hands of his thesis advisor and institutional attorneys. He knew he had to abandon his PhD, take a masters degree, and go back to Northwestern to finish his medical degree. His thesis advisor was Dr. Inder Verma, whose behavior abusing women and his employees is now legendary and well documented in both the scientific and lay press. In retrospect, the lack of support by the Salk and UCSD is typical of what they did with anyone who complained about Dr. Verma - they made it go away. At the time, the Salk was referred to as “Inder’s Institution.”

Robert left the university knowing that what he had invented would change the world someday. That he has never doubted.

Patent disclosures and a patent application were written and eventually filed on 3/21/89 for these technologies by the Salk. This included not only RNA transfection (RNA as a drug), techniques to stabilize the RNA and increase production. Vical patents filed on the same date include the use of mRNA for vaccination purposes. This patent application be found here. The disclosures and other documents can be found here. Once it became clear that he would be leaving the Salk/UCSD, he stopped filing disclosures. So, he held on to the idea about RNA vaccination until he left the Salk. I have journal entries and he spoke with others about these ideas, so there is some documentation regarding this timeline. This work culminated in a PNAS paper.

When he left, he brought his research, reagents, DNA constructs, RNA constructs, and all the knowledge of these systems that he pioneered, including the use of the luciferase reporter gene with him. He ported them all into a small startup company called Vical. He didn’t really have any other option financially but to take a job at Vical. It wasn’t ideal but we were starving students and had been for over a decade. However, big promises were made by his supervisor ([Dr. Philip Louis Felgner (born 1950)]) about freedom to continue his research uninterrupted, which was critical to him. He knew that he had to go back and finish medical school, this was just an interim gig to support us and to prove that his discoveries worked, and to continue his research while I finished my BA. For Robert, the only thing that mattered was the science. Not the money, not the fame. It was about saving the world.

Long story short, as the only employee at Vical working in gene therapy and then immunology, he sat down and disclosed all of his ideas for gene therapy and maybe more importantly for mRNA vaccination. He did this almost as soon as he started at Vical. Most of these documents are available on our website. His supervisor at the time, [Dr. Philip Louis Felgner (born 1950)], then over-signed some of the disclosures on top of Robert’s signature as a co-inventor. Then, because Vical did not have vivisection facilities, a collaboration had been set up by Dr. Felgner with the University of Wisconsin to do the animal studies. Robert sent reagents, DNA, RNA and instructions to the researcher there ([Dr. Jon Asher Wolff (born 1956)]) via FedEx and animals were injected. The rest is history. “Naked” DNA and mRNA delivery, Science publication, and blowback that this was a fake finding akin to “Cold Fusion”. Time has proven that it was all true, correct, and highly reproducible.

Robert then wrote more patent disclosures, which included more on RNA vaccination and stabilization. Vical set up talks with the Salk to license Robert’s technology. These Vical patents all have a priority date of 3/21/1989. Important because this is also the date that the Salk filed their patent, demonstrating that the Salk and Vical were working together in this. At that point, Robert was assured that Vical would license the Salk patent – as this was prior art.

As Robert’s supervisor soon took credit for much of his inventions, it was almost immediately clear that this short-term solution was just that and was not sustainable. In August 1989, Robert went back to Northwestern to finish up medical school. He continued to support/consult for Vical without pay. He helped design the animal studies to prove that polynucleotide (DNA/RNA) worked in animal models. These experiments were conducted in 1989 and 1990 and there is documented immunologic data embedded in the patents. But more than that, the actual data that was sent to the USPTO can be found on the webpage (links to the PDF).

This seminal work, which occurred over five years (1986-1990), is what has spawned the mRNA vaccination technologies now saving the world from COVID-19. There are papers and TEN issued patents, all with a priority date of 3/21/1989. THOSE PATENTS INCLUDE mRNA vaccination, there was data to support these and there were vaccines studies to support those claims. The record is crystal clear.

For more on this topic and to view the papers and patents, click here and scroll down this webpage.

So, Vical and the Univ of Wisconsin originally took credit, cutting Robert out of the writing of the papers, as soon as he resigned. Then Vical licensed the technology to Merck and Merck set up an agreement whereby Merck scientists would repeat the experiments and then took credit for the DNA/RNA vaccination discoveries. Literally, Robert’s work was given to someone else to claim as their own. 

BUT… Vical and Merck didn’t have the expertise to make RNA after Robert left. Robert had pioneered tech to increase RNA production yield; these protocols came off of his bench. Without Robert there, Vical couldn’t make RNA and we have been told, neither could Merck. Remember this was the early 1990s, Robert had spent a decade perfecting his techniques working with RNA. This was not a fluke or “one-off,” this was a solid research platform that he had created de-novo. 

The main reason why mRNA vaccines took an additional 30 years to develop was that these original patents were used by Vical and Merck to block development and commercialization of mRNA vaccines by any other company. They did this even though they had chosen to only develop DNA vaccines. These original mRNA vaccine patents comprehensively disclosed and therefore blocked any others from developing and commercializing an mRNA vaccine until the patents expired.

All this said, this mRNA vaccine discoveries were so amazing, Robert’s passion for the work so far reaching, that the ideas still pour out of him when discussing it. It is this enthusiasm and curiosity that make it so fun to be around Robert and what drives people to want to work with him. When working on a project, it is always about the project, the science, the problem to be solved. Egos are left at the door.

The work at the Salk, at UCSD and at Vical was always about collaboration. Ideas, discussions, writings, editing, data, reagents, constructs – freely made, given and exchanged. That is when science is set free. When minds share – develop, expand, evolve ideas, generate hypotheses. This is what drove Robert and I then and now. So many people worked on developing mRNA technologies and mRNA vaccines. Long after Robert left Vical, he still collaborated with people there. That is how good science works. It is what kept him tethered to Vical. Frankly, it is one reason why he never pursued legal counsel in all of this. It is why he was consulted on data, why Dr. Gary Rhodes, who carried out the initial mRNA vaccination studies, later worked with Robert in the 1990s at UC Davis. Science is one of the highest callings for man. There is always more to know, more to discover.

Over the coming decade, Vical pressured Robert to stop work on mRNA therapies and vaccinations. Cease and desist letters, phone calls were made. Grants were blocked by people at Vical sitting on peer review committees at NIH. I lived it with Robert. This happened. Much of it is documented and we have that documentation.

Fast forward 30 years…

So, imagine how disheartening it is over the course of the last year, to see others take credit for his work in the lay press. First a well-placed article in STAT news. Then a New England Journal review article, written by University of Pennsylvania, extolling their researchers as being up there with Edward Jenner due to their discoveries of mRNA vaccines. Other national newspaper stories followed suit. Any complaints that the news stories were not accurate, were stone walled. It felt like the fix was in. Then to see this article as the headliner by CNN this week was extremely upsetting:

CNN Article :

This very long CNN article extolls the “discoveries” by Katalin Kariko, while at the University of Pennsylvania and then BioNTech. Unfortunately, this is just another egregious but highly successful endeavor whereby Dr. Kariko is cited as having invented these technologies. Because after interviewing her, the reporter somehow came away believing that she invented mRNA vaccination! Oh, but now her fame grows, with this article strongly suggesting that she also invented RNA as a drug! Each article becomes more strident in these assertions. Google “mRNA vaccine inventor” and guess whose name comes up, with her own Wiki page and all. Wiki… yes, wiki is all about her also. This publicity didn’t happen in a vacuum. This is an active campaign by institutions to sway public opinion and to convince a very large, international awards committee that Dr. Kariko is deserving.

So, what does one do when someone’s work is not cited, when they are erased from history?

It turns out there is nothing one can do. When a national newspaper gets it wrong, over the course of months – they won’t correct it. Even if one goes to the editor, the magazine, the newspaper or the journalist. Even if one writes about it on social media, etc. Yes, I and to some extent, Robert did all that. I have written, begged, pleaded, informed – all to no avail. Basically, we hit a stone wall. Either journalists denied it (“well, I said “others” worked on these technologies”) or we were ignored. For instance, the New England Journal of Medicine 175 word letter of rebuttal that Robert wrote about an article written by a professor conflating Jenner with Dr. Kariko. The rejection letter below:

<See original blog post>

With time, each article seems to get more and more exaggerated about the Dr. Kariko “discoveries.” The more this gets cited as truth, the more embedded it becomes in the web.

So, why am I writing this? 

I guess at the very least to set the record straight with our friends. 

This was and is Robert’s work, his passion. He is thrilled that all these technologies are working. He is thrilled for his part in that. He freely credits that other people have worked to develop this. And there are lots and lots of people! But to have poured his heart and soul into this – decades of work and to have someone else get credit for his work in the national press is demoralizing and disheartening. As this isn’t the first time, credit for his work has been taken from him, it literally makes me panic. To note, Dr. Kariko has responded to us and admitted that she did not make these discoveries, only “improvements” to the technology. Improvements, which many companies, like CureVac are not even using. Dr. Kariko now refers to a term that Robert coined and used in the patents- “transient gene therapy” to describe her early work - showing that she is well aware of prior work. She says that she tells reporters that “many, many” people helped make these discoveries, but “they don’t listen to her”… Which reminds me of the quote:

“A truth that's told with bad intent,  Beats all the lies you can invent.”   ― William Blake, Auguries of Innocence

We literally have nothing to lose in this. Robert never received the money that Vical owed him. Heck, they never even admitted to owing him anything but a silver dollar. They never licensed his work from the Salk. The Salk dropped the patent applications without telling him. Vical threatened Robert with “cease and desist” letters, if he continued working in the field commercially or if he helped a commercial company with these technologies. We never were able to capture a single NIH or government grant for this work. This all happened thirty years ago, it is a terrible but old story. One that Robert likes to forget. It is not worth dredging up. 

But now, we kind of have to.

So, I write this to our friends. Understand that Robert is grieving. He invented the field of mRNA vaccination and the use of RNA as a drug. But the credit goes to others. This is painful. It is the erasing of an important part of his life’s work.

As someone who has been supporting him in this endeavor for eons, I know what developing these technologies has brought us. It is the opposite of what one might think. The legacy of these technologies for us has been: abuse, poverty, angst and being disempowered. From there, Robert and I have built successful scientific careers, but it has not been easy and there has been no institutional support. 

To move on, Robert will most likely stop writing and speaking about it. This is his way. He is embarrassed to “make a fuss.” 

I am not. I know that the American media has a “poster child,” in Dr. Kariko, who is actively being promoted to win a Nobel. There is a campaign going on. I know that Robert has no institutional support, no one to nominate him and no one nominated him (nominations were due in Feb). So, Dr. Kariko, BioNTech and the University of PA do not have to worry. She has no competition from these quarters. She most likely has won. But her win must be cheapened by the fact that that she did not invent these technologies, that the campaign to promote her has misrepresented her contributions to the field, with the press having been misled into believing that she these discoveries came off of her lab bench. But the truth is, they didn’t. The fundamental discoveries and invention of mRNA as a drug and for vaccines were completed, disclosed, published and patented before she began her work. 

Thank you for reading through to this point. I hope you will add your voice to those who speak the truth about this.

But in the end, I am afraid that the reality is…

“If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough,   it will be believed.”   ― Walter Langer


https://twitter.com/rwmalonemd/status/1416230282332622849 

@alexandrosM did you see my Vical resignation letter?  It is in the documents which Jill posted.  This conception of DNA and mRNA vaccine applications for gene therapy methods dates back to before I contacted [Dr. Philip Louis Felgner (born 1950)].  I have those original correspondences." 

2021 (Sep 07) - Dr. Malone's website : "Recommendations for Dr. Robert Malone"

Source : [HC005X][GDrive]  

2021 (Sep 20-22) - Vaccines Summit (online) : Presenting for Reliance RelCoVax

Downloadable PDF : [HI006K][GDrive]

Image of cover : [HI006L][GDrive]
Image of cover : [HI006M][GDrive]

RelCovaxTM, a second-generation multivalent SARS-CoV-2 vaccine candidate designed to meet global

vaccination demands

V. Ramana1, P. Rao1, R. Sriraman1, A. Phatarphekar1, G. Masand1, V. Reddy1, Ramnath, R.L.1 and R.W. Malone*2

1Reliance Life Sciences

2RW Malone MD LLC

Reliance Life Sciences, part of the Reliance Group of Companies in India, has developed a uniquely constructed, low-cost, easily

manufactured SARS-CoV-2 vaccine candidate that has been specifically developed to enable global access, especially to low

and medium cost countries, to safe and effective protection from SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 disease. The product

employs well-established traditional recombinant protein manufacturing processes together with mature, potent adjuvant technology

to yield a multi-antigen subunit vaccine. A 223 amino acid Spike receptor binding domain (RBD) subunit antigen is manufactured

and purified from CHO cell fermentation, and a 419 amino acid nucleocapsid subunit antigen is produced using E. coli-based

fermentation. These two antigens are then formulated with adjuvants in sodium phosphate buffer to yield a simple and well-defined

final drug product. Immunogenicity analysis (both antibody and cellular responses) were performed using a wide range of antigen

and adjuvant formulations in a murine model to select the final formulation parameters, and SARS-CoV-2 studies were performed

using the well-established golden hamster model. The resulting product candidate is now being manufactured under GMP conditions.

Rigorous pharmacology, toxicology, and chemistry/manufacturing/controls analyses including stability studies have been completed,

and a common technical document (IND) is currently under review by the Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation (CDSCO)

under Directorate General of Health Services, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India. Initial Phase 1 prime/

boost dose ranging studies focused on selecting the final dose, as well as demonstrating immunogenicity and safety of RelCovaxTM

will begin enrollment during Fall 2021.

(Sep 21 2021) Robert malone: “RelCovax, 2ndGen multivalent SARS-CoV-2 vaccine candidate" (Summit)  🟥Live1  /  *BitChute  /  Odysee  /  Rumble Downlaodable MP4 : [HV00ZU][GDrive

NOTE - Do not confuse Robert E. Malone (also a geneticist) with Robert W. Malone