Nobel Medicine sentence is taken out of context to advocate early treatment

The viral post on Facebook that uses a speech by Richard J. Roberts, winner of the Nobel Prize in Medicine, to promote early Covid-19 treatment is misleading.

The author of the post uses the following sentence credited to Roberts, accompanied by a photo of the scientist: “Medicines that cure are not profitable, therefore, they are not produced. The pharmaceutical industry, in reality, does not want to cure anyone, and for a very simple reason and straight: the cure is less profitable than the disease”. In the caption, the author of the misleading post, verified by Projeto Comprova, writes: “That’s why they didn’t want to authorize early treatment”, associating the reputation of a renowned scientist with a treatment without proven efficacy.

The comment was made by Roberts in 2007, but it had nothing to do with the new coronavirus, which was far from being discovered. In the report, the scientist claimed to have given the statement about “antibiotics and in relation to the profit motive that drives the pharmaceutical industry” and dismissed the relationship with the pandemic.

The report contacted the profile of the Bolsonaro 2022 group, one of the first to publish the content, but received no response. The Comprova found the content misleading because the phrase was taken from the original context and used to induce a different interpretation from its author’s intention.

How do we check?

The article sought information about Richard J. Roberts and his work in molecular biology in gene processing — which earned him the Nobel. Through a Google search, it was found that his comment about the pharmaceutical industry was made in an interview published on page 64 of the July 27, 2007 edition of the Spanish newspaper La Vanguardia.

The next step was to contact the scientist through the email provided on the Northeastern University website, where he appears as a professor. To learn more about research into new drugs, the article interviewed Lucindo Quintanas, director of the ABCF (Brazilian Association of Pharmaceutical Sciences) and dean of postgraduate studies and research at the Federal University of Sergipe, via WhatsApp, as well as representatives from Sindusfarma (Union of Pharmaceutical Products Industry).

The team also sought out the author of one of the first posts made using Facebook montage and the user who shared the post relating it to early treatment, but they did not respond until this text was published.

Verification

The origin of the sentence

Roberts’ speech is true, but it has been taken out of context. The statement is from July 27, 2007, 13 years before the pandemic, and is published in the Spanish newspaper La Vanguardia.

“Antibiotics have been stopped because they are very effective and completely cure. As no new antibiotics have been developed, the infectious microorganisms have become resistant, and today tuberculosis, which had been defeated in my childhood, is resurging and has killed 1 million people last year,” says the scientist in the text.

Asked by the journalist from La Vanguardia if he was referring to the Third World, Richard replies: “This is another sad chapter: only Third World diseases are investigated, but the drugs that would fight them are not profitable. But I’m talking about our First World World: the medicine that cures completely is not profitable and that is why they do not research it”.

No reference to Covid-19

Comprova got in touch with Richard J. Roberts to clarify the context in which the talk about the pharmaceutical industry was spoken and questioned whether he maintains the same understanding when it comes to the search for new drugs for Covid-19.

The scientist claimed to have made the statement used in the post verified here, “but in the context of antibiotics and in relation to the profit motive that drives the pharmaceutical industry.” In the story, he explained: “The premise is simple. If I buy a drug that cures me, I only need one dose. If I buy a drug that only relieves symptoms temporarily, I need to continue taking it regularly, maybe for the rest of my life. The profits of the latter far exceed those of the former, even if the cost of a dose is quite high.”

When asked if the phrase used in the post could be applied in relation to research and development of drugs against Covid-19, Richard stated that the situation is also different due to economic aspects. “It’s very different. In part, because of the number of cases around the world and the likelihood of it becoming endemic like the flu. In a case like this, the economic consequences of the disease are very different from those of a bacterial infection that occurs with infrequently.”

In addition to the position sent to Comprova, Richard had already manifested himself in favor of Science on other occasions. In a chat with researcher Johan Rockström and Nobel Prize Museum Vice President of Science and Program Anna Sjöström, published on the official Nobel Prize channel on YouTube, seven months ago, he said: “I feel the countries that fared better in the Covid crisis were those where politicians really recognized that scientists were the people who needed to communicate, not them.” At the time, the Nobel also stated that “the value of Science really grew a lot within a year in this terrible pandemic” and defended immunizers, which are often criticized by those who support early treatment. “The vaccine was developed in record time, which was really good,” he said.

Without scientific proof

Since the first months of the pandemic, the federal government advocated the use of drugs without scientific evidence to treat the disease, something the president continues to do. On May 20, 2020, a document was published with guidelines for the handling of drugs included in the so-called early treatment against Covid-19.

There are mentions of early treatment in newsletters available on the executive branch’s website between 2020 and 2021, the last clear mention being made on January 11, 2021, in the posts “On visit to Manaus, Minister Pazuello says vaccination program Brazil will be ‘the largest in the world'” and “Ministry of Health raises the situation of primary care in Manaus”.

On the 25th of the same month, Folha reported that Saúde deleted a text that guided the treatment of its official website. In May, according to Piauí, the recommendation for the use of chloroquine was also deleted from the Ministry of Health website, on the eve of the beginning of the CPI of the Pandemic.

Without any scientific evidence against Covid and not recommended by health authorities, the treatment continues to be advocated by Jair Bolsonaro (non-party), allies and followers as a way to fight the pandemic. The president’s actions in relation to drugs were the subject of an investigation by Covid’s CPI in the Senate.

In the final report of the CPI there is an excerpt from a technical note sent by the Ministry of Health with the understanding that the drugs defended have no proven efficacy and should not be used in the treatment of the disease. “Some drugs have been tested and have not shown clinical benefits in the population of hospitalized patients, and should not be used, namely: hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine, azithromycin, lopinavir/ritonavir, colchicine and convalescent plasma. Ivermectin and the association of casirivimab + imdevimab do not have evidence that justifies its use in hospitalized patients, and should not be used in this population”, describes the document.

However, President Jair Bolsonaro continues to advocate early treatment. On September 21, when he attended the 76th UN Conference, he said that “since the beginning of the pandemic, we have supported physician autonomy in seeking early treatment.”

new drugs

Lucindo Quintanas, director of the Brazilian Association of Pharmaceutical Sciences, reinforced that the quotation mark highlighted in the post verified here was taken out of context. “At no time does he (Richards) claim that the pharmaceutical sector is working towards the non-development of drugs against Covid-19. On the contrary, biotechnology industries, startups and the pharmaceutical sector, called big pharma, have been working tirelessly on development of vaccines,” he said.

According to Quintanas, “some medications are being developed for patients who will have Covid-19, some are already in phase 3 of tests, and the pharmaceutical sector is a great partner and funder of part of this work”.

He also highlighted that “at this moment, Covid is one of the areas of greatest interest for the sector, which has invested a lot to develop clinically effective treatments for patients and immunizing agents to reduce the possibility that people will develop severe forms of the disease”.

In an official note sent to the report, Sindusfarma also highlighted the sector’s commitment to the development of immunizations and medications. “The pandemic reaffirmed the key role of the pharmaceutical industry in preventing and curing diseases. By the morning of October 22nd, more than 3.8 billion people – 50% of the world’s population – had been vaccinated and protected. A big one. achievement of the pharmaceutical industry for the benefit of Humanity,” stated the organization.

Who is Richard J. Roberts?

One of the winners of the 1993 Nobel Prize in Medicine, Richard J. Roberts holds a degree in Chemistry and a Ph.D. in Organic Chemistry from the University of Sheffield, England. He is currently the scientific director of New England Biolabs, a company working on the discovery and production of enzymes for applications in molecular biology. He is also on the faculty of Northeastern University, in Boston, USA.

Why do we investigate?

In its fourth phase, Comprova checks suspicious content about the pandemic, public policies of the federal government and elections. The post that associates Richard Roberts’ speech with early treatment had more than 2,600 shares and 3,800 likes on Facebook as of October 27th.

Comments in the post, such as “Yes, many diseases are already curable and others are caused by the continuous medicines they offer us, when we read the package insert we see the excluded interests (sic). The vaccine is also a way to make them richer than they are they are” and “We had early treatment here at home and we are all fine, we also want to know about the people who took the second dose of the vaccine and died from Covid. Example Tarcisio Meira and others”, reinforce the idea that medicines and vaccines scientifically proven safety and efficacy do not work, contributing to misinformation.

Other contents that try to question the safety of vaccines against the coronavirus were recently published by Comprova, such as the misleading comparison between the immunity generated by vaccines against measles, yellow fever and hepatitis B with that of Covid-19, the association, also misleading, between contaminating particles and Pfizer’s vaccine, and the assumption that vaccinates are becoming transhumans.

Misleading, for Comprova, is content taken from the original context and used in another so that its meaning changes; that it uses inaccurate data or that it induces an interpretation different from its author’s intention; or one that confuses, with or without the deliberate intention to cause harm.

Comprova made this verification based on information available on the 27th October 2021.