Kamala Harris says she's 'dropping trillions of dollars on the streets of America right now'

 By Monica Showalter

In another masterpiece of malapropisms on the campaign trail, Kamala Harris says she's killing off inflation by showering us with money:

 

 

That's news to most Americans. Where's all this money raining from the sky she's talking about?

Actually, there's money raining down all right, not for us, but for Joe Biden's political agenda, and it's called government spending.

The money we see raining down appears to us like a bad swamp gas in the form of inflation. That's what the raining trillions are bringing us. Biden's "Inflation Reduction Act" has now led the government to borrow $1 trillion every three months, and all that interest has to be paid back.

Obviously, she hasn't the first clue about where inflation comes from.

Inflation, as Milton Friedman insisted, is 'always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon.' Spend government cash by raining it down and what the public gets from it is inflation.

In other words, she's bragging about all the inflation she's bringing through her runaway spending for "our bridges, our sidewalks" and "our investment in a clean energy economy," as if she's stepping on the gas pedal harder and telling us she's slowing down. How many more of these money showers does she have planned and who the heck pays for them?

That's right, we do.

The thing is, this isn't an esoteric idea common only on the libertarian right. It's Economics 101 and even Joe Biden and some of his members of Congress occasionally will admit it.

But Harris, as is par for the course, seems to think her voters are stupid. That's how she can turn on the money spigot and tell us it's raining money. We all know what's going down our legs from this.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/05/kamala_harris_says_she_s_dropping_trillions_of_dollars_on_the_streets_of_america_right_now.html

Shoppers are taking on credit-card debt to buy groceries - 'canary in a coal mine.'

 As grocery prices rise, one in four adults who pay for food with credit cards are carrying debt

Many Americans have housing debt and automobile debt. Now, many are also taking on grocery debt.

A new report from the Urban Institute found that 20% of adults who paid for groceries with a credit card in 2023 didn't pay off their full balance - meaning they would likely accrue interest - but always made the minimum required payment. Another 7.1% paid for groceries with a credit card and did not make the minimum payment, meaning they would likely accrue interest and also incur fees.

In addition to carrying debt on credit cards, many people (19.3%) in the survey, conducted in December 2023, paid for groceries by drawing from savings; 3.5% used a buy-now-pay-later service; and 1.9% used a payday loan.

"We see it as a canary in a coal mine, indicating that families might be having trouble," Kassandra Martinchek, a senior research associate at Urban Institute, told MarketWatch. "Typically, folks are going to pay for their groceries out of funds that have been allocated for this purpose. The use of these various forms of debt and savings might indicate that folks are having trouble bridging their income and expenses."

The cost of this debt is now at a record high, with the average interest rate on credit cards reaching 21.59% in February, compared with 14.75% in February 2021, according to Federal Reserve data.

Average household spending on groceries increased to $5,703 per year in 2022, the most recent year for which data were available, from $4,935 in 2020, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Consumer Expenditure Survey.

The impact of rising food prices has been especially pronounced for the lowest-income households, who earn less than $14,191 and spent an average of $5,090 on food, amounting to 31.2% of their income. Meanwhile, the highest-income households - those who earn more than $140,363 - spent an average of $15,713 on food, representing 8% of their income, according to the Agriculture Department.

Household food insecurity, which refers to people having limited or uncertain availability of nutritious and safe foods, rose for the second year in a row in 2023, Martinchek said. People with very low food security - meaning they sometimes skipped meals or didn't have enough to eat - were more likely to have a hard time paying off their debt than those reporting less-severe food hardship, according to the report.

Walmart (WMT) executives told investors earlier this week that shoppers are now stretched, spending more on necessities like food in the face of higher prices and less on general merchandise.

The price of food and consumer goods was the No. 1 economic concern cited by respondents to a January survey by the Pew Research Center, even topping the cost of housing.

Grocery prices have become a heated political issue. Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and dozens of other Democratic lawmakers sent President Joe Biden a letter this week naming actions they say his administration could take to change how food companies operate, such as increasing competition, to lower "sky-high food prices."

The consumer-price index for groceries, which measures changes in prices over time, was up 1.1% in April compared with April 2023. Americans are also struggling with higher prices in other areas, including shelter (for which prices rose 5.5% year over year) and transportation services like car insurance and maintenance (up 11.2% year over year).

https://www.morningstar.com/news/marketwatch/20240517611/shoppers-are-taking-on-credit-card-debt-to-buy-groceries-thats-a-canary-in-a-coal-mine

New Data to Change Practice on BP Control in Acute Stroke

 Early reduction of blood pressure has a beneficial effect in hemorrhagic stroke but a detrimental effect in ischemic stroke, new trial data show. The findings could shake up recommendations on control of blood pressure in acute stroke patients. 

"This is the first time that we have randomized evidence of blood pressure control prior to reperfusion in ischemic stroke patients, and our data will challenge the current guidelines that recommend lowering blood pressure to below 180 mm Hg systolic in these patients," study co-author Craig Anderson, MD, George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, Australia, told Medscape Medical News. 

"And this study also clearly shows for the first time that getting blood pressure under control in hemorrhagic stroke patients in the first couple of hours has definitive benefits," he added.

The findings were presented on May 16 at the European Stroke Organization Conference (ESOC) Annual Meeting and published online simultaneously in The New England Journal of Medicine. 

A Test of Early BP Control

The trial was conducted to test the strategy of very early blood pressure control during patient transport in an ambulance after acute stroke, which investigators suspected could benefit patients with both types of stroke. 

The hypothesis was that this would reduce bleeding in the brain for those with hemorrhagic stroke. For ischemic stroke patients, it was thought this strategy would speed up administration of thrombolysis, because guidelines recommend bringing blood pressure under control before thrombolysis. 

For the INTERACT4 trial, which was conducted in China, 2404 patients with suspected acute stroke and elevated systolic blood pressure (≥ 150 mm Hg) who were assessed in the ambulance within 2 hours after symptom onset were randomized to receive immediate treatment with intravenous urapidil to lower the systolic blood pressure or usual blood pressure management (usual care group).

The median time between symptom onset and randomization was 61 minutes, and the mean blood pressure at randomization was 178/98 mm Hg. 

Stroke was subsequently confirmed by imaging in 2240 patients, of whom 46% had a hemorrhagic stroke and 54% an ischemic stroke. 

At the time of arrival at the hospital, the mean systolic blood pressure in the intervention group was 158 mm Hg, compared with 170 mm Hg in the usual care group. 

The primary efficacy outcome was functional status as assessed by modified Rankin scale score at 90 days. 

Overall, there was no difference between the two groups in terms of functional outcome scores (common odds ratio [OR], 1.00; 95% CI, 0.87-1.15), and the incidence of serious adverse events was similar. 

But the study showed very different results in patients with hemorrhagic stroke vs those with ischemic stroke. 

Prehospital reduction of blood pressure was associated with a decrease in the odds of a poor functional outcome among patients with hemorrhagic stroke (common OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.60-0.92) but an increase in poor outcomes among patients with cerebral ischemia (common OR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.06-1.60)

'Slam-Dunk' Effect 

Anderson has led several previous trials of blood pressure control in stroke patients, some of which have suggested benefit of lowering blood pressure in those with hemorrhagic stroke, but he says the results of the current trial are more clear-cut.

"We have never seen such a slam-dunk effect as there was in INTERACT4," Anderson said. "Not only did we show that early reduction of blood pressure in hemorrhagic stroke patients improved functional outcome, it also reduced bleeding in the brain, improved survival and quality of life, and reduced surgery and infection complications. That's quite remarkable."

The findings offer "clear evidence that for patients with hemorrhagic stroke, we must get the blood pressure under control as soon as possible and introduce systems of care to ensure this happens," he added.

The reason for the clear findings in the current trial is probably the treatment time, Anderson said. 

"This is the first trial in which blood pressure has been controlled in the ambulance and occurred much earlier than in the previous trials." 

Challenging Ischemic Stroke Guidelines

The INTERACT4 results in ischemic stroke patients are likely to be more controversial. 

"Our results are clearly challenging longstanding beliefs around blood pressure control in ischemic stroke prior to thrombolysis," Anderson says. 

Current guidelines recommend a blood pressure < 185 mm Hg systolic before initiation of thrombolysis because of concerns about intracerebral hemorrhage, he noted. Often, blood pressure is lowered rapidly down to much lower levels in order give thrombolysis quickly. 

"Our results suggest this may not be a good idea," Anderson said. "I think these data will shake us up a bit and make us more cautious about reducing blood pressure in these patients. Personally, I wouldn't touch the blood pressure at all in ischemic stroke patients after these results." 

He says the mechanisms behind the different stroke types would explain the results. 

"If a patient is bleeding, it makes sense that higher blood pressure would make that worse," Anderson said. "But when a patient has a blocked artery and ischemia in the brain, it seems likely that the extra pressure is needed to keep oxygen delivery to the ischemic tissue."

Accurate Diagnosis Necessary

Because it is not possible to make an accurate diagnosis between ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke without a CT scan, Anderson stresses that at the present time, no action on blood pressure can be taken in the ambulance. 

"There is a lot of interest in developing a lightweight brain scanner to be used in ambulances, but this won't be routinely available for several years," he said. "So for now, quick diagnosis of the type of stroke that is occurring on the patient's arrival at the emergency department and, for hemorrhagic stroke patients, swift action to control blood pressure at this point is critical to preserving brain function."

Commenting on the INTERACT4 results at the ESOC meeting, Simona Sacco, MD, professor of neurology at the University of L'Aquila, Italy, said this was a very important trial that would impact clinical practice. 

"The data really reinforce that hemorrhagic stroke patients must have their blood pressure reduced as soon as possible," she stated. 

Sacco said the trial emphasizes the need to be able to distinguish between a hemorrhagic and ischemic stroke in a prehospital setting and supports the introduction of more mobile stroke units carrying CT scanners and calls for the development of biomarkers that can allow rapid differentiation between the two conditions. 

In an accompanying editorial, Jonathan Edlow, MD, Department of Emergency Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, points out several aspects of the trial that may potentially limit the generalizability of the findings. These include use of urapidil as the antihypertensive agent, which is unavailable in the United States; all patients being of Han Chinese ethnicity; and an unusually high sensitivity of initial CT scans in detecting visible signs of ischemia or infarction in patients in acute ischemic stroke. 

"These findings should be considered hypothesis-generating, and they make the case for validation of the trial results in other settings," Edlow wrote. 

The INTERACT4 trial was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, the George Institute for Global Health, several Chinese healthcare institutions, and Takeda Pharmaceuticals China. Disclosures for study and editorial authors are provided in the original articles.

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/new-data-change-practice-bp-control-acute-stroke-interact4-2024a10009fx

Widespread, Long-Held Practice in Dementia Called Into Question

 Hospitalized patients with dementia and dysphagia are often prescribed a "dysphagia diet," made up of texture-modified foods and thickened liquids in an effort to reduce the risk for aspiration or other problems. However, a new study calls this widespread and long-held practice into question.

Investigators found no evidence that the use of thickened liquids reduced mortality or respiratory complications, such as pneumonia, aspiration, or choking, compared with thin-liquid diets in patients with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD) and dysphagia. Patients receiving thick liquids were less likely to be intubated, but they were actually more likely to have respiratory complications.

"When hospitalized patients with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias are found to have dysphagia, our go-to solution is to use a thick liquid diet," senior author Liron Sinvani, MD, with the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research, Manhasset, New York, said in a news release.

"However, there is no concrete evidence that thick liquids improve health outcomes, and we also know that thick liquids can lead to decreased palatability, poor oral intake, dehydration, malnutrition, and worse quality of life," added Sinvani, who also is director of the geriatric hospitalist service at Northwell Health in New York.

The study was published online on May 6, 2024, in JAMA Internal Medicine.

Challenging a Go-To Solution

The researchers compared outcomes in a propensity score-matched cohort of patients with ADRD and dysphagia (mean age, 86 years; 54% women) receiving mostly thick liquids vs thin liquids during their hospitalization. There were 4458 patients in each group.

They found no significant difference in hospital mortality between the thick liquids and thin liquids groups (hazard ratio [HR], 0.92; P = .46).

Patients receiving thick liquids were less likely to require intubation (odds ratio [OR], 0.66; 95% CI, 0.54-0.80) but were more likely to develop respiratory complications (OR, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.56-1.91).

The two groups did not differ significantly in terms of risk for dehydration, hospital length of stay, or rate of 30-day readmission.

"This cohort study emphasizes the need for prospective studies that evaluate whether thick liquids are associated with improved clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients with ADRD and dysphagia," the authors wrote.

Because few patients received a Modified Barium Swallow Study at baseline, researchers were unable to confirm the presence of dysphagia or account for dysphagia severity and impairment. It's possible that patients in the thick liquid group had more severe dysphagia than those in the thin liquid group.

Another limitation is that the type of dementia and severity were not characterized. Also, the study could not account for factors like oral hygiene, immune status, and diet adherence that could impact risks like aspiration pneumonia.

Theoretical Benefit, No Evidence

In an invited commentary on the study, Eric Widera, MD, with University of California San Francisco, noted that medicine is "littered with interventions that have become the standard of practice based on theoretical benefits without clinical evidence."

One example is percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tubes for individuals with dysphagia and dementia.

"For decades, these tubes were regularly used in individuals with dementia on the assumption that bypassing the oropharyngeal route would decrease rates of aspiration and, therefore, decrease adverse outcomes like pressure ulcers, malnutrition, pneumonia, and death. However, similar to what we see with thickened liquids, evidence slowly built that this standard of practice was not evidence-based practice," Widera wrote.

When thinking about thick liquid diets, Widera encouraged clinicians to "acknowledge the limitations of the evidence both for and against thickened-liquid diets."

He also encouraged clinicians to "put yourself in the shoes of the patients who will be asked to adhere to this modified diet. For 12 hours, drink your tea, coffee, wine, and water as thickened liquids," Widera suggested. "The goal is not to convince yourself never to prescribe thickened liquids but rather to be mindful of how a thickened liquid diet affects patients' liquid and food intake, how it changes the mouthfeel and taste of different drinks, and how it affects patients' quality of life."

Clinicians also should "proactively engage speech-language pathologists, but do not ask them if it is safe for a patient with dementia to eat or drink normally. Instead, ask what we can do to meet the patient's goals and maintain quality of life given the current evidence base," Widera wrote.

"For some, when the patient's goals are focused on comfort, this may lead to a recommendation for thickened liquids if their use may resolve significant coughing distress after drinking thin liquids. Alternatively, even when the patient's goals are focused on prolonging life, the risks of thickened liquids, including dehydration and decreased food and fluid intake, as well as the thin evidence for mortality improvement, will argue against their use," Widera added.

Funding for the study was provided by grants from the National Institute on Aging and by the William S. Middleton Veteran Affairs Hospital, Madison, Wisconsin. Sinvani and Widera declared no relevant conflicts of interest.

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/widespread-long-held-practice-dementia-called-question-2024a100094v

Life Support Withdrawn Too Soon in Severe TBI?

 Some patients with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) who died because life support was withdrawn may have survived and recovered at least partial independence if the life sustaining treatment had continued, new research shows.

Data from the Transforming Research and Clinical Knowledge in Traumatic Brain Injury (TRACK-TBI) suggest that delaying decisions on life-support withdrawal might be beneficial for some patients. 

"We found that a significant proportion of patients who died after life support was removed may have died anyway, even if their life support had been continued," study investigator Yelena Bodien, PhD, Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital, and Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, told Medscape Medical News. 

"But the remarkable and unexpected finding was that among patients who were estimated to have survived if life support was not withdrawn, as many as 40% were predicted to recover some level of independence by 6 months after injury," she added.

However, the investigators noted that none of the patients who died in this study were pronounced brain-dead, so the results are not applicable to brain death.

The study was published online on May 13 in the Journal of Neurotrauma. 

Predicting Outcomes: A Challenge

Predicting outcomes after severe TBI can be challenging, and there are currently no medical guidelines or precise algorithms that determine which patients are likely to recover, researchers noted. Yet, they added, families are often asked to make decisions about life-support withdrawal within 72 hours of severe TBI. 

The study included more than 1300 patients with severe TBI at 18 trauma centers across the United States. Investigators created a mathematical model to estimate the potential for recovery of at least partial function 6 months after injury. They then developed propensity-score matched cohorts of patients with severe TBI with and without withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment in the intensive care unit. 

To optimize matching due to uneven distribution of propensity scores, they divided the cohort that remained on life support into tiers on the basis of propensity for withdrawal (Tier 1, 0%-11%; Tier 2, 11%-27%; and Tier 3, 27%-70%). 

A total of 56 patients did not have life support withdrawn. At 6 months, 31 (55%) died, but 25 (45%) survived. Survival was 88%, 54%, and 24% for Tier 1, 2, and 3, respectively. 

'Cautionary Approach' Warranted

Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended (GOSE) data at 6 months were available for 10 of 15 (67%) patients who remained on life support in Tier 1, 19 of 25 (76%) in Tier 2, and 27 of 40 (68%) in Tier 3. 

Recovery of at least partial independence (GOSE ≥ 4) occurred in more than 40% of survivors in the full sample and in Tiers 1 and 2. 

In Tiers 1 and 2 combined, four patients recovered to pre-injury baseline levels of function (GOSE of 8). Eight patients in Tiers 1 and 2 recovered to GOSE of 3, indicating a lower severe disability category that includes a broad range of function and may include some patients who are independent in activities of daily living. 

The current findings support recent calls for a cautionary approach toward early decisions regarding withdrawal of life support, investigators noted. 

However, death or severe disability were common outcomes, especially for patients in Tier 3, with the highest propensity for withdrawal of life support in the matched cohort, Bodien noted, "indicating that providers are often correct in identifying patients for whom survival or independence at 6 months is unlikely."

"These are patients who typically have life support withdrawn because they are expected to have no chance for recovery and our results suggest that maybe that would not have been the case," said Bodien. "We hope our findings prompt clinicians to pause before recommending something that is so irreversible and grave as withdrawing life support before they talk to families and present that as an option." 

"A lot more work is needed in this area, especially in trying to improve our accuracy for predicting how patients who have had a severe TBI will recover, but at a minimum, studies like these will hopefully encourage clinicians to be cautious when considering withdrawing life support in patients with severe TBI," she added. 

Outside Experts Weigh In 

Reached for comment, Tatyana Mollayeva, MD, PhD, Canada Research Chair in Neurological Disorders and Brain Health and associate director of the Acquired Brain Injury Lab, University of Toronto, said that this study is "important because it highlights new directions for scientific inquiry" concerning several issues.

They include "validity of consent as it relates to acceptance and refusal of life-sustaining treatment; competence of family members/surrogates who have to make decisions on a patient's behalf in a time of great distress; and confidence in clinical judgment and differential diagnosis, given the neurodiversity of processes," Mollayeva, who was not involved in the study, told Medscape Medical News. 

Ariane Lewis, MD, director of neurocritical care, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, NY, said, "It has long been recognized that our understanding of recovery after acute brain injury has been jaded by nihilism and the self-fulfilling prophecy — the expectation of a bad outcome leading to premature withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment which results in death."

"It is important to note that factors associated with the decision to withdrawal life-sustaining treatment — such as previously stated beliefs about quality-of-life, prior dependency, religion, and other medical problems — were not incorporated into this study and the content of goals-of-care discussions is unknown," said Lewis, who was not involved in the study. 

"Nonetheless, it is important to understand that the time course for recovery after acute brain injury can be many months," she added. "People should discuss these wishes with family and friends to ensure they are followed in the unfortunate event of acute brain injury precluding decision-making capacity." 

Also weighing in, David Greer, MD, professor and chair, Department of Neurology, Boston University School of Medicine, Massachusetts, told Medscape Medical News that this is a "very important" study, performed in a "very responsible and prudent manner."

Greer said the findings "validate what we've been concerned about all along, that being there is a self-fulfilling prophecy bias to have withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy prematurely in patients who may be destined for a good outcome."

"I think this plants the seeds for future prospective studies that will evaluate this in a manner that allows patients to live for longer, and find more reliable signs that they may recover in a delayed fashion. Certainly very exciting news from this study," said Greer. 

Evidence-Based Prognostic Tools Essential

Also reached for comment was Shaheen Lakhan, MD, PhD, a neurologist and researcher based in Miami, Florida, who told Medscape Medical News that the current state of neuroprognostication "often leaves us in the dark, relying on fragmented data and uncertain outcomes to guide these critical decisions. This uncertainty can lead to premature withdrawal of life-sustaining treatments, potentially denying some patients the opportunity for meaningful recovery."

The advancement of comprehensive and evidence-based prognostic tools is essential, he added. 

"By incorporating a wide range of clinical, demographic, and biometric data, these models can improve the precision of our predictions. Investments in research and technology are crucial to develop these tools, which should be readily available and integrated into standard clinical practice," Lakhan said. 

He urged the medical community, researchers, policymakers, and society at large to participate in this endeavor. 

"Let us move forward from the shadows of uncertainty and embrace a future where every decision is informed by the best possible evidence, where every family is supported with compassion and clarity, and where every patient is given the fairest chance at recovery," he said. "Together, we can advance neuro-prognostication from the dark ages into an era of enlightenment and hope."

This work is supported by grants from National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institute on Disability, Independent Living and Rehabilitation Research (NIDILRR), National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director's Office, James S. McDonnell Foundation, Chen Institute MGH Research Scholar Award, US Department of Defense (DoD), and US Department of Energy. The authors and Mollayeva, Lewis, Greer, and Lakhan have no relevant disclosures. 

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/life-support-withdrawn-too-soon-severe-tbi-2024a10009gf

Why Doximity Stock Is Skyrocketing

 Shares of Doximity (NYSE: DOCS) were skyrocketing 15.9% higher as of 10:54 a.m. ET on Friday. The big gain came after the healthcare technology company announced its fiscal 2024 fourth-quarter and full-year results following market close on Thursday.

Doximity reported fiscal Q4 revenue of $118.1 million, a 6% year-over-year increase. This topped the consensus revenue estimate of roughly $116.5 million.

The company posted fiscal Q4 earnings of $40.6 million, or $0.20 per share, based on generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). Non-GAAP earnings came in at $51 million, or $0.25 per share -- well above the average analysts' estimate of $0.20 per share.

What investors liked even more about Doximity's update

Investors applauded Doximity's revenue and earnings beats. However, they probably liked the company's guidance even more.

Doximity projects fiscal Q1 revenue of between $119.5 million and $120.5 million. It looks for full-year revenue of between $506 million and $518 million. The midpoints of both ranges reflect solid year-over-year growth.

The company also announced that its board of directors has authorized up to $500 million of stock buybacks. This is a positive sign of the board's optimism about Doximity's future.

Is Doximity stock a buy after its good news?

Doximity has a strong business model as the leading digital platform for U.S. medical professionals. I like the company's improving financial picture and its plans to buy back shares. Is Doximity stock a buy after its good news?

I'm still reluctant to jump aboard for one reason: valuation. The stock trades at over 31.6 times forward earnings. My concern is that Doximity's growth doesn't justify this premium multiple.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-doximity-stock-skyrocketing-today-151530790.html

European Patent Office Sides with Moderna In COVID-19 Vaccine Patent Dispute With Pfizer/BioNTech

 Moderna Inc (NASDAQ:MRNA) has reportedly achieved a significant victory at the European Patent Office (EPO) in its ongoing legal battle with Pfizer Inc (NYSE:PFE) and BioNTech SE (NASDAQ:BNTX) over the Covid-19 vaccine.

The EPO’s Opposition Division upheld the validity of one of Moderna’s crucial patents, boosting the mRNA vaccine maker’s efforts to reclaim pandemic profits from its competitors, the Financial Times reports.

Although Pfizer has nine months to appeal the decision, the EPO’s written decision is anticipated in the coming months.

Moderna is actively pursuing legal action against Pfizer and BioNTech in courts across Europe and the United States, claiming that the Comirnaty vaccine infringes on two patents.

In response, Pfizer and BioNTech have countersued, arguing that Moderna’s patents, filed in 2011 and 2016, are invalid.

“We are pleased to announce that the European Patent Office decided to maintain the validity of Moderna’s EP949 patent, one of the key patents currently asserted against Pfizer and BioNTech in various European national courts,” Moderna told the Financial Times.

This legal tug-of-war has seen both sides incurring significant expenses as they fight over the lucrative COVID-19 vaccine market.

The financial stakes are high, with Moderna, Pfizer, and BioNTech generating a combined $73.2 billion in revenue from Covid-19 vaccines in 2022 alone. However, all three companies have seen their share prices decline as the pandemic has receded and vaccine demand has decreased.

The EP949 patent, now upheld, will continue to be scrutinized by national courts to determine its validity and whether Pfizer and BioNTech have infringed upon it.

Courts will also decide on any penalties to be imposed. Despite this win, Moderna has faced setbacks, such as losing a challenge over its EP565 patent, which it is currently appealing.

Legal proceedings are ongoing in multiple jurisdictions, including the Netherlands, where the EP949 patent was previously declared invalid but is under appeal.

Upcoming rulings in London and other European courts will further shape the legal landscape, particularly regarding Moderna’s pledge not to enforce its intellectual property rights during the pandemic.

Moderna maintains that it does not intend to block the use of the Comirnaty vaccine but seeks a fair share of the profits generated from its mRNA technology.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/european-patent-office-sides-moderna-184606182.html