Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

We've got a new drug? (for COVID!)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
    New drug #2 has been announced! This one's from Pfizer, and it uses a different mechanism of action from the Merck drug. The only clinical data on it comes from a company press release, but it sounds fantastic: given to high risk patients, it dropped hospitalizations and deaths by roughly 90%. Because it uses a different mechanism, there's no reason the two drugs couldn't be given simultaneously — it's likely they'd have an additive effect.

    While the clinical data hasn't been released, Pfizer did just publish a paper describing the drug's history. It was originally developed to target the original SARS-CoV-1 virus. Specifically, it targets a protease (protein-cutting enzyme) encoded by the virus that's needed to activate a few of the viruses proteins (some of the virus' genes encode a single, long protein that needs to be cut into multiple smaller pieces, each of which performs different functions). The drug is a big complicated molecule that's a combination of stretches that look like linked amino acids that the protease would target, but embedded in a chemical context that keeps the protease from digesting them.

    The original version of the drug fell in the typical category of "works great in a test tube, but won't work as a pill". It didn't cross cell membranes easily, and wasn't absorbed in the digestive system. It took crafting and testing multiple chemical relatives to get something that was effective in pill form. If you've ever wondered why drug development is expensive, hiring enough experienced chemists to do that sort of thing is one part of the reasons.

    One positive feature of this drug is that it appears to be able to bind to the proteases of many related viruses, so could be effective against emerging threats.
    Great news if it holds up. Obviously people would prefer independent labs confirming Pfizer's results rather than just Pfizer telling us that a Pfizer drug did well in a Pfizer test.

    Leave a comment:


  • shunyadragon
    replied
    Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post

    I'm basically passing on information that a 1000 or more doctors are passing on. Like mentioned earlier, the inclusion of studies that have an Ivermectin protocol rather than just Ivermectin, still is okay in that category, for the purpose of sorting information. These sort of studies are the best we have without getting dedicated funding to the independent researchers. Plus, the tendency of these studies is in the positive effects. We may not have the ultimate luxury science here but we have been working in an emergency situation where the covid shots are already proving to only be temporary. The scientific culture already has proven sporadic where one or two major studies were pulled from a major journal.

    References please!?!?!?!?

    Leave a comment:


  • Juvenal
    replied
    Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
    New drug #2 has been announced! This one's from Pfizer, and it uses a different mechanism of action from the Merck drug. The only clinical data on it comes from a company press release, but it sounds fantastic: given to high risk patients, it dropped hospitalizations and deaths by roughly 90%. Because it uses a different mechanism, there's no reason the two drugs couldn't be given simultaneously — it's likely they'd have an additive effect.

    While the clinical data hasn't been released, Pfizer did just publish a paper describing the drug's history. It was originally developed to target the original SARS-CoV-1 virus. Specifically, it targets a protease (protein-cutting enzyme) encoded by the virus that's needed to activate a few of the viruses proteins (some of the virus' genes encode a single, long protein that needs to be cut into multiple smaller pieces, each of which performs different functions). The drug is a big complicated molecule that's a combination of stretches that look like linked amino acids that the protease would target, but embedded in a chemical context that keeps the protease from digesting them.

    The original version of the drug fell in the typical category of "works great in a test tube, but won't work as a pill". It didn't cross cell membranes easily, and wasn't absorbed in the digestive system. It took crafting and testing multiple chemical relatives to get something that was effective in pill form. If you've ever wondered why drug development is expensive, hiring enough experienced chemists to do that sort of thing is one part of the reasons.

    One positive feature of this drug is that it appears to be able to bind to the proteases of many related viruses, so could be effective against emerging threats.
    Absconded ...

    Originally posted by Juvenal View Post
    Copypasta from the Lurch's Merck thread.

    Leave a comment:


  • TheLurch
    replied
    New drug #2 has been announced! This one's from Pfizer, and it uses a different mechanism of action from the Merck drug. The only clinical data on it comes from a company press release, but it sounds fantastic: given to high risk patients, it dropped hospitalizations and deaths by roughly 90%. Because it uses a different mechanism, there's no reason the two drugs couldn't be given simultaneously — it's likely they'd have an additive effect.

    While the clinical data hasn't been released, Pfizer did just publish a paper describing the drug's history. It was originally developed to target the original SARS-CoV-1 virus. Specifically, it targets a protease (protein-cutting enzyme) encoded by the virus that's needed to activate a few of the viruses proteins (some of the virus' genes encode a single, long protein that needs to be cut into multiple smaller pieces, each of which performs different functions). The drug is a big complicated molecule that's a combination of stretches that look like linked amino acids that the protease would target, but embedded in a chemical context that keeps the protease from digesting them.

    The original version of the drug fell in the typical category of "works great in a test tube, but won't work as a pill". It didn't cross cell membranes easily, and wasn't absorbed in the digestive system. It took crafting and testing multiple chemical relatives to get something that was effective in pill form. If you've ever wondered why drug development is expensive, hiring enough experienced chemists to do that sort of thing is one part of the reasons.

    One positive feature of this drug is that it appears to be able to bind to the proteases of many related viruses, so could be effective against emerging threats.

    Leave a comment:


  • lee_merrill
    replied
    Well, it's good to hear some good news about coronavirus...

    Blessings,
    Lee

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
    For context on that: in academics papers, it's traditional to put the person who did the most work as first author, and the person who runs the lab and/or got the grant money for the project is the last author. Standard citation format is always first author et. al. So, depending on context, you'll often see either the first or last author mentioned.
    Interesting, I didn't know that about the last name listed.

    Leave a comment:


  • oxmixmudd
    replied
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post

    Thanks. I found an article about it.

    Like the vast majority of medicines on the market, molnupiravir — which was originally investigated as a possible treatment for Venezuelan equine encephalitis — was developed using government funds.
    https://theintercept.com/2021/10/05/...rck-ridgeback/


    Hey! It looks like it was initially a horse medicine too like Ivermectin! Maybe the conspiracy guys like Mike will accept it now!
    It is hard to know how much of that is overcharging and how much of that is necessary to recoup cost of development. I would 'think' the potential to recoup investment at a lower cost is high given the amount of covid spread here and across the world (and given it was at least partially subsidized by government funds in development). Merck is going to present a case that says 'we go broke if we don't charge this much', and those blowing the whistle on them as it were will claim this is price gouging pure and simple and that one penny over $18 given a production cost of $17 and some change is nothing but pure greed. I would guess reality is in-between those two extremes, with the greediness of company CEO's and stock investors balancing it more towards overcharging than under.

    Leave a comment:


  • TheLurch
    replied
    Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post

    Yes and no. I remembered he'd been highly respected but had become highly controversial, but I didn't recall why, and didn't feel like looking it up.

    I noticed that he was listed last among the many people involved in the study, and that Risch et al in their little review referred to the study by the name of the first-listed researcher, Miller, which seems sensible. But when Dr. Steven Smith referenced the study on Laura Ingraham's show, he only referred to Raoult. I admit that it did and does bother me that he continues to show such undiluted affection for Dr. Raoult.
    For context on that: in academics papers, it's traditional to put the person who did the most work as first author, and the person who runs the lab and/or got the grant money for the project is the last author. Standard citation format is always first author et. al. So, depending on context, you'll often see either the first or last author mentioned.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparko
    replied
    Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post

    Ivermectin is under $4 per tablet.

    Unpronouncium, or whatever the new drug is called, is about $700 for a course of treatment.
    Thanks. I found an article about it.

    Like the vast majority of medicines on the market, molnupiravir — which was originally investigated as a possible treatment for Venezuelan equine encephalitis — was developed using government funds.
    https://theintercept.com/2021/10/05/...rck-ridgeback/


    Hey! It looks like it was initially a horse medicine too like Ivermectin! Maybe the conspiracy guys like Mike will accept it now!

    Leave a comment:


  • oxmixmudd
    replied
    Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post

    Ivermectin is under $4 per tablet.

    Unpronouncium, or whatever the new drug is called, is about $700 for a course of treatment.
    Given that those studies that can stand peer review show little to no positive effect from ivermectin, and a substantial effect from the new drug , you get what you pay for - as the saying goes.

    And my guess would be that a drug that substantially hinders covid might be heavily government subsidized, but at the very least covered with some small co-pay by insurance - which due to the affordable care act technically everyone should be able to have at this point. And if not, now might be a good time to sign up

    Leave a comment:


  • NorrinRadd
    replied
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post

    What if it is the same price as Ivermectin? or even free?
    Ivermectin is under $4 per tablet.

    Unpronouncium, or whatever the new drug is called, is about $700 for a course of treatment.

    Leave a comment:


  • NorrinRadd
    replied
    Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
    By "controversial", do you mean "known to have committed research fraud"?
    Yes and no. I remembered he'd been highly respected but had become highly controversial, but I didn't recall why, and didn't feel like looking it up.

    I noticed that he was listed last among the many people involved in the study, and that Risch et al in their little review referred to the study by the name of the first-listed researcher, Miller, which seems sensible. But when Dr. Steven Smith referenced the study on Laura Ingraham's show, he only referred to Raoult. I admit that it did and does bother me that he continues to show such undiluted affection for Dr. Raoult.

    Leave a comment:


  • mikewhitney
    replied
    Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
    What exactly is "sorting information"?
    i just mean that the newest studies or reports are listed first ... the oldest are toward the end. The studies are not ordered from best to worst or cheapest to most expensive.

    Leave a comment:


  • TheLurch
    replied
    Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
    Like mentioned earlier, the inclusion of studies that have an Ivermectin protocol rather than just Ivermectin, still is okay in that category, for the purpose of sorting information.
    What exactly is "sorting information"?

    Leave a comment:


  • mikewhitney
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    Much of what you're saying here confirms the impression I've been getting. Too small of sample sizes and a lot of comparing oranges to apples. That's not to say that the results are wrong but rather they're too murky to be much use.
    One thing I was just thinking would help is if some correlation were done between the general death-to-infection rate in a community was compared to the death-to-infection rate of those treated with Ivermectin protocols in the same community.

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by lee_merrill, 01-07-2022, 08:37 PM
2 responses
24 views
0 likes
Last Post Cow Poke  
Started by shunyadragon, 01-07-2022, 08:59 AM
22 responses
121 views
0 likes
Last Post rogue06
by rogue06
 
Started by rogue06, 01-02-2022, 01:44 PM
7 responses
36 views
0 likes
Last Post rogue06
by rogue06
 
Started by NorrinRadd, 12-31-2021, 10:07 AM
5 responses
68 views
0 likes
Last Post TheLurch  
Started by rogue06, 12-28-2021, 09:58 AM
5 responses
30 views
0 likes
Last Post NorrinRadd  
Working...
X