Originally posted by TheLurch
View Post
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
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
-
- 1 like
-
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:
-
Originally posted by TheLurch View PostNew 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.
Originally posted by Juvenal View PostCopypasta from the Lurch's Merck thread.
Leave a comment:
-
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:
-
Well, it's good to hear some good news about coronavirus...
Blessings,
Lee
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by TheLurch View PostFor 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:
-
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!
Leave a comment:
-
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.
- 1 like
Leave a comment:
-
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.
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:
-
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.
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:
-
Originally posted by Sparko View Post
What if it is the same price as Ivermectin? or even free?
Unpronouncium, or whatever the new drug is called, is about $700 for a course of treatment.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by TheLurch View PostBy "controversial", do you mean "known to have committed research fraud"?
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:
-
Originally posted by TheLurch View PostWhat exactly is "sorting information"?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostMuch 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.
Leave a comment:
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
|
48 responses
135 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
03-20-2024, 09:13 AM
|
||
Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
|
16 responses
74 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
03-08-2024, 03:12 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
|
6 responses
47 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
03-08-2024, 03:25 PM
|
Leave a comment: