Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Now, if you just add in some of this you will be doubly protected against the damn virus and also get any lice out of your shiny hair
As far as Vitamin D, living in a more southern climate I have a daily prescription straight form God
In a now-famous 1996 study, 200 micrograms per day of L-selenomethionine was found to significantly protect patients from death by all cancers (a 50% reduction compared with controls), from developing any cancer (a 37% reduction), and specifically from developing lung, colorectal, and prostate cancers.25
An important approach in cancer prevention has been to focus on the BRCA1 gene, a tumor suppressor that prevents cells from turning cancerous by repairing damage to DNA strands.53,60,61 Mutations in the BRCA1 gene reduce its anticancer effect. In fact, women with such mutations have up to an 80% lifetime risk of developing breast cancer, and up to a 60% chance of developing ovarian cancer.62
Because of the high incidence of cancer associated with this gene mutation, many women who test positive for it elect to undergo a preventive mastectomy—one of the most well-known being Angelina Jolie.
Selenium appears to help repair DNA damage caused by mutations in the BRCA1 gene. This was demonstrated by a study published in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers, & Prevention. For the study, women with mutations in the BRCA1 gene were supplemented with placebo or selenium after precautionary removal of their ovaries and adjacent tissues.53 Researchers found that levels of chemical markers for DNA damage fell markedly in selenium-supplemented women, while markers of successful DNA repair rose.53 These were exciting results because less DNA damage means lower risk for future cancers.
Aging is associated with increased susceptibility to infections and cancer, and declining immune function plays a major role in this vulnerability. This age-related reduction in immune system vigilance is called immunosenescence.64
Some studies suggest that selenium levels generally decline as we get older, and this may partly underlie immunosenescence.8,19,20
Selenium supplementation has been shown in preclinical research to enhance proliferation of cytotoxic precursor cells, which give rise to the crucial T immune cells that fight cancer and viruses within the body.8,65 Moreover, an intriguing study of healthy men found that selenium supplementation for one year led to increased expression of genes associated with natural killer cell and T-cell cytotoxicity.66
Selenium is also critical for the optimal function of neutrophils,67 which are normally the most abundant type of white blood cell.68 Neutrophils ingest invading microbes and destroy them using an intricate system that is in part regulated by selenium and selenoproteins.69,70 In fact, neutrophils from selenium-deficient animals have been shown to be less effective in killing microbes than those from animals with sufficient selenium intake.8,65
Not surprisingly, selenium supplementation may boost immune system function in aging individuals and confer protection against infections. In one study, elderly individuals who supplemented with selenium (along with zinc) were significantly less likely to develop an infection over a two-year period than those who took a placebo.71
selenium also appears able to keep certain viruses from mutating and becoming more pathogenic once they’re inside the body. One group of researchers showed that a normally benign strain of coxsackievirus becomes virulent and damages the heart when administered to selenium-deficient mice. It was determined that replication in the low-selenium environment allowed the virus to directly change its genome to become more pathogenic. When the viral strain was administered to mice with adequate selenium, its genome did not change and the animals remained free of heart damage
Everybody has an agenda.
Though some have bigger agendas than others.
Where is the entrepreneur reference?
He is a real doctor.
An Accelerated Urgent Care Doctor.
Yes indeed!
The Board discussion prompted me to have a little look.
And I opted for a selenium and zinc mix.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Selenium-Supplement-Support-Fertility-Vitality/dp/B01ADNTRZM/ref=sr_1_8?crid=1EM12OH13UHSK&dchild=1&keywords=selenium+and+zinc&qid=1587831563&sprefix=selenium+and+zinc%2Caps%2C159&sr=8-8
So the virus won't get me and I will have lovely shiney hair.
I think I can hear the drone on its way now...
Hi HB.
There's so much there that it's difficult to tell what might be new.
But my vibe is that they will get approval.
Thankyou Monarch.
I will take a look, especially at the prices inc shipping!
Up until a couple of months ago you could buy 30 Zinc tablets at the Pound Store for yes, a £1.
I expect you have dollar stores?
Well, fortunately on the Vit D front, my Doc gave me a monthly recurring prescription before all this kicked off, on the basis of a tested deficiency. (Mind you, half the population would be deemed deficient if tested.) But you will struggle to find it on an over the counter basis right now.
Vit C is there one minute and not the next.
And you certainly will be lucky to find Zinc tablets right now.
Stacks and stacks of Ibuprofen if you want it (not many people do). Paracetomol comes and goes.
How long have you got?
I suggest you start here, and listen carefully.
You may find it quite illuminating.
That would be great if any was available in the shops, pharmacies etc, which it isn't, at least in my location.
Hi hyperopia.
Sorry if I took your previous post off in the wrong direction.
LP did say that the remaining individual patient data queries, some of which necessitate an onsite visit, had indeed been held up by Covid.
Though to be honest, I would have thought that all deceased subjects who died more than a few months ago would have had their file checked and scrubbed and pretty well locked anyway.
But obviously with the remaining surviving subjects, they will have to continually update records right up to the wire before datalock.
But when they achieve datalock (forgotten their time estimate May/June?), they will then be back in control of the timelines and the CRO role will essentially be finished. And the stat analysis, the Steering Committee and SAB advice, and then the general conflab leading up to a topline readout shouldn't be affected by Covid slippage, assuming that everyone has a phone and is connected to that interweb thing.
So, post topline, then what happens?
Well, first of all; is the data good enough for them to state 'we are moving forward to a BLA submission'?
If the topline announcement is basically 'did not meet stat sig on primary endpoints, further exploration of the data is continuing' it pretty much means game over as far as this trial is concerned.
But that's putting the worst outcome first.
If we get any variety on; 'endpoints met, we are now moving forward towards the submission of a BLA' then that's your next question. How long?
Even without Covid and being realistic, topline to BLA submission is probably at least five or six months. Some will say it needn't be that long, but that's what I think.
But I can't see how Covid would delay it too much.
This is the 50,000 page job of which a tiny fraction is the efficacy data, the rest being humungous amounts of CMC records.
And yes you can pre-meet with the regulator before BLA submission to get an idea if you've got everything in the BLA that needs to be there.
And then once you've submitted your BLA , you wait on the FDA.
And wait.
And hope you don't get a Complete Response letter that tells you there is something fundamentally lacking (in the regulator's opinion) with your application.
Though I have noted that many companies relay to shareholders that the FDA have indicated when a decision will be reached, be that 6, 8, 10 months or whatever.
I don't even bother calculating a timescale for a decision on a BLA. I just know it ain't any time soon.
But obviously the topline PR is the point of very high interim importance.
Here is the whole Press Conference.
Everybody really should watch.
New York.
649,000 tested
39% positive
19,410 deaths
Extrapolated out:-
0.1% chance of dying from Covid in the state of New York.
And as we know, NY was the worst affected state.
Thankyou HB.
That conclusively proves that that Santa Clara county was an underestimate of positive test percentage not an overestimate.
State of California 12% positives
'That means you have a 0.03% chance of dying of Covid-19 in the state of California'
Here's what they actually did.
But it's still not really clear..
Hey survivor.
Are you agreeing or disagreeing with Lazer?
I think you're agreeing aren't you?
Let's check my post and your response in a month.
laser.
The chloroquine rubbishing industry is growing fast.
https://in-this-together.com/chloroquine-covid-19-vaccines-and-lives-lost-part-2/
Uk Vaccine Network (which is supposed to be a UK Govt. body)
https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/uk-vaccines-network#membership
And this is who they actually are (all bar two taken money from Bill Gates)
Ah, Ex. Ever the cynic.
But at least you can be cynical both ways, as I can.
Across five countries (Belgium, Canada, France, Ireland and Norway) the percentage of all Covid deaths that occurred in care homes was between 49-64%.
So call that half.
These people can only die once. In Belgium '73% of staff and 69% of residents who tested positive were asymptomatic.'
So, in care homes across much of the world, the virus is now truly endemic. Nearly everybody has been exposed to it. And those who succumbed to it have now mostly died already.
A significant proportion of these would have died anyway.
The other thing is that care home residents are routinely given an annual flu jab. Now there is a possible problem with that; the hypothesis being that the Covid virus was able to exploit that niche. Many of these individuals (advanced age, immunosenescence, co-morbidities) would have died of flu if they hadn't been vaccinated against it. But as I said they can only die once. Remaining care home residents who have been exposed to the virus will not die from it (or they would have died already) or perhaps they will die of something else.
This is where a properly tested Covid-19 vaccine may have a rightful place i.e. to those who are exceptionally vulnerable.
But a Covid-19 vaccine won't protect against Covid-20 or Covid-21.
As always there are exceptions. Norway's care homes are reported to be typically much smaller and widely dispersed in a sparsely populated country. So their elderly folk, both in and not in care homes are still very much at risk.
This is the tragic irony. Locking down society, if it is successful in reducing transmission rates, means that all those who were isolated remain vulnerable to infection when restrictions are lifted.
One thing is not really disputed by anybody. The response to protect this vulnerable sector was extremely poor just about everywhere. Care home staff didn't have access to PPE, didn't know what was happening, and as staff went from resident to resident so did the virus. So that scenario is what caused getting on for half of all Covid fatalities in the first two months in those five countries.
It's an LSE report by the way and they listed these factors:-
This study identified the following factors as contributors to the spread of COVID-19 in care facilities:
•Staff who worked while symptomatic (maybe that should read asymptomatic)
•Staff who worked in more than one facility
•Inadequate familiarity with and adherence to Personal Protection Equipment (PPE) guidance
•Challenges to implementing proper infection control practices, including inadequate supplies of PPE and alcohol-based hand sanitizer
•Delayed recognition of access due to low index of suspicion
•Limited availability of testing
•Difficulty identifying persons with COVID-19 on the basis of signs and symptoms alone
A New York study seeking to measure the spread of the new coronavirus found that 13.9% of 3,000 people tested across the state had signs of the virus, one of the biggest U.S. reviews to date.
That implies that about 2.7 million residents may have had Covid-19, Governor Andrew Cuomo said. That’s about 10 times more than the official count based on the state’s testing, which covered mostly very sick patients.
The pandemic was more intense in New York City, the hardest-hit area in the U.S. There, 21.2% of people tested positive for a blood marker showing that they had been infected at some point.
The study must be analyzed further to give a clearer picture, and it’s possible that it didn’t give a representative sample because it likely missed older people staying home as well as essential workers, Cuomo said. Still, the preliminary results appear to confirm predictions that the virus has infected far more people than New York has been able to diagnose.
It also means that the fatality rate is likely lower than implied by merely examining confirmed cases and deaths. If 2.7 million people have been infected, that would put the fatality rate at about 0.5%, based on the death count of 15,500 the state used to make its calculation. Since then, the number of deaths in New York has risen to 15,740.
The current death count doesn’t include some people who may have died at home and weren’t diagnosed with Covid-19, and may also miss people who died earlier on in the outbreak before diagnostic testing became widespread.
Unfortunately for sweden they are basing their assumptions using epidemiology advice from this guy and his disciples...
I wouldn’t be surprised if there were some swedish epidemiologists facing manslaughter charges by the time this thing is through.
There’s a reason why Sweden already has 2-3x the death rate per capita compared to denmark, and about 6x norway and Finland. They've only got 2000 deaths so far but I’d estimate that Sweden will have >10,000 deaths by the time this has passed if they don’t adapt their strategy.
Lock down is only temporary until the numbers are manageable for recursive contact tracing/isolation/testing. That’s the stage switch from mitigation to containment. I expect the economy to rebound rapidly as this is not a fundamental issue with the structure of the economy (except maybe a bit too much reliance on china for manufacturing) but a short term shock. Government obviously sees it this way as well which is why they are furloughing huge amount of the population and offering temporary debt relief.
Forecasts
UK growth
The Office for Budget Responsibility has warned that the coronavirus crisis could cause a 35% fall in gross domestic product (GDP) this spring. The damage to jobs and growth depends on the length of lockdown measures, with a bigger impact the longer tough controls last. If lockdown lasts for three months, GDP could crash by around 13% for 2020 as a whole.
Unemployment
More than 2 million people could lose their jobs by June, according to the OBR. But some analysts expect a bigger impact. David Blanchflower, a former Bank of England rate-setter, has warned that job losses could surpass the Great Depression by rising to more than 6 million people, around 21% of the workforce.
Public finances
Britain’s budget deficit, the gap between public spending and income from taxes, is expected to surge to the highest levels since the second world war, surpassing the damage caused by the 2008 financial crisis. As spending rises to fund emergency support measures and the economy crashes, the OBR said the deficit could hit £273bn this year, or around 14% of GDP.
World economy
The International Monetary Fund has warned that the world faces the worst recession since the Great Depression. It said world GDP could fall by 3% this year, compared with the 3.3% growth it forecast for 2020 just three months ago.
I’d rather just contain the virus and then get back to normal being cautious until a vaccine is available.
The Italian government of Giuseppe Conte is preparing for a wider deficit as it scrambles for resources to salvage an economy ravaged by weeks of stringent lockdown measures.
Officials expect the budget deficit to spiral to 10.4% of gross domestic product this year as activity is seen shrinking by 8% after an incremental nationwide shutdown since March 8.
Conte will request parliamentary approval to widen the deficit by 55 billion euros ($59.4 billion) to fund new stimulus, according to the officials, who asked not to be identified discussing a draft economic and financial plan.
The premier and his team are engaged in a desperate battle to hold the country together after the virus blew a hole in its already shaky public finances. Officials say public debt will be at least 150% of GDP at the end of the year.
That's way beyond the level Greece was at when it triggered the sovereign debt crisis a decade ago. Rome is already reliant on the European Central Bank's emergency bond buying program to keep its borrowing costs down and the situation could get a lot worse. Bloomberg Economics is forecasting that the slump in GDP will be 13% this year -- five percentage points worse than Italy's projection.
Hi HB. How much would you like?
There's a Pandora's box of interesting stuff out there.
Enough credible stuff to make me think that Covid-19 was much more likely lab-engineered than jumping from bats to pangolins to humans, which when you think about, is a bit of a tall story, and probably just a cover story, and I now consider to be a conspiracy theory in its own right!
This is a good kick-off point:-
Right. Everyone here made fun of my herd immunity comments early on.
True, but if it turns out that the blinded set of unmeth patients that made it to 36 months were all treatment, that would bring that approx. 14.6% (something like that) to more like 20%. And then as you mention, one has to wonder if those patients would have fared without undergoing the chemo that doesn't help them (and may harm them) for 6 months.
Well, Sweden predict that herd immunity will be largely achieved (as an anticipated by-product of not having a lockdown) in a month in their hotspot of Stockholm. This will be proven correct (or otherwise) by whether or not the Stockholm death rate goes into steady decline as we get to mid-May.
Though the infection will need much longer to ripple out through the rest of the more sparsely populated parts of the country, before the same occurs there.
In the meantime, they focus on trying to protect the vulnerable and elderly.
Eminently rational approach that also gives some protection to their economy, and that means jobs, livelihoods.
That's in marked contrast to the UK, which appears bent on doubling down on the lockdown policy, which will further decimate the economy (GDP down 35%?) and will probably actually cost additional lives from the virus anyway, when they eventually attempt to step out of lockdown, and will certainly cause many more long-term deaths related to the resulting unemployment and increased poverty.
If the Swedes are correct about their forecast, then when a properly tested vaccine (proven safe and effective) becomes available, they will simply not need it for the majority of the population, and will only likely use it for vulnerable sections of the community just like any other flu jab.
They won't be having any universal, mandatory biometric ID's, thankyou very much.
I might emigrate.
Well, TMZ is generally believed to cross the BBB, so Berubicin wouldn't be unique in that regard.
But back in the early 2000's, there were other chemo candidates around that were not necessarily inferior to TMZ. I think it was just a case of TMZ getting there first with Stupp 2005.
But since then it's become recognised that TMZ generally only 'works' for a limited period of time (9-12 months?) before the tumor acquires chemoresistance. And that's for the 40% of meth patients.
As to the approx 60% unmeth patients, I think it is fair to say that the current consensus opinion is that TMZ affords little or no benefit to those.
So the need for a treatment that confers real long term benefit is as great as ever, even more so for unmeth. And we all know what we hope will plug the gap.
But at the same time, you only have to look at 2 and 3yr blended survival stats in our trial to know that L will not afford a very significant survival benefit to the majority of unmeth patients.
(Though one could also hypothesise that for this group, cutting out the chemo and getting straight on with L treatment might improve outcome).
I would suggest that the chemo drug you refer to would have a mountain to climb in relation to ndGBM for the reasons above, plus the toxicities you mention.
Wow, the plot thickens.
Researchers in China found the experimental antiviral drug, dubbed remdesivir, didn't improve patients' conditions or reduce the amount of virus in their bloodstream, according to Financial Times. The publication cited a draft report the World Health Organization reportedly published by accident.
The coronavirus treatment hopeful also showed significant side effects in some patients and 18 were reportedly taken off of it.
The WHO has since removed the posting. Investigators didn't have permission to publish the study's results, Gilead Chief Medical Officer Merdad Parsey said in a written statement.
"We believe the post included inappropriate characterizations of the study," he said. "The study was terminated early due to low enrollment and, as a result, it was underpowered to enable statistically meaningful conclusions. As such, the study results are inconclusive, though trends in the data suggest a potential benefit for remdesivir, particularly among patients treated early in disease."
After an hour's musical interlude they reconvened and thoroughly addressed all the other shareholders questions.
Was I the only one to catch it?
The original question was whether there was a “late stage” treatment that DCVax-L trial patients might have gone on after recurrence, along with DCVax, that might have contributed to Linda Liau’s long livers.
..but that's where their technology potentially has as advantage if it does happen to work. You just have to sequence the new strain, quick bit of cloning and transcription and you already have you're new vaccine.
For sure the mrna vaccine will be safe as i doubt it will do anything
Do you think they will PR datalock?
To think I was naive enougn to believe that the Moderna mRNA approach was primarily about a therapeutic cancer vaccine. It's now pretty obvious that Merck's primary interest was really not about that.
Won't be bad for Moderna though, if you want an unethical but surefire investment.
JMO...
You could have five years of protracted discussions and negotiations that lead to something eventually being signed sealed and delivered.
Only then would it constitute a material agreement.
Hell, you might be at the 98% stage for years or more.
Part of the agreement would be agreeing exactly when it leads to a signed contract, and how it's going to be released.
Non-disclosure of a 'secret agreement' that has not been finalised into a formal signed contract really wouldn't be a violation at all.
Because either party can still change their mind.
And it happens all the time, I'm sure, whether it's buying a house, or if it's a consortium headed up by NWBO, who are on the verge of buying out Merck.
Yes, my opinion again.
ILT.
You quoted correctly.
Though I seriously question any need or requirement for this to be with the statisticians for 'several weeks'.
They simply need to apply the data to the Statistical Analysis Plan (SAP), which must have been finalised before the unblind.
There is no need, in my mind, for it to be with the statisticians for 'several weeks'
Nor is there any need for the company not to even see the unblinded data for those several weeks.
And if I was the CEO, I wouldn't wait anyway! The more cogitation time the better.
But yes, the Scientific Advisory Board and probably the trial steering committee need time to digest the unblinded data, draw conclusions, and advise the company accordingly, and then there needs to be a collective conflab between the company, their medical advisors, and the stat guys, before any topline data and topline interpretations are publically released.
Statisticians understand data and stat significance (hopefully), but they don't understand how some data may have more medical significance than other data. And on the other side, the SAB (though some members have experience of regulatory submission and data interpretation) don't possess the pure statistical skills.
So the process shouldn't just be a longitudinal process (first them, then us, then them). It must involve collective thinking, where all disciplines put their heads together.
And needless to say, I trust that this will indeed happen!
JMO underlined!
CT. Absolutely so.
It's an unpalatable reality.
same crap.
Hey, are you taking the rise out of me?
It was quite obvious that there was not going to be a 2-way Q and A.
Where did you get that idea?
Mind you, I found the music quite pleasant. I carried on listening for an hour after the ASM.
Adam is a reporter and his job is to report the news whether the data is leaked or not.
Coronavirus is overhyped, about half of the dead would have died anyway. Worldwide deaths from coronavirus will be about 10,000.
Tell that to someone on a ventilator