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.
Pretty much a given CV # will increase
I agree that covid 19 is not going away.
I believe that CV deaths will increase.
I believe that accurate reporting will cease.
Wouldn't IPIX be at risk if (due to the federal gov declaring trump has won, there is no crisis, Covid 19 is vanquished) federal funding for further research was deleted?
I am not short IPIX.
I believe Brilacidin and K have great potential for future disease therapy.
I also believe that potential market disruption is a subject for discussion on this board.
In silico Drug Repurposing for COVID-19...
has its place. It is a great tool for separating wheat from chaff, as it were.
However not all of the kernels sprout.
Kalera looked great on paper, not so much in practice when used alone.
However, providing support for the multiple drug therapy theory.
A Drug Cocktail Hastens Recovery in Some Coronavirus Patients
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/08/health/coronavirus-drug-treatment.html
Note- Interferon has side effects onerous enough to force patients taking to quit regardless of potential disease relapse.
work with the low protection masks, etc.
Sure, reply is not working. Sounds good,though.
Empiricst1 having a lot of time on your hands and knowledge of the internet..imo
Don't short yourself JT. No doubt you have other fine skills if you would only take the time to develop them.
Interesting you note that those with covid need not wear masks
Not so.
I said those with CV ought not use N-95 masks. As they already have CV their primary responsibility is to protect others from them (the infected).
Cloth masks as previously described would be a barrier between infected exhalations and the people around them. Distancing is also recommended.
We agree that testing is not a treatment for the one tested. If the test subject is positive sequestering them from others is prophylactic treatment for the uninfected.
I have used the materials described and doubled them for masking. If the cloth is held tightly across the mouth it is very hard to breathe through. However as a mask, with an inch or so of vacant space beneath the nose and out from the lips, it is very easy to draw air through. Pleated style cover works well as does using pliable but stiff plastic armatures.
how did you develop your knowledge, i.e. what of job skills?
Mostly through study and trial, properties I still utilize.
My jobs at one time or another from 1971 to 2009 include army medic, civilian direct care giver and researcher. I've taken many side pursuits but worked over 20 years in the medical industry.
DD and negotiation are avocations I pursue in retirement.
This was updated April 2020 from OSHA.
https://www.osha.gov/memos/2020-04-03/enforcement-guidance-use-respiratory-protection-equipment-certified-under
OSHA Publication
Above is lists of masks made by other countries when the US ones aren't available. Thanks?
https://www.osha.gov/Publications/OSHA3990.pdf
OSHA Instruction:
Who needs to use masks,under what conditions,employer responsibilities and citationable actions or non-actions. Guidelines for what mask when and how to determine suitability.
Also-
"Fit Testing - Paragraph (f).
Fit testing is required for all employees using negative or positive pressure tight-fitting respirators, where such respirators are required by OSHA or where the employer requires the use of such a respirator. A fit test is not required for voluntary users or for escape-only respirators.
The fit test must be performed before the respirator is used in the workplace. It must be repeated at least annually and whenever a different respirator facepiece is used or a change in the employee's physical condition could affect respirator fit. If the respirator subsequently becomes unacceptable to the employee (i.e., causes irritation or pain to the employee), the employee must be given the opportunity to select a different respirator facepiece and be retested.
Qualitative Fit Testing (QLFT) may be used to fit test negative pressure air-purifying respirators if they will only be used in atmospheres less than ten times the PEL, since existing evidence only validates the QLFT protocols listed in Appendix A of the standard to identify respirators that achieve a fit factor of 100.
( I have been fit tested many times and have been the tester many times. The procedure is as I stated previously with aspartame solution as test substance.)
https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/directives/CPL_02-00-158.pdf Thanks again?
More guidelines and rational for decisions. None of the user guidelines are beyond the understanding of the average middle schooled person.
And of course to be mostly free of covid we need a mostly sterile air environment around us, at least re covid-19 viruses, for our safe breathing.
We do not need to live within a sterile field to deter CV. We do need to prevent CV from getting inside us. Persons without CV should use an N-95 mask. Persons who are already infected should not wear N-95. (Horse and barn doors)
People who already have the virus ( this raises the question of non symptomatic infection. That ought be addressed by universal testing the so-far failed leg of intervention) protect society by not expressing the virus into the environment. Cloth masks as noted below are more than sufficient to stop the droplet and most of aerosol spread from infected persons. Masks, I shouldn't need to say, will not intervene in skin contact situations.
"One layer of a tightly woven cotton sheet combined with two layers of polyester-spandex chiffon -- a sheer fabric often used in evening gowns -- filtered out the most aerosol particles (80-99%, depending on particle size), with performance close to that of an N95 mask material. Substituting the chiffon with natural silk or flannel, or simply using a cotton quilt with cotton-polyester batting, produced similar results."
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/04/200424081648.htm
The key is proper fit. A haphazard covering with openings at the bridge of the nose or cheeks and/or chin is better than nothing but a sloppy job produces diminished effects. GIGO.
IMO for the time being assume everyone is infected and focus resources to mass producing viable testing products.
2.5% is a Failing grade. No one should feel comfortable until we're at B+ and above levels.
We also need to expand quarantine centers for those infected. If one has the virus they are placed in suitable segregation until they no longer test positive enough times to exclude false results.The rest of us can then keep on working and/or spending knowing the risks to us and ours is minimized.
If one wears an N-95 mask it should have an expiration valve.
Otherwise when one exhales the face/mask seal is broken and potentially creates an opportunity for particulates to enter the space between mask and face.
If one is wearing an effective N-95 mask particulates are filtered out by the mask thus exhaled respiration gases should be particulate free.
Per manufacture protocol facial hair extending past the borders voids all protective properties of the mask.
Testing for N-95 fit results in the subject being assigned a pre-made size ie. small, small/medium, medium, medium/large, and large.
It isn't be hard to devise a home testing spray to determine the appropriate size. Garlic or lemon juice and water, vanilla extract and water etc. If the test wearer detects the correct odor being sprayed at them from a foot or so away the mask is improper size. (Use eye protection during testing)
IMO most of the citizens of a country that can move from knowing that computers belong in large air conditioned structures in the realm of boffins only to adapting to carrying one in nearly every pocket, can figure out how to properly use a life saving mask. They could help the others as needed.
Wet Markets
"But wet markets, as opposed to dry markets, which sell non-perishable goods such as grain or household products, are simply places that offer a wide range of fresh produce. Some, but not all, also sell live animals. They are referred to as "wet" owing to the fact that floors are often hosed down after vendors wash vegetables or clean fish.
The article is worth the read.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/14/asia/china-wet-market-coronavirus-intl-hnk/index.html
OT
and not one school or hair salon closure. Hmm.
Homeland Security
"1957 Asian Flu Pandemic
I. The 1957 pandemic is instructive in that the first US cases occurred in June but no community outbreaks occurred until August and the first wave of illness peaked in October...
Vaccine was available in limited supply by August 1957. The virus came to the US quietly, with a series of small outbreaks over the summer of 1957. When US children went back to school in the fall, they spread the disease in classrooms and brought it home to their families.
During the 1957-1958 pandemic, a WHO expert panel found that spread within some countries followed public gatherings, such as conferences and festivals.16 This panel also observed that in many countries the pandemic broke out first in camps, army units and schools; suggesting that the avoidance of crowding may be important in reducing the peak incidence of an epidemic...
Vaccine production for the Asian flu began about 3 months after the first outbreaks occurred in China. The first cases in the US occurred in the summer, with a peak in October following school openings. The first doses of vaccine became available in September and by mid-October at the peak of the US pandemic fewer than half of the approximately 60 million doses produced had been delivered.
By December 1957, the worst seemed to be over. However, during January and February 1958, there was another wave of illness among the elderly. This is an example of the potential "second wave" of infections that can develop during a pandemic. The disease infects one group of people first, infections appear to decrease and then infections increase in a different part of the population.
https://www.globalsecurity.org/security/ops/hsc-scen-3_pandemic-1957.htm
"Infections at schools
Fall arrived, and the virus swept through U.S. schools.
In a brief calm before that storm, many communities wondered whether they might escape the virus or if public-health officials were crying wolf.
The answer was no.
School superintendents in 36 cities reported absentee rates each week to the CDC. A report published in 1959 estimated that “over 60 percent of students had clinical illnesses during the fall.” District of Columbia school absenteeism peaked at 23 percent the week ending Oct. 12. In Baltimore, it was the next week; in Boston, two weeks later... (60% of elementary school kids ill and sharing with their families in 36 cities. Who here is ready to risk their kids/grandkids with those odds?)
By Thanksgiving, life was nearly back to normal, and health officials were trying to convince the public that flu shots were still worth taking. Their advice was good. Asian flu came back for a third time, in late February, causing another spike in mortality, this time mostly in the elderly.
In all, the 1957-58 pandemic was responsible for about 60,000 “excess deaths” in the United States — deaths exceeding what normally would be expected. About 40,000 occurred in the summer and fall of 1957, 20,000 in the winter of 1958. That’s the equivalent of 107,000 people in the U.S. population today."
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/health/lessons-to-be-learned-from-1957-pandemic/
70K (according to public health) to 116K (according to The Atlantic) in three waves from summer 1957 to mid-spring 1958.
Not 2020's 80K in 3 months 9 days heading for 125K+ by May's end and 200K before July. 300K by August, 500K before the next Flu season starts. Without continued intervention we'll have broken the 1918-1919 American flu death record before the second wave arrives.
Yay.
the 1969 pandemic I put up was eerily similar..with 100k deaths.
100K deaths over 3 years. 1968-1969 Flu deaths were 34,000.
Woodstock took place after above flu season ended and before 1969-1970 season began, by-the-way.
and you can’t shut down the world for it..
Are you saying we could shut down the world if the death rate is 1% ?
It's only worth inconveniencing the country if there would be 2.5 million deaths?
Focus on the actual numbers.
Flu related deaths 2019-2020 season in US (7 months) <30K.
CV deaths in 3.5 months > 77K. (Most of which were avoidable if we'd actually shut down for 1 month.) Regardless we're looking at ~200K deaths by end of Sep. definitely NOT regular flu numbers.
Lets assume the ratio of CV cases is diagnosed:actual::1:10.
Sweden (has tested 1.5% of their population) ~25K cases.
The US (has tested 2.5% of population) 1.3mil cases.
Sweden deaths 3,175. 3175/250,000 (at above ratio) = 1.3%
US deaths ~ 78,000. 78000/13000000 (at above ratio) = .6%
With only haphazard sheltering done we've reduced US death rate to half that of a country with responsible citizens but little quarantine.
Rather than stop waffling and impose a strict national quarantine for a month you'd have the US death numbers go up another ~500,000 this year?
(assuming a flat daily death toll at 2100 X days left in year)
At ~580,000 dead by New Year will you still be a 'same as flu' BS spreader?
more in the area of .1-.3 %...
So what?
Regardless of the way you tweak the rate there are still 77K+ deaths in the US and rising at more than 2100/day.
To reach 'herd immunity' (80% of population with antibodies that successfully activate the immune system) at death rate of .1% we're only 187,000 deaths away. Hurrah!
"Many here are hoping Brilacidin's membrane disruption ability will also prove effective against CV capsid and envelope. One of the questions to be or being answered is how a synthetic mimic of proteins, such as AMP. will fare as an antiviral."
That's a statement not a question. It was a kind way of letting your buddy know we are already aware of Brilacidin's effects on bacterial membranes and hoping as he/she undoubtedly does for the same success against viruses.
Perhaps in this gotcha world they would have preferred a "yawn-- so what?"
"plausible" is the reason for testing to determine whether a substance will succeed.
Not many trials are conducted to prove the impossible.
Second RBL Testing ... Timing of Results
Considering length of time of the current trials.
If Brilacidin has no significant outcome upon initial introduction to lung tissue (either preventing infection by CV or ridding pre-inoculated tissue of live virus) then fine tuning route/dosage/period of therapy is moot.
General FYI
There is no reason for blind testing at this point as neither virus nor trial substance is likely to exhibit placebo effect. Nudging of data toward positive results by staff would be challenged by monitors. However the test substance is probably labeled according to each facility's nomenclature protocol.
For example instead of being called Brilacidin it could be labeled RBL4XXX d4177B or some such.
Blinding will be for human trials.
I or we, the Green Brotherhood Alliance already crossed out Kaletra
The T and F article you linked was promoting the Kaletra components as two of their favs.
Any halfway serious follower of Brilacidin is already aware of of its membrane disruption qualities.
What did you post that was new?
Is anyone going bro refute the things she is saying???
Currently RNA vaccines do not exist. The work is ongoing and a successful Covid 19 vaccine would have ramifications beyond the CV problem.
Immunotherapy, Brilacidin for instance, is likely to be an annual necessity but may not be the only answer.
The difficulty developing an RNA vaccine has been apparent for decades and some pharmaceutical research companies are approaching the problem by disrupting viral replication rather than stimulating a systemic immune response.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2018.02151/full
One of the problems is how to establish a long lasting in-vivo reservoir of an inhibitory product.
I think a true RNA vaccine will be a long time coming (although HIV research is pushing hard to prove me wrong) and expect anti-viral treatment will be the new normal.
Now, this link just came out today!
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07391102.2020.1757510
"Cobicistat, ritonavir, lopinavir, and darunavir are in the top screened molecules from FDA approved drugs. The screened drugs and molecules may be helpful in fighting with SARS-CoV-2 after further studie"
in-silico is helpful for for separating kernels from chaff but trials are the pudding
"A total of 199 patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection underwent randomization; 99 were assigned to the lopinavir–ritonavir group, and 100 to the standard-care group. Treatment with lopinavir–ritonavir was not associated with a difference from standard care in the time to clinical improvement (hazard ratio for clinical improvement, 1.31; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.95 to 1.80). Mortality at 28 days was similar in the lopinavir–ritonavir group and the standard-care group (19.2% vs. 25.0%; difference, -5.8 percentage points; 95% CI, -17.3 to 5.7). "
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2001282
Many here are hoping Brilacidin's membrane disruption ability will also prove effective against CV capsid and envelope. One of the questions to be or being answered is how a synthetic mimic of proteins, such as AMP. will fare as an antiviral.
Seems a colossal wasted effort to vaccinate wholesale populations, whom, according to WHO (I know, I know..) up to 80% of those exposed do not present or do so mildly.
Maybe. One thing we know now is that we don't know much. Will even those with mild cases develop health problems later which would have been avoided had they not contracted Covid 19? What is the price to a country's citizens to diminish an annual death count that includes a couple of hundred thousands which were avoidable? How much effort and money does the individual citizen spent promoting automobile safety and tobacco cessation?
The natural exposure for that 80% was already the best vaccination they could hope to receive.
Maybe. We do know that a significant number of post Covid 19 suffers have no antibodies to the virus. We do not know how long the antibodies will last in those who do have them.
I still see interventional therapy ... as the brass ring
Me, too.
Sorry if it’s still confusing.
Not confusing at all. Nicely done.
OT-?
Brilacidin passed a Vero cell threshold and is now in three investigations probing for three different but complimentary outcomes?
Roger was it you who put up the Article on Pittsburg University BSL 3
NickAidenNY Monday, 05/04/20 11:50:20 PM
Re: None 0
Post #
295412
of 295662
“Bing was on the verge of making very significant findings toward understanding the cellular mechanisms that underlie SARS-CoV-2 infection and the cellular basis of the following complications,” the department said in a written statement."
I feel for the guy's family.
WTF is wrong with peolple
We need a national education structure to get murder- suicides to reverse the event order.
PS another sad expectation- How long before this gets woven into one or many conspiracy malfunction narratives?
an NBC story about a Pfizer,
Custom crafted immuno-oncology treatments have proven to be very expensive and have not fared well in the market place. The company which developed the first one approved by FDA, Dendreon, went bankrupt not long (within a year it seems to me) after approval.
Pfizer's partner in the CV vaccine stakes has a promising oncology candidate but not so much with virology. Hopefully they will do well under pressure.
" In both cases, however, the antiviral effects waned after less than a year, suggesting that improvements are needed to provide more robust and long-lasting immunity"
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03072-8
what would be left for B, if that were so?
It is simply stunning how many people show up in ED'd wanting "a cure" or "a shot" to protect me/ my spouse/ my family from X or Y or Z and will accept nearly any intervention "as long as it's not a vaccine". They're the same folks who complain about measles outbreaks threatening their kids and become nearly rabid in their rants against "Medicine" for "not having developed a way to stave off these diseases".
Brilacidin therapy, if successful, would be God's gift to the above.
...competing with a lot of noise in the area.
I think of it as searching for a new placer vein.
When the sluice box fails to deliver the gold it once did some prospectors will search out a new local by panning.
Right now IPIX is in the pan with alluvial debris. Some of the lower weight companion deposits have already been swirled away leaving mud, stones and metal. If the current trials prove out Brilacidin will become a shining nugget against magnetite sand. Glittering with the promise of wealth for all to see.
From the linked report-
The mutation identified in the new report affects the now infamous spikes on the exterior of the coronavirus, which allow it to enter human respiratory cells. The report’s authors said they felt an “urgent need for an early warning” so that vaccines and drugs under development around the world will be effective against the mutated strain.
"Red spikes: These clumps of proteins (called S proteins) are “what the virus uses to gain entry into and attach to the cell,” says Eckert. They also create the effect of a halo, or corona, around the virus."
https://elemental.medium.com/what-the-coronavirus-image-youve-seen-a-million-times-really-shows-3d8de7e3eb1f
Footnotes in
Brilacidin
First-in-Class Defensin-Mimetic Drug Candidate
Background and Scientific Rationale for
Brilacidin as a Potential Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) Treatment
Updated March 1, 2020
Park MS, et al. “Towards the Application of Human Defensins at Antivirals.” Biomol Ther (Seoul).
2018 May 1;26(3):242-254. doi: 10.4062/biomolther.2017.172.
“Due to the relative nonspecificity of the targets of defensins compared to those of the adaptive arm,
antiviral applications of defensins are conceptually ideal for defense against different viral
infections.” (emphasis added) […]
“We propose a prophylactic ‘defensin vaccine’ concept of a planned and controlled overexpression
of defensins, which is akin to manually operating the ‘safety lock’ of natural defensin expression
program as needed. Our proposal is in the same conceptual line of Edward Jenner’s ‘vaccination’
(Morgan and Parker, 2007), which took advantage of the inherent human immune system.”
Innovation Pharmaceuticals, Brilacidin (PMX-30063)/COVID-19 Overview (March 1, 2020) 4 of 22
• Ahmed A, et al. “Human Antimicrobial Peptides as Therapeutics for Viral Infections.” Viruses. 2019
Aug 1;11(8). pii: E704. doi: 10.3390/v11080704.
“Progress has been made in the last decade to elucidate the mechanisms of action of various AMPs.
The primary mechanism of AMP-mediated antiviral activity has been attributed to direct interference
with, and destabilization of, viral envelopes. However, AMPs have also demonstrated selective
immune modulation. Antiviral activity against both enveloped and non-enveloped viruses has been
reported with the latter hinting at the presence of undiscovered activities of AMPs, in addition to the
known direct interaction with viral envelopes. […] In vulnerable individuals, prophylactic expression
of AMPs has the potential to become a preventative strategy against viral infections, especially
during emerging pandemics. In addition, the simplicity of AMPs makes the development of
synthetic peptide analogues a cost-effective measure to treat established viral infections.
[emphasis added] AMPs and their synthetic derivatives are a promising avenue to yield new
strategies to control and treat a wide range of viral diseases but their application is still at the
preliminary stages. Therefore, further research is warranted to understand AMP antiviral activity
both in vivo and in vitro and to determine underlying mechanisms involved in AMP-mediated
immune modulation for clinical applications.”
Mutation of the 'now infamous spikes' should not preclude Brilacidin from interrupting the virus replication cycle.
Africa completely unprepared for COVID-19.
On the other hand-
The situation on that continent is going to be a mixture of contradictions
Cairo has a population of around 20mil people. Egypt is ruled by a semi dictatorial Trump and Saudi sycophant who is doing his best to deny Covid 19 is a problem. IIRC citizens have been threatened for showing up at hospitals claiming that they have CV 19. Others have been arrested for disputing the ridiculous official figures. IMO Cairo will become a raging hotspot of disease and rural areas beyond its influence will suffer mildly in comparison.
Many sub-Saharan countries will fare better than the US comparatively speaking. Despite being characterized as ill prepared they have learned what true preparedness is through experience. Having annual or biennial epidemics of one kind or another sweeping across the countryside imparts an education even the thickest skulled can not avoid. The sizes and laws of many of the countries allow extremely tight quarantines with some in literal nation wide lock down.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-52381583
Others have left closely confined ares for more spacious rural surroundings.
https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2020-03-26/fearing-coronavirus-african-city-dwellers-flee-to-the-countryside
Maybe most telling is the median age of the dwellers, 19.7 years.
South Africa has already flattened its curve.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/04/south-africa-flattens-its-coronavirus-curve-and-considers-how-ease-restrictions
Recent update
https://en.as.com/en/2020/05/05/other_sports/1588663920_021934.html
Washpost...yawn
The Youtube music was a bit slow, fer sure. I'm surprised you sat through the whole presentation.
Could not pull it from the site posted.
Sorry about that. I had trouble sending it from one room to another here, also.
I have been notified that it's on you Tube already.
but wants to do the right thing.
The right thing as seen through the focus of his arrogance.
If you are not otherwise engaged the article is worth the time spent reading it not only for its direct focus but also for contibuting to the background of our administration public/private interaction philosophic underpinnings.
Have they explained how they plan to continue funding their operations?
Current funding for Covid 19 trials is courtesy of the Federal Government via BARDA.
The supposition here is that a successful CV candidate will generate more income through sales and partnerships.
It is also suspected as the float has increased that the company has raised operating capital via direct retail sales.
More Gov/BP shenanigans.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/before-pandemic-trumps-stockpile-chief-put-focus-on-biodefense-an-old-client-benefited/2020/05/04/d3c2b010-84dd-11ea-878a-86477a724bdb_story.html?utm_campaign=wp_post_most&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_most
"Under the agreement struck last year with Emergent BioSolutions, Kadlec’s office at the Department of Health and Human Services is paying more than double the price per dose it had previously paid for the drug. Because Emergent is the only licensed maker of the vaccine, Kadlec’s office arrived at the price through negotiations with the company rather than through bidding...
In the two years before the coronavirus pandemic, Kadlec aggressively pursued efforts to fulfill his vision for national preparedness, the Post examination found. He assumed greater control over acquisitions for the Strategic National Stockpile, which in 2018 was moved from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and placed under his authority, the examination found.
Kadlec scaled back a long-standing interagency process for spending billions of dollars on stockpile purchases, diminishing the role of government experts and restricting decision-making to himself and a small circle of advisers, according to three former officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive matters.
Kadlec committed additional spending to such biodefense countermeasures as smallpox and anthrax vaccines while cutting planned spending on emerging infectious diseases, despite warnings from scientists that a natural contagion could also be devastating. Citing limited resources, his office halted an Obama-era initiative to spend $35 million to build a machine that could produce 1.5 million N95 masks per day, as The Post previously reported."
Congresswomen urge Jaguar Health to reverse price hike on drug that may be used in COVID-19 patients
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-drug-prices-jaguar/congresswomen-urge-jaguar-health-to-reverse-price-hike-on-drug-that-may-be-used-in-covid-19-patients-idUSKBN22G25C
Skreli spirit roams unleashed.
This is interesting.
"Which raises the question: why was this different? We will be trying to figure this one out for decades.
Was the difference that we have mass media invading our lives with endless notifications blowing up in our pockets? Was there some change in philosophy such that we now think politics is responsible for all existing aspects of life? Was there a political element here in that the media blew this wildly out of proportion as revenge against Trump and his deplorables? Or did our excessive adoration of predictive modelling get out of control to the point that we let a physicist with ridiculous models frighten the world’s governments into violating the human rights of billions of people?
Maybe all of these were factors. Or maybe there is something darker and nefarious at work, as the conspiracy theorists would have it.
Regardless, they all have some explaining to do. "
Either the author is an idiot or he thinks we are.
"In comparison to other pandemics, the Hong Kong flu yielded a low death rate. [6]
This pandemic struck in two waves with the second wave being deadlier than the first in most places.[9]
The same virus returned the following years: a year later, in late 1969 and early 1970, and in 1972. The total worldwide death toll is estimated to have been in the region of one million people."
That pandemic started in 1968 and ended in 1972. It took 3 years to reach 1 million world wide deaths.
Had the spread of Covid 19 been left unchecked we would have passed 100K deaths in April.
In the 4 months since the first reported Covid 19 case in mid January the US has suffered nearly twice the number of deaths from Covid 19 than the CDC assigns to complete 1968-1969 flu season.
"CDC states that the historic 1968-9 "Hong Kong flu" pandemic killed 34 000 Americans. "
https://aspe.hhs.gov/cdc-%E2%80%94-influenza-deaths-request-correction-rfc
PS The flu season had ended before the Woodstock festival and started up again at the end of September 1969.
I agree with your frustation that the UN through the WHO and our government through the NIH did not direct enough resources to study these Coronoviruses and develop treatments and vaccines for MERS and SARS which may have helped against Covid 19 and future coronoviruses.
My Opinion only
but looking at who did what when I believe continuing joint (USA,WHO,China) research at the Wuhan RBL4 was pursuing the above. Unfortunately, probably through casual personal adherence to safety protocols, the virus with the greatest contractability was let loose in the world before a treatment was produced.
From the US perspective, due to a handful of microbial escapes from RBL3 and 4's within the US prior to late 2014,(https://mbio.asm.org/content/5/6/e02292-14) pursuing lethal research in China was a less threatening option. Had information of a breech been shared immediately and rapid severe containment been implemented forthwith containment within China could have been achieved.
Had there been a nuke meltdown Nobody would have blinked twice at imposing a 100 mile military quarantine from the site of the event and the implementation of radiation monitoring around the world.
Until this pandemic no one with the power to thwart it has given more than a passing thought to the potential destruction an escaping 'flu bug' could wreak on the world.
Hopefully we all will move through the new world we've wrought with a greater appreciation of the broad effects we can unintentionally force upon our fellow citizens of Earth.
Given the near irresistible pull of power and money it's a hope more likely to be cast away than held but one never knows.
What if delayed-release Brilacidin Tablets (see company release) could be shown appropriate and successful in and for intestinal delivery, decimating the Covid-19 cells on contact (being able to target specific section of intestine)...would it not be important? (assuming success in second RBL trial)
Yes, if Covid-19 is susceptible to Brilacidin targeting specific out breaks in the body would be a positive quality. Even more so if a localized colony could be discovered prior to intrabody viral spread. However we're a long way from developing the testing that would be needed to pin down colonies during incubation.
If B works against Covid 19, I'd expect trials to determine the most effective route of administration.
As the virus seems to have an affinity for smooth cell wall organs in general a rapid systemic delivery might be preferable.
If B's bio-availability from intestinal absorption is close to and longer lasting than an IV infusion IMO a case could be made for an initial virucidal IV treatment followed by a sustained PO regimen of Extended Release capsule/tablets.
It will be interesting to find out how local direct delivery systems(time release and/or inhalants) fare in the future.
.not "pie in the sky"
https://www.europeanpharmaceuticalreview.com/article/111051/the-biggest-pharma-merger-and-acquisition-deals-of-2019/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_pharmaceutical_mergers_and_acquisitions
Number 46 on this list, Onyx, sold for $10.4Bil in 2013. Their three successful cancer treatments have current annual sales of around $2.5Bil
Number 7, Shire, had (2018 before sale negotiations) 6 month sales of ~$7.46 Bil, Royalty and other revenue of ~ $0.250Bil. It also had ongoing debt of ~($17.7 Bil.)
http://investors.shire.com/~/media/Files/S/Shire-IR/documents/half-yearly-report-2018.pdf
It had several drugs in pipeline. Sold for $62Bil. in Jan 2019.
Depending on projected sales of IPIX products and the subjective value of a new (and proven if B is successful) treatment genre to an industry winding down proprietary medications I wouldn't be afraid to dream in capital numbers.
Big Pharma apparently has the bucks to meet high investor expectations.
AlanC Saturday, 05/02/20 11:34:34 AM
Re: None 0
Post #
295050
of 295057
FINRA short sales of ipix
20200501|IPIX|1465525|0|2188093|O
67% of yesterday’s volume was short sales
Go ipix!!!
Background-
Market Makers are permitted to sell shares they do not have in order to meet clients demands and keep the market for the shares they represent from log jamming. Due to the ability of modern transfer agents to electronically track and assign shares to the correct accounts the actual shares rarely need to be produced. The market maker has 3 business days to locate and show that they have access to the shares they sold. They don't have to have the shares only a plausible ability to produce them.
The FINRA daily short sales as noted by AlanC for the past month or so have averaged around 50% (except for a couple of days when PPS run up induced weak hands to sell) but this week IIRC the average is closer to 65%. IMO this is a positive sign. MM's seem to be running into increased difficulty locating shares to add to their virtual stockpiles. I believe that if they want to remain as MM's for IPIX they're going to walk the PPS up until they find a spread that allows them greater liquidity.
OT
Moderna has a potential product. They have 335mil shares outstanding and a market cap around 15-16 Billion$.
I do not see IPIX if it produces a viable CV treatment having any difficulty surpassing Moderna.
Just sayin.
Gilead Analysts See Questionable Commercial Opportunity For Coronavirus Candidate Remdesivir
3:00 pm ET May 1, 2020 (Benzinga) Print
Gilead Sciences, Inc. (NASDAQ: GILD) reported an earnings and sales beat Thursday, but apprehension surrounding the drugmaker's remdesivir, under evaluation as a potential COVID-19 treatment, are weighing down on the stock.
The Gilead Analysts
Wells Fargo Securities analyst Jim Birchenough reiterated an Equal-weight rating on Gilead with an $84 price target.
UBS analyst Navin Jacob maintained a Neutral rating and $80 price target.
Morgan Stanley analyst Matthew Harrison maintained an Equal-weight rating and $77 price target.
Raymond James analyst Steven Seedhouse downgraded Gilead from Outperform to Market Perform.
Remdesivir Prospects Fraught With Uncertainty, Wells Fargo Says
Remdesivir is as an important part of a near-term solution to the pandemic, but its value as a sustainable commercial opportunity longer-term is questionable, Birchenough said in a Thursday note.
Gilead plans to donate its current supply of 1.5 million doses, adequate to treat about 140,000 patients, and will have at least 1 million patient doses supplied by year's end, the analyst said.
The company is working on both emergency use authorization from FDA as well as formal approval, while also engaging with other regulators globally, he said.
"Commercial model considerations beyond initial donated supply is difficult to assess, with infection rates declining over time, expected improved preparedness for future outbreaks, emerging vaccine strategies and other therapeutics and with a potentially difficult environment to negotiate price."
See also: Gilead Says It Will Produce 1M Courses Of Coronavirus Experimental Drug 'Remdesivir' By December
Remdesivir Commercial Opportunity Still Unclear, UBS Says
Gilead management believes an inhaled nebulized version of remdesivir will likely face a lower hurdle and have shortest path to approval, potentially by late 2020, but a subcutaneous formulation is a long way from now, Jacob said in a Friday note.
Even with a partnership with a large biopharma, it will take eight months to create "end-to-end" capabilities given the complicated manufacturing process involved, the analyst said, citing the company.
Given the lack of clarity with respect to the commercially opportunity for remdesivir, Jacob said he for now estimates peak risk-adjusted sales of $600 million.
Remdesivir Complicates The Outlook, Morgan Stanley Says
Several of Gilead's products — including Biktarvy, Epclusa, Yescarta, Letairis and AmBisome — beat expectations, but a few — such as Truvada, Genvoya, Descovy and Atripla — missed expectations, Harrison said in a Friday note.
The company neither reiterated nor withdrew its previous guidance, but suggested uncertainty existed regarding the business outlook for the rest of the year, the analyst said.
"Remdesivir presents a unique set of circumstances (related to both potential costs and revenues) which complicates the outlook," Harrison said.
Morgan Stanley said the majority of the business is stable, with HIV treatment unlikely to face pressure. An HCV catch-up is a real potential post-COVID, he said.
An EUA for remdesivir is likely in the near-term, with additional data in mid-May from the next Gilead-sponsored study, Harrison said.
Despite a lack of details from Gilead on pricing, Morgan Stanley said the drug is likely to be sold via government stockpiling.
Raymond James Leaves Remdesivir Out Of Its Model
The recent outperformance in Gilead shares based on remdesivir, seemingly minimal activity in COVID-19 and the unclear path to profit off the antiviral drug led to Raymond James' downgrade of the shares, Seedhouse said in a Thursday note.
"We continue to like GILD's core business but aren't willing to break our model to fit the COVID trade," the analyst said.
Discussing Gilead's other business dynamics, the analyst said an eventual filgotinib launch will pitch it against incumbents in the rheumatoid arthritis space; Yescarta faces legal challenges; and the Forty Seven acquisition will take time to play
If Faucci left the bats in the caves none of this would have happened.
1. Bats have been studied for their virus hosting and anti-viral protection for 15+ years.
"Thus, it is highly likely that future SARS- or MERS-like coronavirus outbreaks will originate from bats, and there is an increased probability that this will occur in China."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6466186/
2. We should probably ignore this and let China do research without US being involved, right?
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00022-2
Not a Godfather fan I take it?
What about this article?
What about it?
Nothing in this article says US Health Officials call Dr. Fauci a worm.
That's something you made up isn't it?
Old news.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/us-advisers-sign-plan-reviewing-risky-virus-studies
Controversial proponents and opponents both with creditable cases.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(18)30006-9/fulltext
"In 2016, the NSABB issued a set of recommendations for the evaluation of proposed gain-of-function research. The document, which informs the HHS framework, outlines criteria for assessing the potential risks and benefits. “The first question is: how likely is the research to result in benefits and how great would these benefits be, and how likely is the research to result in harm, and how great would these harms be?”, Michael Selgelid (Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia) told The Lancet Infectious Diseases. “But risk–benefit assessment is not an exact science, nor is it perfectly objective—a lot of the time, it is going to be very difficult to say what constitutes a situation where the benefits outweigh the risks.”
The likelihood of an accident leading to an outbreak, epidemic, or pandemic is extremely difficult to predict, as are the probable scientific advances. Proponents of gain-of-function experiments argue that their work could facilitate vaccine development. “We cannot even predict what the current seasonal influenza strains are going to do from one season to the next”, retorts Ian Mackay (University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia). “We have vaccines, but they are not much good, and instead of concentrating on understanding these viruses and improving the vaccines, people prefer to worry about viruses that have not yet become transmissible and may never do so.”
White House says do X.
"Last January, White House science officials told NIH’s parent, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), to craft policies using the criteria for what officials now call “enhanced potential pandemic pathogens” (PPPs)."
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/12/nih-lifts-3-year-ban-funding-risky-virus-studies
HHS crafts/approves policy.
https://www.phe.gov/s3/dualuse/Documents/funding-hpai-h5n1.pdf
Funding flows from appropriate agency.
https://www.niaid.nih.gov/grants-contracts/funding-opportunity-planning-budget-cycle
Not seeing Fauci's name on list of members who voted on HHS approval of re-funding gain-of-function though he was a proponent of having defenses in place should a potential pandemic appear.
Neither here
https://osp.od.nih.gov/biotechnology/national-science-advisory-board-for-biosecurity-nsabb/
nor here
https://osp.od.nih.gov/biotechnology/nsabb-faq/
I find it hard to believe that US health officials would be calling Dr. Fauci a worm.
Absolutely agree.
"As a physician with the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Fauci has served American public health in various capacities for over 50 years, and has been an advisor to every U.S. president since Ronald Reagan.[3]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Fauci
https://www.google.com/search?q=History+of+Dr+Fauci&rlz=1C1EJFC_enUS897US897&oq=History+of+Dr+Fauci&aqs=chrome..69i57.13879j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8