Jump to content
Billikens.com Message Board
billikenbill

SLU & NCAA Corona Virus Discussion

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, cheeseman said:

If this quine drug works then great but we have to understand that you do not start using a drug for another purpose without testing and making sure that you will not do more harm.  There have been plenty of examples where drug companies have tried to re purpose drugs for a new use and it has backfired.  The problem when Trump brought this up he was advocating using it without proper testing - in other words immediately. .  To do so is not prudent and just because someone picks the 100-1 odd horse to win and it does does not make him an expert bettor.  

Did you happen to  see or, help us Lord, even read the article I linked? Assuming you missed the link for some reason, here it goes again.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924857920300996

This is a controlled test study. Pleas read it, at least to the point you understand that it is a controlled test study.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Old guy said:

Did you happen to  see or, help us Lord, even read the article I linked? Assuming you missed the link for some reason, here it goes again.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924857920300996

This is a controlled test study. Pleas read it, at least to the point you understand that it is a controlled test study.

I never questioned the study - all I said that you have do enough testing of the product to see that it won't do any harm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rgbilliken said:

I’m not a clinical researcher, but working in pharmaceutical drug development, I’m probably more familiar than the average person. I’ve always been told that a double-blind, RCT is the gold standard for clinical trials. This study doesn’t fit that bill as it is not randomized. Additionally, I’m concerned about the methodology of removing the three patients from the study who were moved to the ICU. Like I said, I’m not a clinical researcher so don’t know if that is common practice, but it did cause me to raise my eyebrows, as a pharmaceutical researcher.  I realize that patient transfer to the ICU rendered the researchers unable to test them further for the virus, but I wish that would have been more clearly stated in the results/discussion. However, this study does show that more testing is worthwhile. I will be interested to see if further study confirms these results. Like OG says...don’t pop the bubbly yet (and DON’T buy chloroquine from a fish tank place and OD on it as some have done; and don’t hoard these drugs—there are patients who depend on them routinely) but data supporting a  therapy for COVID 19 is good news. My scientist hat causes me to be skeptical, though. 

I have given my credentials before several times, can you give yours? What kind of a scientist are you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Old guy said:

I have given my credentials before several times, can you give yours? What kind of a scientist are you?

I have my PhD in chemistry and work in pharmaceutical drug development. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, HoosierPal said:

Congress was totally consumed with impeachment/trial when the virus was exploding in China.

Even assuming members of Congress and the administration cannot walk and chew bubble gum at the same time, the CDC, HHS, and FEMA were not consumed with impeachment.  Neither was the intelligence community.  Finally, they had most of the month of February post-impeachment to get out in front of things. 

So, yea, not buying the "too busy with impeachment" to notice the pandemic freight train coming right at us. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, slufan13 said:

I'm continue to be of the opinion that our politicians and leaders did not take this seriously enough early on and too many ordinary citizens are still not taking this seriously enough still today. 

I have a hard time blaming the politicians too much given the stock market also wiffed big-time on this. Record highs as late as February 23 which shows the collective wisdom of investors totally missed what was coming. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, brianstl said:

How do you think government cell phone tracking of citizens and semi regular biological warfare drills would go over in this country?  Is that the kind of country we should want to live in to be better prepared for a once in a century type of pandemic?  

Those are just some of the questions you have to answer if you want a South Korea type of response to the next pandemic like this.

Brian, not trying to argue in a negative fashion, I know where you are in this.

- the Patriot Act ensured ALL our cell phone conversations were routinely routed through content and destination sorting computers

- virtually all the smart phones have installed software tracking, either an app or tagging, that readily can provide location as well as locate and track, from either our use or monitoring use.

- rudimentary nuclear, biological, and chemical attack training takes about half an hour. I give the training quarterly, we do mockups, ojt, and much of it is universal precautions, with Level C PPE folded in. The SKs and Israelis smoke us in that they all have FF respirators, HEPA and chemical combo cartridges with every household, and are ruthlessly competent at using them. Outside of military, firefighters, and Level C/B/A medical personnel, no one stateside has a clue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something we can all agree is good news: traffic accidents are way down the past 4 weeks*

*I apologize if this was already posted

Something else we can all agree on: Ana De Armas is hot and Ben Affleck has no business dating her

Amazon.com: Ana De Armas Sexy in White Tank Top Refrigerator ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, rgbilliken said:

I have my PhD in chemistry and work in pharmaceutical drug development. 

That's Dr. rgbilliken to you folks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, rgbilliken said:

I have my PhD in chemistry and work in pharmaceutical drug development. 

👏

giphy.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, rgbilliken said:

I have my PhD in chemistry and work in pharmaceutical drug development. 

Hahahahaha got em 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 minute ago, Sheltiedave said:

Make that I have the bills, small b.

The nice thing about PhD programs for sciences is that most are fully funded by the state and you receive a stipend that is typically more than enough to cover living expenses. I guess it probably depends on the program. It was not enough to cover my student loans from undergrad, however, so I am still paying those off...but did not incur any additional debt from grad school, unless you count interest that compounded on my undergrad loans while I was in graduate school.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Slu let the dogs out? said:

Something we can all agree is good news: traffic accidents are way down the past 4 weeks*

 

Update- March 23 to March 29 (City of St.Louis first week of stay at home order)....5 crashes. Same dates in 2019? 302! 98% reduction. https://t.co/996xpVl8t2

— Denis Beganovic (@beganovic2021) March 30, 2020

 

*I apologize if this was already posted

 

 

I have a friend that runs an autobody shop. He's not happy that traffic accidents are way down.

See, you can't get full agreement on anything! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are aware that this product was tested extensively when first approved. I do not imagine you know this but here it goes: Normal testing for a pharmaceutical product includes a first stage that determines if the product can be used in humans without dangerous toxicity and whether it shows any kind of effect as expected. Once this passes, it is tested again to determine how much of the product is tolerated by humans again without serious toxicity, all kinds of side effects are documented and recorded. Phase III is the difficult one, the  product has to prove to be better than other available product or provide some unique advantage. If all 3 phases are completed, then it is approved. This particular product, has been used extensively for autoimmune disease therapy, against without major problems.

Fast track products, fast tracked because of a major medical need or the like, are fully approved without  much of this process being completed. However, Hydroxychloroquine has been fully approved via the long process from long ago. The issues with toxicity, and harm have been worked out and found to be OK LONG AGO. All that is needed now is approval for a new use (which has been already  granted by the FDA). Also, at this time, everything relating to Covid is being fast tracked. Like it or not  this is the way it is. 

The study I provided the link for does show good response in limiting the virus levels in infected people. It is approved for this use by the FDA and it has been used for many  years for different applications. What is it that is hard to understand here?

18 minutes ago, rgbilliken said:

I have my PhD in chemistry and work in pharmaceutical drug development. 

@rgbilliken, OK so you do. You, of course agree that once a drug passes the full FDA  approval it does not need to pass it again, or don't you? This is all basic regulatory stuff. Once the licensing agency says it is OK to use, that is all there is to it. I assume you are not a lawyer also and involved in litigation over drug use and abuse and or side effects and toxicity. This is a different animal all together, and something that will eventually have to be settled in court. But that comes later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, billiken_roy said:

no my b!tch is not with reactions specific to what should have been done other than reaction by the press to drive a hysteria panic.    i have said repeatedly that i am not understating the virus i just want to know why the msm went out if it's way to drive the panic instead of a lesser approach that would have kept the public's heads more level.   why the need for the panic when similar situations in results happen all the time and calmer heads prevail.   

A good case could be made that the "MSM" was right to bring this impending pandemic to light, as opposed to trump's approach of burying his head in the sand last month. The administration has been playing catch up the whole time, instead of being proactive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, kshoe said:

I have a hard time blaming the politicians too much given the stock market also wiffed big-time on this. Record highs as late as February 23 which shows the collective wisdom of investors totally missed what was coming. 

I didn't vote for any stock investor. The people elected are the ones that are supposed to be on top of public health not Icahn or Soros. Deep state over deep stupid incompetent self obsessed any day for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Old guy said:

You are aware that this product was tested extensively when first approved. I do not imagine you know this but here it goes: Normal testing for a pharmaceutical product includes a first stage that determines if the product can be used in humans without dangerous toxicity and whether it shows any kind of effect as expected. Once this passes, it is tested again to determine how much of the product is tolerated by humans again without serious toxicity, all kinds of side effects are documented and recorded. Phase III is the difficult one, the  product has to prove to be better than other available product or provide some unique advantage. If all 3 phases are completed, then it is approved. This particular product, has been used extensively for autoimmune disease therapy, against without major problems.

Fast track products, fast tracked because of a major medical need or the like, are fully approved without  much of this process being completed. However, Hydroxychloroquine has been fully approved via the long process from long ago. The issues with toxicity, and harm have been worked out and found to be OK LONG AGO. All that is needed now is approval for a new use (which has been already  granted by the FDA). Also, at this time, everything relating to Covid is being fast tracked. Like it or not  this is the way it is. 

The study I provided the link for does show good response in limiting the virus levels in infected people. It is approved for this use by the FDA and it has been used for many  years for different applications. What is it that is hard to understand here?

@rgbilliken, OK so you do. You, of course agree that once a drug passes the full FDA  approval it does not need to pass it again, or don't you? This is all basic regulatory stuff. Once the licensing agency says it is OK to use, that is all there is to it. I assume you are not a lawyer also and involved in litigation over drug use and abuse and or side effects and toxicity. This is a different animal all together, and something that will eventually have to be settled in court. But that comes later.

I have worked extensively with the private sector and the FDA getting multiple drugs approved. We are regularly audited by the FDA for our work in pharmaceuticals. I am very familiar with Phase I, II, and III of drug approval and have worked on drugs in all three of those phases, including preclinical. You do not need to explain this to me.

The fact that the FDA approved the drug for another use means that it is (1) effective for the approved use and (2) safe for the intended use. I am not saying that the drugs in the study you cited will not work. I am familiar with off-label prescription of drugs that have been approved for one use but are prescribed for another use. I merely stated that the results are promising, but I remain skeptical until further studies confirm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, ACE said:

A good case could be made that the "MSM" was right to bring this impending pandemic to light, as opposed to trump's approach of burying his head in the sand last month. The administration has been playing catch up the whole time, instead of being proactive.

STOP LYING! Here are facts:

Jan 11 - First reported Wuhan Death

Jan 20 - First recorded case in the United States 

Jan 30 - WHO declares world health emergency 

Jan 31- President Trump restricts travel from China despite wide spread criticism from Democrats.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/article/coronavirus-timeline.amp.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, BIG BILL FAN said:

STOP LYING! Here are facts:

Jan 11 - First reported Wuhan Death

Jan 20 - First recorded case in the United States 

Jan 30 - WHO declares world health emergency 

Jan 31- President Trump restricts travel from China despite wide spread criticism from Democrats.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/article/coronavirus-timeline.amp.html

Now do the month of February.  

And interestingly, Trump wants credit for the travel restriction he applied in January, but impeachment was too consuming for the administration/Congress to take action.  Unfortunately, can't have it both ways. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, rgbilliken said:

I have my PhD in chemistry and work in pharmaceutical drug development. 

Checks out.  😁

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...