| Pages:
1
..
6
7
8
9
10 |
Chemosynthesis
International Hazard
Posts: 1071
Registered: 26-9-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by Rosco Bodine  | | One of the suggestions that makes most sense is to recruit and train the persons who have contracted and survived ebola and have developed a natural
immunity, to be caregivers and burial details for the present and new ebola victims. Implement quarantines and watch the outbreak burn itself out.
|
That sounds very effective, assuming the survivors don't have renal or hepatic damage. As long as their new antibodies weren't compromised by high
viral titers (I thought one of the most interesting points in a paper you linked was viral load correlation to mortality), then an additional, if
callous benefit would be that they could serve as indicators of immunological escape mutant strains of Ebola if an individual were accidentally
infected a second time.
|
|
|
Rosco Bodine
Banned
Posts: 6370
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: analytical
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Chemosynthesis |
The part where you ascribe motive and then speak for families of newly disabled children is what I find unscientific. Circumstantial arguments about
immigration and disease can be made with science, but any more than that goes from statistics and facts to something else. |
If my rhetoric is provocative that is because it is meant to be.
An old axiom is that you can talk to a mule and get him to listen if you know the secret. First you have to smack him up side the head with a 2 by 4
to get his attention.
|
|
|
Chemosynthesis
International Hazard
Posts: 1071
Registered: 26-9-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Rosco Bodine |
If my rhetoric is provocative that is because it is meant to be.
An old axiom is that you can talk to a mule and get him to listen if you know the secret. First you have to smack him up side the head with a 2 by 4
to get his attention. |
I am questioning the appropriateness of the venue. I have been inside Whimsy, but I am under the impression that is more appropriate for a lot of the
discussion in the thread, not just to single you out. I actually suspect the entire thread should be there since I don't see the connection to hobby
science, but as long as it's not too much opinion or politics, I will partake.
|
|
|
Amos
International Hazard
Posts: 1406
Registered: 25-3-2014
Location: Yes
Member Is Offline
Mood: No
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Rosco Bodine | President Ebola and the propaganda ministry that is now the CDC are pursuing a plan to make the U.S. into a limited accomplishment model of another
Sierra Leone. Ebola itself failed to get the memo in many places that mortality for a local population according to R nought should not be 100%
......so ebola not knowing any better from its viral directorate authority just proceeded to kill everyone there.
http://news.yahoo.com/leone-ebola-outbreak-catastrophic-aid-... |
Ha! 15,000 total deaths at the worst, and you say this? Sierra Leone's population isn't taking a hit (6 million), and it won't any time soon, even if
it only gets worse. The outbreak is catastrophic because the country's infrastructure is beginning to dissolve, as they more or less never had one in
the first place.
[Edited on 11-3-2014 by No Tears Only Dreams Now]
|
|
|
Rosco Bodine
Banned
Posts: 6370
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: analytical
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Chemosynthesis | | Quote: Originally posted by Rosco Bodine | | One of the suggestions that makes most sense is to recruit and train the persons who have contracted and survived ebola and have developed a natural
immunity, to be caregivers and burial details for the present and new ebola victims. Implement quarantines and watch the outbreak burn itself out.
|
That sounds very effective, assuming the survivors don't have renal or hepatic damage. As long as their new antibodies weren't compromised by high
viral titers (I thought one of the most interesting points in a paper you linked was viral load correlation to mortality), then an additional, if
callous benefit would be that they could serve as indicators of immunological escape mutant strains of Ebola if an individual were accidentally
infected a second time. |
Survivor plasma banks would be good also. There could be massive blood drives using equipment for separating the plasma with antibodies and returning
the filtered platelets in saline and dextrose to the donor. The donors could be paid well and have incentive for repeated donations.
As I understand it ebola can fool the immune system temporarily so it does not trigger immediately so a strategy might be to find a dye or protein
that binds with the ebola and makes it resemble something that does immediately trigger immune response. I suppose that is stating the obvious, but
given the cultural environment it would seem likely there could even be a herbal remedy or dietary component that may be beneficial and could account
for survivals for some and deaths for others, based on diet. There was some literature description of an estrogen related material that was
protective against infection so it could be that an indigenous plant origin exists for something having a similar protective mechanism. Everyone
would not seem to be equally at risk of infection for unknown reason, and not equally at risk to not survive, and what is the reason for that lesser
vulnerability could be helpful to know.
[Edited on 3-11-2014 by Rosco Bodine]
|
|
|
Rosco Bodine
Banned
Posts: 6370
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: analytical
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by No Tears Only Dreams Now | | Quote: Originally posted by Rosco Bodine | President Ebola and the propaganda ministry that is now the CDC are pursuing a plan to make the U.S. into a limited accomplishment model of another
Sierra Leone. Ebola itself failed to get the memo in many places that mortality for a local population according to R nought should not be 100%
......so ebola not knowing any better from its viral directorate authority just proceeded to kill everyone there.
http://news.yahoo.com/leone-ebola-outbreak-catastrophic-aid-... |
Ha! 15,000 total deaths at the worst, and you say this? Sierra Leone's population isn't taking a hit (6 million), and it won't any time soon, even if
it only gets worse. The outbreak is catastrophic because the country's infrastructure is beginning to dissolve, as they more or less never had one in
the first place.
[Edited on 11-3-2014 by No Tears Only Dreams Now] |
Playing the devil's advocate tongue in cheek can serve a constructive purpose, but you seem to serve in earnest.
Singapore is now declaring travel restrictions, joining a long list of other countries, who are simply being rational actors.
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/11/03/Singapo...
Another doctor dies from ebola
http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/local-doctor-si...
Most recent information on the epidemic
http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/outbreaks/2014-west-africa/inde...
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6343a3.htm
[Edited on 3-11-2014 by Rosco Bodine]
|
|
|
macckone
International Hazard
Posts: 2159
Registered: 1-3-2013
Location: Over a mile high
Member Is Offline
Mood: Electrical
|
|
The general gist of this thread is supposed to be tracking information on the ebola outbreak. I think this is a very relevant societal issue and a
lot of legal action is taking place that is at odds with what most experts are recommending. The few experts on the other side could be right but I
have my doubts. In any case, I see the whole thing as similar to what has happened regarding public perception of chemistry. ie. that everyone who
does chemistry is somehow evil. A lot of the laws have been passed without any consideration of amateur chemist. Similarly politicians are taking
action regarding ebola based on fear rather than science, such as banning flights from africa (there aren't any flights to the US from africa). And
banning people from africa from travelling to the US (only a few countries have had any ebola cases).
I don't want to see this be a political thread. If it becomes too political it will have to be moved to whimsy (and I will have to get access) or
some of the post will wind up in detrius, neither of which serves the purpose of keeping forum members informed.
|
|
|
Chemosynthesis
International Hazard
Posts: 1071
Registered: 26-9-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by macckone | | Similarly politicians are taking action regarding ebola based on fear rather than science, such as banning flights from africa (there aren't any
flights to the US from africa). And banning people from africa from travelling to the US (only a few countries have had any ebola cases).
|
First, you must mean direct flights from West Africa, or the most afflicted regions. There are flights from the African continent to the U.S. There
are also likely connecting flights that could could potentially be screened at boarding, with questionable efficacy.
http://www.asaptickets.com/cheap-flights-from-africa
http://www.skyscanner.com/transport/flights/za/us/cheapest-f...
If I take issue with Rosco attributing motive to government, I have to take issue to your attributing motive to (U.S?) politicians. Motive isn't
knowable nor is it necessarily relevant to the facts of the law, which is an objective standard much more easily argued. Many other explanations than
fear exist: ignorance, representing constituents' desires, placing the subjective value of American lives above foreigners', etc. To say a travel ban
is not based on science isn't necessarily accurate, as segregating herd populations to prevent disease transmission is an animal medicine/ livestock
epidemiological principle as I noted earlier. Here is an article where a Nobel laureate immunologist supports
quarantine:http://hotair.com/archives/2014/10/30/science-nobel-prize-winning-doctor-backs-christies-quarantine-plan/
Is he supporting quarantine out of fear rather than a subjective assessment of his scientific and medical background?
The appropriateness of the measure is what is suspect, rather than the basis on which it is made. To claim it's unscientific without assailing the
methodology is poisoning the well, and not accurate. You know science doesn't make value calls. It works on data to establish probable fact, which can
later be used to inform value judgements such as policy regarding the force continuum in maintaining a quarantine, travel restrictions, etc. The
decision to implement a policy decision is not science, regardless of how colleges market their government classes now (political science). The reason
I think this is probably a Whimsy thread is that I view the link to home science as very tenuous. Just because the legal system and politics can
influence either doesn't mean there is a direct link between the two.
Interesting you view the thread as generally being on covering the transmission in a general sense. The way I read the thread, the OP started with a
question on transmission in larger, poor cities, not necessarily to track the epidemic, nor for critiques on policies. We have CDC and WHO estimates,
and not many facts.
[Edited on 4-11-2014 by Chemosynthesis]
|
|
|
Rosco Bodine
Banned
Posts: 6370
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: analytical
|
|
Maybe the Fermi paradox is easily enough explained. There were once in the distant past hundreds of advanced spacefaring extraterrestrial races in
communication with earth eons ago, but ebola from earth wiped out every one of them.
Following extinction from an unforeseen existential threat it is too late to discover what you didn't know. Hindsight is only ever 20-20 when someone
is left surviving to be looking.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_catastrophic_risks#Fermi...
Off topic but interesting science fiction movie The Andromeda Strain
[Edited on 4-11-2014 by Rosco Bodine]
|
|
|
gregxy
Hazard to Others
Posts: 421
Registered: 26-5-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I grew up watching movies like Andromeda Strain and The Omega man, Planet of the Apes etc featuring post apocalyptic worlds....
Its not just the elderly that some would consider a burden. Automation has eliminated millions of jobs. The fair thing to do would be shorten working
hours and distribute the labor. However many don't want to share. Fortunately birthrates are going down on their own.
Would the "powers that be" actively develop something that will kill off 70% of the population, I like to think not. Would they look the other way
and let it happen, this is more likely.
|
|
|
jock88
National Hazard
Posts: 505
Registered: 13-12-2012
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I wonder are there people out there who are naturally immune to ebola.
There are people who are zero % effected by aids and have been studied to try and see why etc.
|
|
|
Brain&Force
Hazard to Lanthanides
Posts: 1302
Registered: 13-11-2013
Location: UW-Madison
Member Is Offline
Mood: Incommensurately modulated
|
|
Huh, speaking of AIDS...
http://www.newsweek.com/2014/11/14/ebola-panic-looks-familia...
At the end of the day, simulating atoms doesn't beat working with the real things...
|
|
|
Chemosynthesis
International Hazard
Posts: 1071
Registered: 26-9-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Reads like a poorly written article to me. I see little if any actual science, and only one virologist quoted (half of what he had reported was
speculation on psychology and economics). It's a little jarring for me to read an article that characterizes dissent as hysteria, an emotion, then
relies on intangibles for its appeal. Intangible measurements such as psychopharmacology animal models have to rely on very controlled experiments
repeatedly measuring correlated surrogate quantifiable, physical events, and I see no mimicry of that here. I think the author could have done a much
better job conveying the basis of their stance. While it may turn out that a 21 day quarantine, hardly comparable to a lifetime of stigma, ends up
overly cautious, portraying it as "unscientific" or "hysteria" still strikes me as horribly disingenuous; public policy is never scientific else it
would be science, and there is a scientific basis for transmission during this window which may be curtailed through quarantine which has legal
precedent (if questionable authority, though no one seems to care Typhoid Mary Mallon was isolated 30 years of her life in NY), and surely there are
better examples of discrimination than school kid bullying.
When I was a child, bullying had no regard for facts or policy. I think all these "AIDS researchers and activists" (how many sociologists or
non-scientist clinicians who were stuck as a middle author to a paper/grant for NIH funding?) would have a much stronger case for preventing or
abolishing quarantine if the "decades of research" on Ebola were used in some manner to try and support their stance, which one of a subjective risk
assessment rather than objective fact, as any policy decision is.
Some of those decades of research on Ebola have raised concerns amongst about aerosolization and potential airborne transmission. Is that concern
somehow discriminatory and not founded on science? The CDC and independent NGOs seem to be in favor of widescale isolation/quarantine in Africa: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-will-it-take-...
In this case, the assumption is that only symptomatic cases are transmissible, but this has not been confirmed for all cases per the CDC. There is a
new peer reviewed medical model of asymptomatic transmission via sneezing (link below), which makes concomitant influenza infection this holiday
season a potential threat. Perhaps some statistics on the estimated likelihood of this transmission... which is is particularly disturbing given MIT's
20-foot hypothetical transmission range cited earlier... perhaps demonstrating methodological flaws or estimates on this being a minute concern would
be more convincing to the public which is largely not scientifically educated.
http://wnd.com/2014/10/ebola-victims-without-symptoms-could-...
My understanding of the reasoning for quarantines is such; it is presumed fact that Ebola in this current iteration can manifest within 21 days.
Quarantining an infectious disease carrier generally reduces their ability to transmit a disease. Therefore, anyone suspected of being infected with
Ebola should quarantine for 21 days to demonstrate high likelihood of being non-infectious. This seems rational to me, but that doesn't make it
entirely factual, encompassing, or ethical; except for factual accuracy, which I see no reason to doubt, these are either not scientific factors.
While individuals may be contagious while asymptomatic, it seems accepted that anyone symptomatic is contagious, which fits known etiology of disease.
Given this, in order to diagnose someone outside of quarantine, there is some potential risk that the infected person transmits Ebola unless
immediately diagnosed and quarantined according to proper procedures. This is an inarguable, but possibly miniscule risk. Science doesn't answer what
to do here. At some point, a person has to accept a margin of error or set a confidence interval, then expand that empirical observation into a
behavioral response.
It's one thing to claim a quarantine doesn't work (if not mandatory), since a Nigerian Ebola patient contact fled quarantine and then became ill and
infected others, and both Craig Spencer and Nancy Snyderman violated voluntary quarantine and apparently lied about it initially.
http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2014/09/quarantin...
It's yet a different issue to claim that quarantine abroad can offset contagion risk here, which is potentially a model able extrapolation, though
extrapolation is inherently risky. Currently, Ebola cases globally are exponentially increasing, despite tapering dramatically in Europe and the U.S.
http://ebolastats.com/
It's another to make an argument that the expense of quarantine is too costly to maintain, though the alternative is a completely unseen effect,
completely unknown. However, scientific discourse relies on assertion of fact, statistical certainty, and methodological rigor. I still think we are
lacking with regard to Ebola.
Perhaps the relatively new 21 day monitoring program for people flying in from Ebola outbreak zones will be seen as a more "scientific" compromise
despite giving the state health authorities control over compliance, and operating under the same time window with volunteered contact information.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/ebola-airport-checks-...
I am not sure what would be more scientific about this federal program than a quarantine, but it is now the slow moving standard, perhaps anticipated
to cost less and arguably more respectful of civil liberties if light on diagnostic requirements.
On quarantines and travel restrictions, sometimes animals shelters close to avoid spreading contagious diseases. I alluded to this in a previous post.
When to do so is a value statement, not a scientific fact, and that type of judgment shouldn't be conflated with science. Applying this human beings
with legal rights complicated the issue, but doesn't change that science only gives facts and not answers to decisions.
http://www.animalsheltering.org/resources/magazine/sep-oct-2...
[Edited on 5-11-2014 by Chemosynthesis]
|
|
|
Rosco Bodine
Banned
Posts: 6370
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: analytical
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by gregxy | | Would the "powers that be" actively develop something that will kill off 70% of the population, I like to think not. Would they look the other way
and let it happen, this is more likely. |
Wishful thinking is good. Pragamatic stewardship of a planet requires realistic management thinking and actions which reflect sound judgment.
Unhappily for the human race neither proposition about which you are skeptical is purely a hypothetical but that threshhold of having such technical
capability which is an existential threat was already passed approximately forty years ago. One of the rational basis arguments for nuclear arms
control treaties is that it is one of the more obvious global extinction category type threats, where even an unintentional misadventure ....a gross
malfunction or sabotage event unleashing all that destructive arsenal.....could kill the entire planet earth ten times over.
There is no exception that Murphy's Law could not certainly include existential threats. Sometimes it happens that yes there are sufficient arsenals
of various destructive agents available to get the job done of destroying an entire planet, as if it were the task of a "death star" like in Star Wars
......or something far more subtle and less foreseeable could exist which could produce the same result. Life is fragile but exists in a universe
inclined to break things.
I reference again the Fermi paradox hypothesis which makes a good point about existential threats ......and the point should not be lost that those
special type Black Swan Events leave no survivors to chronicle what occurred so there is no posterity then to entertain with knowledge about that
history which leaves no student to study. It is not a trivial point, but is the entire point which thinkers lacking depth are missing. For there to
be any legacy to benefit from anyones vast knowledge, it is necessary for a continuation and survival of the species to occur. It matters very little
if you were just the smartest person ever if your vast knowledge is credited with the extinction of your species.
[Edited on 5-11-2014 by Rosco Bodine]
|
|
|
IrC
International Hazard
Posts: 2710
Registered: 7-3-2005
Location: Eureka
Member Is Offline
Mood: Discovering
|
|
http://www.infowars.com/media-agrees-not-to-report-on-suspec...
Yet another headline on an NBC affiliate reports the number of persons being monitored for Ebola in NYC has tripled. Do they think it will go away if
no one talks about it?
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" Richard Feynman
|
|
|
jock88
National Hazard
Posts: 505
Registered: 13-12-2012
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
You should never let scientific stuff get in the way of a good panic.
|
|
|
franklyn
International Hazard
Posts: 3026
Registered: 30-5-2006
Location: Da Big Apple
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Last count yesterday it was reported 347 people in New York are at risk from exposure and being monitored for
symptoms. Even if no new cases appear , the problem of merely sequestering people at risk from exposure can be very disruptive to society in general
if it chronically causes critical personnel shortages. Notice that this number although small is just the incidental consequence of a handful of
people who developed disease. No actual cases or deaths have to occur for this to have an economic impact , as Rosco Bodine presciently observed a bit
ago.
http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=38579&...
.
|
|
|
Rosco Bodine
Banned
Posts: 6370
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: analytical
|
|
The conservative cost estimate is a minimum cost of 1 to 2 million dollars just for the treatment costs directly associated with one patient and that
does not account for the collateral costs for consequential economic impact that have not even been tallied yet because those costs are still
accruing. Ebola is a disease that is absolutely in the category health care expense that is "catastrophic cost" irregardless of the R nought or other
statistical analysis about the purely medical data .....the economics are disastrous for the attendant contact tracing and sequestration of people and
the retasking or shelving of persons, equipment, and real estate which must be isolated for exposure, decontamination and testing, monitoring costs,
ect. .......before you even factor in the lost property values and accellerated depreciations for real estate and transportation vehicles.
Do you need an ebola friendly ambulance service or a cab or condominium?
Are you seeking treatment for your ebola but simply insist on a private room?
No problem. We specialize and offer unreasonable rates since the taxpayer picks up the bill, don't speak english? - have no insurance? - no problemo!
See your ebola friendly housing, and transportation, and treatment service provider now ....Your friendly gringo witey U.S. taxpayer chump is picking
up the bill.
|
|
|
gregxy
Hazard to Others
Posts: 421
Registered: 26-5-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
The prices of airline stocks seem unaffected.... I would think they would be a very sensitive leading indicator.
The best comparison is SARS. Ebola kills 50-70% Sars 10%, Incubation for Ebola 21 days, Sars 5 days. SARS was definitely air-born. SARS also
sickened many health care providers (1 patient infected 99 in a hospital). SARS spread to HongKong, extremely dense, connected city. The growth rate
is R^(T/Te). Everyone is concerned about R, but the incubation time Te has a much stronger effect than R, and Te for ebola is 4X longer. If SARS had
an Ro=2, Ebola would need Ro=16 to match it. Plus with the shorter Te, there is less time to track and isolate contacts.
Considering how far it had spread, it is quite amazing that SARS was stopped. Conflicting factors might be that ebola may also be a water-born disease
and ebola is easier and more effective for a terrorist to use.
|
|
|
Etaoin Shrdlu
National Hazard
Posts: 724
Registered: 25-12-2013
Location: Wisconsin
Member Is Offline
Mood: Insufferable
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Rosco Bodine | | The conservative cost estimate is a minimum cost of 1 to 2 million dollars just for the treatment costs directly associated with one patient
|
I believe that like I believe aspirin really does cost $250 a pill when dumped into a cup by a highly trained and qualified medtech.
|
|
|
macckone
International Hazard
Posts: 2159
Registered: 1-3-2013
Location: Over a mile high
Member Is Offline
Mood: Electrical
|
|
Little known fact, because Ebola is classified as a public health emergency, your insurance doesn't have to pay.
|
|
|
Etaoin Shrdlu
National Hazard
Posts: 724
Registered: 25-12-2013
Location: Wisconsin
Member Is Offline
Mood: Insufferable
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by macckone | | Little known fact, because Ebola is classified as a public health emergency, your insurance doesn't have to pay. |
Source? Health insurance? There's nothing in my policy that says "Not valid for treatment of scary diseases." They're not even allowed to restrict
coverage of pre-existing conditions anymore. I'd be highly surprised if this were true.*
*in the US, anyway.
If you're talking about coverage for African Safari cancellation or whatnot, who buys that anyway?
|
|
|
macckone
International Hazard
Posts: 2159
Registered: 1-3-2013
Location: Over a mile high
Member Is Offline
Mood: Electrical
|
|
It is part of the 1916 TB quarantine act.
The government pays the tab.
Did not have time to look up the exact reference.
[Edited on 7-11-2014 by macckone]
|
|
|
Chemosynthesis
International Hazard
Posts: 1071
Registered: 26-9-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by gregxy | | The prices of airline stocks seem unaffected.... I would think they would be a very sensitive leading indicator. |
They dropped initially, with Frontier Airlines (Vinson's flight) giving 20% discounts and removing a plane from use.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/102090482
The counter problem with the latency period in the case of Ebola is that if it were more transmissible, given its virulence (mutation, concimmitsnt
flu), the theoretical R nought could be much higher before treatment was sought. Hopefully this doesn't occur due to how much more expensive Ebola
treatment is.
|
|
|
Chemosynthesis
International Hazard
Posts: 1071
Registered: 26-9-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Morkva | | What's stupid is that despite all your bickering over quarantines even you scientifically literate seem not to have sought out the scientific research
into cures. Had you, NPC1 would be a common word in this thread. It's even on the wikipedia page about ebola: population might not be expected to make
anyhting of it, but for those who can understand the language of science it is shameful. |
Clearly you
misunderstand how clinical drug development, double blind trials and statistically relevant data work in the pharmaceutical industry. You are
confusing cure with prophylaxis (viral 'curing' is removal of the provirus from a genome), and not distinguishing between mouse data with few samples
and human data. Any efficacy for SERM drugs, which were mentioned by class if you are so educated on the subject, if you cared to read the thread, is
confounded by a complete lack of mechanistic explanation and zero substantiation in even non-human primate data. TKM-Ebola would have been a far more
insightful example, by the way.
Adding drugs in combinatorial therapies to clinical trials vastly complicates the ability to demonstrate efficacy, and may actually slow scientific
advancement by taking up resources. Most drugs fail late in clinical trials, and toxicity data in particular is difficult to extrapolate (important
for adding new adjuncts), so animal model data is often of very limited utility, hence the FDA allowing immediate non-human primate advancement on
some treatments. Stating claims of preventing death without backing it up is disingenuous and shameful, especially when you throw around insults about
stupidity and shame amongst the posters here. Some of us have corresponded through PM, so you are not privy to the totality of conversation.
So you read wikipedia and found a potential target for prophylaxis. Good for you. That doesn't impact the original post topic nor does it necessitate
immediate miracle medicine. Testing hits, leads, and then drug candidates is time consuming even with a target. Drug development takes nearly 12 years
currently, and sometimes medicine that seems to have great clinical results ends up with severe problems discovered in phase IV post-marketing
surveillance. Cyclophosphamide comes to mind for contraindication in prostate cancer. Similar anti-angiogenics were just this year found to increase
metastasis and invasion in glioma, despite shrinking tumors. Study metrics are important. You can't meaningfully comment on the "language of science"
while removing it from the empirical methodology, and this is what you claim to do while making a morally supercilious, non-science argument out of
what should be read and discussed an amateur science/hobby chemistry forum. Science deals with fact, not morality.
Kindly desist with the sanctimony.
[Edited on 12-11-2014 by Chemosynthesis]
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
..
6
7
8
9
10 |
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
