PhilGeis

Did not see sleep deprivation cited as major factor in the linked Guardian article and in any case suggest caution in putting too much faith in Guardian. But you are correct - sleep deprivation is certainly a factor affecting immune function - e.g. https://academic.oup.com/sleep/article/38/9/1353/2417971 "Locked in with" affected family members would expose one to the virus - not sure what this has to do with sleep deprivation. If caring for family members disruptssleep - then we'd assume that would increase risk.

Agree - draconian projections (from AB resistance to climate change) that folks don't eventually observe in their daily lives drives to skepticism. I'm with dimreepr - what's for dinner?

Quinine is not chloroquine and it's a profound leap from efficacy of DMSO-solubilized active in culture (cell line of green monkey kidney cells) to effective human treatment by oral consumption of tonic water. Suggest folks read the actual work when it's av (as here) rather than relying on "news" reports. Here's the letter (it does lack some detail) and please remember - whatever the credentials of its 1st author Manli Wang, this is from China. We should await other labs reproducing this study and some level of efficacy in relevant or projected practical application https://www.nature.com/articles/s41422-020-0282-0.pdf

There was no truth in either of the above stories. That it is or is not connected to biological weapons research is not verifiable, and the Wash Post claim that the association is false is not supported by the article. Experts cited clearly doubted the association with weapons but none was in a position to prove their expert opinions. The headline should be unproven and doubtful.

Origin is unclear and Chinese media is state controlled so not that credible. Latest reports claim to eliminate both bats and snakes. https://www.sciencealert.com/the-pangolin-is-now-a-suspect-in-the-coronavirus-outbreak. In any case, the claims of association are typically based on finding viral genetic signal of host fresident consistent that of the epidemic isolate - coincidence does not mean cause/source - e.g. folks are still arguing over armadillos as source of human leprosy. There is little doubt that (esp.) wet market food constantly exposes its vendors and customers to various microbes/viruses/prions and mabe stuff yet to be discovered - that occasionally take up residence with or without pathology. Think the issue is persistence/pathology and communicability rather than exposure. Re. wet markets - these are deep in Chinese urban food supply system and include both slaughtered and living animals. Moving them are out of cities is not practical as it moves them away from customers, and vendors are small business men whose limited resources will likely be be exceeded by requirement of cooking adequately all meats - and whose product will be limited to slaughtered and cooked flesh (even in the unlikely even of effective and consistent compliance).

The MIC/ZOI and other protocols mentioned above can generate data that may show "potential" efficacy but will be largely of questionable relevance. Many solvents in this regard have some antimicrobial effect -such protocols suffer from the inability to address additive, synergistic ot even absolute nature of combination. That is breaking out solvent + test compound vs test compound. A solvent-only control does not answer that question. DMSO is prob less of an issue in this than ethanol. More importantly, using a solvent to shoehorn an insoluble compound into a classic MIC/ZOI test is common but offers a result of questionable relevance. Dispersing the agent in agar is also problematic as it effectively establishes an emulsion in the water colloid. The target bug may not even "see" the compound. But you can still get numbers and report potential - if that's all you need at this point. Do you have application in mind - or is this an academic effort?

This would (in US) undergo drug approval process via NDA based on safety and efficacy. Appears the molecule is owned by Center for Drug Design and Discovery - I don;t see SPI009 mentioned on their website http://www.cd3.eu/- .

What are the data that support immunocompromise due to specific temperature exppsures?

There is short term reporting requirement for isolation of some microbes - such as biological warfare agents - and there are disease reporting requirements https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6253a1.htm. Think the presumption that clinical labs are competent and would promptly engage state health dpts labs and CDC addresses broader issues you mention. I'd not get too concerned re. "pandemic" - the term has been been overused https://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/89/7/11-088815/en/ and become hollywood melodrama ala "Hot Zone."

I understand the perception re manufacturing but that's still subjective on our part. I'm sure capital investment, research, compliance and controls have increased nominal costs but they may well have been limited by efficiencies, and big increases in so few years is tough to understand. Lilly et al. should answer the question and to dimreep's point, gov should pressure for that answer. But 1 for 1? man on the moon? don't understand the meaning of the former and the latter return has just been funded for 1.6 billion - certainly not at the cost of NIH budget. Strawman? I'll offer what i see as relevance of the Kodak lesson. It was intended to address the comment that money is against solving the issues with diabetes. With > billion in research for diabetes, if there is a "cure" or "prevention" to be discovered - Lilly and the other 2 would be foolish if they didn;t both carefully follow current research as well as maintain their own effort. A single pivotal publication could immediately hit their stock price - a temporary inconvenience - if/until with success the happy researcher formed his/her own startup. No impact on insulin profits yet - just as Kodak saw no impact on theirs until ~ turn of the century. Presuming additional success the startup technology goes to the highest bidder or is knocked off by somebody else. Again presuming success - it is only a matter of time.

No - neither argument /attack here or before. So you haven't read the citations sufficiently to summarize the "validity' claimed and do not have support for "...formulation and manufacturing cost is completely unchanged for decades." Please recall these were your statements.

Oh sure, they are all evil. Perhaps you shouldn't presume others would apply your morals. Government disinterest? With > billion in funding diabetes research-(that's just the NIH) and grant recipients eager for their own startup opportunities? If there is gov "disinterest" its lies in pressuring appropriate costs and that is clearly an open question for this and many drug products. Think you guys fail to understand how business thinks long term - developing technology has no exclusivity. Let me help you understand how business sees technology. Please consider the lesson taught in business schools as well as business training in all major companies. In 1975 Kodak developed digital photography, a technology they chose not to develop and market as it would cannibalize their existing film/camera business. Kodak employed ~150,000 FTE’s globally at that time. in the 90's the technology was marketed by other folks– Kodak could not catch up and lost ~ everything, declared bankruptcy in 2012. Their plan - sell the patents they still possessed and get into the copier business with remaining ~2000 FTE’s. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/22/business/at-kodak-clinging-to-a-future-beyond-film.html The lesson – that Lilly et al fully understand – technology will bring advances that can obsolete your core business. You’ll not know this unless you pursue its development and, if it is discovered, you’re screwed if you don’t own it. I hope the above helps. I know it easy to throw some references on a post. - but i think there was reference to validity and specifics. . Can you take me through the claimed validation and again - can you please review materials and manufacturing costs. I'm suggesting nothing re. the latter - it was your affirmative statement about which I inquired "...formulation and manufacturing cost is completely unchanged for decades."

The original post focused therapies and prevention not on price. Since you've focused on price, mind sharing the claimed validation? Shouldn't be hard since so obvious - or is it a bias?. and please understand "big pharma" is more than the three insulin suppliers. If others could obtain a share - or all of the diabetes business - they would. I don;t know the price structure or understand why costs have doubled just in this decade. Lilly for one offers what appears to be a tangential response that doesn't answer the question . https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/25/eli-lilly-discloses-pricing-data-for-its-popular-insulin-humalog.html as you claim to know = what are the manufacturing and materials costs through the decades? Separately - do agree with iNow's comment were lifetime immunosuppressive therapy the risks of which are probably much greater than the current insulin therapy .

There are effectively three companies producing insulin for the world. Rather than holier-than-thou "big pharma" bashing, consider for one Lilly's current reported diabetes research https://www.lilly.com/partners/scientific-areas-of-interest as well as NIH billion+ diabetes research program https://www.niddk.nih.gov/about-niddk/budget-legislative-information/diabetes-research-improving-lives-path-cure-2015.

The body produces bicarbonate and it is a intermediate compound in carbon dioxide elimination as well as pH balance. Not aware there is a boric acid application "in" the body. Takes a lot of boric acid ingested to establish toxic effect.

Most paper comes from tree plantations and managed forests - renewable resources. I'd not worry too much for our extinction.

search @ Google scholar

Counts in commercial yogurt are often not stable - to the extent the strains as viable counts are actually "probiotic" in you, the numbers are likely too low to be effective.

From healthy folks - urine is usually near sterility and vaginal flora would offer fairly harmless Lactobacilli

Certainly some diseases can - be "inherited". HIV can be a congenital disease and our normal flora/microbiomes originates in part from parents. to the other aspects of your question - acquired characteristics are generally not heritable. http://www.childrenshospital.org/conditions-and-treatments/conditions/c/congenital-hiv/symptoms-and-causes

Sulfonilamides are aniline derivatives - chemotherapeutics not antibiotics per se. As hypervalent said, resistance is an issue both specific MRSA and general - pseudomonads and anaerobes. Antibiotics when developed were more effective.

suggest you check with the supplier - bioMerieux. What is application - pharma?

To continue pedantry - all species are/were "invasive" - those present/the condition observed at the time of human/our observation are seen as resident. As all is to human or any species or group's perspective (it's all about us) - we're "ok" killing those (resident or invasive of whatever species or tribe) we don;t like esthetically or health wise, those we kill for food or sport, those eliminated indirectly in our economic efforts, etc.. in our societal organizations we do compel and kill others of our species but what would be benefit of killing those who drained the swamps - esp. as many of those activities were beneficial at the time. btw - much more than 98% of the world's species have disappeared. Should we exterminate photosynthesis because of its toxic waste product?

Please understand that science is a process for learning - it does not offer instructions re for example hunting or disposal of sewage.

There is "truth " in neither. The 1st is a scientific theory, and the latter is typically interpreted as a religious belief (tho life was apparently created by some process).. They address different concepts and are not mutually exclusive. Creation - the initiation of life and evolution the change in existing life.