Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. 26 Apr '14 08:53 / 4 edits
    http://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-04-treatment-strain-flu.html

    "... "We have developed an alternative host-targeted approach to prevent influenza by synthesising novel proteins, or biologics, that are designed to mask specific sugar molecules that line the respiratory tract.

    "The influenza virus, and indeed other respiratory pathogens, needs to bind to these sugars to gain entry to our cells to start the infection process."

    ..."

    This sounds to be a very promising possible front-line defense against any future killer strains of flu ( assuming it will be fully developed for humans ) and should be a far better alternative to Tamiflu which is extremely expensive to stockpile and has significant limitations.
  2. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    05 May '14 23:34
    Originally posted by humy
    ...........should be a far better alternative to Tamiflu which is extremely expensive to stockpile and has significant limitations.
    That reference to Tamiflu rings a bell. Have you discussed this issue already?

    http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/apr/10/tamiflu-saga-drug-trials-big-pharma

    we found out that Tamiflu doesn't work so well after all. Roche, the drug company behind it, withheld vital information on its clinical trials for half a decade, but the Cochrane Collaboration, a global not-for-profit organisation of 14,000 academics, finally obtained all the information. Putting the evidence together, it has found that Tamiflu has little or no impact on complications of flu infection, such as pneumonia.

    That is a scandal because the UK government spent £0.5bn stockpiling this drug in the hope that it would help prevent serious side-effects from flu infection. But the bigger scandal is that Roche broke no law by withholding vital information on how well its drug works. In fact, the methods and results of clinical trials on the drugs we use today are still routinely and legally being withheld from doctors, researchers and patients. It is simple bad luck for Roche that Tamiflu became, arbitrarily, the poster child for the missing-data story.

    And it is a great poster child. The battle over Tamiflu perfectly illustrates the need for full transparency around clinical trials, the importance of access to obscure documentation, and the failure of the regulatory system.
    The rest of the article is a salutary account of the deceptive ways in which drug companies sell their drugs and scientists, sadly, assist their deception.
  3. 06 May '14 07:39
    Originally posted by finnegan
    That reference to Tamiflu rings a bell. Have you discussed this issue already?

    http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/apr/10/tamiflu-saga-drug-trials-big-pharma

    [quote]we found out that Tamiflu doesn't work so well after all. Roche, the drug company behind it, withheld vital information on its clinical trials for half a decade, but the Cochrane Coll ...[text shortened]... ive ways in which drug companies sell their drugs and scientists, sadly, assist their deception.
    It doesn't ring a bell in my mind but I am appalled by this corruption! That was pretty bad of them, wasn't it!
  4. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    06 May '14 20:53
    Originally posted by humy
    It doesn't ring a bell in my mind but I am appalled by this corruption! That was pretty bad of them, wasn't it!
    The author of that item, Ben Goldacre, has campaigned for many years to expose the deceptive nature and poor quality of the self styled science behind the drugs industry. He is not some new age anti science guru and can as well defend the scientific approach against its rivals.
  5. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    06 May '14 23:37 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by humy
    http://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-04-treatment-strain-flu.html

    "... "We have developed an alternative host-targeted approach to prevent influenza by synthesising novel proteins, or biologics, that are designed to mask specific sugar molecules that line the respiratory tract.

    "The influenza virus, and indeed other respiratory pathogens, needs to bind to t ...[text shortened]... lternative to Tamiflu which is extremely expensive to stockpile and has significant limitations.
    I don't believe flu shots are beneficial. I had to take them when I was in the military and I had my worst case of the flu after taking one. It was a month later before I gained back normal strength. I tried to avoid taking them after that when I could get away with it. After retiring from the military, I have never taken another flu shot and very seldom even get a cold now.

    However, the pneumonia vaccine may be good.
  6. 07 May '14 11:28
    Originally posted by finnegan
    The author of that item, Ben Goldacre, has campaigned for many years to expose the deceptive nature and poor quality of the self styled science behind the drugs industry. He is not some new age anti science guru and can as well defend the scientific approach against its rivals.
    Ben Goldacre's blog for those interested. He's a good if infrequent writer.

    http://www.badscience.net/