AlanS

Simon, Thanks. From what I have read, you are right on. I also understand the reluctance of Big Pharma to release something that may not be effective or as effective as it should or could be, and certainly don't want to put out something that may be harmful in the short or long term. History is full of those- Laetrile, thalidomide, etc. My point was that there will be extreme political pressure placed on the FDA, etc., and Big Pharma to approve a COVID-19 drug in minimal time. Just look at what is happening with the White House and Hydroxychloroquine! It borders on criminal. Alan

About

Username
AlanS
Joined
Visits
2,124
Last Active
Roles
Registered
Points
364
Badges
24

Activity

  • Simon,
    Thanks. From what I have read, you are right on. I also understand the reluctance of Big Pharma to release something that may not be effective or as effective as it should or could be, and certainly don't want to put out something that may be harmful in the short or long term. History is full of those- Laetrile, thalidomide, etc. My point was that there will be extreme political pressure placed on the FDA, etc., and Big Pharma to approve a COVID-19 drug in minimal time. Just look at what is happening with the White House and Hydroxychloroquine! It borders on criminal.

    Alan

    ·
    April 14
  • British

    Hi Alan, I got my hubby to write something about vaccines below

    Hello Alan S, Dr British here. I have a PhD in Immunology. I spent my career in the Pharma industry so I know a thing or two about developing vaccines. It all depends on how well people who receive a vaccine respond by developing effective antibodies to counteract the virus. Unfortunately, the body can make antibody that binds to the virus, but it does not mean it will kill it or activate killer cells to attack it. The other challenge is designing clinical trials that demonstrate a protective effect on most people. Because C-19 can be lethal or asymptomatic, it will be difficult to measure how well a vaccine works. In view of this range of symptoms, the other challenge is who do you test the vaccine in and how many people do you study it in to determine whether it has benefit or not and how long do you study them for. Another reason you need to test the vaccine in a lot of people (10, 000 at least) is to assess safety. Vaccines are not without risk and a lot of subjects need to be exposed to ensure that there is not some unfortunate low incidence side effect that could be worse than the disease you are trying to prevent. All in all, quick vaccine availability, testing and approval, however desirable, may not be the best solution to the challenge of this novel and very clever virus. Hope you find this helpful.

    Simon Jenkins

    ·
    April 13
  • Again, not sure how this wall works, I usually just use message, but I realize FDA approval is a tough and drawn our process, but remember who is in charge (unfortunately)- the guy that thought we would be past this mess by Easter and who desperately wants the economy going again, because he wants to win an election. I'm not say it is a good way to go, far from it, but just reading the tea leaves and watching his past performance. I also know the drug developers and actively engaged in PR in a big way. Did you know the person in question, has money connections to the producers of hydroxychloroquine, one reason he is pushing it, against medical expert advise and for little to no scientific reason.

    ·
    April 12
  • British

    Alan, I’m going to get Dr. British to reply to you about vaccines etc sometime today. It’s the first time I showed him a message on the forum and asked him to reply. He spent his entire career getting drugs approved by the FDA. There”s no quick safe way.

    ·
    April 12