Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Spartan
That was just my impression but it was contradicted by this study.

Where in post #2565 did I say that I believe press releases from drug companies are the final word? Am I not allowed to be optimistic that antibodies will be at least somewhat effective? I'm glad that testing has started so we can find out. You can be unhappy that tests are being conducted if you prefer.
Immunology is quite far from a clearly understood science. It is clear from the polio story from years ago, that both neutralizing antibodies and T cell based immunity can work. They seem to work better if both appear as a result of immunization. That's all I was trying to say.

I'm not at all unhappy that the vaccine tests are being conducted for SARS-Cov-2. However, I am unhappy with the popular press's unquestioning to acceptance of Regeneron's & Eli Lily's spin on things. They develop and sell monoclonal antibodies, not vaccines, and they clearly have their own financial interest in mind.

If a cocktail of monoclonal antibodies is all it takes to treat Covid-19, that would go against some 30 years of immunological scientific development. I'm not saying it's impossible. But I am saying such an extraordinary finding requires extraordinary evidence to support it.
 
M

Mr._Clark

Full Audioholic
Immunology is quite far from a clearly understood science. It is clear from the polio story from years ago, that both neutralizing antibodies and T cell based immunity can work. They seem to work better if both appear as a result of immunization. That's all I was trying to say.

I'm not at all unhappy that the vaccine tests are being conducted for SARS-Cov-2. However, I am unhappy with the popular press's unquestioning to acceptance of Regeneron's & Eli Lily's spin on things. They develop and sell monoclonal antibodies, not vaccines, and they clearly have their own financial interest in mind.

If a cocktail of monoclonal antibodies is all it takes to treat Covid-19, that would go against some 30 years of immunological scientific development. I'm not saying it's impossible. But I am saying such an extraordinary finding requires extraordinary evidence to support it.
I'm also not sure why you said "You are ignoring the other type immune response – the killer T cell response" after I summarized the results of the Navy study with regards to the percentages of those tested who had reactive and neutralizing antibodies. I was pointing out that only about 36% of the people had neutralizing antibodies. Was this factually incorrect?

I actually said that there must be other immune responses: "However, if I'm reading it correctly, the Navy study seems to suggest that other immune responses can also be effective in clearing the virus (at least in relatively young people)."

You seem to be reading a lot into my posts that I don't actually say.

As I've said in prior posts, my hope is that that the antibody treatments might be available in limited quantities sooner than vaccines and might be at least somewhat effective to save some lives before vaccines come on line. From everything I've read it's pretty clear that (even in a best case scenario) antibody treatments are not a viable large scale, long term solution (at least absent some sort of a major breakthrough). It's not like there are a lot proven options to choose from right now.

I am curious why you are skeptical of antibody treatments? I realize the drug companies are going to fluff up every little thing they can to boost their stock prices, but that's not a scientific reason to think the treatments will not work. It just means you don't take the drug companies at face value (I think we are actually in violent agreement on this point). I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm assuming you have a basis for your skepticism that goes beyond not trusting everything the drug companies say.

Here's an example of a statement to the effect that antibody treatments might be a one of the best near-term options:

>>>Monoclonal antibodies are currently used to treat a variety of conditions, including asthma, cancer, Crohn’s disease, and rheumatoid arthritis. One advantage of this class of therapeutics is that the timelines for their development, testing, and approval are typically shorter than those for drugs made of chemical compounds, called small molecules. Because of these and other factors, many experts think antibody-based therapies may offer one of the best near-term options for developing safe, effective treatments for COVID-19.<<<


Here's another example:

>>>“I think antibodies have a faster pathway to deployment,” says Robert Carnahan, the associate director of the Vanderbilt Vaccine Center, which is also working on its own antibody treatment research. “We either let everybody get the disease or we get a vaccine, and antibodies can bridge us to that moment where we have it.” . . .
And Bradley Ringeisen, the director of Darpa’s Biological Technologies Office, believes at least two of the projects it funds will go into human trials this summer. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, which is beginning a human trial of its antibody cocktail in June, recently told investors that it is aiming for a fall release. Glanville believes Distributed Bio’s timeline could be similar. “Assuming everything went right—and this is tight—we'd be talking about being able to do a large-scale release in September,” he says. . . .

And in the very young, the very old, and the already immunocompromised, vaccines often do not work well. For them, antibody treatments could be a much-needed shield. <<<


However, the wired article DOES acknowledge that there are production issues:

>>>“The big annoyance right now is manufacturing,” Glanville says. “It's super fucking slow to grow antibodies as drugs using traditional methods.”<<<

Yet another article with a generally positive take on antibody treatments as a stopgap, but also includes a discussion of various issues:

>>>Michael Joyner, a physiologist who is leading the Mayo Clinic’s convalescent plasma project for COVID-19, says antibody therapies could be a reasonable stopgap until a vaccine is available. “If they work and are used intelligently, [such therapies] could put a finger in a number of holes in the dike,” he says. . . .

“I think [researchers] should be careful about how they communicate and basically create hope in the population,” Krammer says. “I think it's very dangerous to say, ‘Within [months], we will have [an] antibody therapeutic that works, and everybody will get it.’ That’s unrealistic.”


A Joe Schmo like me reading these types of articles gets the impression that "super fucking slow" is not good, but this is nevertheless more than just drug company fluff.
 
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Spartan
I'm also not sure why you said "You are ignoring the other type immune response – the killer T cell response" after I summarized the results of the Navy study with regards to the percentages of those tested who had reactive and neutralizing antibodies. I was pointing out that only about 36% of the people had neutralizing antibodies. Was this factually incorrect?
I didn't mean to criticize you directly. Let me reword it:

You They are ignoring the other type immune response – the killer T cell response​

The Navy report said of those who recovered, only 36% had neutralizing antibodies. That means the other 64% recovered without developing detectable neutralizing antibodies. Why was there no effort to find what other immune responses might have been active in those 64%? If I were an editor reviewing a paper with that data, I'd reject it. I'd also suggest that they do more work to find out what happened in the two thirds of people who recovered without evidence of neutralizing antibodies. (That data was a simple report from the Navy to the CDC, not a paper submitted to a refereed journal. But CDC people are probably asking the same question.)
I am curious why you are skeptical of antibody treatments? … …

Here's an example of a statement to the effect that antibody treatments might be a one of the best near-term options:

>>>Monoclonal antibodies are currently used to treat a variety of conditions, including asthma, cancer, Crohn’s disease, and rheumatoid arthritis. One advantage of this class of therapeutics is that the timelines for their development, testing, and approval are typically shorter than those for drugs made of chemical compounds, called small molecules. Because of these and other factors, many experts think antibody-based therapies may offer one of the best near-term options for developing safe, effective treatments for COVID-19.<<<
Those conditions (asthma, cancer, Crohn's disease, and rheumatoid arthritis) all are chronic or slowly developing diseases. They differ from an acute viral disease because they are not caused by a highly infectious pathogen. Those non-viral diseases can be limited by the right monoclonal antibody. Some can be eliminated, but not without the additional effects of radiation, chemotherapy, or an effective immune response in the patient. There are some rare cases where a particular monoclonal antibody can effectively kill and eliminate a particular type of cancer. For example, the antibody against the CD20 cell surface marker can directly kill certain B cell lymphomas or leukemias. This antibody (Rituximab) can eliminate those diseases. But this example is a rare exception to the more general case that antibodies alone are not sufficient.

I think there is a persistent belief, even among clinical MDs, that monoclonal antibodies are a magic bullet. They can be highly effective if the right conditions exist, but more often these conditions aren't there. It is said that immune system responses are in a race with the infection they fight. In the case of a person infected with a highly infectious virus that reproduces rapidly, the immune response has to be rapid, capable of being highly amplified, and have multiple non-overlapping mechanisms of stopping the viral infection.
 
Last edited:
Verdinut

Verdinut

Audioholic Ninja
Let the Sunshine In on COVID-19

 
D

Danzilla31

Audioholic Ninja
"Everyone that wants a test will get one." What a bag of Lies! :cool:

The fact that States will not shut down again and will not test and mandate quarantine and masks means it's going to be Hell on earth until 70% of the US population is infected and 1,000,000 US lives are lost. At that point, it will disappear and no one will receive jail time for the incompetence.

The worst case scenario will be if a new vaccine is rushed and ends up killing more than Covid-19.
Super accurate statement it's pretty obvious that most states won't shut down now unless the medical gets completely overrun

Like you I just wish they'd then require masks and proper distancing

If we're going to stay open its clear these measures of prevention are being proved to be very helpful they do make a difference in protecting us

And it's super clear leaving it up to people to comply too many won't do it Im seeing it everywhere I go now tons of people just not complying

Man it's frustrating
 
mtrycrafts

mtrycrafts

Audioholic Slumlord
And the morning news is back to China, a second wave in Beijing this time. I guess the summer weather will not help.
 
Last edited:
D

Danzilla31

Audioholic Ninja
And the morning news is back to China, a second wave in Peking this time. I guess the summer weather will not help.
It just spreads to fast too good inside where it likes to be anyway so heat won't be that much of an issue too it maybe?

Not too mention at least here in the US people and our leaders are just being super disorganized and not very intelligent about reopening

Damn I'd wish they'd make masks mandatory

And open as much as you can but bars seriously? Talk about a super spreader event jeez louis
 
Kvn_Walker

Kvn_Walker

Audioholic Chief
Super accurate statement it's pretty obvious that most states won't shut down now unless the medical gets completely overrun

Like you I just wish they'd then require masks and proper distancing

If we're going to stay open its clear these measures of prevention are being proved to be very helpful they do make a difference in protecting us

And it's super clear leaving it up to people to comply too many won't do it Im seeing it everywhere I go now tons of people just not complying

Man it's frustrating
Masks are required for indoor retail in Virginia. And many people are just not doing it. I see it everywhere I go (and with house updating/remodeling, I'm in Lowe's and Home Depot a lot these days). But I feel for the store employees... why should it be their job to police their customers? I'm sure they are afraid of the confrontation. Dealing with the public during normal times was a big enough pain in the ass.
 
panteragstk

panteragstk

Audioholic Ninja
It just spreads to fast too good inside where it likes to be anyway so heat won't be that much of an issue too it maybe?

Not too mention at least here in the US people and our leaders are just being super disorganized and not very intelligent about reopening

Damn I'd wish they'd make masks mandatory

And open as much as you can but bars seriously? Talk about a super spreader event jeez louis
Sucks that they won't do that here. Abbot is pretty much just letting people do whatever.

We were doing good with cases, but then the tourists came...

Edit: Spoke too soon. Bexar county judge is requiring masks for customers and employees for retail businesses.

https://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/Wolff-finds-way-around-governor-by-Monday-masks-15346482.php
 
Last edited:
D

Danzilla31

Audioholic Ninja
D

Danzilla31

Audioholic Ninja
Gonna feel sorry for all the businesses that have to enforce this on aholes that don't want to comply
 
AcuDefTechGuy

AcuDefTechGuy

Audioholic Jedi
I heard that only 11 states are "required" to wear masks.

Why aren't all 50 states required to wear masks?
 
panteragstk

panteragstk

Audioholic Ninja
I heard that only 11 states are "required" to wear masks.

Why aren't all 50 states required to wear masks?
Because masks infringe on people's right to free speech or whatever nonsense reasons people have come up with. How we've managed to politicize a virus is beyond my understanding.

It's simple, wear a mask to protect others and they should wear one to protect you. Simple human decency that sadly a large portion of our population lack.
 
AcuDefTechGuy

AcuDefTechGuy

Audioholic Jedi
Because masks infringe on people's right to free speech or whatever nonsense reasons people have come up with. How we've managed to politicize a virus is beyond my understanding.

It's simple, wear a mask to protect others and they should wear one to protect you. Simple human decency that sadly a large portion of our population lack.
That's too bad. If every governor could make it an official requirement to wear masks, it would help.

Better to wear masks than have another LOCKDOWN. :D
 
M

Mr._Clark

Full Audioholic
Because masks infringe on people's right to free speech or whatever nonsense reasons people have come up with. How we've managed to politicize a virus is beyond my understanding.

It's simple, wear a mask to protect others and they should wear one to protect you. Simple human decency that sadly a large portion of our population lack.
It's bizarre that so many people follow (sarcasm alert) the great medical and legal scholar Ted Nugent:

>>>“Why do I have to stay home just because you are scared? How about you stay home…. you stay in your house indefinitely, you wear a mask, you socially distance yourself from me, you avoid restaurants, you avoid baseball games, you stay off the roads, you avoid malls and beaches and parks, you believe the made-up death numbers, you believe the media hype, you Get your toxic vaccine while avoiding vitamin C, sunshine and the things God gave us to actually heal.

I’m done playing your dumb game. We are not “all in this together.” I’m not wearing your dumb tin foil hat anymore. I’m no longer going to be a prisoner of your fear. I’m no longer staying in my house or catering to you because you are scared. I’m not wearing a mask and I’m not staying 6 feet away from you anymore because I’m not afraid of you. You are not my enemy and if I get sick, it’s not because of you, it’s because of me and my system, which not only have I been addressing for quite some time, but I also know how to treat if I get sick.”


Its sad (sarcasm alert) that all that bravery and medical expertise is going to waste on Facebook posts. Ted should put that bravery to use and volunteer to work in ICU wards treating COVID-19 patients.

Unfortunately, Ted seems to be content to beat his chest while letting others deal with the effects of the virus.
 
Last edited:
GO-NAD!

GO-NAD!

Audioholic Ninja
Some pretty good news today in our neck of the woods:


"As Nova Scotia marks a ninth consecutive day with no new COVID-19 cases, the province has loosened gathering restrictions and said playgrounds can reopen.


In a news conference Thursday, Premier Stephen McNeil said people may gather in groups of 10 without physical distancing. Those groups do not need to be exclusive, ending the need for household bubbles.


"Effective today, we are bursting the bubble," McNeil said.


Groups of up to 50 are allowed but physical distancing must be observed. The premier clarified this could be done in or outside as long as people are able to remain six feet apart."

There are currently just 2 active cases remaining in the province. Our neighbouring provinces have been equally (or better) successful in squelching the spread of the virus.
 
M

Mr._Clark

Full Audioholic
>>>So why weren't face masks recommended at the start of the pandemic? At that time, experts didn't yet know the extent to which people with COVID-19 could spread the virus before symptoms appeared. Nor was it known that some people have COVID-19 but don't have any symptoms. Both groups can unknowingly spread the virus to others.

These discoveries led the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to do an about-face on face masks. The CDC updated its guidance to recommend widespread use of simple cloth face coverings to help prevent transmission of the virus by people who have COVID-19 but don't know it.<<<


Unfortunately, the statement that "experts didn't yet know" strikes me as disingenuous. I think the real reason was that governments and health organizations wanted to prevent a shortage of face masks so that health care workers (who are clearly at higher risk) would have a sufficient supply.

The WHO said that wearing a mask is effective when caring for a COVID 19 patient, but it is ineffective outside of this context because it would give the user a false sense of security. This is highly contrived. First, can they accurate predict the mental state of people? Second, if masks are effective when caring for someone with the virus, how can wearing one give a person a "false" sense of security? If masks are effective, the sense of security would not be "false." Furthermore, I've never seen any scientific documentation to support the notion that people will engage in sufficiently risky behavior when wearing a mask so as to create higher risk compared to not wearing a mask.

This double speak was a transparent effort to avoid speaking the truth: "Masks are effective, but please don't buy them because we need to make sure the limited supply that is presently available goes to health care workers."

This obfuscation helped create the current confusion about the effectiveness of masks, and provides cover (so to speak) for the anti-mask crowd.
Fauci said (in a word salad) in an interview on 6/12/20 that public-health experts discouraged the public from wearing face masks towards the beginning of the coronavirus outbreak because they were concerned there would not be enough available for health-care workers:

>>>So, why weren't we told to wear masks in the beginning?

"Well, the reason for that is that we were concerned the public health community, and many people were saying this, were concerned that it was at a time when personal protective equipment, including the N95 masks and the surgical masks, were in very short supply. And we wanted to make sure that the people namely, the health care workers, who were brave enough to put themselves in a harm way, to take care of people who you know were infected with the coronavirus and the danger of them getting infected."<<<

https://www.thestreet.com/video/dr-fauci-masks-changing-directive-coronavirus

At least he spoke the truth.
 

newsletter
  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top