Article

2004-12-10 Home Front: Tech

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Anonymoose 2004-12-10 1:24:01 PM|| || Front Page|| [1 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 This is fantastic news... I recall an article some months ago heralding the research was looking very promising and might lead to this. Bravo!!!

J&J is, indeed, to be commended because, as we all know, TB is not a major problem in the US (where they would recieve full payment for the medicine which funds such research), but is a true killer elsewhere, particularly in the third world (where they will be ripped off for the generic and won't receive dick for all their hard work and research funds expended).

I need a biologist, heh...

If I understand the "DARQs" function, it breaks the Krebs Cycle at the point where ATP becomes ADP - the mitochondrial energy source... How the mycobacteria are specifically targeted - leaving the surrounding cells unaffected - isn't described... but, as the provided link describes, this might be useful in all living things, animals, plants, and fungi.

So, if I "get it", this process effectively turns off the cell's ability to receive nourishment, thus killing it. If the targetting mechanism is (or can be) isolated and tailored. Magic bullets become truly real...

Can any RBer help me out, here?

Posted by .com 2004-12-10 2:19:45 PM|| 2004-12-10 2:19:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 Don't know about the metabolic processes, .com, but TB *is* a problem in the US because immigrants and visitors have been bringing it back here.

My mother had TB when it was prevalent here in the 1950s and it meant she had to give up nursing as a result, since she never tested fully clear of it thereafter. For years I had to have screening tests too, because of her case.

Posted by rkb 2004-12-10 2:25:01 PM|| 2004-12-10 2:25:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 So how long will it be before widespread distribution of this medicine along with lax discipline in treatment regimens end up negating its effects?

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2004-12-10 2:49:03 PM|| 2004-12-10 2:49:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 rkb - Now that's truly awful - our first-line responders are always at such unfair risk. They are the reason we survive the myriad traumatic and potentially devastating events.

I am truly impressed with what J&J has done - I hope it can be developed into a spectrum of replacements for our fading antibiotics.

Posted by .com 2004-12-10 2:50:50 PM|| 2004-12-10 2:50:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 B-a-R - The minute it's placed in the hands of people who can't operate a mechanical pencil?

Posted by .com 2004-12-10 2:55:09 PM|| 2004-12-10 2:55:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 Now, for all those idjets railing against Big Pharma's "obscene profits": do any of you seriously think this would have been funded other than through a corporate R&D budget of >$800M?

Posted by lex 2004-12-10 2:55:27 PM|| 2004-12-10 2:55:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 railing against Big Pharma's âobscene profitsâ

Ok, OK, Iâm biting on this one.

Pharmaceutical R & D is not profit, obscene or otherwise. Pharmaceutical R & D is a critical component of a vital industry. Also, I donât think most people criticizing the pharmacy industry begrudge the profit taking, at all. The complaint is when pharmaceutical companies deliberately market âprofit makersâ without disclosing known risks. THEY DO THAT BECAUSE DISCLOSING THE RISKS WOULD PREVENT FDA APPROVAL AND/OR LOWER PROFITS. Thatâs obscene profit taking.

Put it in the context of any other product -- a Ford Pinto, for example. When you know you are marketing a dangerous product, but choose to hide the defects from the public eye so that your profits are enhanced, thatâs wrong.

Posted by cingold 2004-12-10 5:38:13 PM|| 2004-12-10 5:38:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 fair enough Cingold, but my Mom retired last year from Pfizer clinical testing, and we've had these discussions. If a drug in testing can cure or otherwise remedy 99.2% of those with a life -style threatening disease or malady, but the 0.8% can suffer disastrous side effects, with the indication which are which unknown, is it a good drug? No. It won't go to market, and the 99.2% won't receive that help, because the 0.8% , even acknowledging they know the risk and freely choose the option, will only make parasitic attorneys rich. Not the family survivors, the Atty's. That drug will never see the light of day. What is an "acceptable" percentage? 99.99999%? Ask an atty, and they'll say NO side effects are acceptable

Posted by Frank G 2004-12-10 6:00:28 PM|| 2004-12-10 6:00:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 No, thatâs not the law of product liability.

Remember, lawyers donât win cases, facts win cases. And, in the case of a pharmaceutical product liability case, the factual testimony comes from biochemists, physicians, etc. -- who all testify under the penalty of perjury within a reasonable degree of probability for their profession. These experts are subject not only to court oversight, and the penalty of perjury, they also are subject to the oversight of their professions -- they can lose credentials and licenses if they arenât careful. A weak case doesnât win.

Product liability law is highly developed, fair and complex. Some highlights that address your concerns would be the

1. Unavoidably dangerous product. If a product is needed, but unavoidably dangerous, the manufacturer is not liable for any subsequent harm -- as long as the product goes out with a reasonable warning.
2. Learned intermediary. If a dangerous product is being marketed, the manufacturer doesnât even have to inform the final consumer of the product, as long as there is a middle man who is aware of the dangers and stands in a position responsibility to warn the final consumer. Thatâs the case with most drugs -- a learned intermediary (a physician) is actually prescribing them.

What happened with a lot of the prescription drugs in the news (e.g., Fen-Phen, Vioxx, Accutane, etc.) is that the physicians were deliberately kept in the dark by the pharmaceutical companies. The companies actually buried the bad research. IF THEY HAD JUST BEEN ABOVE BOARD AND COME CLEAN, THE COULD HAVE SOLD WHATEVER DANGEROUS DRUG THEY COULD GET PAST THE FDA -- with impunity.

Posted by cingold 2004-12-10 6:24:10 PM|| 2004-12-10 6:24:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 I'll acknowledge your legal expertise in product liability, and the case where the firm knows but doesn't convey to prescribing physicians is a good example for your argument. Those firms deserve to lose, big. But too often juries are swayed by disputable cases, with no clearcut foreknowledge by the Pharm firm...or as in what I cited before, in sympathy to a family surviving a victim of known and acknowledged side effects. Call it a "John Edwards" jury ;-)

Posted by Frank G 2004-12-10 6:36:03 PM|| 2004-12-10 6:36:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 I hear you.

If Big John pulled a fast one, he should lose his license. I HATE attorneys who give my profession a bad name. Most of us work pretty hard to help our clients get fair results.

Posted by cingold 2004-12-10 7:00:37 PM|| 2004-12-10 7:00:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 fair enough!

Posted by Frank G 2004-12-10 7:02:50 PM|| 2004-12-10 7:02:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 I guess there are no RB bio-whizzes out there, today. Or, mebbe, they were scared off by the lawyer-talk, lol!

Sigh.

Posted by .com 2004-12-10 7:43:53 PM|| 2004-12-10 7:43:53 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 PD - I only worry that it will be over-prescribed (as usual) leading to new strains resistant...

Posted by Frank G 2004-12-10 7:55:38 PM|| 2004-12-10 7:55:38 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 Yep - an eventuality... accelerated when people don't follow the directions.

Posted by .com 2004-12-10 8:21:25 PM|| 2004-12-10 8:21:25 PM|| Front Page Top

04:07 on1117
03:52 on1117
00:15 Darth VAda
00:10 tipper
23:31 Darth VAda
23:14 VRWconspiracy
23:13 .com
23:09 WingedAvenger
23:09 WingedAvenger
23:06 WingedAvenger
23:05 Desert Blondie
23:03 WingedAvenger
23:03 OldSpook
22:58 Barbara Skolaut
22:55 Pappy
22:53 Desert Blondie
22:49 Don
22:43 ST
22:41 Frank G
22:37 someone
22:35 .com
22:35 Frank G
22:30 Frank G
22:25 Sock Puppet of Doom