It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Doctors in New York have a hunch: that famotidine, the active ingredient in the common over-the-counter heartburn drug Pepcid, might help treat the coronavirus.
Based on evidence from Wuhan, China, doctors at a network of 23 hospitals run by Northwell Health in New York started a trial to figure out whether the drug might be effective. In New York, they’ve only just started giving the drug to about 187 patients, according to Science Magazine, which first reported on the trial. If famotidine does prove useful, it’s plentiful, cheap, and fairly safe to take. The researchers hope to find 1,100 patients to treat as part of the trial.
The Wuhan lab received funding to do this work in part from a ten-year, $200 million international program called PREDICT, funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development and other countries. Similar work, funded in part by the U.S. National Institutes of Health, has been carried out in dozens of labs throughout the world. Some of this research involves taking deadly viruses and enhancing their ability to spread quickly through a population—research that took place over the objections of hundreds of scientists, who have warned for years of the program's potential to cause a pandemic.
Ron Fouchier, a scientist at Erasmus University in Holland, wondered what it would take for the bird flu virus to mutate into a plague virus. The question was important to the mission of virologists in anticipating human pandemics. If H5N1 were merely one or two steps away from acquiring human transmissibility, the world was in danger: a transmissible form of H5N1 could quickly balloon into a devastating pandemic on the order of the 1918 flu, which killed tens of millions of people.
The answer that Fouchier came up with was a technique known as "animal passage," in which he mutated the bird-flu virus by passing it through animals rather than cell cultures. He chose ferrets because they were widely known as a good stand-in for humans—if a virus can jump between ferrets, it is likely also to be able to jump between humans. He would infect one ferret with a bird-flu virus, wait until it got sick, and then remove a sample of the virus that had replicated in the ferret's body with a swab. As the virus multiplies in the body, it mutates slightly, so the virus that came out of the ferret was slightly different from the one that went into it. Fouchier then proceeded to play a version of telephone: he would take the virus from the first ferret and infect a second, then take the mutated virus from the second ferret and infect a third, and so on.
After passing the virus through 10 ferrets, Fouchier noticed that a ferret in an adjacent cage became ill, even though the two hadn't come into contact with one another. That showed that the virus was transmissible in ferrets—and, by implication, in humans. Fouchier had succeeded in creating a potential pandemic virus in his lab.
When Fouchier submitted his animal-passage work to the journal Science in 2011, biosecurity officials in the Obama White House, worried that the dangerous pathogen could accidentally leak from Fouchier's lab, pushed for a moratorium on the research. Fouchier had done his work in BSL-2 labs, which are intended for pathogens such as staph, of moderate severity, rather than BSL-4, which are intended for Ebola and similar viruses.
What followed was a fierce debate among scientists over the risks versus benefits of the gain-of-function research. Fouchier's work, wrote Harvard epidemiologist Marc Lipsitch in the journal Nature in 2015, "entails a unique risk that a laboratory accident could spark a pandemic, killing millions."
The lower trend was not consistent as you say, when I made those graphs, but we've had 2 more days of lower death numbers in the US which is starting to solidify the downward trend, though I wonder if the following is an exception or if there could be some reporting pressures to reduce the numbers?
originally posted by: Byrd
a reply to: Arbitrageur
Thank you for the excellent data crunching and the graphs. I can see where the "uptick" comes from. I think there needs to be a longer stretch of low numbers. There certainly isn't a consistent trend of lower numbers here in the US.
The apparent false negatives and the lost test certainly raise questions, don't they? It's amazing how the US death numbers started dropping like a rock just before Trump wanted the US to stop the lockdowns. Good luck? Coincidence? Shenanigans? I don't know but I can't blame you for questioning those tests. I hope she will be OK.
originally posted by: MrRCflying
She is under sedation, and they are going to try to remove fluid from her lungs today. She is on oxygen, but not a ventalator.
She has had 3 tests, 2 came back negitive, the thrid was "lost".
I call BS on that. Either they did not do the tests correctly, or since this is Kentucky that wants to start to open early, they want to keep the numbers low.
I didn't know it was called "the Predict Program" but I did post earlier about the US funding the research at Wuhan lab using what seemed like inadequate safety protocols for such potentially deadly pathogens. The obvious question is if they are researching things that can turn into a deadly plague that will kill millions, why are they only using BSL-2 safety procedures instead of something more secure that fits the greater risk of a potential plague?
originally posted by: cirrus12
I don't know if it's been discussed on here but have you heard of the PREDICT program?
"Fouchier had done his work in BSL-2 labs, which are intended for pathogens such as staph, of moderate severity, rather than BSL-4, which are intended for Ebola and similar viruses."
Really interesting article (with way more info) worth a read:
www.newsweek.com... ivKNPOPWPLfK7b0Gq2fV_Bfwqvoy2M
originally posted by: Arbitrageur
The lower trend was not consistent as you say, when I made those graphs, but we've had 2 more days of lower death numbers in the US which is starting to solidify the downward trend, though I wonder if the following is an exception or if there could be some reporting pressures to reduce the numbers?
originally posted by: Byrd
a reply to: Arbitrageur
Thank you for the excellent data crunching and the graphs. I can see where the "uptick" comes from. I think there needs to be a longer stretch of low numbers. There certainly isn't a consistent trend of lower numbers here in the US.
We study the effects of three types of variables on the early pace of spread of Covid-19: weather variables, temperature and absolute humidity; population density; the timeline of Covid-19 infection, as outbreak of disease occurs in different dates for different regions. The regions considered were all 50 U.S. states and 110 countries (those which had enough data available by April 10th. We looked for associations between the above variables and an estimate of the growth rate of cases, the exponential coefficient, computed using data for 10 days starting when state/country reached 100 confirmed cases. The results for U.S. states indicate that one cannot expect that higher temperatures and higher levels of absolute humidity would translate into slower pace of Covid-19 infection rate, at least in the ranges of those variables during the months of February and March of 2020 (-2.4 to 24C and 2.3 to 15g/m3). In fact, the opposite is true: the higher the temperature and the absolute humidity, the faster the Covid-19 has expanded in the U.S. states, in the early stages of the outbreak. Secondly, using the highest county population density for each state, there is strong positive association between population density and (early) faster spread of Covid-19. Finally, there is strong negative association between the date when a state reached 100 accumulated cases and the speed of Covid-10 outbreak (the later, the lower the estimate of growth rate).
originally posted by: Observationalist
a reply to: Byrd
Why post this? Not peer reviewed? If a potential cure is not peer reviewed and posted here it’s tossed out and not worth considering.
Yet you post a hypothetical fear based scenario and you want us to consider it.
This is ridiculous.
I hope you all see how the narrative is being controlled.
originally posted by: Observationalist
a reply to: Byrd
Why post this? Not peer reviewed? If a potential cure is not peer reviewed and posted here it’s tossed out and not worth considering.
Yet you post a hypothetical fear based scenario and you want us to consider it.
This is ridiculous.
I hope you all see how the narrative is being controlled.
originally posted by: DavidMK
ONS figures released today in the UK for the week of the 17th April. UK total deaths for the week were 22K against a 5 year average of 10K. Of the 12K increase in deaths, nearly 9K were confirmed as COVID. That is now 26K deaths above average in just 3 weeks in the UK. Deaths in all age ranges above 50 years old are at double or more than average for the period. Scary stuff.
Sweden and Denmark both had relatively mild flu seasons this winter, with fewer people dying compared to recent years. Then COVID-19 struck, and the neighboring countries adopted very different strategies. While the Danes were among the first in Europe to go into lockdown, Sweden opted for the herd immunity approach, making it one of the few advanced economies in the world to do so. There was no strict lockdown, and social distancing was recommended but not dictated. A visiting ban at care homes was introduced at the beginning of April to protect the elderly, gatherings of more than 50 people were prohibited, and universities and colleges were recommended to offer remote learning. But otherwise, life carries on essentially unchanged: Most schools, restaurants, bars, clubs, and gyms are open, and people are practicing social distancing.
In the 21 days before April 19, 7,169 people died — 1,843 more people compared to the average number of deaths during the same weeks between 2015 and 2019. That’s the equivalent of a 34.5% increase. And on Monday, the Swedish statistics office said the number of deaths recorded in the week ending April 12 was the highest this century, surpassing a milestone set in the first week of 2000 when 2,364 people died. Three of the four weeks with the highest death tolls in the past two decades have occurred this month.
originally posted by: primalfractal
a reply to: MrRCflying
Really hope your aunt makes it through, sending prayers and best wishes to her, yourself and family.