ChezGiven 0 Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 Relenza was developed by an australian biotech company who were suing Glaxo because Glaxo doesnt promote it hard enough. Doesnt sound like the best of executed conspiracies iyam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 Thank fuck for Glaxo and Roche though eh fop? you'll be: ££££££ They probably started it innit. "investment in Mexico", it all begins to add up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 Relenza was developed by an australian biotech company who were suing Glaxo because Glaxo doesnt promote it hard enough. Doesnt sound like the best of executed conspiracies iyam. A double bluff, no one would suspect it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douggy B 0 Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 Face masks on the tube this morning Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 Relenza was developed by an australian biotech company who were suing Glaxo because Glaxo doesnt promote it hard enough. Doesnt sound like the best of executed conspiracies iyam. It's a viral promotion innit. Boom boom! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 Relenza was developed by an australian biotech company who were suing Glaxo because Glaxo doesnt promote it hard enough. Doesnt sound like the best of executed conspiracies iyam. A double bluff, no one would suspect it. Actually, maybe they didnt want to divert promotional headcount so cooked up the H1N1 soup to stave off the lawsuit. Its an angle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 Relenza was developed by an australian biotech company who were suing Glaxo because Glaxo doesnt promote it hard enough. Doesnt sound like the best of executed conspiracies iyam. A double bluff, no one would suspect it. Actually, maybe they didnt want to divert promotional headcount so cooked up the H1N1 soup to stave off the lawsuit. Its an angle. If I buy the club you'll be running it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21032 Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 Fop knows more than the HPA or the WHO. What a surprise. The are actually being fairly restrained if you actually look at what they say (Rention not paying attention, what a surprise). The media on the other hand are about 1 step away from a running "death count" in the corner of the TV screen. The WHO have put a Level 5 warning on this, that's (potentially) very serious Fop, you seem to be suggesting there is little to be concerned with when you make statements like this: Even the death rate is ridiculous, most all deaths (that aren't being run over by a cactus ) are being attributed to it in places like Mexico, they haven't a clue about flu deaths or not most of the time. You also belittle the problem in a couple of posts on the first two pages, flippantly suggesting that's it's some excuse for the government to raise taxes. In short, the usual Fop know-it-all bull shit agenda. Most probably this won't even become a problem for the UK until winter anyway, if it becomes a problem at all. By that time of course the media will have forgotten all about it. Yes they are looking at potential issues, not posting up spurious death counts (it's complete correct about Mexico btw - they have no real idea) and repeatedly speculating on how many millions might be killed, maybe. With an hourly update on how much panic there is. It's not that Fop knows nothing, it's that no one really knows anything at this point, certainly not what is going to happen (although the sensible money would be on the death toll being less than 1918. Fop's said too much! ). Do you think all news should be retrospective? Do you think people shouldn't speculate because not all the facts are out of Mexico yet? Like I said earlier, whatever happens you will find something to complain about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 Relenza was developed by an australian biotech company who were suing Glaxo because Glaxo doesnt promote it hard enough. Doesnt sound like the best of executed conspiracies iyam. A double bluff, no one would suspect it. Actually, maybe they didnt want to divert promotional headcount so cooked up the H1N1 soup to stave off the lawsuit. Its an angle. Plans within plans within plans.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 The Egyptian government plans to cull its entire pig population, around 300,000 - 400,000, amid swine flu pandemic fears. Although unlikely to prevent the virus from entering the country, the government hopes to calm public fears of the animals, often bred in unhygienic conditions in densely populated urban environments. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8026397.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 Is it airborne? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 Is it airborne? Pig can fly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 Is it airborne? Pig can fly. I'll set em up.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 Relenza was developed by an australian biotech company who were suing Glaxo because Glaxo doesnt promote it hard enough. Doesnt sound like the best of executed conspiracies iyam. A double bluff, no one would suspect it. Actually, maybe they didnt want to divert promotional headcount so cooked up the H1N1 soup to stave off the lawsuit. Its an angle. Plans within plans within plans.... Certainly benefitted from the 'fear' of the pandemic, as they have already made their sales. The UK, France etc have already stockpiled (and therefore paid) for the inventories. Hilariously, neither tamiflu or relenza actually work. Just ask Rents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 Chez, What happenned to this hiv vaccine where it blocks the receptor site that the virus attaches to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21032 Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 Relenza was developed by an australian biotech company who were suing Glaxo because Glaxo doesnt promote it hard enough. Doesnt sound like the best of executed conspiracies iyam. A double bluff, no one would suspect it. Actually, maybe they didnt want to divert promotional headcount so cooked up the H1N1 soup to stave off the lawsuit. Its an angle. Plans within plans within plans.... Certainly benefitted from the 'fear' of the pandemic, as they have already made their sales. The UK, France etc have already stockpiled (and therefore paid) for the inventories. Hilariously, neither tamiflu or relenza actually work. Just ask Rents. As it happens and by complete coincidence I'm updating some guidelines on seasonal influenza right now. Depends on what you mean by 'works' I suppose, but their benefit is certainly quite limited in healthy people, and you have to take them early on (within 48 hours) to have any useful effect. Mind, NICE seem to think they're cost effective when used appropriately (which in reality is not often). I've no idea how efficacious these drugs are for pandemics as that's beyond my scope. I doubt there is any trial evidence actually for obvious reasons. The HPA seem confident in their efficacy though, is this not true? Have you got an evil pile of unpublished Glaxo-sponsored studies hiding the truth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 Chez, What happenned to this hiv vaccine where it blocks the receptor site that the virus attaches to? It gets inside the DNA, there isnt really a receptor 'site'. You block the HIV virus by inhibiting 'reverse transcriptase' or 'nucleii integration'. The HIV virus, hits the blood cell, integrates through the RNA and pops out the other side with a new blood cell which is HIV infected. Or something like that. The cellular biology of HIV vaccines is a bit beyond me today, had a few too many wee drams last night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 Relenza was developed by an australian biotech company who were suing Glaxo because Glaxo doesnt promote it hard enough. Doesnt sound like the best of executed conspiracies iyam. A double bluff, no one would suspect it. Actually, maybe they didnt want to divert promotional headcount so cooked up the H1N1 soup to stave off the lawsuit. Its an angle. Plans within plans within plans.... Certainly benefitted from the 'fear' of the pandemic, as they have already made their sales. The UK, France etc have already stockpiled (and therefore paid) for the inventories. Hilariously, neither tamiflu or relenza actually work. Just ask Rents. As it happens and by complete coincidence I'm updating some guidelines on seasonal influenza right now. Depends on what you mean by 'works' I suppose, but their benefit is certainly quite limited in healthy people, and you have to take them early on (within 48 hours) to have any useful effect. Mind, NICE seem to think they're cost effective when used appropriately (which in reality is not often). I've no idea how efficacious these drugs are for pandemics as that's beyond my scope. I doubt there is any trial evidence actually for obvious reasons. The HPA seem confident in their efficacy though, is this not true? Have you got an evil pile of unpublished Glaxo-sponsored studies hiding the truth? I was more referring to the fact that they only work on certain strains of the virus. Dont think there are hidden studies, the ones i've seen say what you have summarised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snakehips 0 Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 Face masks on the tube this morning Only where you were, though. Channel 4 news reported last night that 32,000 (yes, 32 thousand) people die from flu in the USA each year anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 (edited) Chez, What happenned to this hiv vaccine where it blocks the receptor site that the virus attaches to? It gets inside the DNA, there isnt really a receptor 'site'. You block the HIV virus by inhibiting 'reverse transcriptase' or 'nucleii integration'. The HIV virus, hits the blood cell, integrates through the RNA and pops out the other side with a new blood cell which is HIV infected. Or something like that. The cellular biology of HIV vaccines is a bit beyond me today, had a few too many wee drams last night. Might be of interest. February 28, 2008 - Edmonton - A team of researchers at the University of Alberta has discovered a gene that is able to block HIV, and in turn prevent the onset of AIDS. Stephen Barr, a molecular virologist in the Department of Medical Microbiology and Immunology, says his team has identified a gene called TRIM22 that can block HIV infection in a cell culture by preventing the assembly of the virus. "When we put this gene in cells, it prevents the assembly of the HIV virus," said Barr, a postdoctoral fellow. "This means the virus cannot get out of the cells to infect other cells, thereby blocking the spread of the virus." Barr and his team also prevented cells from turning on the TRIM22 gene - provoking an interesting phenomenon: the normal response of interferon, a protein that co-ordinates attacks by genes like TRIM22 against viral infections, became useless at blocking HIV infection. Bovolenta C. Molmed S.p.A., via Olgettina, 58, 20132 Milano, Italy. chiara.bovolenta@molmed.com AIDS has become the greatest pandemic in the human history counting approximately 40 millions people worldwide. To purge HIV-1 infection, new therapeutic approaches need to be searched in alternative and/or in addition to the current pharmacological ones. Recently, several independent laboratories have unveiled a non-immune intracellular anti-HIV-1 defense strategy based on the cytidine deaminase APOBEC3G, which restricts HIV-1 production by directly mutating the proviral DNA in infected cells. To counteract this defense pathway, HIV-1 has developed an evasion strategy by acquiring the accessory protein Vif, which blocks the action of APOBEC3G by inducing its proteasome-mediated degradation. Get your boys cracking on it man. Edited April 30, 2009 by Park Life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snakehips 0 Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 At least with AIDS you only get it once. Unless that's bad AIDS ?? Wonder how many times one can catch this pig flu ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 As i said, its cellular, not receptor site targets. Pfizer and GSK have just announced (2 weeks ago) that they are joining their HIV divisions to form an independent new company. Anyway, back to flu. The global recession requires a population cull, can only be a good thing in the long-run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 As i said, its cellular, not receptor site targets. Pfizer and GSK have just announced (2 weeks ago) that they are joining their HIV divisions to form an independent new company. Anyway, back to flu. The global recession requires a population cull, can only be a good thing in the long-run. Good luck with that. flu and hiv are cousins as I'm sure you know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douggy B 0 Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 As i said, its cellular, not receptor site targets. Pfizer and GSK have just announced (2 weeks ago) that they are joining their HIV divisions to form an independent new company. Anyway, back to flu. The global recession requires a population cull, can only be a good thing in the long-run. clueless, just about every expert I have heard has said this pandemic could have even worse effects on the world economy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 As i said, its cellular, not receptor site targets. Pfizer and GSK have just announced (2 weeks ago) that they are joining their HIV divisions to form an independent new company. Anyway, back to flu. The global recession requires a population cull, can only be a good thing in the long-run. clueless, just about every expert I have heard has said this pandemic could have even worse effects on the world economy. clueless, in the short-run of course it does, restricted movement of resources across international boundaries will exacerbate short-term economic issues. I was thinking bigger picture than that having just read the Leader for this weeks Economist, a publication i doubt you are able to comprehend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now