Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Biotech / Medical : SARS and Avian Flu -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Andriy Turhovach who wrote (235)	4/22/2003 4:11:36 PM
From: Biomaven	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4232

Thanks. Here's the money paragraph for any potential biotech longs: These are 16 AIDS drugs, 13 herpes drugs and seven aimed at flu and other viruses. Also to be tested are seven forms of interferon, which are the body's natural microbe killers. "Certainly there isn't an upfront rational reason to think any of those would work," she said. "But if any of them did, it would be extremely valuable, because they are available and understood." The best chance of success may be with about 30 drugs not yet approved but already in testing for other purposes. All are aimed at viral processes similar to those in the coronavirus. These include drugs that may prevent the virus from sticking to human cells or that block some of the steps the virus takes to copy itself. I would guess the chance of an AIDS drug working is pretty remote. The interferons are anybody's guess. The neuraminidase inhibitors ('flu drugs) have to be a very long shot, although I have seen "neuraminidase" and "coronavirus" appear in the same abstract. <g> Maybe Rick (or someone else) can comment on the alleged 30 drugs being developed to block viral processes. I personally haven't heard of anything directed against a coronavirus. Peter

To: Andriy Turhovach who wrote (235)	4/22/2003 5:20:48 PM
From: LTK007	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4232

<In the first days of an infection, before the body gears up production of antibodies, it uses interferon as an all-purpose virus fighter. Sometimes, however, too much interferon actually is harmful.> For many taking Interferon for Malignant melanoma, the treatment itself is hell; something like 20% quit eventhough it is the one drug that gives a slightly significant statistical result of value. Having had a malignant melanoma myself, i, on spending time on the malignant melanoma patients thread decided, no way i take the dose amount utilized in MM even though it was recommended for any with the depth of my melanoma. There are some MM specialist that will not use interferon due to the harm they believe it does. I fully admit i have anger regards chemo when i saw my sister go through living hell being bombed with chemo eventhough i found out that with metastasized oatcell(small cell) cancer its use was worthless and it only made a lot of money for the drug companies and the cancer doctors. She said, i don't want chemo unless there is a chance it would cure her. They said she had a 20% chance if she used the chemo--a blatant lie--her chances were less than 1%, the same chances of someone who ate shark fins or drank kool-aid or ate 10 tostitos a day; in other words the mysterious few that have spontaneous cure for no known reason. If SARS required the larger dose of interferon, hell the side effect most common is feeling like you have a bad case of the flu--- i can see interferon use ONLY if it proved effective in small dosing.