hmm - Tube is shaded by a solar panel, plus you could have Insulation on the sides facing the sun. Partial vacuum inside the tube further insulates the pods. Heat due to all of the air compression the pods do might be a bigger problem.
Could be stress, but then you would expect the extra deaths would be mostly due to heart problems, which they didn't see. I'll hazard a guess that it has to do with liver function. It could just be if your liver is constantly busy breaking down caffeine it neglects some of its other duties. It could be that constantly breaking down caffeine changes the expression level of the enzymes that break down caffeine (like CYP1A2), and that is what causes problems. Or it could just be that caffeine is revealing a pre-existing problem: People who can't metabolize caffeine very quickly generally don't drink 28+ cups of coffee per week. They also tend to have different versions of CYP1A2 compared to people who metabolize caffeine quickly. So maybe the CYP1A2 alleles that are efficient at processing caffeine are lousy at some other more important task.
For devices using Li-Ion, try and adjust your charger settings so that the battery has to drain down to 85-90% (instead of 95-98%) before a charging cycle starts. Fewer charging cycles per year gives you more years out of the battery..
That actually results in more charging cycles, not fewer: a charging cycle doesn't have to include a full discharge to count as a cycle. OTOH more frequent but shallower discharges might still be better for the battery.
PROTIP: Remove your laptop battery if you are running from the mains most of the time and keep it in a cool drawer somewhere.
YMMV. Most of the heat a removable battery (i.e., designed to be easily removed by the user) experiences occurs due to charging/discharging, since the battery doesn't overlap the hot parts of the motherboard. I never bothered because it is so easy to dislodge the magsafe connector on macbooks.
I also doubt pharma would build a $1bn plant to produce a biological product if it was cheaper to produce the product in mammals. As it is, production of antibodies as drugs is shifting from giant cell culture vats (the $1bn plant) to using multiple much smaller disposable bioreactors. This way a single incident of contamination, genetic drift, or what have you doesn't wipe out all of your production for a month.
Just get a holster for your semi-automatic that also has a place for your phone. Should keep the mean accountants (and cell phone thieves) at bay. Just add the word "tactical" to the "mobile phone fanny pack" search and I'm sure something will turn up.
Can the graphing tool be used to present information about a group of related patents you've already found, say as part of a patent landscape analysis?
I try to avoid "informative" videos as well. In general it takes less time to read the relevant info than it takes to watch the ad at the beginning of the video. It also usually takes less time to find a more in depth and useful version someplace else on the web than it would take to watch the logos, credits, and all the introductory fluff at the beginning of said video.
All along, producing Fuzeon on a commercial scale had been a concern. The cost of producing the drug for Phase I clinical trials was thousands of dollars per gram, said Michael Recny, Trimeris vice president of corporate development.
With a prescribed dosage of roughly 80 grams a year, that translated into hundreds of thousands of dollars per patient.To streamline the process, the company recruited three manufacturing experts from what today is GlaxoSmithKline, a giant London-based pharmaceutical company with a U.S. headquarters in Research Triangle Park. Those experts came up with a shortcut.
T-20 is a chain of 36 amino acids, and the company had been constructing it by adding a single amino acid at a time. The new team found a way to produce large quantities of three shorter chains, which could then be combined to create a fully-formed T-20.
Even so, making the drug requires 106 steps, more than 10 times the norm. About 45 pounds of raw material are needed to produce 1 pound of Fuzeon. The production cost is cited as a driving force behind Fuzeon’s high price. Bolognesi, who remained at Duke in the company’s early years but was recruited to be CEO four years ago, said that because the cost of making Fuzeon is at least 10 times that of existing AIDS drugs, the profit margins on Fuzeon will be “significantly less” than with other AIDS drugs.
There is automation in chemical synthesis and biological production of actual production batches of drugs, but it's not the kind that leads to unattended operation. Most of that type of automation is way downstream at the packaging stage.
Drug manufacturing costs:
small molecules (example: ibuprofen): $1 per gram
peptides (synthetic insulin): $50-1000 per gram
antibodies (Herceptin, Avastin): $500 - 5000 per gram
The $14K figure was the cost of materials for 1 patient year of a peptide AIDS drug. The starting materials and reagents for peptide drugs are expensive compared to those used to make small molecule drugs, yields are low, purification and QC costs are higher too.
Biological drugs (mostly antibodies) tend to be very expensive to manufacture. The processes are extremely difficult to carry out and have low yields, the products tend to degrade quickly. These costs are dropping fast though: they are much better at scaling up production of antibodies than they were a few years ago.
Also, while it might count as NRE, the physical infrastructure needed to produce large quantities of many of these drugs means sinking several hundred million and several years into the manufacturing plant.
Obama just announced he wants to make streaming infringing content a felony. Not the uploading part, the clicking on the link and watching live football part.
The problem is the general rules underlying the systems don't point you at drugs that work, they just point you away from some of the ones that don't. Once you are at the level of drug design you are dealing with lots of specific cases that resulted from billions of years of evolutionary ad-hoc.
Reproducibility is currently a big movement in academic chemistry/biology labs, and on the Pharma end most discoveries like the one above die during target validation due to not being reproducible, not being reproducible in humans, or just not being relevant in humans.
Also check out Albert Laszlo Barabasi. I agree with him, this entire approach of swapping out one factor of a time is flawed. You have 20k + genes, how many different combinations of those do we need to test to understand how the system works?
That's not the right question.
Right now we can't predict how the product of a single gene (a protein) will behave in the presence of a novel pharmaceutical compound. We can't predict where it will bind, how it will affect activity, whether it will have an intended effect. Thinking of 20 thousand genes as 20 thousand bits of data or 20 thousand simple predictable machines won't work.
Three times the price, is nice and all, but you'll need more like 100x the price of a generic small molecule pill to recoup the R&D investment cost and turn a profit. The multiples aren't nearly as high for biologics (antibodies, peptides, etc), but would you willingly pay 3x as much for a drug that costs $14K just to manufacture per patient-year?
It's useful for discovering pathways and targets that are later determined to be useful for developing drugs. Also about 15-20% of drugs are invented in academic labs. Those drugs are more likely to be first in class drugs and more likely to focus on unmet medical needs than drugs that are invented in Pharma companies.
Government (university) patents and "taking a percentage for corporate use" has been happening for over 30 years. the "freely to education and research" part is a bit more tricky.
Bullshit.
The vast majority of spending necessary to turn this discovery into a drug hasn't even been started yet. Even in cases where the drug is invented and patented in academia (~15-20% of drugs, and we won't know if that has happened here with JQ1 for at least another 5-10 years), universities license the molecule to a biotech or pharma to move it through clinical trials. The NIH is starting to spend more on translational research (the preclinical/clinical stuff Pharmas typically do), but it will be at least another decade before we can tell if the NIH is doing a better job at it than Pharmas.
Nope. API (active pharmaceutical ingredient) and excipients (stuff in the formulation that has some function: stabilizer, solubility, crystallization aid) have to be disclosed.
Slashdot Mirror
hmm - Tube is shaded by a solar panel, plus you could have Insulation on the sides facing the sun. Partial vacuum inside the tube further insulates the pods. Heat due to all of the air compression the pods do might be a bigger problem.
The casinos would love it and would probably fund it.
video poker games and minibars built into the seatbacks which activate as soon as the pods enter Nevada?
Could be stress, but then you would expect the extra deaths would be mostly due to heart problems, which they didn't see. I'll hazard a guess that it has to do with liver function. It could just be if your liver is constantly busy breaking down caffeine it neglects some of its other duties. It could be that constantly breaking down caffeine changes the expression level of the enzymes that break down caffeine (like CYP1A2), and that is what causes problems. Or it could just be that caffeine is revealing a pre-existing problem: People who can't metabolize caffeine very quickly generally don't drink 28+ cups of coffee per week. They also tend to have different versions of CYP1A2 compared to people who metabolize caffeine quickly. So maybe the CYP1A2 alleles that are efficient at processing caffeine are lousy at some other more important task.
For devices using Li-Ion, try and adjust your charger settings so that the battery has to drain down to 85-90% (instead of 95-98%) before a charging cycle starts. Fewer charging cycles per year gives you more years out of the battery. .
That actually results in more charging cycles, not fewer: a charging cycle doesn't have to include a full discharge to count as a cycle. OTOH more frequent but shallower discharges might still be better for the battery.
PROTIP: Remove your laptop battery if you are running from the mains most of the time and keep it in a cool drawer somewhere.
YMMV. Most of the heat a removable battery (i.e., designed to be easily removed by the user) experiences occurs due to charging/discharging, since the battery doesn't overlap the hot parts of the motherboard. I never bothered because it is so easy to dislodge the magsafe connector on macbooks.
I also doubt pharma would build a $1bn plant to produce a biological product if it was cheaper to produce the product in mammals. As it is, production of antibodies as drugs is shifting from giant cell culture vats (the $1bn plant) to using multiple much smaller disposable bioreactors. This way a single incident of contamination, genetic drift, or what have you doesn't wipe out all of your production for a month.
If you're carrying it in a bag instead of wearing it in a holster it's not for self defense, so the caliber makes no difference.
Just get a holster for your semi-automatic that also has a place for your phone. Should keep the mean accountants (and cell phone thieves) at bay. Just add the word "tactical" to the "mobile phone fanny pack" search and I'm sure something will turn up.
Very Nice!
Can the graphing tool be used to present information about a group of related patents you've already found, say as part of a patent landscape analysis?
I try to avoid "informative" videos as well. In general it takes less time to read the relevant info than it takes to watch the ad at the beginning of the video. It also usually takes less time to find a more in depth and useful version someplace else on the web than it would take to watch the logos, credits, and all the introductory fluff at the beginning of said video.
The other problem is that if you are most likely an "American" then you presumably do have rights assuming they are following the law.
I really don't think that's a very safe assumption.
If you however pretend to be a 14 year old girl in Kansas the NSA will probably leave all of your communication alone due to legal necessity.
Then there's a chance that those email attachments are actually selfies, so they'll need to investigate in case of child pornography.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4050587&cid=44499733
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4050587&cid=44499185
Here's an article on the AIDS drug I was talking about. My number was from a personal communication.
http://www.aidshealth.org/archives/news/birth-of-aids-drug-is-10-year-tale
All along, producing Fuzeon on a commercial scale had been a concern. The cost of producing the drug for Phase I clinical trials was thousands of dollars per gram, said Michael Recny, Trimeris vice president of corporate development. With a prescribed dosage of roughly 80 grams a year, that translated into hundreds of thousands of dollars per patient.To streamline the process, the company recruited three manufacturing experts from what today is GlaxoSmithKline, a giant London-based pharmaceutical company with a U.S. headquarters in Research Triangle Park. Those experts came up with a shortcut. T-20 is a chain of 36 amino acids, and the company had been constructing it by adding a single amino acid at a time. The new team found a way to produce large quantities of three shorter chains, which could then be combined to create a fully-formed T-20. Even so, making the drug requires 106 steps, more than 10 times the norm. About 45 pounds of raw material are needed to produce 1 pound of Fuzeon. The production cost is cited as a driving force behind Fuzeon’s high price. Bolognesi, who remained at Duke in the company’s early years but was recruited to be CEO four years ago, said that because the cost of making Fuzeon is at least 10 times that of existing AIDS drugs, the profit margins on Fuzeon will be “significantly less” than with other AIDS drugs.
See above.
There is automation in chemical synthesis and biological production of actual production batches of drugs, but it's not the kind that leads to unattended operation. Most of that type of automation is way downstream at the packaging stage.
Drug manufacturing costs:
small molecules (example: ibuprofen): $1 per gram
peptides (synthetic insulin): $50-1000 per gram
antibodies (Herceptin, Avastin): $500 - 5000 per gram
The $14K figure was the cost of materials for 1 patient year of a peptide AIDS drug. The starting materials and reagents for peptide drugs are expensive compared to those used to make small molecule drugs, yields are low, purification and QC costs are higher too.
Biological drugs (mostly antibodies) tend to be very expensive to manufacture. The processes are extremely difficult to carry out and have low yields, the products tend to degrade quickly. These costs are dropping fast though: they are much better at scaling up production of antibodies than they were a few years ago. Also, while it might count as NRE, the physical infrastructure needed to produce large quantities of many of these drugs means sinking several hundred million and several years into the manufacturing plant.
Obama just announced he wants to make streaming infringing content a felony. Not the uploading part, the clicking on the link and watching live football part.
The problem is the general rules underlying the systems don't point you at drugs that work, they just point you away from some of the ones that don't. Once you are at the level of drug design you are dealing with lots of specific cases that resulted from billions of years of evolutionary ad-hoc.
Reproducibility is currently a big movement in academic chemistry/biology labs, and on the Pharma end most discoveries like the one above die during target validation due to not being reproducible, not being reproducible in humans, or just not being relevant in humans.
Also check out Albert Laszlo Barabasi. I agree with him, this entire approach of swapping out one factor of a time is flawed. You have 20k + genes, how many different combinations of those do we need to test to understand how the system works?
That's not the right question.
Right now we can't predict how the product of a single gene (a protein) will behave in the presence of a novel pharmaceutical compound. We can't predict where it will bind, how it will affect activity, whether it will have an intended effect. Thinking of 20 thousand genes as 20 thousand bits of data or 20 thousand simple predictable machines won't work.
The cheapest clinical approval I've heard of in the past 15 years (Dificid from Optimer) was still $175M. That will be quite a kickstarter!
The corporations are the farmers. Who do you think owns most of the acreage?
Three times the price, is nice and all, but you'll need more like 100x the price of a generic small molecule pill to recoup the R&D investment cost and turn a profit. The multiples aren't nearly as high for biologics (antibodies, peptides, etc), but would you willingly pay 3x as much for a drug that costs $14K just to manufacture per patient-year?
It's useful for discovering pathways and targets that are later determined to be useful for developing drugs. Also about 15-20% of drugs are invented in academic labs. Those drugs are more likely to be first in class drugs and more likely to focus on unmet medical needs than drugs that are invented in Pharma companies.
Government (university) patents and "taking a percentage for corporate use" has been happening for over 30 years. the "freely to education and research" part is a bit more tricky.
Bullshit. The vast majority of spending necessary to turn this discovery into a drug hasn't even been started yet. Even in cases where the drug is invented and patented in academia (~15-20% of drugs, and we won't know if that has happened here with JQ1 for at least another 5-10 years), universities license the molecule to a biotech or pharma to move it through clinical trials. The NIH is starting to spend more on translational research (the preclinical/clinical stuff Pharmas typically do), but it will be at least another decade before we can tell if the NIH is doing a better job at it than Pharmas.
But then you can't call it a drug and have to dance around saying it treats anything.
Nope. API (active pharmaceutical ingredient) and excipients (stuff in the formulation that has some function: stabilizer, solubility, crystallization aid) have to be disclosed.