wehateporn

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...0I30M920141014

A Chinese drugmaker with close military ties is seeking fast-track approval for a drug that it says can cure Ebola, as China joins the race to help treat a deadly outbreak of a disease that has spread from Africa to the United States and Europe.

Sihuan Pharmaceutical Holdings Group Ltd has signed a tie-up with Chinese research Academy of Military Medical Sciences (AMMS) last week to help push the drug called JK-05 through the approval process in China and bring it to market. The drug, developed by the academy, is currently approved for emergency military use only.

"We believe that we can file to the Chinese Food and Drug Administration (CFDA) before the end of the year," Sihuan's chairman Che Fengsheng said during an investor call last week.

"They are looking at this very seriously... and we could get on the 'green light' track," he added.

Continued http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...0I30M920141014

__________________

Harmon

EddyTheDog

I thought they are being poisoned by The West?..

__________________
-

Chaturbate Script - https://gfy.com/fucking-around-and-b...er-issues.html - Now supports White Labels

wehateporn

Looks like their military had already foreseen the threat of being attacked with a Western Ebola Bio-Weapon

__________________

Captain Kawaii

I can just imagine the malware this shit will have in it.

EddyTheDog

Ah - OK - It makes sense now - Damn clever those Chinks...

__________________
-

Chaturbate Script - https://gfy.com/fucking-around-and-b...er-issues.html - Now supports White Labels

wehateporn

When it comes to medicine I'd be more worried about the Western Capitalists putting malware in a so-called 'Cure', whereas China probably just wants to keep its people alive

__________________

wehateporn

It helps them that US Think Tanks publish documents online boasting of their plans to wage war with bio-weapons

__________________

PR_Glen

is this a meltdown? someone fried his chips...

__________________
webmaster at pimproll dot com

Barry-xlovecam

seeandsee

they already have it, only question, do they want to make money, or kill people

__________________
BUY MY SIG - 50$/Year

Contact here

EonBlue

So let me get this straight - you are retarded and you're a communist. I guess that makes sense since you have to be retarded to be a communist.

Seek help. Seriously.



.

Phoenix

China has great medicine. I had to go to the hospital there to get a full body check when i was going for my permanent resident status. I got everything done in one day. All brand new machines, doctors all speak English there.

__________________
Skype Phoenixskype1
Telegram PhoenixBrad
https://quantads.io

Captain Kawaii

I am sure you are right. But FYI, Chinese with money are taking medical check up holidays here in Tokyo and Osaka. It's hip, trendy and they can pick up a nice rice maker on the way out.

The problem there is unscrupulous capitalism, similar to American and Israeli. Anything for a buck and fuck the victim.

sperbonzo

Whoever comes up with something, it better be fast...

http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-persp...otection-ebola


"COMMENTARY: Health workers need optimal respiratory protection for Ebola
Filed Under:
Ebola
;
VHF
Lisa M Brosseau, ScD, and Rachael Jones, PhD
|
Sep 17, 2014



Editor's Note: Today's commentary was submitted to CIDRAP by the authors, who are national experts on respiratory protection and infectious disease transmission. In May they published a similar commentary on MERS-CoV. Dr Brosseau is a Professor and Dr Jones an Assistant Professor in the School of Public Health, Division of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences, at the University of Illinois at Chicago.


Healthcare workers play a very important role in the successful containment of outbreaks of infectious diseases like Ebola. The correct type and level of personal protective equipment (PPE) ensures that healthcare workers remain healthy throughout an outbreak?and with the current rapidly expanding Ebola outbreak in West Africa, it's imperative to favor more conservative measures.

The precautionary principle?that any action designed to reduce risk should not await scientific certainty?compels the use of respiratory protection for a pathogen like Ebola virus that has:


No proven pre- or post-exposure treatment modalities
A high case-fatality rate
Unclear modes of transmission

We believe there is scientific and epidemiologic evidence that Ebola virus has the potential to be transmitted via infectious aerosol particles both near and at a distance from infected patients, which means that healthcare workers should be wearing respirators, not facemasks.1

The minimum level of protection in high-risk settings should be a respirator with an assigned protection factor greater than 10. A powered air-purifying respirator (PAPR) with a hood or helmet offers many advantages over an N95 filtering facepiece or similar respirator, being more protective, comfortable, and cost-effective in the long run.

We strongly urge the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the World Health Organization (WHO) to seek funds for the purchase and transport of PAPRs to all healthcare workers currently fighting the battle against Ebola throughout Africa?and beyond.

There has been a lot of on-line and published controversy about whether Ebola virus can be transmitted via aerosols. Most scientific and medical personnel, along with public health organizations, have been unequivocal in their statements that Ebola can be transmitted only by direct contact with virus-laden fluids2,3 and that the only modes of transmission we should be concerned with are those termed "droplet" and "contact."

These statements are based on two lines of reasoning. The first is that no one located at a distance from an infected individual has contracted the disease, or the converse, every person infected has had (or must have had) "direct" contact with the body fluids of an infected person.

This reflects an incorrect and outmoded understanding of infectious aerosols, which has been institutionalized in policies, language, culture, and approaches to infection control. We will address this below. Briefly, however, the important points are that virus-laden bodily fluids may be aerosolized and inhaled while a person is in proximity to an infectious person and that a wide range of particle sizes can be inhaled and deposited throughout the respiratory tract.

The second line of reasoning is that respirators or other control measures for infectious aerosols cannot be recommended in developing countries because the resources, time, and/or understanding for such measures are lacking.4

Although there are some important barriers to the use of respirators, especially PAPRs, in developing countries, healthcare workers everywhere deserve and should be afforded the same best-practice types of protection, regardless of costs and resources. Every healthcare worker is a precious commodity whose well-being ensures everyone is protected.

If we are willing to offer infected US healthcare workers expensive treatments and experimental drugs free of charge when most of the world has no access to them, we wonder why we are unwilling to find the resources to provide appropriate levels of comparatively less expensive respiratory protection to every healthcare worker around the world.
How are infectious diseases transmitted via aerosols?

Medical and infection control professionals have relied for years on a paradigm for aerosol transmission of infectious diseases based on very outmoded research and an overly simplistic interpretation of the data. In the 1940s and 50s, William F. Wells and other "aerobiologists" employed now significantly out-of-date sampling methods (eg, settling plates) and very blunt analytic approaches (eg, cell culturing) to understand the movement of bacterial aerosols in healthcare and other settings. Their work, though groundbreaking at the time, provides a very incomplete picture.

Early aerobiologists were not able to measure small particles near an infectious person and thus assumed such particles existed only far from the source. They concluded that organisms capable of aerosol transmission (termed "airborne") can only do so at around 3 feet or more from the source. Because they thought that only larger particles would be present near the source, they believed people would be exposed only via large "droplets" on their face, eyes, or nose.

Modern research, using more sensitive instruments and analytic methods, has shown that aerosols emitted from the respiratory tract contain a wide distribution of particle sizes?including many that are small enough to be inhaled.5,6 Thus, both small and large particles will be present near an infectious person.

The chance of large droplets reaching the facial mucous membranes is quite small, as the nasal openings are small and shielded by their external and internal structure. Although close contact may permit large-droplet exposure, it also maximizes the possibility of aerosol inhalation.

As noted by early aerobiologists, liquid in a spray aerosol, such as that generated during coughing or sneezing, will quickly evaporate,7 which increases the concentration of small particles in the aerosol. Because evaporation occurs in milliseconds, many of these particles are likely to be found near the infectious person.

The current paradigm also assumes that only "small" particles (less than 5 micrometers [mcm]) can be inhaled and deposited in the respiratory tract. This is not true. Particles as large as 100 mcm (and perhaps even larger) can be inhaled into the mouth and nose. Larger particles are deposited in the nasal passages, pharynx, and upper regions of the lungs, while smaller particles are more likely to deposit in the lower, alveolar regions. And for many pathogens, infection is possible regardless of the particle size or deposition site.

It's time to abandon the old paradigm of three mutually exclusive transmission routes for a new one that considers the full range of particle sizes both near and far from a source.............."






AND THIS TAKES THE PRIZE AS THE DUMBEST AND MOST NAIVE POST OF THE MONTH...

"When it comes to medicine I'd be more worried about the Western Capitalists putting malware in a so-called 'Cure', whereas China probably just wants to keep its people alive "


CONGRATS! YOU WIN A COOKIE!!



.

__________________
Michael Sperber / Acella Financial LLC/ Online Payment Processing

[email protected] / http://Acellafinancial.com/

ICQ 177961090 / Tel +1 909 NET BILL / Skype msperber

wehateporn

Those guys really know what they're doing with medicine

__________________

wehateporn

Capitalism and healthcare don't mix, unless you have real regulation, in the US the goalposts would need to be moved to fix the situation i.e. profit per healthy person, not profit per sick. At that moment it's in their interest to make you sick and keep you sick, hence the madness that's going on with vaccines and risky drugs.

__________________

_Richard_

mmm

PR_Glen

it's never in anyones interests to keep anyone sick ever. If you had even a mild form of connection with the rest of the planet you would realize this and rethink your life.. but you don't, you refuse to believe that there are people dedicating their lives to helping others, yet you firmly believe in evil boogymen who are can only get rich by causing harm to others...

__________________
webmaster at pimproll dot com

xXXtesy10

__________________

shake

Yes, really was impressed how the China government discovered that villagers poisoned by lead and other factory waste can be cured just be eating rice and apples

__________________
Crazy fast VPS for $10 a month. Try with $20 free credit