3 ms·

Consider me skeptical of the practical significance of their findings. IMO, protease inhibitors are a moot point if the they don't also block cell entry via ant

Consider me skeptical of the practical significance of their findings. IMO, protease inhibitors are a moot point if the they don't also block cell entry via antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE): - http://viruseradication.com/abstract-details.php?abstract_id=645 http://viruseradication.com/abstract-details.php?abstract_id... - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6178114/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6178114/ - https://jvi.asm.org/content/94/5/e02015-19.abstract https://jvi.asm.org/content/94/5/e02015-19.abstract It's been a while since my vaccine research days at the NIH, so take my skepticism with a grain of salt.

snapetom 7y ago
ADE has me worried the most. There's some circumstantial evidence that COVID-19 might use ADE. The arguments against it (from claimed medical experts) on reddit was basically "ADE is extremely rare." If the evidence for/against something is based solely on percentages, you'll get a raised eyebrow from me.
- fab1an 7y ago
  I thought the the argument against it is that survivors develop antibodies that neutralize the virus in vitro.
  - snapetom 7y ago
    There's enough anecdotal evidence of re-infection that suggest otherwise, although there a wide variety of reasons for that -bad tests, they were never fully recovered in the first place, etc. SARS is believed to use ADE, and COVID-19 is closely related to SARS. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3019510/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3019510/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25073113 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25073113 On the good news-ish side, a MERS vaccine entered into Phase 2 trials at Walter Reed late last year, although I can't find anything about that more recently. MERS is another coronavirus, but doesn't use ADE.
- l33tman 7y ago
  In medicine and biology, evidence IS based on percentages. That's why all these papers that present possible mechanisms with no numbers to back them up are confusing people. You need thousands to hundreds of thousands of datapoints. This is not an exact engineering discipline (yet..) unfortunately.
  - rscho 7y ago
    A minor counterpoint from a clinical researcher: in medicine and biology, evidence is mostly based on bullshit, not percentages.

snapetom 7y ago

ADE has me worried the most. There's some circumstantial evidence that COVID-19 might use ADE. The arguments against it (from claimed medical experts) on reddit was basically "ADE is extremely rare." If the evidence for/against something is based solely on percentages, you'll get a raised eyebrow from me.

fab1an 7y ago
I thought the the argument against it is that survivors develop antibodies that neutralize the virus in vitro.
- snapetom 7y ago
  There's enough anecdotal evidence of re-infection that suggest otherwise, although there a wide variety of reasons for that -bad tests, they were never fully recovered in the first place, etc. SARS is believed to use ADE, and COVID-19 is closely related to SARS. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3019510/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3019510/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25073113 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25073113 On the good news-ish side, a MERS vaccine entered into Phase 2 trials at Walter Reed late last year, although I can't find anything about that more recently. MERS is another coronavirus, but doesn't use ADE.
l33tman 7y ago
In medicine and biology, evidence IS based on percentages. That's why all these papers that present possible mechanisms with no numbers to back them up are confusing people. You need thousands to hundreds of thousands of datapoints. This is not an exact engineering discipline (yet..) unfortunately.
- rscho 7y ago
  A minor counterpoint from a clinical researcher: in medicine and biology, evidence is mostly based on bullshit, not percentages.