The Marshall Protocol Study Site Home

Search
   
Members

Calendar

Help

Home
Search by username
   Not logged in - Login | Register 


Systems to Synthesis Symposium - 21 May 2010
 Moderated by: Prof Trevor Marshall
 

New Topic

Reply

Print
AuthorPost
Prof Trevor Marshall
Foundation Staff


Joined: Fri Jul 9th, 2004
Location: Thousand Oaks, California USA
Posts: 15753
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Sat May 22nd, 2010 20:25

Quote

Reply
The San Diego Consortium for Systems Biology's 5th Annual Systems to Synthesis Symposium was held yesterday at the Salk Institute.

Philip Bourne, from UCSD, made an excellent presentation setting out his findings that commonly available pharmaceutical drugs often hit multiple targets.

Philip is a founder of the RCSB PDB, and founding Editor-in-Chief of PLOS Computational Biology. He and I both hail from Adelaide, South Australia, he from Flinders Uni, I from Adelaide Uni.

So, without more ado - here is Philip's excellent presentation:- "What really happens when we take a Drug?"

http://marshallprotocol.com/flash/Bourne.html

It is a 1280x720 HD resolution video, please expand it to full screen with the little expanding symbol near the bottom right of the player...

..Trevor..

Rico
Support Team
 

Joined: Tue May 30th, 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 1386
Status:  Online
 Posted: Sun May 23rd, 2010 04:35

Quote

Reply
Don't drug companies have to document the multiple targets affected by each drug when they file with the FDA?



____________________
No diagnosis/some symptoms (more than I knew); wife with Sarc on MP; Olm 40mg q4-6h | 25D=22 (May 2014) | 25D=27 (Nov 2014)
Prof Trevor Marshall
Foundation Staff


Joined: Fri Jul 9th, 2004
Location: Thousand Oaks, California USA
Posts: 15753
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Sun May 23rd, 2010 06:06

Quote

Reply
No. The FDA does not require anything other than studies to show the drug is safe when used as directed, and that it meets markers showing its primary target.

For example, an Alzheimer drug has been declared effective because it changes a metabolite thought to be a marker of disease severity, and the clinical trials showed that it does not have significant side-effects.

One of the problems we have had with the FDA is that our focus has been on recovery - cure - an end-point which is not in the FDA play-book. They  would prefer us to be claiming some change in an inflammatory marker - like CRP, for example...

..Trevor..
 

jrfoutin
Research Team


Joined: Mon Aug 8th, 2005
Location: Utah USA
Posts: 4927
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Sun May 23rd, 2010 19:16

Quote

Reply
Even though there is a newer department for that detail, the FDA still doesn't do much more than put molecular models in the file. That's likely a big reason why only 20% of drugs have PDB structures available, aside from prehistoric timelines a particular drug was introduced.

A lot of regulatory changes are expected with the Critical Path initiative, but I think it is still fair to guestimate government regulatory agencies are going to be years behind the ever growing numbers of researchers and the technology explosion curve on which they operate.

I appreciated his comment that PubMed abstracts were a bit difficult to capture the details of any particular study that could apply to literature search. Sad, since literature search has been the backbone of a lot of science for a very long while. On the upside, at least we have abstracts and keyword search now.

"Promiscuous" drugs is an interesting concept.

Thank you for sharing this. Good stuff!



____________________
Sarcoidosis 125D61, MP10/05 ModP2 12/05 Ph2 6/06 Ph3 10/06, NoIRs limited outings covered, 2/08 25D6.2, 10/08 25D6.9

 Current time is 22:33



* We can help you understand chronic disease, but only your physician is licensed to give you medical care *

Powered by WowBB 1.7 - Entire site Copyright © 2004-2020 Autoimmunity Research Foundation, All Rights Reserved
Click here to view our PRIVACY POLICY
Page processed in 0.0458 seconds (83% database + 17% PHP). 17 queries executed.