440 karma · joined June 9, 2019
I'm going to pose something that was interesting when the Chief Medical Officer of NASA spoke at my school: bacteria in space will have massive amounts of genetic changes -> bacteria on a Mars mission may become pathogenic to the point where we would not want people who traveled to Mars to come back. He also talked about intracranial hypertension being an issue with people going into space and how to remedy that one. It was fascinating to hear a physician in charge of astronauts talk about what medical challenges needs to be overcome.
Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaea https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/news/nan... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5509877/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26099128/
Now, my suspicion is that the target demographic for this "works out" for social benefits, not for actually making fitness progress. I say this because someone who takes fitness seriously would never drop $1500 on an accessory that a pen and journal wouldn't be more than capable for. For that kind of money a home gym is more than accessible. Even a few kettlebells for even 1/4th of that would get someone into phenomenal shape. For a significant amount of my fitness career I did yoga at a local studio and met many of the target demographic. Many wanted a way to stay in shape while also having a social aspect. This abrogates the social aspect while having a sub par fitness experience. I can only think of a demographic that doesn't understand fitness at all, has significant money, and doesn't want the social aspects of a group fitness class; this demographic is probably niche.
Ah I see that we have different definitions of main players. I'm thinking of developers who are able to mess with the code. But the Wikipedia does support what my definition of main players means.
Just because the board doesn't report to CCP doesn't mean that someone significant in the 700 isn't an assent of the CCP and able to do significant damage.
The main players are under CCP command.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoom_Video_Communications#Work...
>Med school doesn't qualify you to opine about novel therapeutics
Actually, it does. Especially when we tried hydroxychloroquine and it didn't work. When you go to a hospital with medical students 60% of the time our recommendation to the attending is what the care plan ends up being.
Making drugs is a ridiculous process. I had the pleasure of listening to a physical chemist describe every single step it took for his team at Abbott labs to take Lopinavir/ritonavir to market. It is incredible how difficult it is to go from novel molecule to phase IV. Every single thing he did he had to, by FDA guidelines, be written and documented appropriately. Everything is highly scrutinized. With medicine we need to be right and we need strong scrutiny, because when there isn't oversight shortcuts are made. That's just the federal guidelines, the chemistry behind drug production, and this is something I find interesting but strongly dislike the amount of math behind physical chemistry, is intimidating. Some of the questions that need to be answered are: Does this molecule affect any enzyme? Is this enzyme hypothesized to be in a disease process? What is the structure of this molecule? How is it made? How can we make more? How can we make more more efficiently? Does this drug work in people? What's the dose that needs to be given to have an effect? What is the dosing ranges for a given drug? What are the serious side effects? What are the moderate/mild side effect? How is this drug cleared/excreted? Are there certain populations which this is contraindicated in?
These are some of the main questions that are answered when taking a drug to market, which is why it usually takes 10 years and billions to go from novel molecule to FDA approved drug.