mysoulhasgrowndeep-liketherivers:

thepoliticalfreakshow:

BREAKING: Here’s the tweet that could lead to a new grand jury in Ferguson, MO. 
#Ferguson: @shaunking took screenshot of tweeter @thesusannichols who claims to know juror on #MikeBrown #DarrenWilson grand jury & appears to be receiving leaked information. King says that within seconds of posting this, her friends told her to delete it & she did but not before it was screenshotted. She has since deleted her entire account but King says they checked & she is indeed a #STL resident w/ years’ worth of tweets from there. “If true, her tweet not only reveals a leak in the grand jury, but gives us an ugly glimpse into how things have gone so far. This person who posted it on twitter & her contact on the grand jury must be fully & completely investigated & removed if it’s true.”-@shaunking

Y’all better reblog the fuck outta this post it on facebook, twitter, IG, myspace, friendster, everything get this information out

mysoulhasgrowndeep-liketherivers:

thepoliticalfreakshow:

BREAKING: Here’s the tweet that could lead to a new grand jury in Ferguson, MO. 

#Ferguson@shaunking took screenshot of tweeter @thesusannichols who claims to know juror on #MikeBrown #DarrenWilson grand jury & appears to be receiving leaked information. King says that within seconds of posting this, her friends told her to delete it & she did but not before it was screenshotted. She has since deleted her entire account but King says they checked & she is indeed a #STL resident w/ years’ worth of tweets from there. “If true, her tweet not only reveals a leak in the grand jury, but gives us an ugly glimpse into how things have gone so far. This person who posted it on twitter & her contact on the grand jury must be fully & completely investigated & removed if it’s true.”-@shaunking

Y’all better reblog the fuck outta this post it on facebook, twitter, IG, myspace, friendster, everything get this information out

vesperregina replied to your post “Have successfully driven by myself at night ALONE. *CONTINUES…”

Congratulations! That takes a lot of courage.

I would call it courage as much as I HAD ALREADY PAID FOR THE ZIPCAR AND IT WAS TOO LATE TO CANCEL THE RESERVATION XD

Have successfully driven by myself at night ALONE.

*CONTINUES BREATHING INTO PAPER BAG*

budoorwaqamal replied to your post “i cant belive you have such terrible taste in cookies im demanding a divorce”

HOW FUCKING DARE YOU

Look I can’t be seen with someone with non-existent taste buds.

NEXT THING YOU KNOW, YOU’LL BE WANTING MAYO ON EVERYTHING.

i cant belive you have such terrible taste in cookies im demanding a divorce

I have excellent taste in cookies BECAUSE I CAN BAKE MY OWN AND THEY DON’T RESEMBLE STYROFOAM~~

chrysogenum:

mnemehoshiko:

lotsaboutlyn:

mnemehoshiko:

lotsaboutlyn:

mnemehoshiko:

whyvoneenee:

did-you-kno:

Scientists have found a way to “switch off” autoimmune diseases by converting cells that attack healthy tissue into cells that protect against disease. This incredible breakthrough has the potential to save the lives of millions of people. Source

But can we put it into practice though?Every 2 months I see an article blow up about a possible cure for cancer or AIDS or something else catastrophic, and then it goes nowhere. What gives?

DISCLAIMER: I am a computational scientist! I don’t do bench work (anymore) BUT I do have approximate knowledge of various bio topics.
This is problem whenever you see “X CURES CANCER/AIDS/OTHER DISEASE OF CHOICE” it’s usually
Written by a science journalist who really needed a snappy headline or
Some journalist jumping the gun and failing to acknowledge the nuances of what was written in the actually paper
and in both cases they either fail to acknowledge the how much it takes to create a useable treatment and/or therapy and/or drug or COMPLETELY MISREADS WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED IN THE EXPERIMENT (I’ve seen this way too many times it’s ridic).
SADLY, the road from bench discovery to WORKABLE THERAPEUTIC
is not
DISCOVERY!!
SPRINKLE SCIENCE DUST!! 
~THERAPEUTIC~
It’s more like (and someone who actually works in this arena PLEASE CHIME IN)
Discovery!
Verification of discovery
More verification.
Determining whether it’s generalizable
Realizing you want the patient to be alive after treatment and oh PREFERABLY BETTER OFF THAN THEY WERE PRE-TREATMENT
Figuring out the delivery system
More figuring out delivery system
TESTING IT IN ANIMAL MODELS
MORE TESTING
YET MORE TESTING
getting permission for clinical trials
DOING SAID TRIALS (which is hella important)
MAKING SURE THE DRUG DOES A GOOD THING DURING THE TRIAL
~THERAPEUTIC~
This process takes a lot of time and by a lot I mean on average of 12 years.
tl;dr:
Cure in a petri dish vs cure in a human being DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT THINGS: http://xkcd.com/1217/
Science takes a long ass time
Science literacy is important.
There is no science dust. I am sorry.

You forgot the patents? How science and pharmacies/corporation have patented single SPLICES of DNA this if the product even works it has to be on a strand of DNA that isn’t owned OR you have to pay millions upon millions of dollars to even test the the one strand and hope that it works. Because capitalism !

…..*sigh*Splicing is an action. There are no “single splices” of DNA. Splice variants, yes. Splices of DNA, no.Furthermore, as of last year, the supreme court made it illegal to patent naturally occurring DNA…so like…yeah…

Huh! I learned something new. Had no clue The Supreme Court did that. My teacher made us watch a genome project video and it was drilled into us that it was still legal. That’s good news. Thanks for being kind about it.

Not a problem! Like there will probably be attempts but at this time it’s not a huge factor in the drug development process/therapeutics development?

I did more stuff on the pure research-y side and less on the industry side but from what I know:
1. Discovery/verification
  - Making discovery
  - Finding out what situations discovery is applicable
  - Testing in vitro (cell culture + mechanistic studies)
  - Testing in vivo (animal models)
    *Note: there will be some delivery testing/optimization done here, but generally the vehicle used for animal models WILL NOT be the one used for humans. 
2.  Patent set #1 (for compound) 
3. Research on large-scale synthesis 
4. Patent set #2 (for large-scale synthesis)
4b. Haggling with companies that have patents to processes you need to use
5. Drug Delivery System research 
6. Patent set #3 (for ‘end product’ sort-of-not-really)
6b. Haggling with companies that have patents to processes you need to use part deux
7. Pilot Studies 
8. Clinical Trial Phase 0 - Pharmokinetics/dynamics
9. Clinical Trial Phase I - Safety
10. Clinical Trial Phase II - Efficacy of Drug
11. Clinical Trial Phase III - Final Confirmation of Safety/Efficacy
12. FDA Review
13. Drug now available!
13b. Clinical Trial Phase IV - Post-approval studies
The amount of time it takes to get from success in step 1 to step 13 varies greatly, but each stepgenerally takes years. And this is all supposing you actually succeed at all your steps - many drugs fail before they even reach clinical trials.

chrysogenum:

mnemehoshiko:

lotsaboutlyn:

mnemehoshiko:

lotsaboutlyn:

mnemehoshiko:

whyvoneenee:

did-you-kno:

Scientists have found a way to “switch off” autoimmune diseases by converting cells that attack healthy tissue into cells that protect against disease. This incredible breakthrough has the potential to save the lives of millions of people. Source

But can we put it into practice though?

Every 2 months I see an article blow up about a possible cure for cancer or AIDS or something else catastrophic, and then it goes nowhere. What gives?

DISCLAIMER: I am a computational scientist! I don’t do bench work (anymore) BUT I do have approximate knowledge of various bio topics.

This is problem whenever you see “X CURES CANCER/AIDS/OTHER DISEASE OF CHOICE” it’s usually

  1. Written by a science journalist who really needed a snappy headline or
  2. Some journalist jumping the gun and failing to acknowledge the nuances of what was written in the actually paper

and in both cases they either fail to acknowledge the how much it takes to create a useable treatment and/or therapy and/or drug or COMPLETELY MISREADS WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED IN THE EXPERIMENT (I’ve seen this way too many times it’s ridic).

SADLY, the road from bench discovery to WORKABLE THERAPEUTIC

is not

  • DISCOVERY!!
  • SPRINKLE SCIENCE DUST!! 
  • ~THERAPEUTIC~

It’s more like (and someone who actually works in this arena PLEASE CHIME IN)

  • Discovery!
  • Verification of discovery
  • More verification.
  • Determining whether it’s generalizable
  • Realizing you want the patient to be alive after treatment and oh PREFERABLY BETTER OFF THAN THEY WERE PRE-TREATMENT
  • Figuring out the delivery system
  • More figuring out delivery system
  • TESTING IT IN ANIMAL MODELS
  • MORE TESTING
  • YET MORE TESTING
  • getting permission for clinical trials
  • DOING SAID TRIALS (which is hella important)
  • MAKING SURE THE DRUG DOES A GOOD THING DURING THE TRIAL
  • ~THERAPEUTIC~

This process takes a lot of time and by a lot I mean on average of 12 years.

tl;dr:

  1. Cure in a petri dish vs cure in a human being DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT THINGS: http://xkcd.com/1217/
  2. Science takes a long ass time
  3. Science literacy is important.
  4. There is no science dust. I am sorry.

You forgot the patents? How science and pharmacies/corporation have patented single SPLICES of DNA this if the product even works it has to be on a strand of DNA that isn’t owned OR you have to pay millions upon millions of dollars to even test the the one strand and hope that it works. Because capitalism !

…..*sigh*
Splicing is an action. There are no “single splices” of DNA. Splice variants, yes. Splices of DNA, no.
Furthermore, as of last year, the supreme court made it illegal to patent naturally occurring DNA…so like…yeah…

Huh! I learned something new. Had no clue The Supreme Court did that. My teacher made us watch a genome project video and it was drilled into us that it was still legal. That’s good news.
Thanks for being kind about it.

Not a problem! Like there will probably be attempts but at this time it’s not a huge factor in the drug development process/therapeutics development?

I did more stuff on the pure research-y side and less on the industry side but from what I know:

1. Discovery/verification

  - Making discovery

  - Finding out what situations discovery is applicable

  - Testing in vitro (cell culture + mechanistic studies)

  - Testing in vivo (animal models)

    *Note: there will be some delivery testing/optimization done here, but generally the vehicle used for animal models WILL NOT be the one used for humans. 

2.  Patent set #1 (for compound) 

3. Research on large-scale synthesis 

4. Patent set #2 (for large-scale synthesis)

4b. Haggling with companies that have patents to processes you need to use

5. Drug Delivery System research 

6. Patent set #3 (for ‘end product’ sort-of-not-really)

6b. Haggling with companies that have patents to processes you need to use part deux

7. Pilot Studies 

8. Clinical Trial Phase 0 - Pharmokinetics/dynamics

9. Clinical Trial Phase I - Safety

10. Clinical Trial Phase II - Efficacy of Drug

11. Clinical Trial Phase III - Final Confirmation of Safety/Efficacy

12. FDA Review

13. Drug now available!

13b. Clinical Trial Phase IV - Post-approval studies

The amount of time it takes to get from success in step 1 to step 13 varies greatly, but each stepgenerally takes years. And this is all supposing you actually succeed at all your steps - many drugs fail before they even reach clinical trials.

4,673 notes   •   September 30 2014, 09:50 PM   •   VIA   •   SOURCE
accidentallymelted:

mnemehoshiko:

whyvoneenee:

did-you-kno:

Scientists have found a way to “switch off” autoimmune diseases by converting cells that attack healthy tissue into cells that protect against disease. This incredible breakthrough has the potential to save the lives of millions of people. Source

But can we put it into practice though?Every 2 months I see an article blow up about a possible cure for cancer or AIDS or something else catastrophic, and then it goes nowhere. What gives?

DISCLAIMER: I am a computational scientist! I don’t do bench work (anymore) BUT I do have approximate knowledge of various bio topics.
This is problem whenever you see “X CURES CANCER/AIDS/OTHER DISEASE OF CHOICE” it’s usually
Written by a science journalist who really needed a snappy headline or
Some journalist jumping the gun and failing to acknowledge the nuances of what was written in the actually paper
and in both cases they either fail to acknowledge the how much it takes to create a useable treatment and/or therapy and/or drug or COMPLETELY MISREADS WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED IN THE EXPERIMENT (I’ve seen this way too many times it’s ridic).
SADLY, the road from bench discovery to WORKABLE THERAPEUTIC
is not
DISCOVERY!!
SPRINKLE SCIENCE DUST!! 
~THERAPEUTIC~
It’s more like (and someone who actually works in this arena PLEASE CHIME IN)
Discovery!
Verification of discovery
More verification.
Determining whether it’s generalizable
Realizing you want the patient to be alive after treatment and oh PREFERABLY BETTER OFF THAN THEY WERE PRE-TREATMENT
Figuring out the delivery system
More figuring out delivery system
TESTING IT IN ANIMAL MODELS
MORE TESTING
YET MORE TESTING
getting permission for clinical trials
DOING SAID TRIALS (which is hella important)
MAKING SURE THE DRUG DOES A GOOD THING DURING THE TRIAL
~THERAPEUTIC~
This process takes a lot of time and by a lot I mean on average of 12 years.
tl;dr:
Cure in a petri dish vs cure in a human being DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT THINGS: http://xkcd.com/1217/
Science takes a long ass time
Science literacy is important.
There is no science dust. I am sorry.

Mneme this is excellent and very very true but as someone who is in the biotech industry, a couple of things:
Say you have a drug, and it shows promise! All of your animal models look good, you’ve figured out your delivery system (which takes forever and a day) and you’ve been given approval to go ahead for clinical trials. Then there are three different phases of clinical trials, and your drug can fail out of any one of them at any time - you have to make sure that your drug doesn’t harm people, and then you have to make sure that your drug actually does what it’s supposed to do. Here’s where it gets tricky - most of the time, it doesn’t. Or it does, but the results from the drug trial group aren’t measurably better than the results from the placebo group. Or it does, but that’s actually as a side effect of doing something completely different. Or it doesn’t work, but oh hey it appears to have this interesting other effect that we didn’t know about - let’s go and get approval for more clinical trials because you can’t use the data from these clinical trials to market the drug for the new thing it does because you weren’t testing for that.
Only 1 in 5,000 - 10,000 compounds ever reaches the market  And if by some chance your drug or treatment is one of the lucky ones, there’s the possibility that you’ll have to perform post-marketing studies.
If you’d like more information, there’s a chart here that lists the different stages of drug development, as well as an average of what they cost, about how long they typically take, and what the odds of success are for each stage. There’s another article here that explains it in greater detail.

accidentallymelted:

mnemehoshiko:

whyvoneenee:

did-you-kno:

Scientists have found a way to “switch off” autoimmune diseases by converting cells that attack healthy tissue into cells that protect against disease. This incredible breakthrough has the potential to save the lives of millions of people. Source

But can we put it into practice though?

Every 2 months I see an article blow up about a possible cure for cancer or AIDS or something else catastrophic, and then it goes nowhere. What gives?

DISCLAIMER: I am a computational scientist! I don’t do bench work (anymore) BUT I do have approximate knowledge of various bio topics.

This is problem whenever you see “X CURES CANCER/AIDS/OTHER DISEASE OF CHOICE” it’s usually

  1. Written by a science journalist who really needed a snappy headline or
  2. Some journalist jumping the gun and failing to acknowledge the nuances of what was written in the actually paper

and in both cases they either fail to acknowledge the how much it takes to create a useable treatment and/or therapy and/or drug or COMPLETELY MISREADS WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED IN THE EXPERIMENT (I’ve seen this way too many times it’s ridic).

SADLY, the road from bench discovery to WORKABLE THERAPEUTIC

is not

  • DISCOVERY!!
  • SPRINKLE SCIENCE DUST!! 
  • ~THERAPEUTIC~

It’s more like (and someone who actually works in this arena PLEASE CHIME IN)

  • Discovery!
  • Verification of discovery
  • More verification.
  • Determining whether it’s generalizable
  • Realizing you want the patient to be alive after treatment and oh PREFERABLY BETTER OFF THAN THEY WERE PRE-TREATMENT
  • Figuring out the delivery system
  • More figuring out delivery system
  • TESTING IT IN ANIMAL MODELS
  • MORE TESTING
  • YET MORE TESTING
  • getting permission for clinical trials
  • DOING SAID TRIALS (which is hella important)
  • MAKING SURE THE DRUG DOES A GOOD THING DURING THE TRIAL
  • ~THERAPEUTIC~

This process takes a lot of time and by a lot I mean on average of 12 years.

tl;dr:

  1. Cure in a petri dish vs cure in a human being DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT THINGS: http://xkcd.com/1217/
  2. Science takes a long ass time
  3. Science literacy is important.
  4. There is no science dust. I am sorry.

Mneme this is excellent and very very true but as someone who is in the biotech industry, a couple of things:

Say you have a drug, and it shows promise! All of your animal models look good, you’ve figured out your delivery system (which takes forever and a day) and you’ve been given approval to go ahead for clinical trials. Then there are three different phases of clinical trials, and your drug can fail out of any one of them at any time - you have to make sure that your drug doesn’t harm people, and then you have to make sure that your drug actually does what it’s supposed to do. Here’s where it gets tricky - most of the time, it doesn’t. Or it does, but the results from the drug trial group aren’t measurably better than the results from the placebo group. Or it does, but that’s actually as a side effect of doing something completely different. Or it doesn’t work, but oh hey it appears to have this interesting other effect that we didn’t know about - let’s go and get approval for more clinical trials because you can’t use the data from these clinical trials to market the drug for the new thing it does because you weren’t testing for that.

Only 1 in 5,000 - 10,000 compounds ever reaches the market  And if by some chance your drug or treatment is one of the lucky ones, there’s the possibility that you’ll have to perform post-marketing studies.

If you’d like more information, there’s a chart here that lists the different stages of drug development, as well as an average of what they cost, about how long they typically take, and what the odds of success are for each stage. There’s another article here that explains it in greater detail.

jessehimself:

Do not test Reza Aslan.

We must train and retain our ability to listen and process critically.

13,475 notes   •   September 30 2014, 09:11 PM   •   VIA   •   SOURCE

hallovvwvvwvvwvvwvvween:

pr0fessah:

unpopular opinion

i hate these cookies

image

Go fuck yourself, you piece of shit. You’re the reason society is crumbling. In 20 years, New York is going to be a pile of ash and dust because people like you exist. This is why I fucking hate tubmlr.

I mean op has a point. Those cookies are nasty.

lotsaboutlyn:

mnemehoshiko:

lotsaboutlyn:

mnemehoshiko:

whyvoneenee:

did-you-kno:

Scientists have found a way to “switch off” autoimmune diseases by converting cells that attack healthy tissue into cells that protect against disease. This incredible breakthrough has the potential to save the lives of millions of people. Source

But can we put it into practice though?Every 2 months I see an article blow up about a possible cure for cancer or AIDS or something else catastrophic, and then it goes nowhere. What gives?

DISCLAIMER: I am a computational scientist! I don’t do bench work (anymore) BUT I do have approximate knowledge of various bio topics.
This is problem whenever you see “X CURES CANCER/AIDS/OTHER DISEASE OF CHOICE” it’s usually
Written by a science journalist who really needed a snappy headline or
Some journalist jumping the gun and failing to acknowledge the nuances of what was written in the actually paper
and in both cases they either fail to acknowledge the how much it takes to create a useable treatment and/or therapy and/or drug or COMPLETELY MISREADS WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED IN THE EXPERIMENT (I’ve seen this way too many times it’s ridic).
SADLY, the road from bench discovery to WORKABLE THERAPEUTIC
is not
DISCOVERY!!
SPRINKLE SCIENCE DUST!! 
~THERAPEUTIC~
It’s more like (and someone who actually works in this arena PLEASE CHIME IN)
Discovery!
Verification of discovery
More verification.
Determining whether it’s generalizable
Realizing you want the patient to be alive after treatment and oh PREFERABLY BETTER OFF THAN THEY WERE PRE-TREATMENT
Figuring out the delivery system
More figuring out delivery system
TESTING IT IN ANIMAL MODELS
MORE TESTING
YET MORE TESTING
getting permission for clinical trials
DOING SAID TRIALS (which is hella important)
MAKING SURE THE DRUG DOES A GOOD THING DURING THE TRIAL
~THERAPEUTIC~
This process takes a lot of time and by a lot I mean on average of 12 years.
tl;dr:
Cure in a petri dish vs cure in a human being DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT THINGS: http://xkcd.com/1217/
Science takes a long ass time
Science literacy is important.
There is no science dust. I am sorry.


You forgot the patents? How science and pharmacies/corporation have patented single SPLICES of DNA this if the product even works it has to be on a strand of DNA that isn’t owned OR you have to pay millions upon millions of dollars to even test the the one strand and hope that it works. Because capitalism !

…..*sigh*Splicing is an action. There are no “single splices” of DNA. Splice variants, yes. Splices of DNA, no.Furthermore, as of last year, the supreme court made it illegal to patent naturally occurring DNA…so like…yeah…

Huh! I learned something new.  Had no clue The Supreme Court did that. My teacher made us watch a genome project video and it was drilled into us that it was still legal. That’s good news. Thanks for being kind about it.

Not a problem! Like there will probably be attempts but at this time it’s not a huge factor in the drug development process/therapeutics development?

lotsaboutlyn:

mnemehoshiko:

lotsaboutlyn:

mnemehoshiko:

whyvoneenee:

did-you-kno:

Scientists have found a way to “switch off” autoimmune diseases by converting cells that attack healthy tissue into cells that protect against disease. This incredible breakthrough has the potential to save the lives of millions of people. Source

But can we put it into practice though?

Every 2 months I see an article blow up about a possible cure for cancer or AIDS or something else catastrophic, and then it goes nowhere. What gives?

DISCLAIMER: I am a computational scientist! I don’t do bench work (anymore) BUT I do have approximate knowledge of various bio topics.

This is problem whenever you see “X CURES CANCER/AIDS/OTHER DISEASE OF CHOICE” it’s usually

  1. Written by a science journalist who really needed a snappy headline or
  2. Some journalist jumping the gun and failing to acknowledge the nuances of what was written in the actually paper

and in both cases they either fail to acknowledge the how much it takes to create a useable treatment and/or therapy and/or drug or COMPLETELY MISREADS WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED IN THE EXPERIMENT (I’ve seen this way too many times it’s ridic).

SADLY, the road from bench discovery to WORKABLE THERAPEUTIC

is not

  • DISCOVERY!!
  • SPRINKLE SCIENCE DUST!! 
  • ~THERAPEUTIC~

It’s more like (and someone who actually works in this arena PLEASE CHIME IN)

  • Discovery!
  • Verification of discovery
  • More verification.
  • Determining whether it’s generalizable
  • Realizing you want the patient to be alive after treatment and oh PREFERABLY BETTER OFF THAN THEY WERE PRE-TREATMENT
  • Figuring out the delivery system
  • More figuring out delivery system
  • TESTING IT IN ANIMAL MODELS
  • MORE TESTING
  • YET MORE TESTING
  • getting permission for clinical trials
  • DOING SAID TRIALS (which is hella important)
  • MAKING SURE THE DRUG DOES A GOOD THING DURING THE TRIAL
  • ~THERAPEUTIC~

This process takes a lot of time and by a lot I mean on average of 12 years.

tl;dr:

  1. Cure in a petri dish vs cure in a human being DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT THINGS: http://xkcd.com/1217/
  2. Science takes a long ass time
  3. Science literacy is important.
  4. There is no science dust. I am sorry.

You forgot the patents? How science and pharmacies/corporation have patented single SPLICES of DNA this if the product even works it has to be on a strand of DNA that isn’t owned OR you have to pay millions upon millions of dollars to even test the the one strand and hope that it works. Because capitalism !

…..*sigh*
Splicing is an action. There are no “single splices” of DNA. Splice variants, yes. Splices of DNA, no.
Furthermore, as of last year, the supreme court made it illegal to patent naturally occurring DNA…so like…yeah…

Huh! I learned something new. Had no clue The Supreme Court did that. My teacher made us watch a genome project video and it was drilled into us that it was still legal. That’s good news.
Thanks for being kind about it.

Not a problem! Like there will probably be attempts but at this time it’s not a huge factor in the drug development process/therapeutics development?

4,673 notes   •   September 30 2014, 07:57 PM   •   VIA   •   SOURCE
#SCIENCE