All posts by medical

Human Behavior

Starting Line On Hiatus As We Consider Future – iowastartingline.com

As youve probably noticed, Iowa Starting Line has been rather quiet lately. Ive decided to stop publishing for the time being as I consider significant changes to our operation or whether to continue on at all.

In reality, this hiatus began at the start of December, its just taken me this long to finally write the official post about it. I had intended to only take a personal break for a couple of days, but ended up crashing so hard that Ive barely been able to string together a few sentences for weeks. Working 60 to 80-hour weeks for the past six years straight with practically no breaks probably contributed to that.

This decision is for two reasons, both related to the 2020 election.

The first is financial. While weve had considerable success in building up a news outlet from scratch and expanding it significantly in the past two years, our funding situation is always fluid and comes from different sources each year.

With Democrats getting blown out in Iowa yet again this November, Im concerned about how much left-leaning money will be coming into Iowa in the immediate future. Starting Line was able to expand how it did in part thanks to interest in the Iowa Caucus race and competitive 2020 general election campaigns, along with the advertising revenue that came with those.

If the general mood is that people believe Iowa to be a red-leaning, non-competitive state, getting investments here for the broader progressive infrastructure gets more difficult. I actually think that our race for governor will be very close, but it will probably be early to mid-2022 when some polls come out showing that, and national folks will then engage here in a big way again. My concern for Starting Line is getting through 2021.

As such, if we do continue publishing at Starting Line, the staff will unfortunately be reduced to just myself going forward, though I hope to add back on as things improve. Still, its a very frustrating decision to make, as I very much wanted to keep longterm, permanent positions intact after expanding.

The second reason is with the disappointment in how those November elections turned out not so much that Republicans swept nearly every contested race, but how and why it happened.

Theres three major issues that made this election so particularly demoralizing.

Since 2010, Iowa has experienced four Republican wave years (2010, 2014, 2016 and 2020), one good Democratic year (2018) and one relatively neutral year (2012). This has become an exhausting phenomenon to live through, where it seems that everything gets decided by the national mood or larger factors far outside the control of any person or campaign or issue. So you end up with good public servants that just get wiped out regardless (thats not to say there havent been many bad campaigns run in Iowa there most certainly have its just that the good ones lose too). And then you have total idiots unfit for office elevated by blind party voting.

These wave years have essentially made everything that happens on the ground seem that much less important, including good journalism, which is my next point.

Iowa handled the coronavirus pandemic in 2020 worse than nearly any other government in the entire world, resulting in thousands of unnecessary deaths. And at every step along the way, Iowas press corp held Gov. Kim Reynolds and other leaders feet to the fire, asking tough questions and exposing ways in which the state was covering up the extent of the outbreak and failing to contain it.

And it feels like none of it mattered. Iowans continued to engage in reckless behavior that resulted in killing their neighbors or themselves. And Reynolds and her fellow Republicans were rewarded for their ineptitude we found and heard stories of many first-time voters who came out to support the GOP ticket as a backlash to how they felt COVID changed their lives (despite living in a state with some of the weakest restrictions).

I do want to be clear: I dont think the worth of a Brianne Pfannenstiel or Dave Price or Tony Leys or Kate Payne article rests on whether it costs Republicans votes. Nor does a good piece of journalisms impact need to have anything to do with an election good policy decisions or consequences from reporting can happen regardless of whos in power.

But good lord, youd think Iowas disastrous experience with COVID (or, you know, everything else) would have at least given Iowa voters second thoughts about delivering a massive political win to the party in charge of this mess. It would have been one thing if Joni Ernst and Iowa House Republicans had just barely hung on, where you could attribute the narrow victory to other issues. But Ernsts comfortable victory and Republicans upsets to improve their House majority were striking given the environment they ran in.

There are many, many reasons as to why journalisms impact was limited, all of which we wont even begin to get into here, but the bottom line is this: good journalism should hold the powerful accountable, but it should do so in reality, not just theory. And if voters arent listening to it, then what are we doing here?

When Reynolds held her first press conference after the election, I sat down ready to type up something on it. But as I looked around on Twitter, I noticed how everyone was reporting on her latest COVID briefing in the exact same manner they had before the election. There were the same righteous outrage takes, the same in-depth informative posts on the numbers. We just had an election where voters said resoundingly we dont care to Iowas COVID disaster, and no one was trying to present that information in a different way.

In fairness, there hadnt been much time for reflection yet, but as the weeks drew on, I mostly saw a similar lack of introspection on the political front.

The way Democratic campaigns are run in this state is not working. The longterm infrastructure here is lacking. And many of the suggestions of how to do things differently are the same things Ive heard after 2010, 2014, 2016

So many of the post-2020 takes boiled down to this simply proves what Ive said all along. Others are in denial that anything needs to change (in part because it would mean theyd need to) and are dismissing the election results as solely due to it being a bad year.

I am deeply skeptical that the Democratic campaigns run in 2022 (or the broader party/progressive infrastructure) will look much different from 2020.

So, what to do? I see a couple of different options of what Starting Line and I could do in the future and would be happy to hear your feedback on it. It may be another month or two until we get started back up, as if we do keep going, I would actually like to put deep thought into how we can do things better.

Heres some possibilities:

In some ways, I just want to be done with politics. Ive been involved here in Iowa for nearly 18 years, and I feel like Ive more than done my part. Starting Line has been exhausting, sometimes unrewarding work, and the amount of toxicity you have to put up with in Iowa politics increases every year. It might be nice to have a job with normal hours and reasonable pay for once.

Meanwhile, everything in the U.S. feels like its on a continual downward slide that nothing is going to reverse. And if were really in a lol nothing mattes world, then whats the point of spending all this energy in a broken political system when facts simply dont matter?

And the most depressing aspect is this: if youve followed my work over the years, you know I like to highlight younger political leaders. Regardless of their backgrounds or ideological stances, its good to have fresh eyes and new ways of thinking in politics. But lately, I see some of Iowas up-and-coming leaders making the exact same mistakes their older predecessors did.

Of course, we have built up something important and rather influential here at Starting Line. Making a complete break with it might be good for the mental health, but theres a lot of potential still here. And I unfortunately think that operations like Starting Line could be a big part of the solution to todays news/disinformation problem in politics.

We have quite the property here with Starting Line. I try (and often fail) to explain this to Iowa donors, but Starting Lines influence and national reach with our social media feeds and behind-the-scenes relationships is immense. Nearly every national political reporter follows us. Any time I see an interesting tweet from a national policy leader, elected official, well-known activist or opinion writer, I find that theyre already following us.

For any national news outlet or organization who wanted to make a big jump into Iowa political reporting, purchasing the Starting Line outlet or doing a partnership with us could make a lot of sense.

Like it or not, Iowa always finds its way into the middle of national politics. The Republican presidential primary will likely still start here regardless of what happens with Democrats caucus. The campaigns for the Senate seat and governorship here in 2022 will be important. Starting Line could retain its left-leaning bent or just go straight analytical as it covers all of this for a larger organization.

While Im extremely frustrated by 2020 and the lack of change afterwards in everything, Im also hesitant to just throw out our current model. Ive always tried to keep our focus narrow with Starting Line so that we could be really good at one thing this wasnt ever supposed to revolutionize journalism as we know it or single-handedly change Iowa politics. And we have really excelled at what we do go back and check our accomplishments post in case you missed it.

But if were only playing a role in a larger broken political system, how effective is it? A big part of our success is in influencing the broader Iowa politics conversation and how the media covers certain topics, but if voters arent paying attention to those outlets, what can we accomplish?

Still, I also wonder if this could end up as a situation of you dont know what youve got til its gone if we move away from this model. This past year, Republicans did a far better job at pushing their oppo research on Democrats out to friendly outlets like the Free Beacon, Breitbart, Daily Caller, Fox News and even the Epoch Times. They produced countless stories damaging to Iowa candidates, but it had a limited effect coming from national outlets.

If that continues unchecked, however, we could end up in a situation where right-wing outlets funded by billionaires produce the majority of content on key Iowa races, and that could have a big impact over time.

I also know how to fund this kind of operation, which is extremely cost-efficient for what it produces and accomplishes. If Im feeling more optimistic of where Iowa politics is going in the future, sticking with what were good at (while still constantly working on what we can improve, obviously), might be the smarter thing to do.

One other quick note: if were to continue this, I hope people actually take better advantage of what were producing. Weve written countless stories that you would think campaigns would want to get in front of an audience with digital ads. There are many legislative candidates who weve written up profiles of that would seem to benefit from voters reading them, but instead their Facebook ads are all just replaying their TV ads. I truly dont understand what some Democrats digital teams are thinking if a problem is that there isnt enough news about your candidate, then maybe you should boost the news that is there into peoples social media feeds.

The biggest problem we have right now in American democracy is the spread of misinformation and voters getting trapped in media echo chambers where not only are their views reinforced, they also plain dont hear about a lot of actual news that happens. How many Donald Trump voters will literally never hear of his impeachable phone call to the Georgia Secretary of State from yesterday?

Many in politics do not fully understand the role of what you could call outsider voters, people who are deeply distrustful of the system, dont listen to mainstream news, and who respond strongly to any kind of anti-establishment or anti-expert messaging. Their news comes up in YouTube ads, online forums, and in their social media feed. Those are the kind of people who voted for the first time for Trump and who political ads and factual news articles simply arent getting to.

And its getting easier for people to tune out mainstream news as that news gets harder to access. Newspapers increasingly strict paywalls are dramatically reducing their influence in the world. If the Register has a big investigative report thats a subscriber exclusive that only several tens of thousands of people will read at best, whats its real impact? We know that Reynolds and other Republicans can simply ignore these things when their political base doesnt even know about it or doesnt believe it.

Starting Line does have a very large and rather influential audience, but its largely made up of people already engaged in politics. The most impactful mission we could focus on might be figuring out how to present factual information that is more engaging and trusted by people who are outside the normal political process.

ACRONYM attempted this by establishing local online progressive news outlets and pushing their and others content out through social media ads, which had some fascinating successes and setbacks.

I also have a theory that might be fun to test out: if you make regular news items sound mysterious, they might resonate more with those who distrust the system. I mean, there are legit, real-life, true conspiracies being perpetrated on Iowans all the damn time powerful, wealthy interests working with corrupt or complicit politicians to enrich themselves and screw over working-class people. And yet, the way the news and political campaigns present these facts somehow get dismissed by voters who at the same time believe wild Q-Anon theories about every elected official being involved in a child sex trafficking ring.

Anyway, this approach would require a significant retooling of how we write and who our audience is, which would abandon some of the advantages weve built up over six years. And this idea also veers very close to my concern of trying to do too much can one news outlet with a small or one-person staff fundamentally change how a significant number of Iowans get their news? Im not so sure, but it might be worth it to try.

5. Investigative News

Perhaps what I would personally enjoy most is doing a one-man investigative site, spending days and weeks at a time digging into stories no one else is and uncovering what I can discover. Dont worry about website traffic, just break stories that people cant ignore. Theres many little unsolved threads from Iowas COVID pandemic that we didnt have enough time to chase down even with a full staff.

But, as discussed above, how much impact would it have if so many people can just ignore it or would never see it through our site or even mainstream news outlets? Im also less sure how to fund this approach.

6. YOLO It

I am not happy with how Democratic campaigns are run in this state. I am not happy with how nothing ever changes cycle to cycle.

Throughout this past year, I expressed my concerns and suggestions to friends who work on campaigns privately. Sometimes it has an effect, sometimes it doesnt. My own personal preference is to not put people on public blast on decisions that have already been made, where your criticism isnt going to change anything I personally see that as performative, but to each their own. People also simply cannot handle public constructive criticism in any manner, and I cannot single-handedly change human behavior on that front.

However, the number of bad strategies that get repeated year in and year out is just ridiculous, and I may have finally hit my breaking point. There are many individual bad actors in Iowa politics that need to get called out and see their influence reduced or removed, and I certainly know who those people are.

The problem is, would it actually change anything? The power of self-interest in literally everything is strong, and doing a one-man crusade against it, as good as it may feel to do, could go nowhere. And I certainly dont see other folks making sacrifices, so why should I?

As always, Ill end with a very big thank you to our readers and supporters over the year. Continuing to write and operate just for our many loyal fans is very nearly worth it alone. But we do have some decisions to make.

While we likely wont get back to regular publishing for a month or two (if we do at all), Ill probably write stories every now and then or post some guest pieces. With this overly-long piece out of the way, it may be easier to write up some of the many, many ideas Ive had since the election that I simply havent had the energy to do.

by Pat RynardPosted 1/4/21

Iowa Starting Line is an independently owned progressive news outlet devoted to providing unique, insightful coverage on Iowa news and politics. We need reader support to continue operating please donate here. Follow us onTwitterandFacebookfor more coverage.

Link:
Starting Line On Hiatus As We Consider Future - iowastartingline.com

Human Behavior

FDA Statement on Following the Authorized Dosing Schedules for COVID-19 Vaccines – FDA.gov

For Immediate Release: January 04, 2021 Statement From:

Statement Author

Leadership Role

Commissioner of Food and Drugs - Food and Drug Administration

Leadership Role

Director - Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER)

Two different mRNA vaccines have now shown remarkable effectiveness of about 95% in preventing COVID-19 disease in adults. As the first round of vaccine recipients become eligible to receive their second dose, we want to remind the public about the importance of receiving COVID-19 vaccines according to how theyve been authorized by the FDA in order to safely receive the level of protection observed in the large randomized trials supporting their effectiveness.

We have been following the discussions and news reports about reducing the number of doses, extending the length of time between doses, changing the dose (half-dose), or mixing and matching vaccines in order to immunize more people against COVID-19. These are all reasonable questions to consider and evaluate in clinical trials. However, at this time, suggesting changes to the FDA-authorized dosing or schedules of these vaccines is premature and not rooted solidly in the available evidence. Without appropriate data supporting such changes in vaccine administration, we run a significant risk of placing public health at risk, undermining the historic vaccination efforts to protect the population from COVID-19.

The available data continue to support the use of two specified doses of each authorized vaccine at specified intervals. For the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, the interval is 21 days between the first and second dose. And for the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine, the interval is 28 days between the first and second dose.

What we have seen is that the data in the firms submissions regarding the first dose is commonly being misinterpreted. In the phase 3 trials, 98% of participants in the Pfizer-BioNTech trial and 92% of participants in the Moderna trial received two doses of the vaccine at either a three- or four-week interval, respectively. Those participants who did not receive two vaccine doses at either a three-or four-week interval were generally only followed for a short period of time, such that we cannot conclude anything definitive about the depth or duration of protection after a single dose of vaccine from the single dose percentages reported by the companies.

Using a single dose regimen and/or administering less than the dose studied in the clinical trials without understanding the nature of the depth and duration of protection that it provides is concerning, as there is some indication that the depth of the immune response is associated with the duration of protection provided. If people do not truly know how protective a vaccine is, there is the potential for harm because they may assume that they are fully protected when they are not, and accordingly, alter their behavior to take unnecessary risks.

We know that some of these discussions about changing the dosing schedule or dose are based on a belief that changing the dose or dosing schedule can help get more vaccine to the public faster. However, making such changes that are not supported by adequate scientific evidence may ultimately be counterproductive to public health.

We have committed time and time again to make decisions based on data and science. Until vaccine manufacturers have data and science supporting a change, we continue to strongly recommend that health care providers follow the FDA-authorized dosing schedule for each COVID-19 vaccine.

The FDA, an agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, protects the public health by assuring the safety, effectiveness, and security of human and veterinary drugs, vaccines and other biological products for human use, and medical devices. The agency also is responsible for the safety and security of our nations food supply, cosmetics, dietary supplements, products that give off electronic radiation, and for regulating tobacco products.

###

01/04/2021

Originally posted here:
FDA Statement on Following the Authorized Dosing Schedules for COVID-19 Vaccines - FDA.gov

Human Behavior

Bridge Over Troubled Water: The Evolution of Transitional Lending – Commercial Observer

Like a bridge over troubled water, I will lay me down.

Paul Simon

Troubled water would be a generous way of describing market conditions in 2020.

As the clock struck midnight on New Years Eve 2019, we all raised a glass to what looked like a great year ahead. The bull market stampeded on, and nobody could quite pinpoint the red flag that would eventually make it veer off course, or as we soon learned impale us.

But, by late March, the coronavirus had brought the commercial real estate industry to a screeching halt, and the bridge lending sector went from a crowded party that would never fly under social distancing rules to a scene fit for blowing tumbleweeds. After all, lending on stabilized, cash-flowing assets was scary enough, let alone properties that were in transition and had a distinct element of hairiness to them.

The shutdown arrived swiftly. I thought it was too quick at the time, but I was wrong, Seth Grossman, a senior managing director at Meridian Capital Group, said. I wasnt a believer that the whole world would shut down drastically, but a lot of lenders rightfully hit the brakes.

For some who retrenched, their sources of secondary financing (or leverage) had become volatile overnight, or dried up completely. The collateralized loan obligation (CLO) market which several bridge lenders funneled loans into had dissipated, and warehouse lines were abruptly cut off. Margin calls rang out, some more publicly than others.

Beyond the fact that some [lenders] were too levered and with the wrong leverage was the fact that they had huge hotel exposure, Josh Zegen, a co-founder of Madison Realty Capital, said. The average debt fund or mortgage REIT probably had 15 to 30 percent of exposure to hotel lending. I think thats one of the things that really hurt a number of the marquee names that were very active a year ago.

Now that were 10 months into the pandemic, a combination of factors is affecting lenders activity on any given day, Grossman said: You can have a ripple of good or bad news in the secondary markets, and that can cause lenders to tighten or widen based on where they think theyre going to get their leverage from, or the CLO execution. You can also have a scenario where nothing changes in the secondary markets, but a lender has a handful of loans with more tenant defaults for the underlying assets, so they tighten the credit screws.

The current ebbing and flowing of willing financiers in the bridge lending space marks a period of choppy waters to be navigated before a return to smoother sailing, poetically mirroring the participants lending niche.

In the meantime, COVID-19 has altered the very nature of bridge lending as we know it.

Its going to be a lot more complex going forward, Jonathan Roth, co-founder of 3650 REIT, said. Over the past 10 years, you could buy a building as an operator, sandblast the wood beams and, all of a sudden, youve created creative office space and can increase the rents. Thats over for a while. Now, youre going to have to take that shuttered JCPenney box and turn it into something completely different.

Roth noted that the essence of bridge lending has always been taking a, say, 60 percent leased asset, doing a short-term loan, and getting its occupancy up to 85 or 90 percent. Post-COVID,that property is empty and a borrower has to figure out the higher and better use for it, he said. The lender to that situation is somebody who understands every moving part. Its a firm that understands construction and really technical lease negotiations. Its not for everybody, and I think the pool of lenders will get smaller and smaller.

Building a Bigger Bridge

A full cycle of evolution has occurred within the bridge space since the global financial crisis (GFC), and its once again figuring out its next iteration.

For Mark Fogel, co-founder of ACRES Capital, this period is reminiscent of when he started bridge lending 20 years ago. People are trying to figure out their way, he said. In 2000, we were also feeling our way around how bridge programs were going to work on a go-forward basis. It felt the same way in 2010. So, it seems like every 10 years we go through this to figure out how the space works, and reinvent it in a way that makes better sense.

While bridge loans existed prior to the GFC, their evolution proved especially important in the years following it, as regulators tightened the reins on banks lending activities and a new breed of lenders alternative lenders or debt funds found their footing in filling the void.

Other lenders with a taste for risk, and yield, soon caught on and the draw to the bridge space continued to build to a crescendo point. Just prior to the coronavirus hitting the reset button, new entrants piled into the space seemingly every week, and the reward for the risk associated with transitional lending was diminished.

Since [the pandemic hit], youve seen many groups that were in the market take a step back and groups that had taken steps back coming forward, and now, new groups entering, Grossman said. Were in a very interesting time that I think is going to be the next phase of the alternative lending market.

ACORE Capital is one firm thats continued to lend on bridge opportunities consistently throughout the pandemic.

The exodus of other bridge lenders leaves a hole for the likes of us who really dont have any material problems in our portfolio of roughly 200 loans totaling approximately $16 billion, Boyd Fellows, a founder and managing partner of ACORE, said. It leaves us in a pretty unique spot right now, because we have plenty of dry powder to selectively deploy with materially reduced competiion. Were not overwhelmed with problems, and we have a large asset management team in place already.

Indeed, ACORE has roughly 30 people focused on asset management today. Before the pandemic, we used to think, Wow, weve really built out one hell of a big asset management team, Fellows said. Now were saying, It was really smart we built out this very large asset management team.

And until the bridge lending sector figures out how the leading indicators relate to changes in human behavior and the impact on commercial real estate, tempered liquidity is to be expected, Warren de Haan, also a managing partner and co-founder of ACORE Capital, said.

If youve got an office building thats in West Hollywood and its fully leased to Netflix, its going to get bid extremely strongly by a handful of bridge lenders at very tight pricing, and its going to feel like pre-COVID, de Haan said. But, as you drift further out into deeper renovations and so on, theres a much thinner bidding list.

The OGs

While even some of the most well-established lenders pulled back on credit metrics and dipped out for periods during the pandemic, many have been a steady hand throughout it, Meridian Capitals Grossman said. Its been more difficult for some of the public vehicles because theyre at the whim of the stock market. But, generally speaking, several of the stronger, established lenders have been the most consistent.

Prior to the pandemic hitting, you just had so many different names out there, Zegen said. And unfortunately, brokers or borrowers were willing to take a chance on the new kid in town. But the question is, can that new kid provide what the people that have been in the business a long time provide? And do they have the experience, the track record through up- and down-cycles and the ability to fund construction loans without using leverage? One trend Im seeing in this cycle is a lot of lenders not meeting their commitments.

Emerald Creek Capital not a new kid has been bridge lending since its formation in 2009. Banks were pulling back massively in 2008 through 2010, Mark Bahiri, Emerald Creek co-founder and managing partner, said of his initial draw to the bridge space. My partner and I thought it was a great idea to start a business at the bottom [of the market], as theres only up from there. We were looking to capitalize on the pullback and fill that void.

As the cycle progressed, Bahiri watched the influx of competition and capital into the bridge space. But since COVID hit, much of that competition has dispersed.

Mainly, the less-established lenders; the pass-the-hat, participant-type lenders, whose investors decided to stay on the sidelines while the pandemic played out, Bahiri said. The more-established institutional lenders have continued their presence in the space. Having committed discretionary capital through a global crisis is certainly a benefit.

The weeding out of weaker firms is a healthy thing for the market, Bahiri said. After all, the cutthroat bridge lending environment pre-pandemic was the reason some established lenders chose to step back.

In the pre-COVID times, we were only lending on situations with existing customers that had familiarity with us, Jason Baker, an executive vice president at Pacific Western Bank, said. If there was a situation where it was just a broadly-marketed deal via brokers, and they were going to get 15 quotes from various lenders, we were never going to be the most-attractive quote in that matrix, from a pure cost-of-capital perspective.

Baker made his first bridge loan in 2005, while at Fremont Investment & Loan.

The real difference is there were fewer participants in the space and higher leverage then, so you could do a bridge loan at, say, 80 percent of cost, whereas today, a bridge loan that we might consider doing is going to be 60, 65 or maybe 70 percent in some situations. Theres a more appropriate level of leverage today.

While Pacific Western remains an active bridge lender today, its turned its attention to construction lending, an area in which it has significant expertise and where the competition has truly thinned post-COVID.

Because of mortgage REITs obligations to fund and capitalize forward commitments, theyre staying away from construction, ACOREs de Haan said. We are running towards it. And because were a true one-stop-shop, weve been very successful at doing a lot of what we view as great risk-adjusted-return construction transactions, because the field is very thin.

Roth said 3650 is experiencing a similar trend. Our life got a little easier, by virtue of the fact that, a number of our competitors, most of whom use leverage, are having a much more difficult time getting inexpensive leverage today, he said.

Construction bridge lending is part of the sectors evolution. ACRES Capitals Fogel started making bridge loans when he was with Arbor Realty Trust: short-term, value-add loans that would go into Fannie Mae permanent financing within a year. It wasnt stretching into what we do here at ACRES, where its ground-up construction, or renovation or adaptive reuse. It was a much simpler bridge lending program, Fogel recalled.

Theres another paradigm shift underway currently, and bridge lending will likely come out of the pandemic looking quite different again, Grossman said: My guess is, its all for the better. The smart lenders are going to survive, and grow, and figure out ways to make more money. The groups that probably shouldnt be playing in the sandbox may realize this when things dont go as planned.

Crossing the Bridge

With vaccines in circulation, and a light at the end of the tunnel that doesnt appear to be a high-speed train, lenders are returning to the market, slowly but not consistently.

As a result, it no longer makes sense to only go to three of four prospective lenders when seeking financing, Grossman said: You now have to go pretty wide, not collecting 50 bids, but going wide enough to make sure you know whos lending and on what. A lender that may have been interested in a deal literally two months ago may have hit pause again. And conversely, lenders that were out of the market for two, six or nine months on any given date can be back in the market.

Consequently, the time to get a loan signed up and to receive quotes is significantly longer than its ever been in Grossmans 15-plus years in the business.

And, a few new faces are stepping in.

Theres an opportunity to enter now that probably didnt exist pre-pandemic, Grossman said. And theres been a greater influx of 7 to 12 percent lenders, than 4 to 6 percent lenders.

Youre seeing more new entrants proportionally in the quote-unquote hard money space, because theres more yield there, theres more opportunity there, and theres more investors scrambling to get tougher deals done, Grossman said. Lenders want to get paid for it.

But, new players shouldnt take an overly simplistic view of transitional lending, Pacific Westerns Baker said: They may think, Ground-up construction is very complicated, and I, as a new lender, dont have the expertise to figure that out. But, I can wrap my mind around taking an existing office building and repurposing it for multifamily, because Im using the existing structure, and so, theres a lot less risk. But, the reality is there are a lot of risks and pitfalls that lenders can quickly find themselves in.

Plus, new firms tackling complex loans during a global pandemic may not exactly be a match made in heaven. As such, Grossman is avoiding groups he doesnt think are able to see deals through to the finish line.

You never want to deal with somebody whos loan-to-own, and you never want to deal with somebody whos not equipped to deal with potential changes in a transaction or structural issues that come up down the road, he said. There are definitely some groups out there that see this [market dislocation] simply as a yield arbitrage and want to take advantage of high rates. Those are probably the groups that are going to shake out and have some trouble.

Bridge Ahead

For now, lenders are approaching new opportunities with caution. ACRES is taking on top sponsors with the best of business plans in the best of locations. Whereas, pre-COVID, we were probably stretching a little bit into markets and with sponsors that we didnt necessarily feel great about, Fogel said.

ACORE has made tweaks, too.

The deals that were doing now are probably 5 to 10 percentage points lower LTV than what they were pre-COVID, and pricing is probably, from a spread perspective, out 100 to 150 basis points, de Haan said.

For 3650 REIT, every asset stands on its own, Roth said. Whether were in an up cycle or down cycle, our first level of inquiry is on the sponsor; are they credible, do they know what theyre doing, do they have the capital? If we check that box, then we look at the real estate. As a lender, our job is to identify, quantify, and mitigate risk. We go through the same level of inquiry and due diligence that we always have.

Madison Realty Capital continues to invest in all real estate asset classes, but is more skewed towards multifamily and industrial. The firm is also taking on some higher value-add construction completion financing.

A lot of lenders are purely originators of loans, Zegen said. Weve been able to make loans, buy loans and re-work loans [during COVID]. You need as many tools as possible, because in times like these, nothing is as straightforward as when things are rosy. Our experience in going through a financial crisis like 2008 has given us an advantage.

One silver lining of the crisis, Fogel said, is that bridge deals that traditionally would go to bank lenders are funneling through to the active debt funds. Declining to name the property, he spoke of a financing opportunity on an iconic Manhattan building, where the sponsor is looking to do a gut renovation.

Its the kind of deal that never, ever would have come our way, or the way of any other lenders like us. It would have gone right to a bank, Fogel said. But the banks, especially when it comes to Manhattan, are sitting on the sidelines, not doing anything especially when it comes to office.

Fogel expects a leveling of the playing field when normalcy returns. I think its going to come back faster than it did in 2010, he said. There was a lot more at issue back then, and the real estate fundamentals werent great. The fundamentals in real estate were very good pre-COVID and I think will bounce back to what they were very quickly.

Until then, Roth will continue on.

Ive always done well as an investor and as a lender in going into areas where people are running the other way, he said. But, Im a big believer in fundamentals. If something fundamentally works, you can find that value proposition, regardless of whats going on in the rest of the world. Somebody much smarter than me once said, There are no bad assets, just bad pricing. And its really true.

See original here:
Bridge Over Troubled Water: The Evolution of Transitional Lending - Commercial Observer

Embryology

Fertility Treatment and IVF in Czech Republic During the Coronavirus Pandemic – Prague Morning

Fertility problems are common; one in six heterosexual couples worldwide experiences some form of infertility problem at least once. The Czech Republic is a desirable destination for all methods of IVF treatments.

The average cost in Czech Republic for IVF is between 2,700 and 5,700, with donors eggs between 4,500 and 8,000. In comparison, the price of IVF in the UK can hit a maximum of 10,000 and 14,000 respectively.

Czech IVF clinics are also amongst the best in Europe in terms of success rates. According to a 2014 report from the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE), the average birth rate for IVF using the patients own eggs was around 33 per cent for those under 35 years old, 25.4 per cent for patients aged 35-39 and 13.2 per cent for patients over 40.

The average birth rate for IVF treatment with donor eggs was higher, at 46.8% for all age groups. As well as the traditional IVF, theres also the option to pursue social freezing, a relatively new treatment designed to freeze eggs or sperm at the peak of your fertility.

After collection, the gametes are cryopreserved until the owner is ready to start a family. Its possible to do this for years.

The Human assisted reproduction legislation in Czech Republic is one of the most liberal ones in Europe, perhaps worldwide.

The Czech law allows for properly tested people to donate their gametes. So, from anonymous reproductive cells donation programs to advanced genetic testing, couples that have depleted every treatment possibility at home can find adequate help at centres like PFC, Prague Fertility Centre, a well-known private clinic based in Vysocany, founded 11 years ago by Dr. Sonja Lazarovska, a gynaecologist and Dr. Daniel Hlinka, an embryologist; esteemed specialists who have both made significant contributions to the field.

We have seen the market evolve for the past 25 years. We are opening a completely new floor with modern facilities and state of the art Lab in 2021. We will offer better comfort and privacy to our patients, as well as increased treatment capacity. We will be able to help twice as many couples as we do todaysaid Dr. Hlinka.

Coronavirus related restrictions have changed the way that fertility treatments are carried out. But they are still safe to do. Prague Fertility Centre has adapted to the situation by offering online consultations, which as well as talking through treatment options, provides information for donors and guidance for women self-injecting hormones at home in preparation for egg collection and fertilisation.

This process, known as hormonal stimulation, is a key part of IVF, and so women are encouraged to self-isolate when doing so, as planning a pregnancy, even when doing so naturally, already means taking extra preventive measures to avoid getting the virus.

The ever-changing Coronavirus situation has led us to require a negative covid test before starting any treatment, this is in the best interest of our patients, a healthy pregnancy, and of course, of our staff. We would like to assure all our patients that there is no evidence about IVF increasing the risk of infection. With regards to Covid-safe facilities, PFC has upped the intensity of our usual cleaning regime, implemented mask-wearing, hand sanitising, and temperature checks at reception, said Dr. Lazarovska.

We have also increased the number of online consultations to reduce the number of people visiting us. Since we opened the Centre, online consultations have always saved our patients travel time and expenses, while still provided all the necessary medical help, she adds.

When Coronavirus first hit, a lot of people felt it was not the right time to start a family, but as the world seems to have learned to live with the virus, people have decided not to postpone their family plans any longer. Meanwhile, our single clients have decided to freeze their eggs or sperm while they are healthy and fertile.ExplainedDr. Svabikova,the Centres Senior IVF physician, dedicated to helping German and English speaking patients.

When asked about Brexit and how it would affect the travel of UK citizens for IVF treatment after January 1st, 2021,Dr. Svabikovacommented: We dont foresee any complications. Except for queuing in a separate lane at border control, all our British patients will continue to receive treatment like before.

As Im guided around the PFC clinic, Im shown the rooms where the coordinators speak to their patients in one of 12 different languages. I walk past the doors to the sperm collection rooms, the egg retrieval facility and the labs where fertilisation begins.

An estimated 9 million babies have been born through in-vitro fertilization (IVF) since 1978, and the popularity of the treatment shows no sign of slowing down.

So while fertility treatments are closed off to many, a couple struggling to start a family will find endless commitment and support at PFC We will not make false promises, but we will fully commit, from day one, to help all our patients achieve a healthy babysaid Dr. Svabikova.

Read more here:
Fertility Treatment and IVF in Czech Republic During the Coronavirus Pandemic - Prague Morning

Embryology

Saviour siblings: the role of the welfare principle within the law of assisted reproductive technology in England and Wales (Part 1) – Family Law

Madeleine Whelan, Fourteen

In this article, Madeleine Whelan examines and explains the law governing the use of assisted reproductive technology to create children in England & Wales contained within the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. The article looks at this law within the context of 'saviour siblings', that is, a child born to provide an organ or cell transplant to a sibling who is affected by a (usually) life-threatening disease. Madeleine explores whether the existing law of childrens welfare, particularly the paramountcy principle, is appropriate for the law governing the creation (rather than continued existence) of children and how it fits in to the broader context of English law concerning the creation of children. The article looks at studies undertaken of saviour siblings and the potential impact the use of this technology may have on them and asks how the law in this area can justify a relational rather than paramountcy approach.

The full article will be published in the January issue ofFamily Law.

Find out moreorrequest a free 1-week trialofFamily Law journal. Please quote: 100482.

See the original post here:
Saviour siblings: the role of the welfare principle within the law of assisted reproductive technology in England and Wales (Part 1) - Family Law

Cell Biology

RNA molecules are masters of their own destiny – MIT News

At any given moment in the human body, in about 30 trillion cells, DNA is being read into molecules of messenger RNA, the intermediary step between DNA and proteins, in a process called transcription.

Scientists have a pretty good idea of how transcription gets started: Proteins called RNA polymerases are recruited to specific regions of the DNA molecules and begin skimming their way down the strand, synthesizing mRNA molecules as they go. But part of this process is less-well understood: How does the cell know when to stop transcribing?

Now, new work from the labs of Richard Young, Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research member and MIT professor of biology, and Arup K. Chakraborty, professor of chemical engineering, physics, and chemistry at MIT, suggests that RNA molecules themselves are responsible for regulating their formation through a feedback loop. Too few RNA molecules, and the cell initiates transcription to create more. Then, at a certain threshold, too many RNA molecules cause transcription to draw to a halt.

The research, published in Cell on Dec. 16, 2020, represents a collaboration between biologists and physicists, and provides some insight into the potential roles of the thousands of RNAs that are not translated into any proteins, called noncoding RNAs, which are common in mammals and have mystified scientists for decades.

A question of condensates

Previous work in Youngs lab has focused on transcriptional condensates, small cellular droplets that bring together the molecules needed to transcribe DNA to RNA. Scientists in the lab discovered the transcriptional droplets in 2018, noticing that they typically formed when transcription began and dissolved a few seconds or minutes later, when the process was finished.

The researchers wondered if the force that governed the dissolution of the transcriptional condensates could be related to the chemical properties of the RNA they produced specifically, its highly negative charge. If this were the case, it would be the latest example of cellular processes being regulated via a feedback mechanism an elegant, efficient system used in the cell to control biological functions such as red blood cell production and DNA repair.

As an initial test, the researchers used an in vitro experiment to test whether the amount of RNA had an effect on condensate formation. They found that within the range of physiological levels observed in cells, low levels of RNA encouraged droplet formation and high levels of RNA discouraged it.

Thinking outside the biology box

With these results in mind, Young lab postdocs and co-first authors Ozgur Oksuz and Jon Henninger teamed up with physicist and co-first author Krishna Shrinivas, a graduate student in Arup Chakrabortys lab, to investigate what physical forces were at play.

Shrinivas proposed that the team build a computational model to study the physical and chemical interactions between actively transcribed RNA and condensates formed by transcriptional proteins. The goal of the model was not to simply reproduce existing results, but to create a platform with which to test a variety of situations.

The way most people study these kinds of problems is to take mixtures of molecules in a test tube, shake it and see what happens, Shrinivas says. That is as far away from what happens in a cell as one can imagine. Our thought was, Can we try to study this problem in its biological context, which is this out-of-equilibrium, complex process?

Studying the problem from a physics perspective allowed the researchers to take a step back from traditional biology methods. As a biologist, it's difficult to come up with new hypotheses, new approaches to understanding how things work from available data, Henninger says. You can do screens, you can identify new players, new proteins, new RNAs that may be involved in a process, but you're still limited by our classical understanding of how all these things interact. Whereas when talking with a physicist, you're in this theoretical space extending beyond what the data can currently give you. Physicists love to think about how something would behave, given certain parameters.

Once the model was complete, the researchers could ask it questions about situations that may arise in cells for instance, what happens to condensates when RNAs of different lengths are produced at different rates as time ensues? and then follow it up with an experiment at the lab bench. We ended up with a very nice convergence of model and experiment, Henninger says. To me, it's like the model helps distill the simplest features of this type of system, and then you can do more predictive experiments in cells to see if it fits that model.

The charge is in charge

Through a series of modeling and experiments at the lab bench, the researchers were able to confirm their hypothesis that the effect of RNA on transcription is due to RNAs molecules highly negative charge. Furthermore, it was predicted that initial low levels of RNA enhance and subsequent higher levels dissolve condensates formed by transcriptional proteins. Because the charge is carried by the RNAs phosphate backbone, the effective charge of a given RNA molecule is directly proportional to its length.

In order to test this finding in a living cell, the researchers engineered mouse embryonic stem cells to have glowing condensates, then treated them with a chemical to disrupt the elongation phase of transcription. Consistent with the models predictions, the resulting dearth of condensate-dissolving RNA molecules increased the size and lifetime of condensates in the cell. Conversely, when the researchers engineered cells to induce the production of extra RNAs, transcriptional condensates at these sites dissolved. These results highlight the importance of understanding how non-equilibrium feedback mechanisms regulate the functions of the biomolecular condensates present in cells, says Chakraborty.

Confirmation of this feedback mechanism might help answer a longstanding mystery of the mammalian genome: the purpose of non-coding RNAs, which make up a large portion of genetic material. While we know a lot about how proteins work, there are tens of thousands of noncoding RNA species, and we dont know the functions of most of these molecules, says Young. The finding that RNA molecules can regulate transcriptional condensates makes us wonder if many of the noncoding species just function locally to tune gene expression throughout the genome. Then this giant mystery of what all these RNAs do has a potential solution.

The researchers are optimistic that understanding this new role for RNA in the cell could inform therapies for a wide range of diseases. Some diseases are actually caused by increased or decreased expression of a single gene, says Oksuz, a co-first author. We now know that if you modulate the levels of RNA, you have a predictable effect on condensates. So you could hypothetically tune up or down the expression of a disease gene to restore the expression and possibly restore the phenotype that you want, in order to treat a disease.

Young adds that a deeper understanding of RNA behavior could inform therapeutics more generally. In the past 10 years, a variety of drugs have been developed that directly target RNA successfully. RNA is an important target, Young says. Understanding mechanistically how RNA molecules regulate gene expression bridges the gap between gene dysregulation in disease and new therapeutic approaches that target RNA.

More:
RNA molecules are masters of their own destiny - MIT News

Cell Biology

What are longevity supplements, and are they safe? – MarketWatch

Aches and pains. A growing waistline. Diminishing eyesight, hearing loss, memory lapses. These are the woes of growing older for some people, once considered inevitable. But recent, exciting discoveries in the fast-growing field of longevity science have some doctors and researchers pronouncing that these symptoms of aging may one day be treatable with pharmaceuticals, gene therapies or other yet-to-be-discovered medical technologies.

Many people havent been content to wait, though. Dozens of commercial producers are selling hundreds of so-called longevity supplements right now, and sales data suggest anawful lot of peopleare trying them. But do they work? Are they even safe?

To find out, we scoured the latest research and interviewed two top scientists in the field. What we learned suggests that you may want to hold off on ordering a supply, or at least do your research very carefully.

There is a solid handful of compounds that look very promising in the scientific quest to slow the aging process. One of the most exciting is nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide, or NAD, which has been shown to extend both the lifespans and youthful function of yeast and animals in clinical trials. Human trials are ongoing, with only a handful published to date.

NAD (also often written as NAD+) is a substance found in every cell in your body, which controls all kinds of metabolic processes, including the regulation of sirtuins, the so-called longevity genes. As you age, your NAD+ levels decline, and scientists think it is perhapsthisdecline that leads toall sortsof other age-related declines.

Also read: Should you invest in the new longevity funds?

The working theory, then, is that if we can boost our NAD+ levels as we age, we can slow our decline tremendously. Lab studies on yeast and rodentslend strong supportto that theory. The most recent studies have primarily involved the administration of either nicotinamide riboside (NR) or nicotinamide mononucleotide (NMN), which is then converted into NAD in the body.

To learn more about NAD, Next Avenue talked to Dr. Shin-Ichiro Imai, professor of developmental biology at the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis. Along with Leonard Guarente, Imai discovered the link between NAD and sirtuin control in 1999. Hes been studying the molecule ever since.

There have been 10 human clinical trials using NR, most at very high dose, with no safety issues, Imai said. Most of those trials, however, lasted for a duration of weeks or months at most.

Is it safe to take NAD-boosting supplements continuously, for years?

NMN and NR have already been available in Japan and the U.S. since 2015, and some people have been taking it since then, Imai noted. Anecdotally, I havent heard of any side effects from the taking of these supplements.

Some trials, however, have recorded mild side effects including headaches, nausea, diarrhea and skin flushing.

See: 3 aging experts tell how they decided on where to grow older

More troubling, however, is the conclusion of a 2019 study that showed a possible link between elevated levels of NAD and tumor growth in isolated cells and animals. Rugang Zhang, deputy director at the nonprofit Wistar Institute Cancer Center in Philadelphia, was the lead researcher on that study.The study, published in the UK journal Nature Cell Biology, did not find that NAD causes cancer, rather that elevated levelsappeared to accelerateoncogenesis (tumor formation) already in motion.

We dont want to oversell the results of our study, Zhang said. Lots of studies in the literature have clearly demonstrated that as normal cells age, there is lower NAD. So, supplementing NAD could be beneficial. Its possible that NAD boosters could help people live longer and healthier. Were not saying that if people take NAD boosters they will get cancer. This was a very early study on mouse models, and more study is needed.

He suggests a course of action grounded in a deep preponderance of evidence: At the end of the day, we just need more knowledge, through more research. We need the scientific community to come to a consensus. The risk to potential benefit remains to be seen.

Mucking up the risk/benefit ratio further is the fact that supplements are onlyvery lightly regulatedby the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, with the testing, evaluation and labeling of such products left up to manufacturers. This presents another dilemma for those considering longevity supplements: theres no sure way of knowing exactly what youre getting.

The results of the few published human clinical trials to date unequivocally show that taking NR boosts levels of NAD in the body. But apparently, more NAD doesnt translate to more youthful function.

See: There are six types of retirees which are you?

Unfortunately, those studies have not yet shown any significant efficacy, Imai said.

And thats when the substance administered is of lab-grade purity. So what about the typical supplements available online?

There are so many products out there, Imai lamented, particularly for NMN, but Im concerned about the quality.

Indeed, a 2020meta-analysisof NAD trials surmised: it seems likely that side effects linked to interventions that target NAD metabolism more likely arise from impurities rather than the supplements themselves, since this industry generally operates without rigorous control of quality and standardization.

Imais lab has evaluated a number of commercially available NAD-boosting supplements, but found only two of lab-grade purity. Imai wouldnt disclose the names of the products (both Japanese-made), as he doesnt endorse supplements. But he did note that they are extremely expensive.

Dont miss: What is the secret to aging well?

Finally, we asked someone whod taken an NAD-booster to share her experience. Kim Oberdorfer, an air-traffic controller in Oakland, Calif., wasnt impressed.

I took [a popular NR supplement] for about two months and it just gave me these dull headaches. I was having hot flashes last February, and when I told my sister Im 47, shes 53 about how horrified I was to be having them so young, she goes, Are you sure its not just a reaction to an NAD supplement? said Oberdorfer. At the time I wasnt really working out much, but my sleep schedule was really messed up and I heard it was good for that as well. I didnt think it helped at all.

Rashelle Brownis a longtime fitness professional and freelance writer with hundreds of bylines in print and online. She is a regular contributor for NextAvenue and the Active Network, and is the author of Reboot Your Body: Unlocking the Genetic Secrets to Permanent Weight Loss (Turner Publishing). Connect with her on Twitter and Instagram @RashelleBrownMN.

This article is reprinted by permission fromNextAvenue.org, 2021 Twin Cities Public Television, Inc. All rights reserved.

More from Next Avenue:

More:
What are longevity supplements, and are they safe? - MarketWatch

Cell Biology

Champions Oncology Announces the Expansion of Lumin Bioinformatics: Now Featuring a Highly Valuable Set of Proteomic Data and Analytics – BioSpace

HACKENSACK, NJ / ACCESSWIRE / January 5, 2021 / Champions Oncology, Inc.. (NASDAQ:CSBR), a leading global oncology technology company that is transforming drug discovery and development through data-driven research strategies, announced today the expansion of its SaaS program, Lumin Bioinformatics. Since its launch, Champions has been adding to the data and functionality housed within Lumin, which now features 20,000+ datasets including rare and valuable quantitative phospho-proteomics. To aid in the analysis of this proteomic data, engineers at Champions have also developed a unique and sophisticated set of analysis tools that enable researchers to unlock the power of this proteomic data.

Importantly, each proteomic dataset contained within Lumin has associated data from the matching tumor, including whole exome sequencing, RNA sequencing, clinical and in vivo drug responses, phenotypic evaluations, clinical annotations of the tumor, and much more. Users of Lumin will have the ability to upload their own proteomic datasets and leverage the various tools available for processing and analysis, as well as to use the large proteomic dataset available in Lumin as a reference. This extremely valuable combination of proteomic data, analytics and visualizations will empower scientists to gain a more accurate depiction of tumor cell biology and will provide unparalleled insights into the mechanisms of cellular transformation and therapeutic resistance.

Ronnie Morris, MD, President and CEO, said "The addition of proteomics to Lumin has been an extremely exciting moment for the scientists at Champions. One of the major advantages of our dataset is the depth to which each tumor is characterized. Adding proteomics to this growing dataset will enable scientists to gain a very deep understanding of what is actually happening at the molecular level of a tumor. We will no longer need to rely on the predicted nature of protein expression or intracellular pathway activity from DNA and RNA sequencing, nor we will need to try and predict the subcellular expression level of proteins. We now have this information directly at our fingertips, and we have unleashed the power of this data through Lumin. We are truly excited at how this will transform cancer research moving forward."

"Our Lumin proteomics initiative is a game changer for cancer biologists across the world", said Michael Ritchie, PhD, MBA, Chief Commercial Officer at Champions Oncology. "Aside from the sheer magnitude of the dataset that we have made available, the tools that have been included for analysis make the use of proteomics possible to a very broad audience. Most biologists do not have the background necessary to perform the proteomic pre-processing nor the ability to build analysis tools needed to leverage this truly valuable data, so it is rarely used. Instead, sequencing of DNA and RNA is performed as a surrogate, even though our protein predictions from this data type is often inaccurate. Now that proteomic analyses are accessible with Lumin, we're excited to see researchers use this powerful data on a regular basis."

About Champions OncologyChampions Oncology is a data-driven research organization that leverages an oncology research center of excellence to develop transformative technology and accelerate oncology research and development. This technology ranges from computational-based discovery platforms, unique oncology software solutions, and innovative and proprietary experimental tools such as in vivo, ex vivo and biomarker platforms. For more information, please visit http://www.ChampionsOncology.com.

Media Contact:Rachel Bunting, MS, MBASr. Director, Head of MarketingMarketing@ChampionsOncology.com

WebsiteFacebookLinkedInTwitterInstagram

SOURCE: Champions Oncology

View source version on accesswire.com:https://www.accesswire.com/623033/Champions-Oncology-Announces-the-Expansion-of-Lumin-Bioinformatics-Now-Featuring-a-Highly-Valuable-Set-of-Proteomic-Data-and-Analytics

The rest is here:
Champions Oncology Announces the Expansion of Lumin Bioinformatics: Now Featuring a Highly Valuable Set of Proteomic Data and Analytics - BioSpace

Cell Biology

Your nose knows you have COVID before you do. Is a scratch-and-sniff card the best tool for mass testing? – The Colorado Sun

It may be clich, in this time of heightened stress and frenzy, to remind you to stop and smell the roses. But seriously: Stop. And. Smell. The. Roses. You might find out you have COVID-19.

Anosmia, the loss of your sense of smell, is by now a well-known symptom of a coronavirus infection. Studies have estimated its prevalence among people with COVID-19 at as much as 80%, which would make it as common of a symptom as cough or fever among symptomatic patients.

The latest from the coronavirus outbreak in Colorado:

>> FULL COVERAGE

But unlike those other two symptoms, anosmia also occurs at high rates in people with coronavirus infections that are otherwise asymptomatic. And its also an unusual symptom there arent a lot of other illnesses that cause it. So that makes it more predictive than cough or fever, both of which can be caused by many other kinds of other illnesses.

For all these reasons, two researchers at the University of Colorado and a Yale School of Medicine professor who grew up in Boulder think theyve sniffed out a better way to conduct mass testing for coronavirus infections.

Forget the nose swabs, the temperature guns, the overwhelmed testing labs. What if the solution to conducting a comprehensive surveillance program at places like offices or college campuses was as simple as a stack of 50-cent scratch-and-sniff cards and a phone app?

If youve lost your sense of smell unexpectedly, that should be a signal to make sure the mask is on tight, said Daniel Larremore, a professor at CU who is one of the three researchers.

In a paper posted earlier this month on the preprint server medRxiv, the researchers use a mathematical model to argue that conducting sniff tests three times a week would be as effective in curtailing virus spread as conducting weekly PCR tests. The server has become a common place during the pandemic for scientists to post hot-off-the-workbench studies before they have gone through peer review.

Its not so much that the sniff tests are super-accurate. PCR tests are still considered the gold standard for accuracy in detecting coronavirus infections.

But, when it comes to mass testing, frequency is just as important as accuracy. And PCR tests are cumbersome to administer and analyze. Theyre also costly something that can add up quickly when organizations are trying to conduct testing on a large scale.

Thus, a cheaper and simpler, although less accurate, test that can be conducted more frequently can be just as valuable.

Your lack in accuracy is more than made up in frequency, said Derek Toomre, a professor of cell biology at the Yale School of Medicine who was an author on the study, along with Larremore and CU professor Roy Parker.

And thats how the u-Smell-it test (slogan: Do you smell it?) was born.

The test is part science and part elementary school arts and crafts. It involves a card with five unmarked scratch-and-sniff spots on it as well as a QR code. Test-takers use a smartphone app to scan the QR code. Then they scratch the spots and answer multiple-choice questions in the app about what they smelled mint, vanilla, strawberry or other common scents. Theres also an option to say you smelled nothing.

The whole process takes about 45 seconds, at the end of which the app will tell you if youve passed or failed.

Toomre, who grew up in Boulder and went to CU for undergrad, said a dedicated, blind sniff test for coronavirus has significant advantages over just telling people to mind their nose. The first is that people who are infected often dont realize theyve lost their sense of smell other studies have found around 45% to 50% of people infected with coronavirus report a loss of smell when surveyed, but that number rises to around 80% when people are actually administered a smell test, Larremore said.

And Toomre said its also important for the test to be blind to avoid tricks of the mind. If, for instance, you are used to sticking your nose down into your cup of coffee every morning, your brain might continue smelling that coffee even if your nose cant. So Toomre said, in order for the test to work best, people cant know in advance what they are supposed to be smelling.

Toomre has asked the federal Food and Drug Administration to approve the test, allowing it to be used for coronavirus surveillance testing. Its not meant to be a diagnostic test, Toomre said. People who fail the sniff test should follow up with a PCR test.

But it could be valuable to workplaces or college campuses looking to conduct mass testing programs, and it could also be useful for people to have around the house, especially if they think they might be coming down with other symptoms and want to know if they should go get a PCR test.

This idea, though quirky, is not exclusive to Toomre, Larremore and Parker. Researchers at Penn State University have also explored the idea.

Toomre said hes talking with manufacturers, with the hope of producing hundreds of millions of cards that can be sold for 50 cents or less, assuming it receives federal approval. He said he also plans to donate large numbers of tests to nonprofits.

Its a long way from his pre-pandemic work, which focused on cellular imaging.

I am comfortable being uncomfortable, Toomre said, which I definitely am in this area.

Support local journalism around the state.Become a member of The Colorado Sun today!

The rest is here:
Your nose knows you have COVID before you do. Is a scratch-and-sniff card the best tool for mass testing? - The Colorado Sun

Cell Biology

Bioniz Announces Positive End of Phase 2 Meeting with the FDA for BNZ-1 for the Treatment of Refractory Cutaneous T-Cell Lymphoma – Yahoo Finance

TipRanks

A new year, a new addition to the stock portfolio what can make more sense than that? The right time to buy, of course, is when stocks are priced at the bottom. Buying low and selling high may be a bit hackneyed, but its true, and truth has staying power.But the markets are up. The NASDAQ rose 43% in 2020, and the S&P 500 showed a gain of 16%. With a market environment like that, finding stocks that are caught in the doldrums is harder than it looks. That's where the Wall Street pros can lend a hand.We used TipRanks' database to pinpoint three stocks that fit a profile: a share price that has dropped over 30% in the last 12 months, but with at least double-digit upside potential, according to analysts. Not to mention each has earned a Moderate or Strong Buy consensus rating.Esperion (ESPR)We will start with Esperion, a company that specializes in therapies for the treatment of elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels a major factor contributing to heart disease. The companys main product, bempedoic acid, is now available in tablet form under the brand names Nexletol and Nexlizet.In February 2020, both Nexletol and Nexlizet were approved as oral treatments to lower LDL-C. Bempedoic acid remains in clinical trials of its efficacy in risk reduction for cardiovascular disease. The trial, called CLEAR Outcomes, is a large-scale, long-term study, tracking more than 14,000 patients with top-line data expected in the second half of 2022. The study covers 1,400 locations in 32 countries around the world.Esperion shares peaked last February, after the FDA approvals, but since then, the stock has declined. Shares are down 65% since their peak. Along with the drop in share value, the company showed a fall in revenue from Q2 to Q3, with the top line collapsing from $212 million to $3.8 million. Since the Q3 report, Esperion announced pricing on a $250 million offer of senior subordinated notes, at 4%, due in 2025. The offering gives the company a boost in available capital for further work on its development pipeline and its marketing efforts for bempedoic acid.Chad Messer, covering ESPR for Needham, sees the note offering as a net positive for Esperion. We believe this cash position will be sufficient to support Esperion through 2021 and to profitability in 2022... We believe this financing should help put to rest concerns regarding Esperion's balance sheet. Despite a challenging launch for NEXLETOL and NEXLIZET, product growth has continued in 3Q against the backdrop of a contracting LDL-C market. This growth trajectory suggests potential for a rapid acceleration when conditions improve," Messer wrote.To this end, Messer rates ESPR shares a Strong Buy, and his price target, at $158, suggests the stock has room for huge growth this year up to 481% from current levels. (To watch Messers track record, click here)Overall, Esperion has 6 recent reviews on record, with a breakdown of 5 Buys and 1 Hold to give the stock a Strong Buy rating from the analyst consensus. The shares, trading at $27.16, have an average price target of $63.33, implying a one-year upside of 133%. (See ESPR stock analysis on TipRanks)Intercept Pharma (ICPT)Liver disease is a serious health threat, and Intercept Pharma is focused on developing treatments for some of the more dangerous chronic liver conditions, including nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) and primary biliary cholangitis (PBC). Intercept has a research pipeline based on FXR, a regulator of bile acid pathways in the hepatic system.FXRs action affects not just the bile acid metabolism, but also the glucose and lipid metabolisms, and inflammation and fibrosis around the liver. The lead compound, obeticholic acid (OCA), is an analog of the bile acid CDCA, and as such can take a role in the FXR pathways and receptors implicated in chronic liver disease. Treating liver disease through the FXR biology has direct applications for PBC, and is showing promise treating complications from NASH.ICPT shares dropped sharply last summer, when the FDA rejected the companys application to approve OCA for treatment of NASH-related liver fibrosis. This delays the drugs potential entry to a lucrative market; there is no current treatment for NASH, and the first drug to win approval will have the lead in reaching a market estimated at $2 billion to $5 billion in potential annual sales. The effect on the stock is still felt, and ICPT remains at its 52-week low point.In reaction, in December of 2020, Intercept announced major changes in top-level management, as CEO and President Mark Pruzanski announced he's stepping down effective January 1 of this year. He is succeeded by Jerome Durso, formerly the companys COO, who will also take a post on the Board of Directors. Pruzanski will remain as an advisor, and will hold a directors position on the companys Board.Piper Sandler analyst Yasmeen Rahimi takes a deep dive into Intercepts continuing efforts to expand applications of OCA and to resubmits its New Drug Application to the FDA. She sees the leadership transition as part of these efforts, and writes, [We] believe that Dr. Pruzanski's dedication to transform the liver space is still strong, and that he will continue to guide ICPT's progress as an advisor and Board member. Additionally, we have had the pleasure of working closely with Jerry Durso and believe that he will transform the company and lead ICPT's success in growing the PBC market and the path to potential approval and commercial launch of OCA in NASH.Rahimi takes a long-term bullish stance on ICPT, giving the stock an Overweight (i.e. Buy) rating and an $82 price target. This figure indicates an impressive 220% upside for the next 12 months. (To watch Rahimis track record, click here)Wall Street is somewhat more divided on the drug maker. ICPT's Moderate Buy consensus rating is based on 17 reviews, including 8 Buys and 9 Holds. Shares are priced at $25.82, and the average price target of $59.19 suggests an upside potential of 132% for the next 12 months. (See ICPT stock analysis on TipRanks)Gilead Sciences (GILD)Gilead has had a year like a firework fast up and fast down. The gains came in 1H20, when it appeared that the companys antiviral drug remdesivir would become a prime treatment for COVID-19. By November, however, even though remdesivir had been approved, the World Health Organization (WHO) was recommending against its use, and the COVID vaccines now on the market have made remdesivir irrelevant to the pandemic.This was only one of Gileads recent headwinds. The company has been working, in conjunction with Galapagos (GLPG), on development of filgotinib as a treatment for rheumatoid arthritis. While the drug received EU and Japanese approval in September 2020, the FDA has withheld approval and Gilead announced in December that it was suspending US development efforts on the drug.Even so, Gilead retains a diverse and active research pipeline, with over 70 research candidates at varying stages of the development and approval process for a wide range of diseases and conditions, including HIV/AIDS, inflammatory & respiratory diseases, cardiovascular disease, and hematology/oncology.On a positive note, Gilead posted Q3 earnings above estimates, with the top line revenue, of $6.58 billion, beating the forecast by 6% and growing 17% year-over-year. The company updated its full-year 2020 guidance on product sales from $23 billion to $23.5 billion.Among the bulls is Oppenheimer analyst Hartaj Singh, who gives GILD shares an Outperform (i.e. Buy) rating and $100 price target. Investors stand to pocket a 69% gain should the analysts thesis play out. (To watch Singhs track record, click here)Backing his stance, Singh writes, We continue to believe in our thesis of (1) a dependable remdesivir/other medicines business against SARS-CoV flares, (2) a base business (HIV/oncology/HCV) growing low-single digits over the next couple of years, (3) operating leverage providing greater earnings growth, and (4) a 3-4% dividend yield. What does the rest of the Street think? Looking at the consensus breakdown, opinions from other analysts are more spread out. 10 Buys, 12 Holds and 1 Sell add up to a Moderate Buy consensus. In addition, the $73.94 average price target indicates 25% upside potential from current levels. (See GILD stock analysis on TipRanks)To find good ideas for beaten-down stocks trading at attractive valuations, visit TipRanks Best Stocks to Buy, a newly launched tool that unites all of TipRanks equity insights.Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the featured analysts. The content is intended to be used for informational purposes only. It is very important to do your own analysis before making any investment.

See original here:
Bioniz Announces Positive End of Phase 2 Meeting with the FDA for BNZ-1 for the Treatment of Refractory Cutaneous T-Cell Lymphoma - Yahoo Finance