Elvira,

Did you do any research on this issue before posting your article, or did you just go with whatever "60 Minutes" thought you should know? If you take even the briefest of looks at the issue, you'll see that there are several companies working to come up with new treatments for radiation sickness.

The main competitors right now are Hollis-Eden, Amgen, and Akorn.

Hollis-Eden, the company which was the focus of the "60 Minutes" piece, seems to have a promising drug, but, as CNN has reported:

"The company has completed testing in 200 rhesus monkeys for treatment of radiation contamination, which showed an average mortality rate of 12 percent with Neumune, compared to 32 percent without, according to chief executive officer Richard Hollis. Neumune has not yet been submitted to the Food and Drug Administration, but it would not need FDA approval to fill a government contract for Bioshield."

So, as you can see, Bush's "political appointee" is just trying to be both cautious with a new and untested drug as well as responsible in how he spends taxpayer dollars.

Seems a lot less irresponsible and much more reasonable to do it this way, don't you think?

David

David:

I have a long-ish reply to your comment--will return in awhile. Thanks!

Sounds fine. Here are a couple of additional tidbits that underscore what I said in my previous comment:

"The Pentagon decided the drug was in a class by itself and stated in a letter to 60 Minutes: "NEUMUNE ... seems to be the most efficacious, least toxic and most comprehensive in its effects.'"

Please note in this comment that the Pentagon used the phrase "seems to be" in referring to the effectiveness of the drug. Without human testing, how can we possibly know? Please note also that the Pentagon mentions Neumune as "the least toxic." What the hell do they mean by that?!

Now, here is a comment by Marsella regarding the decision to purchase only 100,000 doses of their new anti-radition drug:

"'They're supposed to create a market, not a starting point,' says Marsella. 'If they were going to buy tanks for the military would they just buy one tank, or would they buy 100 tanks? And I think that the contractor would have a hard time spending all the money and research and not have a guarantee that they're going to buy more than one tank.'"

I'm sorry, but it's not the governments job to create a market. That's a ludicrous statement. And, as a matter of fact, there are many defense research companies which understand implicitly that the products they spend billions to develop sometimes do flop. Want to know how many tanks and fighter planes never made it from concept to reality? My wild guess would be somewhere in the neighborhood of thousands.

I imagine that when the first backpack nuke or dirty bomb goes off that will create a market.

Dave

Dave,

I imagine you are right, or at least it will "enhance" the market. But, seeing as I live just about 30 miles outside of DC, if I knew of a reliable treatment for radiation poisoning that could be purchased from, lets say, Rite Aid or Target, I would likely buy it and add it to my home emergency kit.

Dave:

Touche!

David:

Many thanks again for the comments. The fact that several biotech companies are competing for this "contract" did occur to me, of course--and it would be sensible to try to find the best drug for the job.

However, I think it's worth noting again that Simonson is committing to only 100,000 units no matter which company is chosen.

Question is: why 100,000? Who will receive these? What's the plan here? Is there some expectation that we will have "human subjects" to test the drug on if we have a "small-ish" nuclear explosion, and then think we can just order more on the spot if it works?

Perhaps Simonson had some specific rationale for his 100,000 limit, but I am not satisfied with the answers his deputy gave.

Time is also a crucial factor, though of course it would be preferable to go for the very best possible drug. But we're not talking about a cold remedy, so some company will need to start mass producing a drug fairly soon, ideally, in order for it to benefit the largest number of potential victims/"market."

What troubles me (among other things) is the disconnect that seems to exist between Simonson and the Pentagon on this issue. How can one Assistant Secretary have so much power over such a crucial decision? And doesn't he owe us more than some "let them eat cake" edict about hospitals managing a nuclear disaster, which is a terrible joke on the face of it?

As far as our incomplete knowlege of how Neumune would work for humans, I don't see any legal or ethical way to test this unless we wait for potential test subjects to be nuked.

Less toxic--well, cancer drugs are toxic but the cure is hopefully preferable to the disease.

I just don't think Simonson is cut out for the job. He's not qualified. And it's too important a position to be trifled with.

Let me also add that I empatically view this as a non-partisan issue. Nuclear missles care not a whit if you're Republican or Democrat--they will kill all of us in equal measure. Although I am not a big Bush fan, I think his initiative was a great one. I just believe that we should have the best man or woman for the job to oversee and implement this aspect of it.

I also think that in the war on terror, a good defense is as crucial as a good offense. We've been caught with our pants down before as far as disasters both here and abroad. I'd like to think we'd try to learn something from past missteps and be more prepared for any future ones.

If you go to the Armed Force Radiobiological research site you would realize that Hollis did not do the research alone.

Robert:

Thanks for the info. I did go to the link, and something curious happened. The first time I clicked on the research teams link, it took me to a detailed itemized list which included links to Hollis Eden, describing I believe the goals they were working towards in terms of proposal, approval, etc. for this drug.

After following some other links, when I clicked again on the research teams link, I was taken to another short link which did not mention Hollis Eden at all. Try as I might, I could no longer access the original link. Hmmm....maybe my computer is wacked out? Dunno.

In any case, I have no doubt that Hollis Eden is working with the AFRRI on this. Seems perfectly reasonable, and rather promising in terms of eventual approval. Not sure how this addresses the issues above, however.

All I'm "asking" is that this crucial initiative be led and implemented by those best experienced and qualified for doing so. Don't care what political party they are affiliated with. But this is an urgent and essential undertaking. And some transparency within reason would be a nice touch too.

Also took a glance at the Hollis Eden website and saw some interesting links relating to this whole issue as well.

Elvira,

I didn't see the 60 Minute clip, nor am I likely to. I do not have a TV. But the 100,000 units I have an answer for. That is the size of the elite that counts in your country. The rest of you are trash.

The nations that pose a possible nulear threat to your country are Russia, China, North Korea and Iran.

The French have threatened to use nukes if attacked by Iran, the North Koreans will attack us if they get enough money (an American who taught in the DRK who now lives here told us $1 trillion was the asking price). The Syrians have already threatened missile attack on Israel, the Iranians have threatened to attack Israel if attacked...

It's so much fun to read the internet, don't you agree?.

Ruvy is right: they only stock doses for those who count; the rest of us are dirt. Hence, the 100,000 doses: enough for the rich & powerful in the administration & congress, their families, & troops to defend them in their Safe Bastions afterwards against the hoi polloi looking for safety/food/medical treatment/shelter in the wake of such a catastrophe.

Ruvy and Nancy:

Thanks for your comments. I do believe you are right on the money. It is infuriating and tragic that most of us have no clue as to how little this administration really seems to care about its everyday citizens.

"I'm sorry, but it's not the governments job to create a market. That's a ludicrous statement. And, as a matter of fact, there are many defense research companies which understand implicitly that the products they spend billions to develop sometimes do flop. Want to know how many tanks and fighter planes never made it from concept to reality? My wild guess would be somewhere in the neighborhood of thousands."

You know, I have a sneaking suspicion that those defense research companies that spend billions to develop projects that flop do so under government contract. I.e, their time and money spent doing research is at least reimbursable. How about these companies?

Oops! Almost forgot...not only is there a potential radiation sickness treatment not available to the general public, but also a treatment for chemical warfare agents:
RSDL - or reactive skin decontamination lotion.

"RSDL is a liquid broad spectrum Chemical Warfare Agent and vesicating toxin decontaminant invented by the Canadian Defence Research Establishment and licensed to O'Dell Engineering Ltd. It is a bright yellow viscous liquid that is spread onto skin that is suspected of having become exposed to chemical agents or toxins. It destroys these substances and the resulting liquid is non-toxic and can be removed with water. RSDL is a Medical Device in the United States and is registered with the FDA under 510(k) file 023969. "

When you get to the order page:

"RSDL purchase eligibility is limited to U.S. first responder organizations such as fire, police, EMS agencies; haz mat teams; hospitals; and waste contractors with emergency response capabilities. Other may be eligible and will be considered on a case-by-case basis. Eligibility is determined by the U.S. Army. RSDL is not available for purchase by individual consumers."

Maybe this is this way due to exceeding current production capacity...not having enough for military/first responders. But, it would certainly feel better if they at least had a disclaimer that as production is ramped up, the product would be made available to the general public.

Cheers!

P.S. Elvira, I'm looking forward to reading your blog.

TOTK

Otter King:

Many thanks! I'll comment more a bit later.

Otter King:

You said:

"You know, I have a sneaking suspicion that those defense research companies that spend billions to develop projects that flop do so under government contract. I.e, their time and money spent doing research is at least reimbursable. How about these companies?"

Although I have no evidence available to back up your suspicion, it certainly does sound about "right" to me.

Great point about the RSDL as well. Since a topical agent already exists and is probably vastly cheaper to produce (I'm guessing here) than the radiation sickness drug would be to boot, why not make it available in larger quantities, or as you said, provide a disclaimer that it is at least in the planning stages of being mass produced?

It doesn't surprise me that there would be such an elitist mindset to this whole matter--which only makes me feel more hopeless and helpless about the whole scenario. Perhaps I should not watch 60 minutes or CNN or even FOX (yes, I watch FOX too) and try to put it all out of my mind. But the constant barrage of horror in the world has affected my capacity for hope to a certain degree, and resignation has begun to set in in earnest. Sad, or just realistic?

A few thoughts that might assist all of you in looking at this issue.

Topical agents: they won't and can't save you. Radiation kills by attacking the bone marrow. A topical agent cannot protect the bone marrow. This is, in large part, because radiation isn't absorbed by the skin--it penetrates the body. It is also absorbed, for example, by breathing in radioactive particulates--lots of which are created in a nuclear blast.

Testing: Whoever posted this is chasing a red herring. You cannot ethically test a nuclear drug on humans. You can't nuke a human--though a few people come to mind as tempting nuke test subjects--it just isn't ethical. So, whatever drug that will be bought will only be tested in primates--that is, in fact, the FDA rule here. Given that fact, the Hollis Eden drug is the only drug that has proven effective in protecting primates from radiation sickness after exposure to lethal doses of radiation--in other words, among the entire field it is the only drug proven to the maximum extent possible to work--and that includes the drugs of the big pharma competitors.

The Competition: It might be helpful all of you to know why the military believes the HEPH drug is in a class by itself. The competing drugs must be given in hospital settings. Do some research and you will find we have nowhere near the medical surge capacity to treat a few hundred thousand victims in hospitals or clinics or even military medical units. The competing drugs must be given along with platelets. Platelets are in short supply, require special handling, etc. In other words, 60 Minutes was dead right on this. Any drug that requires platelets to also be given is a fool's choice. The competing drugs will cost about $3000 to $5000 per person--and that doesn't include the cost of hospitalization, which will run in the tens of thousands for rad injury. Do the math...10,000,000 (number of people we should be planning on protecting) X $3,000 (cost of competing drugs)...we don't have that sort of money. The Hollis Eden drug is reportedly priced at about the cost of a cheap antibiotic.

The 100,000 Level: The simple answer is it is a "CYA" (cover your ass) level. They will buy enough of something to be able to say they have done something, but not enough to bring scrutiny on it.

Then, they will take huge sums of money and dump it into a federal (NIH) research effort to reinvent what already exists--or, more likely, as with almost all NIH efforts, invent nothing. Private companies produce hundreds of drugs each year, name one drug NIH has produced?

And, while they go off seeking the perfect drug, the terrorists are hard at work trying to obtain and use a nuclear bomb against this nation. (Any doubters read the information on bin Laden and his nuclear fatwa). It typically takes ten years to develop a drug from promising idea to full approaval--and apart from the Hollis Eden drug there isn't a promising idea even in the pipeline. So, who do you think will win the race, the NIH bureacrats or the terrorists?

bullmoosecynic:

Thanks so much for the comment. I'm pretty much with you on most of it, with the following caveats:

I think the reference to topical agents would be more to alleviate the effects of chemical attacks, though how effective that would be I wouldn't venture to guess.

I suspect that what other commenters said about the limited number of doses to be available does coincide with the number of military/political "elite" having access to treatment.

I fear that bureaucracy, dull and "innocuous" as it may sometimes seem, may be the literal death of us all--particularly when combined with indifference and ineptitude.

The real solution is to prevent such devices from getting into our country by land, sea, or air. This we can do by stopping the hopeless (and immoral) effort to force democracy on the Arabs, and use the hundreds of billions thus saved to make this country into an impenetrable fortress. And that means hermetically sealed borders, 100% port security, and an ABM shield to provide protection against incoming ICBMs.

Richard:

Indeed--our borders and ports are not protected sufficiently by any means, and it may well be that the best offense is a good defense.

This is one reason the Dubai port debacle, and Bush's seemingly blase attitude (even after everything that's happened in the past!) sent chills up my spine.

I agree and disagree with the issue of border security.

In fact what we require is a layered approach. The first layer is to reduce the amount of WMD available around the world. The second layer is to secure what is out there, in place. The third layer is to interdict shipments or movements of WMD/nukes if they do get loose--overseas before they hit our borders. The fourth layer is to stop it if it reaches our borders.

I'm a huge supporter of better border security and could go into improvements that should be made at length--I will spare you all that litany.

However, it is plain folly to think we can merely better secure our borders and save ourselves from a nuclear attack. The nation has thousands of miles of land and sea borders, hundreds of ports of entry. Each day tens of thousands of cargo containers enter our nation's ports. Millions of people cross our borders legally and illegaly each year. We cannot possible secure this vast amount of inter-change and exchange. No measure of fences or border guards or vigilantes or detectors alone will ensur eour security. ALong these same lines, the Dubai deal reaction completely missed the real point--and real threats (I'm happy to expand on this thought if any one cares to listen).

As a result, we have no choice other than to prepare for the worst. Failing that we risk losing hundreds of thousands of Americans to an attack who could, and should, be saved. That means the government's failure to deploy these counter-measures borders on criminal negligence.

One last comment--forgot this one--topicals have the same problem with the worst types of chem as with nuclear. Really deadly chem attacks the central nervous system. It is absorbed not just subcu, but also by inhalation, eyes, other mucus membranes. Now with blister agents, a topical might, might help. But I worry less about blister as the really bad chemical weapons.

Bullmoosecynic:

Your points about a multi-layed approach put me in mind of Graham Allison and his excellent book Nuclear Terrorism: the Ultimate Preventable Catastrophe. It is not an easy objective to accomplish, but he feels strongly that it is our only real hope.

I have pretty much resigned myself to the "prepare for the worst" scenario, since though Allison's arguments are cogent and his credentials are extraordinary, I doubt his message will be heeded.

I'd be interested in your view on the Dubai port issue if you'd like to expand on it. Thanks for the great comments.

However, it is plain folly to think we can merely better secure our borders and save ourselves from a nuclear attack. The nation has thousands of miles of land and sea borders

Only true if we take a soft, "humanitarian" approach. What is needed is a fence that doesn't simply discourage you from getting through it, but kills you if you make the attempt. Believe me, if it's set up that way, and people KNOW that it is, nobody WILL get killed, except for those who want to use it as a way to commit suicide!

Richard:

I think one of the gravest concerns is the fact that not only are our ports not secure enough, but that it would take an extraordinary effort to keep smaller devices/components from getting through. I don't think it's possible to inspect every single container that enters our borders, but something clearly has to be done over and above what is being done now.

I don't think it's possible to inspect every single container that enters our borders,

We need to stop importing stuff. America is perfectly capable of producing everthing it needs. International trade has become dangerous to our health - not just because nuclear and bio shit can get through, but because it leads to even MORE dangerous things, like entangling alliances such as the WTO, CAFTA, etc., which threaten to bring us under the domination of international regulatory bodies that will replace our Common Law traditions (everything not explicitly forbidden is permitted) with alien Napoleanic Law (everything not explicitly permitted is forbidden).

Do we really want to go down the ideological and economic toilet with the rest of the world, just so we can have a few exotic luxury items from abroad? We could recover from a WMD terrorist attack - which would probably finally provide the motivation to solve the problem of Islamic terrorism once and for all, and which would likely have less impact than a killer hurricane. But we could not recover from a voluntary suicidal surrender of our sovereignty to the envious, parasitic forces of globalization.

Richard:

Interesting viewpoint--but I don't think it's possible that our country will stop importing from abroad, do you?

Richard's Closed Borders Idea: Actually, the United States cannot supply for ourselves everything we need. And, I'm not talking just luxuries. For example, we lack adequate oil supplies. We lack adequate refined oil products, such as jet fuel. We would be hard pressed to defend ourselves if our jets lacked fuel. (I agree we need to be much less oil dependent, but that is not happening over night.) There are scores of things we need from abroad. I understand Richard's frustration, however, if we want to maintain the nation as it is--a technological leader, etc,--we need to engage. Plus, if we don't engage, how will we build the allies we need to protect ourselves before the terrorists reach our shores and borders?

From the age of sailing ships on, no nation has ever succeeded in fully isolating itself from the world. Many nations have suffered greatly though from their efforts at such isolationism.

Closed Borders II: I think Richard's point that no one will try to get in with such a fence--save the suicidal ones--mistakes the jihadist's pysche. These terrorists have no hesitancy in dying--in fact they want to be martyrs. They will try and try, deaths or not, until they determine how to penetrate the fence. The risk of death is not a deterent when your enemy embaces death as salvation or rapture.

Closed Borders III: Even with such a fence, assuming it was both feasible and that the American people would allow it, people will still enter our nation. We aren't about to block every English family member from visting. Nor are we going to stop every legal immigrant from going back to Mexico, or anywhere else for a visit. Even if it was just such a limited flow of traffic, we couldn't guarantee border security.

Dubai:
1. Ownership is an amorphous concept. If the CEO of a company incorporated and HQ'd in America is of foreign nationality, is the company American? How about the reverse? What about a company like Siemens: major US employer (more US employees than all but a few "US" companies), huge investments in the US, pays lots of US taxes, and the US company is under no foreign control (seperate leadership, seperate board, etc.). Siemens-USA is, however, part of a larger company on the balance sheets that is German HQ'd. Is Siemens-USA a US or German company? What abut a company where 51 percent is owned by a mix of shareholders in the US, but 49 percent is owned by one foreign shareholder (who has effective voting control)? Who makes these calls? By what standards?

2. Who owns a US port is focusing on the wrong end of the supply chain--the stuff is already here by then. We need to worry about what is loaded into the supply chain over there, by who, when and how..before it reaches our shores.

3. We focus on ownership and not on the fact that all our port facilities, no matter who owns them, are inadequately secured. I'm worried about security across the board.

4. Focusing on Dubai takes too much heat off the US Government. Our US Coast Guard is tasked with protecting the waters of our ports. The Coast Guard's force structure hasn't changed much since 9-11--in fact it hasn't changed much since Korea or WWII. The USCG fleet is older than the Algerian Navy--a known naval powerhouse.

5. Once we have squared all these other huge flaws away then we should, rightly focus on whether a Dubai state-owned company--given its record on terror etc.--ought to be owning six key US ports. However, lets start at the top of the list, with the biggest risks first.

Cheers

bullmoose:

Many thanks again for your well thought out, comprehensive comments.