Ralph D. Turner, DBA, MSHA, MPA, FACHE’s Post

My journey with an elevated Lp(a) is featured here:

Strong and powerful results…..

🚨Bispecific Therapies at AACR🚨 We saw a total of 167 bispecific-related abstracts presented at AACR this year, 20 clinical and 147 preclinical. This represents an 18% increase from last year, reflecting the spike we are seeing within the bispecific space. 82% of the Bispecific drug landscape is now targeting cancer indications! I have picked some interesting preclinical data to share... ▶ Crossbow Therapeutics' CBX-250 was found to elicit strong T-cell activation and T-cell anti-tumour activity in humanized xenograft tumour mouse models. ▶ KYinno biotechnology presented data from KA-3001 that effectively suppresses the growth of 22Rv1 tumours in t mouse tumour models and ahs a half-life of more than 5 days in Balb/c mice. ▶ Must Bio MB5029 showed 100% complete regression at the dose of 5 mg/kg or higher in the MC38 tumour model. 👉 Take a look at the report here:

When using non-invasive continuous blood pressure monitoring, you can reduce IOH by 90%

Dear all, this is my first post ever. We will share it with all of you on the usual multimedia channels and our webpage It has a personal component as well as background of the company I founded back in 2014 in California: HFM - Hybrid Fusion Medicals which has also developed two products against Chronic Covid - PTX111 and SB1 coming to the market now. The personal issues first: I had two very severe accidents in May 23 and another one in October 23. I was in hospitals and had to undergo surgery. In addition, my brain was injured as well and I had to stop working altogether and undergoing also for some period rehabilitation. That’s why we have been delayed to bring out the products earlier. Fortunately, the teams of HFM have continued to work on efficiently their own and we are now finally launching both products against Chronic Covid. Now to the facts and news for you: All of our products are very different from what exists. Our target is always that our products are best and first in class. Unless we have solid reason to believe that we will be able to achieve this, we even don’t start with a development program. Both of our anti-Covid drugs are very unique and are based on what we call Humanized Fusion Molecules. This means that those substances contained in our products have been used in the human evolution in different forms for thousands of years in various traditional medical systems primarily in periods of high civilization in different continents. This means a very large body of data based on medical history as well as more than thousand publications on the different aspects of the drugs- pre-clinically as well as clinically in a broad range of indications. This goes far beyond Covid, both acute and chronic. Production is ongoing and in fact geared up as fast as we can because we expect very substantial demand and ordering. Please refer to the specific guidelines how to order and all related issues on our website: hybridfusionmedicals.com - How to order: Hybrid Fusion Medicals  We also do have other late-stage clinical drugs in the field of Chronic Hepatitis B, Lymphedema (swelling of the arm after surgery and radiation in cancer) primarily in breast cancer as well as products against diseases of the Central Nervous System like Parkinson's and Alzheimer's. We could finalize also the submission with health authorities in the US (FDA) and Europe (EMA) for market authorizations in most of our key markets including Switzerland and India. This is a major milestone for us being a small company, but now with a global reach out. We are excited that we now can serve patients with Chronic Covid, adults as well as children and adolescent- which is very important to us. We expect the drug PTX to have also efficacy comparable to vaccines. This is why we call them also VLPs (Vaccine Like Pharmaceuticals). However, this remains to be validated in clinical trials. Read continuation tomorrow...

Interesting discussion. Let me know your thoughts...

🎧 Board Member and Vice Chair of Muscular Dystrophy Ireland, Patrick Flanagan speaking to RTE Drivetime April 4th 2024 following the launch of our #InclusivePathways report which highlights the experiences of students with neuromuscular conditions and underscores the pressing need for enhanced accessibility in third level institutions The report highlights a number of accessibility issues that people with neuromuscular conditions have encounterted in their experiences with third level education. These issues include physical limitations but also extend to societal attitudes and systemic barriers. https://lnkd.in/dw9_Fdq4

The cost of cancer care is a topic at the center of a national discourse on fiscal responsibility and resource allocation. According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, national health expenditures as a percentage of the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) totaled 5% in 1965, but are expected to total 20% of GDP by the middle of this decade [1]. Although spending on cancer care comprises only 5% of the overall health care budget [2], these costs continue to rise at a pace more rapid than any other area of health care [3]. National cancer expenditures are projected to increase from $125 billion in 2010 to $173 billion in 2020 [4]. As an increasing number of expensive targeted therapies are adopted as standards of care, the average cost of treating common cancers is rising rapidly, with drugs accounting for approximately 40% of the overall cost of cancer care [1]. Another area of increasing costs is the use of diagnostic imaging. Significant annual increases in imaging have occurred across all major cancer types, and imaging costs have been rising at a faster rate than average total costs of care [5]. As a sequela of these rising expenditures, patients are shouldering an increasing proportion of the health care cost burden, often placing them under significant financial stress. Treatment-related costs have been shown to significantly increase financial burden among underinsured patients [6]. As we struggle to control rising national cancer expenditures, oncology providers are forced to examine practice patterns and their contributions to the overall health care cost burden. In 2010, Dr. Howard Brody presented a challenge to the leaders of all medical subspecialties to devise “top five” lists of costly treatments or diagnostics that lack the evidence base to support common use [7]. In response, the American Board of Internal Medicine has promoted the Choosing Wisely campaign, encouraging physicians to choose tests and treatments that are grounded in a solid evidence base. The American Society for Clinical Oncology, along with many other specialty societies, responded to the challenge and identified the top five areas for change in current oncology practice (Table 1) [8].

Smart and very innovative approach to fight cancer solid tumors.

The cost of cancer care is a topic at the center of a national discourse on fiscal responsibility and resource allocation. According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, national health expenditures as a percentage of the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) totaled 5% in 1965, but are expected to total 20% of GDP by the middle of this decade [1]. Although spending on cancer care comprises only 5% of the overall health care budget [2], these costs continue to rise at a pace more rapid than any other area of health care [3]. National cancer expenditures are projected to increase from $125 billion in 2010 to $173 billion in 2020 [4]. As an increasing number of expensive targeted therapies are adopted as standards of care, the average cost of treating common cancers is rising rapidly, with drugs accounting for approximately 40% of the overall cost of cancer care [1]. Another area of increasing costs is the use of diagnostic imaging. Significant annual increases in imaging have occurred across all major cancer types, and imaging costs have been rising at a faster rate than average total costs of care [5]. As a sequela of these rising expenditures, patients are shouldering an increasing proportion of the health care cost burden, often placing them under significant financial stress. Treatment-related costs have been shown to significantly increase financial burden among underinsured patients [6]. As we struggle to control rising national cancer expenditures, oncology providers are forced to examine practice patterns and their contributions to the overall health care cost burden. In 2010, Dr. Howard Brody presented a challenge to the leaders of all medical subspecialties to devise “top five” lists of costly treatments or diagnostics that lack the evidence base to support common use [7]. In response, the American Board of Internal Medicine has promoted the Choosing Wisely campaign, encouraging physicians to choose tests and treatments that are grounded in a solid evidence base. The American Society for Clinical Oncology, along with many other specialty societies, responded to the challenge and identified the top five areas for change in current oncology practice (Table 1) [8].