12 Matching Annotations
  1. Last 7 days
    1. Dr. Sheehy anecdotally explained his case to Mr. Bonzell, relating how [Howard] Hughes in the early 1960’s claimed the invention of the “ruby laser”, when factually the United States Army at Picatinny Arsenal built the first such device in 1958. The negligence of not seeking a patent for the invention cost the Department of Defense dearly.

      On 15DEC17, Dr. James Sheehy, Chief Technology Officer for the Naval Aviation Enterprise, wrote a letter to Phillip J. Bonzell, Primary Patent Examiner of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, requesting immediate action concerning a denied patent application by a certain Dr. Salvatore Cezar Pais, an aerospace engineer at Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division. Dr. Sheehy anecdotally explained his case to Mr. Bonzell, relating how [Howard] Hughes in the early 1960’s claimed the invention of the “ruby laser”, when factually the United States Army at Picatinny Arsenal built the first such device in 1958. The negligence of not seeking a patent for the invention cost the Department of Defense dearly.

      The letter concludes with the marginally cloaked implication of United States’ National Security being severely jeopardized by the then current application’s rejection. Dr. Sheehy supported his position stating: ”Based on these initial findings [Dr. Pais’ supporting feasibility experiments] I would assert this will become a reality. China is already investing significantly in this area and I would prefer we hold the patent as opposed to paying forever more to use this revolutionary technology…”

      U. S. Patent Application 15/141,270 (PAX205)/B64G1/409 Unconventional spacecraft propulsion systems Patent Number 10,144,532, Granted 4DEC18, Adjusted Expiration 28SEP36

      What can we learn from this? 1) The history of the Ruby Laser needs to be rewritten, wikipedia and anything about the laser does not acknowledge what is being claimed here.

      2) The Navy has to use an example from 1958/1960 to avoid any issue but still make the point... "just like this other time we didn't patent what we built and therefor it was a mistake... we should patent this new technology... that we haven't made... but in case we did make it like the Ruby Laser, then let's patent it.

  2. Dec 2021
  3. Sep 2021
    1. Lee, J. W., Su, Y., Baloni, P., Chen, D., Pavlovitch-Bedzyk, A. J., Yuan, D., Duvvuri, V. R., Ng, R. H., Choi, J., Xie, J., Zhang, R., Murray, K., Kornilov, S., Smith, B., Magis, A. T., Hoon, D. S. B., Hadlock, J. J., Goldman, J. D., Price, N. D., … Heath, J. R. (2021). Integrated analysis of plasma and single immune cells uncovers metabolic changes in individuals with COVID-19. Nature Biotechnology, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-021-01020-4

  4. May 2021
    1. Larger, blinded, randomized control trials are still ongoing to confirm the efficacy of CP treatment, the RECOVERY trial in Oxford is one such Phase 3 trial of CP (NCT04381936).

      The RECOVERY trial in Oxford, with 5795 patients who were randomly allocated to receive convalescent plasma treatment and 5763 who received usual care alone, found that there was no statistically significant difference for 28-day mortality (24% for both groups, p-0.93) or the proportion of patients discharged from hospital within 28 days (66% CP vs 67% control, p=0.50) for the two groups. Additonally for patients without mechanical ventilation, there was no stastically significant difference in the intubation rate (28% CP vs 29% control, p=0.79).

      https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.03.09.21252736

      The trial showed convalescent plasma therapy had no benefit to patients with COVID-19. As a result the UK's health service has stopped collecting convalescent plasma from patients who had recovered from COVID-19.

      https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55681051

      Additonally the NIH have halted a convalescent plasma trial for COVID-19 patients with mild symptoms stating that the "study shows that the treatment is safe, but provides no signifcant benefit in this group".

      https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-halts-trial-covid-19-convalescent-plasma-emergency-department-patients-mild-symptoms

  5. Mar 2021
  6. Dec 2020
    1. Emily. J. Miller. - FDA {@FDASpox} (2020) Convalescent plasma has shown to be beneficial for 35% of patients. This risk reduction figure - shown in chart below - is from @MayoClinic data from expanded access program that was analyzed by FDAA for the emergency use authorization announced today. Twitter. Retrieved from: https://twitter.com/FDASpox/status/1297706985039835136

  7. Sep 2020
  8. Aug 2020
  9. Jul 2020
  10. Jun 2020
    1. Robbiani, D. F., Gaebler, C., Muecksch, F., Lorenzi, J. C. C., Wang, Z., Cho, A., Agudelo, M., Barnes, C. O., Gazumyan, A., Finkin, S., Hagglof, T., Oliveira, T. Y., Viant, C., Hurley, A., Hoffmann, H.-H., Millard, K. G., Kost, R. G., Cipolla, M., Gordon, K., … Nussenzweig, M. C. (2020). Convergent Antibody Responses to SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Convalescent Individuals [Preprint]. Immunology. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.05.13.092619