Anti-Russian rhetoric

[Zhivago]

But you need to know which oxime... don't be so supercilious.

No you don't. If in doubt or you cannot identify the poisoning agent you need to can apply any acetylcholinesterase inhibitor.

Piffle, we all know military personnel were issued with a veritable barrage of auto-injectors and told in the event of a nerve agent attack to first conduct a test on which oxime was needed.

Though more broadly this latest point seems a semantic discussion on treatment Vs antidote, and then I suppose care Vs treatment.

Yulia is recovering, that means that Porton Down knew which oxime countered the Novichok... Which suggests they've experimented with Novichoks.

Keeping samples for defence purposes is allowed under the CWC and does not need to be declared. It would be expected that PD had samples.

[SerjeantWildgoose]

You are nearly right. We are talking about an unknown nerve agent at the time the victims were discovered.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17288500

"As a result, it is important that an oxime is administered as soon after soman exposure as possible so that some reactivation of AChE occurs before all the enzyme becomes aged."

Soman (A known agent) being the presumed worst case, it is entirely appropriate that Porton Down, when appropriately consulted, simply advised the administration of an oxime.

And furthermore, there is nothing new about any of this. The variable efficacy of certain oximes in the treatment of organophosphate (Pesticide) poisonings has provided the foundation of much of our understanding of how to treat emerging chemical weapons technology.

[Zhivago]

You are nearly right. We are talking about an unknown nerve agent at the time the victims were discovered.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17288500

"As a result, it is important that an oxime is administered as soon after soman exposure as possible so that some reactivation of AChE occurs before all the enzyme becomes aged."

Soman (A known agent) being the presumed worst case, it is entirely appropriate that Porton Down, when appropriately consulted, simply advised the administration of an oxime.

It is a question of efficacy, and for the efficacy we've seen, it would need to be specific and rapidly administered before the agent bound to AChE ages...

[Digby]

No you don't. If in doubt or you cannot identify the poisoning agent you need to can apply any acetylcholinesterase inhibitor.

Piffle, we all know military personnel were issued with a veritable barrage of auto-injectors and told in the event of a nerve agent attack to first conduct a test on which oxime was needed.

Though more broadly this latest point seems a semantic discussion on treatment Vs antidote, and then I suppose care Vs treatment.

Yulia is recovering, that means that Porton Down knew which oxime countered the Novichok... Which suggests they've experimented with Novichoks.

Keeping samples for defence purposes is allowed under the CWC and does not need to be declared. It would be expected that PD had samples.

It might mean that, it obviously wouldn't only mean that

[SerjeantWildgoose]

You are nearly right. We are talking about an unknown nerve agent at the time the victims were discovered.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17288500

"As a result, it is important that an oxime is administered as soon after soman exposure as possible so that some reactivation of AChE occurs before all the enzyme becomes aged."

Soman (A known agent) being the presumed worst case, it is entirely appropriate that Porton Down, when appropriately consulted, simply advised the administration of an oxime.

It is a question of efficacy, and for the efficacy we've seen, it would need to be specific and rapidly administered before the agent bound to AChE ages...

From above: The variable efficacy of certain oximes in the treatment of organophosphate (Pesticide) poisonings has provided the foundation of much of our understanding of how to treat emerging chemical weapons technology.

Novichok have been designed to get around detection protocols and inspections. There is nothing new in the way they act when they have been ingested.

[Zhivago]

You are nearly right. We are talking about an unknown nerve agent at the time the victims were discovered.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17288500

"As a result, it is important that an oxime is administered as soon after soman exposure as possible so that some reactivation of AChE occurs before all the enzyme becomes aged."

Soman (A known agent) being the presumed worst case, it is entirely appropriate that Porton Down, when appropriately consulted, simply advised the administration of an oxime.

It is a question of efficacy, and for the efficacy we've seen, it would need to be specific and rapidly administered before the agent bound to AChE ages...

From above: The variable efficacy of certain oximes in the treatment of organophosphate (Pesticide) poisonings has provided the foundation of much of our understanding of how to treat emerging chemical weapons technology.

Novichok have been designed to get around detection protocols and inspections. There is nothing new in the way they act when they have been ingested.

I assume they mean that in the sense that it is still organophosphate poisoning so fundamentally the same treatment. But as I said, the amine group with the extra proton means it is not quite so simple.

[Digby]

Zhiv has seemingly been inspired by Trump's advice that; "When you're already $500 Billion DOWN, you can't lose!"

[Zhivago]

Zhiv has seemingly been inspired by Trump's advice that; "When you're already $500 Billion DOWN, you can't lose!"

The structure of the agent is key to prying it out of AChE. Compounds such as A-232 have a novel structure, so efficacy is highly dependent on which oxime is used.

[Digby]

I've given up reading them, so I'll guess you're saying 'Wibble'

[Donny osmond]

Well the russian scientist who made the things said theres no antidote and they were specifically designed to minimse the efficacy of the usual nerve agent treatments of oxime and atropine.

Yulia is recovering, that means that Porton Down knew which oxime countered the Novichok... Which suggests they've experimented with Novichoks.

Is this supposed to be an objective fact? That a lab dedicated to the study of these things took several hours to suggest a possible remedy is objectively an indication that said lab was *experimenting* with novichoks? That doesn't feel like it's objective. In fact it isnt anything like an objective conclusion. It's a complete non sequiteur, and almost the very opposite of objective.

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

[rowan]

Sacre bleu!

French media reports:

'Scientists have not been able to prove that Russia made the nerve agent used in the spy poisoning. Porton Down lab's chief exec reveals the details in this interview'

http://www.rfi.fr/europe/20180404-skrip ... c?ref=fb_i

[Which Tyler]

Sacre bleu!

French media reports:

'Scientists have not been able to prove that Russia made the nerve agent used in the spy poisoning. Porton Down lab's chief exec reveals the details in this interview'

http://www.rfi.fr/europe/20180404-skrip ... c?ref=fb_i

Hence the last 20-odd posts

[Zhivago]

Well the russian scientist who made the things said theres no antidote and they were specifically designed to minimse the efficacy of the usual nerve agent treatments of oxime and atropine.

If he said that, it must have been in the past cos more recently he is reported as saying the below:
"Chemists synthesizing the agent would have to be working somewhere with an antidote close at hand, he said"
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... ok-chemist

Anyway like I said, the amine group with the extra proton does as you have written - reduces the efficacy of the usual oximes - that's why experimental oximes are needed, which supports my statement about it indicating that they've experimented with Novichoks.

Yulia is recovering, that means that Porton Down knew which oxime countered the Novichok... Which suggests they've experimented with Novichoks.

Is this supposed to be an objective fact? That a lab dedicated to the study of these things took several hours to suggest a possible remedy is objectively an indication that said lab was *experimenting* with novichoks? That doesn't feel like it's objective. In fact it isnt anything like an objective conclusion. It's a complete non sequiteur, and almost the very opposite of objective.

It is a logical conclusion based on objective facts.

Fact a) Novichoks are designed such that conventional oximes are ineffective.
Fact b) Yulia who was poisoned with a Novichok has made a recovery after PD told the hospital which oxime to use.
Fact c) PD is a research institution whose stated aim is to research counters to chemical warfare.

[Donny osmond]

Well the russian scientist who made the things said theres no antidote and they were specifically designed to minimse the efficacy of the usual nerve agent treatments of oxime and atropine.

If he said that, it must have been in the past cos more recently he is reported as saying the below:
"Chemists synthesizing the agent would have to be working somewhere with an antidote close at hand, he said"
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... ok-chemist

Anyway like I said, the amine group with the extra proton does as you have written - reduces the efficacy of the usual oximes - that's why experimental oximes are needed, which supports my statement about it indicating that they've experimented with Novichoks.

Mirzayanov wasn't involved in developing it, he was running counterintelligence around the program. Vladimir Uglev was one of the developers, and has been interviewed here: https://thebell.io/en/the-scientist-who ... ral-kilos/

Yulia is recovering, that means that Porton Down knew which oxime countered the Novichok... Which suggests they've experimented with Novichoks.

Is this supposed to be an objective fact? That a lab dedicated to the study of these things took several hours to suggest a possible remedy is objectively an indication that said lab was *experimenting* with novichoks? That doesn't feel like it's objective. In fact it isnt anything like an objective conclusion. It's a complete non sequiteur, and almost the very opposite of objective.

It is a logical conclusion based on objective facts.

Fact a) Novichoks are designed such that conventional oximes are ineffective.
Fact b) Yulia who was poisoned with a Novichok has made a recovery after PD told the hospital which oxime to use.
Fact c) PD is a research institution whose stated aim is to research counters to chemical warfare.

Ok, if we go with that then whats your problem, if you have one, with PD experimenting with novichoks? All they're doing is developing knowledge of chemical weapons that the russians developed in contravention of the CWC.

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

[Zhivago]

Well the russian scientist who made the things said theres no antidote and they were specifically designed to minimse the efficacy of the usual nerve agent treatments of oxime and atropine.

If he said that, it must have been in the past cos more recently he is reported as saying the below:
"Chemists synthesizing the agent would have to be working somewhere with an antidote close at hand, he said"
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... ok-chemist

Anyway like I said, the amine group with the extra proton does as you have written - reduces the efficacy of the usual oximes - that's why experimental oximes are needed, which supports my statement about it indicating that they've experimented with Novichoks.

Mirzayanov wasn't involved in developing it, he was running counterintelligence around the program. Vladimir Uglev was one of the developers, and has been interviewed here: https://thebell.io/en/the-scientist-who ... ral-kilos/

Is this supposed to be an objective fact? That a lab dedicated to the study of these things took several hours to suggest a possible remedy is objectively an indication that said lab was *experimenting* with novichoks? That doesn't feel like it's objective. In fact it isnt anything like an objective conclusion. It's a complete non sequiteur, and almost the very opposite of objective.

It is a logical conclusion based on objective facts.

Fact a) Novichoks are designed such that conventional oximes are ineffective.
Fact b) Yulia who was poisoned with a Novichok has made a recovery after PD told the hospital which oxime to use.
Fact c) PD is a research institution whose stated aim is to research counters to chemical warfare.

Ok, if we go with that then whats your problem, if you have one, with PD experimenting with novichoks? All they're doing is developing knowledge of chemical weapons that the russians developed in contravention of the CWC.

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

Nothing wrong with PD experimenting with Novichoks, but it does mean that they have the ability to produce them, which means that the government narrative that it could only be produced by Russia a blatant lie.

I'm not trying to show that UK did it or USA or anyone else, just that the UK is lying. That should ring alarm bells.

[Donny osmond]

Why should it? PD doing the job it is supposed to do is proof that the UK govt are lying? This is the very opposite of objective.

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

[Zhivago]

Why should it? PD doing the job it is supposed to do is proof that the UK govt are lying? This is the very opposite of objective.

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

How many times do I have to repeat myself??!

UK government said only Russia can produce it.
You've just agreed that PD has a capacity to produce Novichoks.

Therefore, the gov statement is clearly false - i.e. a lie...

[belgarion]

If he said that, it must have been in the past cos more recently he is reported as saying the below:
"Chemists synthesizing the agent would have to be working somewhere with an antidote close at hand, he said"
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... ok-chemist

Anyway like I said, the amine group with the extra proton does as you have written - reduces the efficacy of the usual oximes - that's why experimental oximes are needed, which supports my statement about it indicating that they've experimented with Novichoks.

Mirzayanov wasn't involved in developing it, he was running counterintelligence around the program. Vladimir Uglev was one of the developers, and has been interviewed here: https://thebell.io/en/the-scientist-who ... ral-kilos/

It is a logical conclusion based on objective facts.

Fact a) Novichoks are designed such that conventional oximes are ineffective.
Fact b) Yulia who was poisoned with a Novichok has made a recovery after PD told the hospital which oxime to use.
Fact c) PD is a research institution whose stated aim is to research counters to chemical warfare.

Ok, if we go with that then whats your problem, if you have one, with PD experimenting with novichoks? All they're doing is developing knowledge of chemical weapons that the russians developed in contravention of the CWC.

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

http://www.rugbyrebels.co/board/viewtop ... ead#unread
Nothing wrong with PD experimenting with Novichoks, but it does mean that they have the ability to produce them, which means that the government narrative that it could only be produced by Russia a blatant lie.

I'm not trying to show that UK did it or USA or anyone else, just that the UK is lying. That should ring alarm bells.

Not necessarily, you can experiment on something but still not know how it was created/formed/produced.

[Zhivago]

Mirzayanov wasn't involved in developing it, he was running counterintelligence around the program. Vladimir Uglev was one of the developers, and has been interviewed here: https://thebell.io/en/the-scientist-who ... ral-kilos/



Ok, if we go with that then whats your problem, if you have one, with PD experimenting with novichoks? All they're doing is developing knowledge of chemical weapons that the russians developed in contravention of the CWC.

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

http://www.rugbyrebels.co/board/viewtop ... ead#unread
Nothing wrong with PD experimenting with Novichoks, but it does mean that they have the ability to produce them, which means that the government narrative that it could only be produced by Russia a blatant lie.

I'm not trying to show that UK did it or USA or anyone else, just that the UK is lying. That should ring alarm bells.

Not necessarily, you can experiment on something but still not know how it was created/formed/produced.

Ah someone new, cool. A fair argument.

They'd have to at least obtain them from somewhere if they didn't produce them themselves. I'll concede your point that it's not 100% that they have the ability to produce it, just highly likely.

[morepork]

Airport security monkies can operate a crude mass spec at a busy airport to pick up trace nitrates and oxides on clothing and baggage but that doesn't mean they know how to make bombz.

[Donny osmond]

Why should it? PD doing the job it is supposed to do is proof that the UK govt are lying? This is the very opposite of objective.

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

How many times do I have to repeat myself??!

UK government said only Russia can produce it.
You've just agreed that PD has a capacity to produce Novichoks.

Therefore, the gov statement is clearly false - i.e. a lie...

Until you stop being deliberately obtuse. PD producing something, if that’s what happened, in order to run tests on it is obviously different from Russia producing it to use in public places. Your claim to be objective is looking somewhat less than accurate.

[Zhivago]

Why should it? PD doing the job it is supposed to do is proof that the UK govt are lying? This is the very opposite of objective.

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

How many times do I have to repeat myself??!

UK government said only Russia can produce it.
You've just agreed that PD has a capacity to produce Novichoks.

Therefore, the gov statement is clearly false - i.e. a lie...

Until you stop being deliberately obtuse. PD producing something, if that’s what happened, in order to run tests on it is obviously different from Russia producing it to use in public places. Your claim to be objective is looking somewhat less than accurate.

We don't know that they only run tests on it - that's just their alibi. Anyway we're going too far down the route of inventing conspiracy theories.

The key point was the flaws in the government narrative.

[cashead]

“We”

[morepork]

"...are family..."

[Digby]

With head uncovered swear we all, to bear it onward till we fall