RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
FOCUS | The Republican's Magical Mystery Tour (Starting Next Week) Print
Monday, 29 December 2014 14:34

Reich writes: "One of the first acts of the Republican congress will be to fire Doug Elmendorf, current director of the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, because he won't use 'dynamic scoring' for his economic projections. Dynamic scoring is the magical-mystery math Republicans have been pushing since they came up with supply-side 'trickle-down' economics."

Economist, professor, author and political commentator Robert Reich. (photo: Richard Morgenstein)
Economist, professor, author and political commentator Robert Reich. (photo: Richard Morgenstein)


The Republican's Magical Mystery Tour (Starting Next Week)

By Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Blog

29 December 14

 

ccording to reports, one of the first acts of the Republican congress will be to fire Doug Elmendorf, current director of the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, because he won’t use “dynamic scoring” for his economic projections.

Dynamic scoring is the magical-mystery math Republicans have been pushing since they came up with supply-side “trickle-down” economics.

It’s based on the belief that cutting taxes unleashes economic growth and thereby produces additional government revenue. Supposedly the added revenue more than makes up for what’s lost when Congress hands out the tax cuts.

Dynamic scoring would make it easier to enact tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, because the tax cuts wouldn’t look as if they increased the budget deficit.

Incoming House Ways and Means Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) calls it “reality-based scoring,” but it’s actually magical scoring – which is why Elmendorf, as well as all previous CBO directors have rejected it.

Few economic theories have been as thoroughly tested in the real world as supply-side economics, and so notoriously failed.

Ronald Reagan cut the top income tax rate from 70 percent to 28 percent and ended up nearly doubling the national debt. His first budget director, David Stockman, later confessed he dealt with embarrassing questions about future deficits with “magic asterisks” in the budgets submitted to Congress. The Congressional Budget Office didn’t buy them.

George W. Bush inherited a budget surplus from Bill Clinton but then slashed taxes, mostly on the rich. The CBO found that the Bush tax cuts reduced revenues by $3 trillion.

Yet Republicans don’t want to admit supply-side economics is hokum. As a result, they’ve never had much love for the truth-tellers at the Congressional Budget Office.

In 2011, when briefly leading the race for the Republican presidential nomination, Newt Gingrich called the CBO “a reactionary socialist institution which does not believe in economic growth, does not believe in innovation and does not believe in data that has not been internally generated.”

The CBO has continued to be a truth-telling thorn in the Republican’s side.

The budget plan Paul Ryan came up with in 2012 – likely to be a harbinger of what’s to come from the Republican congress – slashed Medicaid, cut taxes on the rich and on corporations, and replaced Medicare with a less well-funded voucher plan.

Ryan claimed these measures would reduce the deficit. The Congressional Budget Office disagreed.

Ryan persevered. His 2013 and 2014 budget proposals were similarly filled with magic asterisks. The CBO still wasn’t impressed.  

Yet it’s one thing to cling to magical-mystery thinking when you have only one house of Congress. It’s another when you’re running the whole shebang. 

Now that Elmendorf is on the way out, presumably to be replaced by someone willing to tell Ryan and other Republicans what they’d like to hear, the way has been cleared for all the magic they can muster.

In this as in other domains of public policy, Republicans have not shown a particular affinity for facts.

Climate change? It’s not happening, they say. And even if it is happening, humans aren’t responsible. (Almost all scientists studying the issue find it’s occurring and humans are the major cause.)

Widening inequality? Not occurring, they say. Even though the data show otherwise, they claim the measurements are wrong.

Voting fraud? Happening all over the country, they say, which is why voter IDs and other limits on voting are necessary. Even though there’s no evidence to back up their claim (the best evidence shows no more than 31 credible incidents of fraud out of a billion ballots cast), they continue to assert it.  

Evolution? Just a theory, they say. Even though all reputable scientists support it, many Republicans at the state level say it shouldn’t be taught without also presenting the view found in the Bible.

Weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? America’s use of torture? The George W. Bush administration and its allies in Congress weren’t overly interested in the facts.

The pattern seems to be: if you don’t like the facts, make them up.

Or have your benefactors finance “think tanks” filled with hired guns who will tell the public what you and your patrons want them to say.

If all else fails, fire your own experts who tell the truth, and replace them with people who will pronounce falsehoods.

There’s one big problem with this strategy, though. Legislation based on lies often causes the public to be harmed.

Not even “truthiness,” as Stephen Colbert once called it, is an adequate substitute for the whole truth. 


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS | Activists Permanently Shut Down Vermont Yankee Nuke Plant Today Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=6004"><span class="small">Harvey Wasserman, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Monday, 29 December 2014 12:02

Wasserman writes: "The Vermont Yankee atomic reactor goes permanently off-line today, Dec. 29, 2014. Citizen activists have made it happen. The number of licensed U.S. commercial reactors is now under 100 where once it was to be 1,000."

Women from Vermont, Massachusetts and New Hampshire chained and locked the main gate of the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant on Earth Day in 2011. (photo: The Nuclear Resister)
Women from Vermont, Massachusetts and New Hampshire chained and locked the main gate of the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant on Earth Day in 2011. (photo: The Nuclear Resister)


Activists Permanently Shut Down Vermont Yankee Nuke Plant Today

By Harvey Wasserman, Reader Supported News

29 December 14

 

itizen activists have made it happen. The number of licensed U.S. commercial reactors is now under 100 where once it was to be 1,000.

Decades of hard grassroots campaigning by dedicated, non-violent nuclear opponents, working for a Solartopian green-powered economy, forced this reactor’s corporate owner to bring it down.

Vermont Yankee is the fifth American reactor forced shut in the last two years.

Entergy says it shut Vermont Yankee because it was losing money. Though fully amortized, it could not compete with the onslaught of renewable energy and fracked-gas. Throughout the world, nukes once sold as generating juice “too cheap to meter” comprise a global financial disaster. Even with their capital costs long-ago stuck to the public, these radioactive junk heaps have no place in today’s economy—except as illegitimate magnets for massive handouts.

So in Illinois and elsewhere around the U.S., their owners demand that their bought and rented state legislators and regulators force the public to eat their losses. Arguing for “base load power” or other nonsensical corporate constructs, atomic corporations are gouging the public to keep these radioactive jalopies sputtering along.

Such might have been the fate of Vermont Yankee had it not been for citizen opposition. Opened in the early 1970s, Vermont Yankee was the northern tip of clean energy’s first “golden triangle.” Down the Connecticut River, grassroots opposition successfully prevented two reactors from being built at Montague, Massachusetts, where the term “No Nukes” was coined. A weather tower was toppled, films were made, books were written, demonstrations staged and an upwelling of well-organized grassroots activism helped nurture a rising global movement.

A bit to the southwest, in the early 1990s, it shut the infamous Yankee Rowe reactor, which had been hit by lightening and could not pass a verifiable test of its dangerously embrittled core.

But Vermont Yankee persisted. Entergy, a “McNuke” operator based in New Orleans, bought Yankee from its original owners about a dozen years ago. It signed a complex series of agreements with the state. Then it trashed them to keep Vermont Yankee spiraling ever-downward.

But hard-core organizers like Deb Katz’s Citizen Awareness Network never let up. Working through a network of natonal, state and local campaigns, the safe energy movement has finally forced Entergy to flip the off switch.

Protestors hold signs during a vigil to support the closing of the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant at the Statehouse Monday, Jan. 23, 2012 in Montpelier, Vt. (AP Photo/Toby Talbot)

Protestors support the closing of the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant at the Statehouse in January 2012 in Montpelier, Vermont.

Vermont Yankee is the fifth American reactor forced shut in the last two years. Two at San Onofre, California, were defeated by citizen activism. Wisconsin’s Kewaunee went down for economic reasons. Crystal River in Florida was driven to utter chaos by incompetent ownership.

Five reactors are officially under construction in the U.S. But their fate is also subject to citizen action. Two others targeted for Levy County, Florida, have recently been stopped by ratepayer resistance.

Throughout the U.S. and the world, the demise of atomic energy is accelerating. Some 435 reactors are listed worldwide as allegedly operable. But 48 in Japan remain shut in the wake of Fukushima despite the fierce efforts of a corrupt, dictatorial regime to force them back on line. Germany’s transition to a totally nuke-free green energy economy is exceeding expectations. The fate of dozens proposed and operating in China and India remains unclear.

But the clock on the inevitable next disaster is ticking. Cancer rates and thyroid problems around Fukushima continue to accelerate. Massive reactors like California’s Diablo Canyon and Indian Point, New York, are surrounded by volatile earthquake faults that could reduce them to seething piles of apocalyptic rubble, killing countless thousands downwind, gutting the global economy.

Every reactor shutdown represents an avoided catastrophe of the greatest magnitude. As the takeoff of cheap, clean, safe and reliable Solartopian technology accelerates, greedy reactor owners struggle to squeeze the last few dimes out of increasingly dangerous old nukes for which they ultimately will take no responsibility. Vermont Yankee alone could require 60 years for basic clean-up. Fierce debate rages over what to do with thousands of tons of intensely radioactive spent fuel rods.

It remains unclear where the money will ultimately come from to try to decontaminate these sites, but clearly they are all destined to be dead zones.

As will the planet as a whole were it not for victories like this one in Vermont. This weekend the No Nukes community will celebrate this accursed reactor’s final demise.

Many hundreds more such celebrations must follow—soon!



Harvey Wasserman's "Solartopia! Our Green-Powered Earth, AD 2030" is at www.solartopia.org. He is senior advisor to Greenpeace USA and the Nuclear Information & Resource Service, and writes regularly for www.freepress.org. He and Bob Fitrakis have co-authored four books on election protection, including "Did George W. Bush Steal America's 2004 Election?," "As Goes Ohio: Election Theft Since 2004," "How the GOP Stole America's 2004 Election & Is Rigging 2008," and "What Happened in Ohio."

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Dear Fellow White People: Keep Protesting Police Violence. Just Don't Throw Bottles From the Back Print
Sunday, 28 December 2014 15:02

Bry writes: "We were at the front of the crowd, walking backwards, yelling our anger, as the wall of clear plastic shields and dark plastic helmet-visors slowly advanced. Then someone threw a bottle – someone behind us, maybe 20 feet back. We watched it arc over our heads and land in the middle of the mass of police. Everyone got quiet."

 (photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)
(photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)


Dear Fellow White People: Keep Protesting Police Violence. Just Don't Throw Bottles From the Back

By Dave Bry, Guardian UK

28 December 14

 

Black lives are on the front lines. But to agitate violently from the privilege of the sidelines is to co-opt a peaceful movement and risk more injustice right up there, at the front of the march

t was the summer of 1991, in Berkeley, California, when I took part in my first protests against police brutality, after video surfaced of the violent beating of Rodney King by white police officers. I had moved out there to take classes at the university, and a few friends had rented rooms near the campus. The school had recently announced plans to raze and repurpose People’s Park – site of the famous anti-war demonstrations of the 60s and an important public space for the city’s massive homeless community. Word spread of an uprising to challenge the park development and we went to watch from afar, uninvested.

But that first night, I watched a police officer wade into a crowd of hippies swinging his billyclub. I saw the club strike the hand of a woman; her fingers had been in a peace sign. I imagined the bones in those fingers breaking. I thought I almost heard the crunch. I am a pacifist. I was enraged.

The next night, the cops’ heavy-handedness continued. Hundreds of them had pushed hundreds of protesters out of the park and up one of the adjacent streets. We were at the front of the crowd, walking backwards, yelling our anger, as the wall of clear plastic shields and dark plastic helmet-visors slowly advanced.

Then someone threw a bottle – someone behind us, maybe 20 feet back. We watched it arc over our heads and land in the middle of the mass of police. Everyone got quiet.

“Oh, shit,” my friend Matt said.

The police charged and we took off running, tripping over feet. Some people fell. I worried about being trampled. It was chaos.

“They’re shooting at us,” Matt screamed. Pop-pop-pop. The whiz and blur of projectiles flying past us, ricocheting of the street. Pop-pop-pop-bing!

A wooden bullet had skipped off the pavement and hit Matt right in the ass. I heard him yelp as we ran. We sprinted for three blocks and got away, shaken but fine. Matt was limping, and took home a nasty bruise – a perfect circle-shape, a little larger than a silver dollar, almost black in in its lurid purpleness – but we were lucky enough to be able to laugh about it later.

“Who was the asshole who threw the bottle?” Matt asked, rubbing his sore spot.

We are lucky, still, people like us. Meaning: white people. Matt and I are both white. With the protests against police brutality happening today – or tomorrow or the next night, probably in a park near you – we enjoy the privilege of our position on the sidelines. Of choosing whether or not to get involved. If you are a white person who chooses to engage in street protest against racist injustice in America, you have an obligation do so non-violently.

Don’t be the asshole who throws the bottle.

When a peaceful protest tips into violence, the state’s case for the legitimacy of its use of suppressive force is validated, instantly. This is counterproductive, obviously, when the reason for protesting in the first place is to end what we see as wrongful use of state force. This is also a large part of why I am a pacifist: for pragmatic reasons. I subscribe to the belief that non-violent means are more effective than violent ones. I cannot assure you that I would subscribe to this same belief if I was black. I do not know that I would.

I have taken part in – and plan to continue to take part in, and encourage others to take part in – the current protests against racist policing in America, but I know and encourage others to remember this: Black people are on the front lines. It is first and foremost a black movement. Black people are risking far more by being out there face-to-face with cops than white people. (Recent history proves this all too convincingly.) White people’s role in protest should be a secondary one – a strictly supportive role, not agitating or bottle-throwing so much as chanting along, marching in time, bearing witness, simply being there to be counted.

At the Millions March in Oakland earlier this month, black activists made a list of “Rules for Whites” that included “No megaphones” and “Follow black leadership.” As the East Bay Express reported, “When the march began, white demonstrators were asked to hang back and allow for its black participants to move through the crowd to the front.” So why are we still smashing windows and tearing down Christmas ornaments, weeks later?

In November, here in New York, I took my 10-year-old son to a demonstration protesting the grand jury’s decision in Ferguson. We marched around the park and joined chants of “No justice, no peace” and “No racist police” and even “Fuck the police”. (My kid didn’t say the “fuck” part; he’s kind of a goody-goody.)

Then a group of younger white folks in bandana masks and Occupy gear started up with a separate chant, from the outside: “Who do we want? Darren Wilson. How do we want him? Dead!

I didn’t want anybody dead, and neither did my kid. And neither did a black woman marching in front of us. “Whoa,” she said in the direction of this new contingent. “Slow your roll. That’s taking it a little too far.”

She was right. And I’m glad my kid was standing close enough to hear her. I am more enraged than ever at the racist violence of America’s police. I am angry at the government and committed to affecting change. But I have zero patience for white people who throw bottles from the back of the crowd, who smash windows or throw garbage cans off overpasses or punch anyone or set anything on fire. Words are categorically different from physical actions, but I don’t think we should be calling for anyone’s death, either.

Police respond to violence with more violence, as they are sanctioned by law to do, and people get hurt. Police are heavily armed; protesters generally are not. The protesters closest to the police stand a higher risk of injury than those farther away. White people cannot be throwing bottles from the back while leaving black people in the front – on the front lines – open to further injustice. We have to stay in the back and keep our hands to ourselves. To do otherwise, fellow white person, is to co-opt a movement that is not rightfully yours. It’s not your white ass on the line.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Can AIDS Be Cured? Researchers Get Closer to Outwitting a Killer. Print
Sunday, 28 December 2014 14:43

Groopman writes: "Now researchers are talking more and more about a cure. We know as much about H.I.V. as we do about certain cancers: its genes have been sequenced, its method of infiltrating host cells deciphered, its proteins mapped in three dimensions."

Can AIDS be cured? (photo: AFP/Getty Images)
Can AIDS be cured? (photo: AFP/Getty Images)


Can AIDS Be Cured? Researchers Get Closer to Outwitting a Killer.

By Jerome Groopman, The New Yorker

28 December 14

 

ne morning in the winter of 1981, my wife came home after her on-call shift at the U.C.L.A. Medical Center and told me about a baffling new case. Queenie was an eighteen-year-old prostitute, his hair dyed the color of brass. He had arrived at the emergency room with a high fever and a cough, and appeared to have a routine kind of pneumonia, readily treated with antibiotics. But the medical team retrieved a microbe from his lungs called Pneumocystis carinii. The microbe was known for causing a rare fungal pneumonia that had been seen in severely malnourished children and in adults undergoing organ transplants or chemotherapy.

Several specialists at the hospital were enlisted to make sense of the infection. Queenie had a critically low platelet count, which made him susceptible to hemorrhage, and I was called in to examine him. He was lying on his side and breathing with difficulty. His sheets were soaked with sweat. A herpes infection had so severely blistered his flesh that surgeons had cut away necrotic segments of his thighs. I couldn’t explain his falling platelet numbers. His lungs began to fail, and he was placed on a ventilator. Soon afterward, Queenie died, of respiratory failure.

His was one of several cases of the same rare pneumonia seen by physicians on both coasts. Michael Gottlieb, a U.C.L.A. immunologist, studied the blood of some of these patients and made the key observation that they had lost almost all their helper T cells, which protect against infections and cancers. In June, 1981, the Centers for Disease Control published Gottlieb’s cases in its Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, and, in July, Dr. Alvin Friedman-Kien, of New York University, reported that twenty-six gay men in New York and California had received diagnoses of Kaposi sarcoma, a cancer of the lymphatic channels and blood vessels. This, too, was strange: Kaposi sarcoma typically affected elderly men of Eastern European Jewish and Mediterranean ancestry.

I tended to our Kaposi-sarcoma patients. I was the most junior person on staff and had no expertise in the tumor, but none of the senior faculty wanted the job. My first patient, a middle-aged fireman nicknamed Bud, lived a closeted life in West Los Angeles. Not long before he checked in to the hospital, he had started to find growths on his legs that looked like ripe cherries. Then they appeared on his torso, on his face, and in his mouth. Despite strong doses of chemotherapy, the standard treatment for advanced Kaposi sarcoma, his tumors grew, disfiguring him and killing him in less than a year. By 1982, men with highly aggressive kinds of lymphoma had started to arrive at the hospital. They, too, failed to improve with chemotherapy. Patients were dying from an array of diseases that had overcome ravaged immune systems. All my patients had one disorder in common, which the C.D.C., that year, had named acquired-immunodeficiency syndrome, or AIDS. Scientists did not yet know what caused it.

The next year, two research teams—one led by Luc Montagnier and Françoise Barré-Sinoussi, of the Pasteur Institute, in Paris, the other by Robert Gallo, at the National Cancer Institute, in Maryland—published papers in Science that described a new retrovirus in the lymph nodes and blood cells of AIDS patients. A retrovirus has a pernicious way of reproducing: it permanently inserts a DNA copy of its genome into the nucleus of a host cell, hijacking the cell’s machinery for its own purposes. When the retrovirus mutates, which it often does, its spawn becomes difficult for the body or a vaccine to target and chase out. Retroviral diseases were widely believed to be incurable. In May of 1986, after much dispute about credit for the discovery (the French finally won the Nobel, in 2008), an international committee of scientists agreed on the name H.I.V., or human immunodeficiency virus. By the end of that year, about twenty-five thousand of the nearly twenty-nine thousand Americans with reported AIDS diagnoses had died.

Since then, H.I.V. has been transformed into a treatable condition, one of the great victories of modern medicine. In 1987, the F.D.A. approved AZT, a cancer drug that had never gone to market, for use in H.I.V. patients. At first, it was extortionately priced and was prescribed in high doses, which proved toxic, provoking protest from the gay community. But AZT was able to insinuate itself into the virus’s DNA as it formed, and later it was used in lower doses. Scientists have now developed more than thirty antiretroviral medicines that stop H.I.V. from reproducing in helper T cells.

The idea of combining medications into a “cocktail” came in the mid-nineteen-nineties, mirroring the way oncologists treated cancer. Cancer cells, like H.I.V. particles, can mutate quickly enough to escape a single targeted drug. The treatment regimen—HAART, for highly active antiretroviral therapy—was put through clinical trials by prominent researchers such as David Ho, of the Aaron Diamond Institute, in New York. I gave the cocktail to one of my patients, David Sanford, and less than a month after beginning treatment his fever fell, his infections disappeared, his energy returned, and he started to gain weight. The H.I.V. in his bloodstream plummeted to an undetectable level, where it has remained. Later, in a Pulitzer Prize-winning article, Sanford wrote, “I am probably more likely to be hit by a truck than to die of AIDS.” That now holds true for a great majority of people with H.I.V. in the United States. In the past five years, not one of the dozens of H.I.V. patients I’ve cared for has died of the disease.

There are still tremendous hurdles. Thirty-five million people in the world are living with the virus. In sub-Saharan Africa, where most new cases are reported, sixty-three per cent of those eligible for the drug regimen do not receive it; those who do often fail to receive it in full. In the United States, a year’s worth of HAART costs many thousands of dollars per patient, and the long-term side effects can be debilitating.

Now researchers are talking more and more about a cure. We know as much about H.I.V. as we do about certain cancers: its genes have been sequenced, its method of infiltrating host cells deciphered, its proteins mapped in three dimensions. A critical discovery was made in 1997: the virus can lie dormant in long-lived cells, untouched by the current drugs. If we can safely and affordably eliminate the viral reservoir, we will finally have defeated H.I.V.

Ward 86, the nation’s first outpatient AIDS clinic, opened at San Francisco General Hospital on January 1, 1983. Recently, I went there to see Steven Deeks, an expert on the chronic immune activation and inflammation brought on by H.I.V. Deeks, a professor at the School of Medicine at U.C.S.F., also runs the SCOPE Study: a cohort of two thousand H.I.V.-positive men and women in whom he measures the long-term effects of living with the virus. Each year, blood samples are sent to labs all over the world. Deeks’s mission is to catalogue the damage that H.I.V. does to tissues and to test new drugs that might help.

The ward occupies the sixth floor of an Art Deco building on the north side of campus. I found Deeks in his office, wearing a flannel shirt and New Balance sneakers. He explained his concerns about the drug cocktail. “Antiretroviral drugs are designed to block H.I.V. replication, and they do that quite well,” he said. But they don’t enable many patients to recover fully. The immune system improves enough to prevent AIDS, but, because the virus persists, the immune system must mount a continuous low-level response. That creates chronic inflammation, which injures tissues.

The inflammation is exacerbated by side effects of the medicines. Early treatments caused anemia, nerve damage, and lipodystrophy—the wasting of the limbs and face, and the deposits of fat around the belly. Lipodystrophy is still a major problem. Deeks has observed many patients in the SCOPE cohort with high levels of cholesterol and triglyceride, and these can lead to organ damage. One serious consequence is heart disease, which appears to be caused by inflammation of the artery walls. Deeks has also seen lung, liver, and skin cancers in his patients. In a disturbing echo of the early days of the epidemic, he has noticed that middle-aged patients develop diseases associated with aging: kidney and bone disease and possibly neurocognitive defects. A better definition for AIDS, according to Deeks, might be “acquired-inflammatory-disease syndrome.”

He introduced me to one of his patients, whom I’ll call Gordon. A tall, genial man with rimless glasses stood up to shake my hand, and I saw that he had the signature protruding belly. He has been H.I.V.-positive for almost forty years, and he said he felt lucky to be alive: “A ten-year partner of mine who had the same strain of H.I.V., who ate the same food, had the same doctors, took the same early H.I.V. meds, died in June, 1990, almost twenty-five years ago.”

He told me, “I’m no longer that concerned about the virus itself. I’m more concerned about my internal organs and premature aging.” In 1999, at fifty, he learned that fatty deposits had substantially constricted the blood flow in a major artery that supplies the heart’s left ventricle. He began to experience crippling pain when he walked, because the blood supply to his bone tissue had diminished—a condition called avascular necrosis. In 2002, he had his first hip replacement, and the second in 2010. His muscles have shrunk, and sitting can be uncomfortable, so he sometimes wears special foam-padded underwear. Every other year, he has his face injected with poly-L-lactic acid, which replaces lost connective tissue.

Gordon’s longevity, and the dozens of drugs he has taken to stay alive, exemplifies the experience of millions of infected AIDS patients. His state-of-the-art treatment costs almost a hundred thousand dollars a year. Although it’s covered by his insurance and by the State of California, he calls it “a ransom: your money or your life.” For Deeks, the question is “Can the world find the resources to build a system to deliver, on a daily basis, antiretroviral drugs to some thirty-five million people, many in very poor regions?” He is doubtful, which is why he is focussed on helping to find a cure. “Our philosophy is that in order to cure H.I.V., we need to know where and why it persists,” he said.

In 1997, amid euphoria about HAART, people first started thinking seriously about a cure. Sooner or later, all infected cells die on their own. Could the right drugs in the right combination rout the virus for good? That year, David Ho published a paper in Nature in which he mathematically predicted that an H.I.V. patient on the HAART regimen should be able to conquer the detectable virus in twenty-eight to thirty-seven months. That issue also contained a very different report from Robert Siliciano, currently a Howard Hughes investigator at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine. Using an uncommonly sensitive measurement technique that he’d invented, Siliciano located H.I.V. in a type of helper T cell that provides memory to our immune system and normally survives for decades. Memory T cells are uniquely important: they recognize the antigens in infections and orchestrate speedy responses. But the virus proved to be even cleverer. It lay dormant in strands of host DNA, untouched by the drug cocktail, later springing back to life and degrading the immune system.

At sixty-two, lanky and circumspect, Siliciano is highly regarded in the tight-knit community of H.I.V. researchers. He met his wife and collaborator, Janet, in the nineteen-seventies, when she was a graduate student at Johns Hopkins, studying the proteins that T cells release when they encounter microbes. Now fifty-nine years old, with curly red hair and a hint of a New Jersey accent, Janet joined Bob’s lab after his paper appeared in Nature. She said that the idea was his, but Bob told me that Janet developed it over the next seven years, tracking the levels of dormant virus in patients consistently treated with HAART. Her data confirmed his thesis: the virus could survive almost indefinitely. “We calculated that it would take seventy years of continuous HAART for all the memory T cells to die,” she said.

Siliciano told me about the first time he saw the latent virus emerge in the memory T cells of an H.I.V. patient on HAART. The patient was thought to be cured. “He had been biopsied in every imaginable place, and nobody could find any virus,” Siliciano said. Researchers took twenty tubes of the patient’s blood, isolated the T cells, and divided them into multiple wells. The specimen was then intermixed with cells from uninfected people. If the healthy T cells became infected, the virus would reproduce and be released. Detection of the virus would be signalled by a color change to blue. Siliciano remembers sitting at his desk, talking with a visitor, when a graduate student burst in: “The wells are turning blue!” He said, “It was a very strange moment, because it was a confirmation of this hypothesis—so it was exciting—but it was also a disaster. Everybody came to the same conclusion: that these cells persisted despite the antiretroviral therapy.”

The Siliciano laboratory occupies the eighth floor of the Miller Research Building, at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine. The twenty-six-person research team—technicians, students, fellows, and faculty—works in an airy, open space and in a smaller Biosafety Level 3 facility on the north side of the building. There they handle the specimens of their clinic’s H.I.V.-positive subjects and many more from labs like Deeks’s worldwide. Inside a room with negative air pressure, researchers retrieve blood samples from an incubator and place them in a laminar flow hood, which draws up a stream of air. Nothing leaves the facility without being double-bagged and sterilized.

Much of the new AIDS research builds on the Silicianos’ foundational discovery of H.I.V.’s hidden reservoirs. So does their own work. Using potent chemicals, they have been able to draw H.I.V. out of its hiding places in memory T cells, assess the reach of the virus within the body, and begin to map where else it might be lodged.

Several years ago, they began looking at “blips,” the small, sudden jumps in viral load that sometimes occur in the blood of HAART patients. Physicians had been concerned that blips might be particles of virus that had become resistant to HAART and struck out on their own. The Silicianos believed otherwise: that the viral particles were released by latently infected cells that had become activated. They analyzed the blood of patients with blips every two to three days over three to four months, and their hypothesis proved correct: the virus had not become resistant to the drugs, but had been dormant in its reservoir within memory T cells. It could be intermittently released from the reservoir, even when the patient took antiretroviral drugs.

Although researchers were chastened by the realization that the drug regimen was not itself a cure, they recently found three unusual cases that were encouraging enough to make them keep trying. The first was that of Timothy Ray Brown.

Brown is known as the Berlin patient, after the city where he became the only person ever to have been cured of H.I.V. In 2006, more than a decade after he discovered he was H.I.V.-positive, he was given an unrelated diagnosis of acute myelogenous leukemia, a cancer of the bone marrow. After initial treatment, the leukemia returned. Brown needed a bone-marrow transplant. His hematologist, Gero Huetter, made the imaginative suggestion that they use a donor with a genetic mutation that shuts down the protein CCR5, a doorway for H.I.V. into helper T cells. On February 7, 2007, Brown received the transplant. One year later, he underwent the procedure again, and by 2009 biopsies of Brown’s brain, lymph nodes, and bowel showed that the virus had not returned, and his T-cell count was back to normal.

Brown’s cure was spectacular, but difficult to repeat. His doctor had twice destroyed all his native blood cells, with radiation and chemotherapy, and twice rebuilt his immune system with transplanted stem cells. It had been very dangerous and costly. Researchers wondered if they could create a scaled-down version. In 2013, physicians at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, in Boston, reported on the outcome of a study in which two H.I.V.-positive men on HAART had received bone-marrow transplants for lymphoma. Their marrow donors, unlike Brown’s, did not have the CCR5 mutation, and their chemotherapy regimen was less intensive. HAART was stopped a few years after the transplants, and the virus remained undetectable for months, but then resurfaced.

This past July, results came in on the third case. In 2010, a girl known as the Mississippi baby was born to an H.I.V.-positive mother who had taken no antiretrovirals, and the baby had the virus in her blood. Thirty hours after delivery, the newborn started on antiretroviral therapy. Within weeks, the viral count fell below the limit of detection. The baby was eighteen months old when the treatment was interrupted, against medical advice. For two years, the girl’s blood showed no trace of the virus, and researchers speculated that very early HAART might prevent the virus from forming a dormant reservoir. Twenty-seven months after going off the drugs, however, the child tested positive for the virus. Though researchers were impressed that early intervention had temporarily banished H.I.V., she was not cured.

In August, Janet and Robert Siliciano wrote about the Brigham men and the Mississippi baby in Science, saying that the cases confirmed that researchers were on the right path in attacking latent infection. The Berlin patient was an even more compelling example. Karl Salzwedel, the chief of Pathogenesis and Basic Research in the Division of aids at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told me that until Timothy Brown “it wasn’t really clear how we would go about getting rid of the last bits of virus that remain in the reservoir.” Brown’s case provided “a proof of concept: it may be possible to eradicate latent H.I.V. from the body. It may be from a very risky and toxic method, but it’s proof of concept nonetheless.”

The new centerpiece of the American effort to cure H.I.V. is the Martin Delaney Collaboratories, funded by the N.I.H. Launched in 2011, the collaborative was formulated as a way to link clinical labs, research facilities, and pharmaceutical companies. Federal support was set at seventy million dollars for the first five years, on the premise of coöperation and open communication among all parties. Salzwedel told me that the N.I.H. funded three applications. “Each was taking a different complementary approach to trying to develop a strategy to eradicate H.I.V,” he said: enhancing the patient’s immune system, manipulating the CCR5 gene, and destroying the reservoirs themselves. They represented different responses to the Siliciano thesis and to the lessons of Timothy Brown.

Mike McCune, the head of the Division of Experimental Medicine at U.C.S.F., researches ways in which H.I.V. can be eradicated by the body’s own immune system. He was prompted by an observation made in the early days of the epidemic: that babies born to mothers with H.I.V. become infected in utero only five to ten per cent of the time, even though they are exposed to the virus throughout gestation. Recently, McCune and his colleagues observed that the developing fetal immune system does not react against maternal cells, which can easily cross the placenta and end up in fetal tissues. Instead, the fetus generates specialized T cells that suppress inflammatory responses against the mother, and that might also prevent inflammatory responses against H.I.V., thereby blocking the rapid spread of the virus in utero and sparing the child.

McCune has worked for many years with Steven Deeks and the SCOPE Study. When I spoke with McCune in San Francisco, he said, “There is a yin and yang of the immune system. We are trying to recapitulate the orchestrated balance found in the fetus.” McCune is now working on interventions that would prevent inflammation against H.I.V. in the adult, hoping to partly mimic the balance found in utero. He’s also developing methods that would allow the immune system to better recognize, and destroy, the virus when it manifests itself. These studies are being carried out on nonhuman primates, and may lead to human trials within a year or two.

In Seattle, a group headed by Hans-Peter Kiem and Keith Jerome is taking a more futuristic approach. Using an enzyme called Zinc Finger Nuclease, they are genetically altering blood and marrow stem cells so as to disable CCR5, the doorway for infection in T cells. Researchers will modify the stem cells outside the body, so that when the cells are returned some portion of the T cells in the bloodstream will be resistant to H.I.V. infection. Over time, they hope, those cells will propagate, and the patient will slowly build an immune system that is resistant to the virus. Those patients might still have a small reservoir of H.I.V., but their bodies would be able to regulate the infection.

The largest Collaboratory, with more than twenty members, is led by David Margolis, at the University of North Carolina. Margolis, an infectious-disease expert, is targeting the reservoirs directly. The idea, which has come to be known as “shock and kill,” is to reactivate the dormant virus, unmasking the cells that carry it, so that they can be destroyed. In 2012, he published the results of a clinical trial of the drug Vorinostat, which was originally developed for blood cancers of T cells, as a shock treatment. This October, “shock and kill” was widely discussed when the Collaboratory teams convened at the N.I.H., along with hundreds of other researchers, assorted academics, and interested laypeople. Margolis and his group explored in their talk new ways to shock the virus out of dormancy.

The killing stage is more challenging, because the shocked cells carry few H.I.V. antigens, the toxic flags released by pathogenic particles and recognized by the immune system prior to attack. One approach to the killing strategy comes from an unusual type of H.I.V.-positive patient who may carry the virus for decades yet seems not to be disturbed by it. Some of these so-called “élite controllers” possess cytotoxic, or killer, T cells that attack virus-producing cells. The objective is to make every H.I.V. patient into an élite controller through “therapeutic vaccination,” enabling patients to generate killer T cells on their own.

Researchers are also trying to switch off a molecule called PD-1, which the body uses to restrain the immune system. Deactivating PD-1 has worked in clinical studies with melanoma and lung-cancer patients, and one patient seems to have been cured of hepatitis C by a single infusion of a PD-1 blocker from Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Groups outside the Collaboratories who are testing ways to cure AIDS share their results with the N.I.H. teams. In parallel with the Seattle group, Carl June, the director of translational research at the Abramson Cancer Center, at the University of Pennsylvania, and his colleagues have used genetic engineering to close off the CCR5 passageway. In the New England Journal of Medicine this past March, they reported on their recent clinical trial, which showed that the modified T cells could survive in people with H.I.V. for years. Similar work on knocking down CCR5 is being done by Calimmune, a California-based company devoted to curing AIDS. (One of its founders is David Baltimore, who received the Nobel Prize for the discovery of reverse transcriptase, a crucial enzyme in retroviral reproduction.) Groups in Denmark and Spain have made progress, too, and in 2012 researchers in France analyzed the Visconti study, which had put the early intervention received by the Mississippi baby to a formal test. A subset of fourteen H.I.V. patients had been treated within weeks of their infection, and then HAART was interrupted. They remained free of the virus for several years.

The fight against AIDS is following a trajectory similar to that of the fight against many cancers. When I was growing up, in the nineteen-fifties, childhood leukemia was nearly always fatal. Eventually, drugs were developed that drove the cancer into remission for months or years, but it always came back. In the nineteen-seventies, researchers discovered that leukemic cells lay sleeping in the central nervous system, and developed targeted treatments that could eliminate them. Today, childhood leukemia is cured in nine out of ten cases.

This July, at the Twentieth International AIDS Conference, in Melbourne, Australia, Sharon Lewin, an infectious-disease expert at Monash University, said, “We probably are looking, at the moment, at trying to achieve long-term remission.” Most experts agree that remission is feasible, and that, to some degree, we will be able to wean patients off lifelong therapies.

Even the most cautious AIDS researchers place remission along a continuum, with a cure at the end. Robert Siliciano told me, “The first goal is to reduce the reservoir. And this is not just for the individual but also has a public health consequence.” For however long a person is off HAART, doctors would be able to divert resources to patients who still needed treatment.

David Margolis believes that his “shock and kill” strategy will work, but that it could take ten to twenty years. The Silicianos agree that more research is needed. “Shock and kill,” they said, will require more than a single drug like Vorinostat. And the optimal regimen can’t be identified until it’s clear precisely how much latent virus the body contains. The Silicianos have not yet developed a truly accurate measure. Only by following people who have been off all drugs for years would it be clear that a cure had been found. “The more we learn, the more questions there are to answer,” Janet told me.

Still, the questions that have been answered astonish AIDS scientists. At U.C.L.A. during the brutal first years, I never would have imagined that future patients would live into their eighties. A fatal disease has been tamed into a chronic condition. The next step is to find a cure. Scientists are innately cautious, and AIDS researchers have learned humility over the years. Science operates around a core of uncertainty, within which lie setbacks, but also hope.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
And Then They Came for Our Children ... Print
Sunday, 28 December 2014 14:40

Munir writes: "If you live in Pakistan, the chances that you have locked your emotions in a box and thrown the key away are significantly high. It may have been a conscious decision or may have just happened over time without you even realising it."

Pakistani volunteers carry a student injured in the shootout at a school under attack by Taliban gunmen. (photo: AP)
Pakistani volunteers carry a student injured in the shootout at a school under attack by Taliban gunmen. (photo: AP)


And Then They Came for Our Children ...

By Sarah Munir, Reader Supported News

28 December 14

 

f you live in Pakistan, the chances that you have locked your emotions in a box and thrown the key away are significantly high. It may have been a conscious decision or may have just happened over time without you even realising it. You see, when you deal with double-digit death tolls and images of severed limbs and heads on a regular basis, not feeling or having to talk about them makes living easier. Though, every once in a while, something strikes too close to home and you are left wondering how you would have reacted if the doctor shot in front of his son's eyes was your own father. Or if it was your brother's disappearance that you had been protesting for years without anyone paying heed. You shudder at the thought and say a silent prayer for them being just that... thoughts.

That luxury was taken from us on 16th December 2014. When seven men massacred 132 children in a school in Peshawar on a sunny winter morning, there was no looking away. Those barbarians may have unleashed the monstrosities under false illusions of paradise, but they showed a nation of over 180 million people what hell looked like.

As the death toll on news websites climbed from 4 to 86 to over a 100, the country stared at their screens in silence. Stunned. Paralysed. Broken. The official death toll was finally closed off at 148. But a part of all of us died with them.

Three days have passed since that heinous morning. Most of us have tried everything from prayers and vigils to emotionally loaded words and silent tears in order to numb the pain. None of it has really helped. None of it really will.

Less than 48 hours later, an anti-terrorism court has granted bail to one of the key suspects in the 2008 Mumbai attack. Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif has lifted the moratorium on death penalty to instil fear in those who are willing to blow themselves up as the ultimate expression of devotion. 'Precise' airstrikes, whose targets, accuracy and collateral damage will only be presented to us through a veil of numbers have been resumed by the army once again.

The state seems to have jolted into action. But most of these actions are driven by emotion rather than reason. Fortunately or unfortunately, emotions have a shelf life--pain fades away and anger turns to acceptance.

Instead of knee-jerk jingoistic reactions, what is needed is a blanket security policy that guarantees equal protection for everyone regardless of their religious, ethnic, political and social backgrounds. A systematic flushing of the toxic mindset that breeds hatred and intolerance in well-known seminaries is the need of the hour. And most importantly, there is a drastic need for the courts of law to punish criminals on the basis of what they have done rather than who they have targeted.

The solutions are not new or groundbreaking. They have been staring us in the face for years now. But instead of facing the ugly truth, we chose to tiptoe around the issues. Had we gotten our hands dirty when they came for our Hindus, Shias, Christians and Ahmedis, today they would not have been soaked in our own children's blood. Had we raised a voice when humanity was being paraded naked in villages or burning in a brick kiln in Lahore, we would not have been screaming alone today.

But instead of looking the monsters in the eye and calling them out for what they really were, we let them into our mosques, our markets and our homes. It was only a matter of time before they came for our children too. And now in their tiny coffins, lie their dead bodies and our dead souls.



Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 2601 2602 2603 2604 2605 2606 2607 2608 2609 2610 Next > End >>

Page 2606 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN