Subscribe to this blog's feed
Sony Pictures will make a fortune, but will anyone be around to spend it?
Here's the trailer: 2012 - The Movie
Here's the trailer: 2012 - The Movie
One of my best friends, David Colton, has written an interview with R.Crumb. Read it athttp://www.usatoday.com/life/books/news/2009-10-18-r-crumb-old-testament_N.htm.
If someone will mail me a copy of the book, I will allow him to walk our dogs at 6 a.m.
It's six a.m. Our dogs are barking, my girlfriend is snoring (quietly!), and a mosquito just bit my ear. Does this mean the apocalypse is near? Will the environment collapse? Will Obama and our government manage to reform health care? Will the Yankees win the world series?
So many questions...
I'm going back to sleep.
So many questions...
I'm going back to sleep.
Is Roman Polansky's arrest and extradition a tragedy? Probably - he is
a talented filmmaker, but I've never known a 13 year old girl (or boy)
mature enough to deal with the emotional consequences of a sexual
relationship with an adult, and although there may be exceptions
children need to be protected by the law. I would hope that the
consequences of his conviction are reasonable in view of the particular
circumstances of the child and what occurred. The victim, now grown, wants the case dismissed. If that is truly what she wants, it should be honored.
For the first time, an experimental vaccine has prevented infection with the AIDS virus, a watershed event in the deadly epidemic and a surprising result. Recent failures led many scientists to think such a vaccine might never be possible.
The vaccine cut the risk of becoming infected with HIV by more than 31 per cent in the world's largest AIDS vaccine trial of more than 16,000 volunteers in Thailand, researchers announced Thursday in Bangkok.
Even though the benefit is modest, "it's the first evidence that we could have a safe and effective preventive vaccine," Col. Jerome Kim said in a telephone interview. He helped lead the study for the U.S. Army, which sponsored it with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
The institute's director, Dr. Anthony Fauci, warned that this is "not the end of the road," but said he was surprised and very pleased by the outcome.
"It gives me cautious optimism about the possibility of improving this result" and developing a more effective AIDS vaccine, Dr. Fauci said in a telephone interview. "This is something that we can do."
Even a marginally helpful vaccine could have a big impact. Every day, 7,500 people worldwide are newly infected with HIV; 2 million died of AIDS in 2007, the UN agency UNAIDS estimates.
"Today marks an historic milestone," said Mitchell Warren, executive director of the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition, an international group that has worked toward developing a vaccine.
"It will take time and resources to fully analyze and understand the data, but there is little doubt that this finding will energize and redirect the AIDS vaccine field," he said in a statement.
The Thailand Ministry of Public Health conducted the study, which used strains of HIV common in Thailand. Whether such a vaccine would work against other strains in the U.S., Africa or elsewhere in the world is unknown, scientists stressed.
"This is a scientific breakthrough," Thai Health Minister Witthaya Kaewparadai told a news conference in Bangkok. "For the first time ever there is evidence that HIV vaccine has preventative efficacy."
The study actually tested a two-vaccine combo in a "prime-boost" approach, where the first one primes the immune system to attack HIV and the second one strengthens the response.
They are ALVAC, from Sanofi Pasteur, the vaccine division of French drug maker Sanofi-Aventis; and AIDSVAX, originally developed by VaxGen Inc. and now held by Global Solutions for Infectious Diseases, a nonprofit founded by some former VaxGen employees.
ALVAC uses canarypox, a bird virus altered so it can't cause human disease, to ferry synthetic versions of three HIV genes into the body. AIDSVAX contains a genetically engineered version of a protein on HIV's surface. The vaccines are not made from whole virus - dead or alive - and cannot cause HIV.
Neither vaccine in the study prevented HIV infection when tested individually in earlier trials, and dozens of scientists had called the new one futile when it began in 2003.
"I really didn't have high hopes at all that we would see a positive result," Dr. Fauci confessed.
The results proved the skeptics wrong.
"The combination is stronger than each of the individual members," said Col. Kim.
The study tested the combo in HIV-negative Thai men and women ages 18 to 30 at average risk of becoming infected. Half received four "priming" doses of ALVAC and two "boost" doses of AIDSVAX over six months. The others received dummy shots. No one knew who got what until the study ended.
All were given condoms, counselling and treatment for any sexually transmitted infections, and were tested every six months for HIV. Any who became infected were given free treatment with antiviral medicines.
Participants were followed for three years after vaccination ended.
Results: New infections occurred in 51 of the 8,197 given vaccine and in 74 of the 8,198 who received dummy shots. That worked out to a 31 per cent lower risk of infection for the vaccine group.
The vaccine had no effect on levels of HIV in the blood of those who did become infected. That had been another goal of the study - seeing whether the vaccine could limit damage to the immune system and help keep infected people from developing full-blown AIDS.
That result is "one of the most important and intriguing findings of this trial," Dr. Fauci said. It suggests that the signs scientists have been using to gauge whether a vaccine was actually giving protection may not be valid.
"It is conceivable that we haven't even identified yet" what really shows immunity, which is both "important and humbling" after decades of vaccine research, Dr. Fauci said.
Details of the $105-million study will be given at a vaccine conference in Paris in October.
This is the third big vaccine trial since 1983, when HIV was identified as the cause of AIDS. In 2007, Merck & Co. stopped a study of its experimental vaccine after seeing it did not prevent HIV infection. Later analysis suggested the vaccine might even raise the risk of infection in certain men. The vaccine itself did not cause infection.
In 2003, AIDSVAX flunked two large trials - the first late-stage tests of any AIDS vaccine at the time.
It is unclear whether vaccine makers will seek to license the two-vaccine combo in Thailand. Before the trial began, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration said other studies would be needed before the vaccine could be considered for U.S. licensing.
Also unclear is whether Thai volunteers who received dummy shots will now be offered the vaccine. Researchers had said they would do so if the vaccine showed clear benefit - defined as reducing the risk of infection by at least 50 per cent.
Those issues, plus how to proceed with future studies, will be discussed among the governments, study sponsors and companies involved in the trial, Col. Kim said. Scientists want to know how long will protection last, whether booster shots will be needed, and whether the vaccine helps prevent infection in gay men and injection drug users, since it was tested mostly in heterosexuals in the Thai trial.
The study was done in Thailand because U.S. Army scientists did pivotal research in that country when the AIDS epidemic emerged there, isolating virus strains and providing genetic information on them to vaccine makers. The Thai government also strongly supported the idea of doing the study.
From /www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/vaccine-helps-prevent-hiv-infection/article1299462/
It's 4:30 a.m. here in Helsingborg. A dense mist is hovering in the early light over the Oresund channel between Sweden and Denmark. I can't sleep.In January of 1980, I woke up one morning with a strange, pasty sensation in my mouth. I stumbled into the bathroom and looked into the mirror. My tongue was white. My doctor at the time, Lenny, told me it was a yeast infection. A yeast infection? On my tongue?
Larry wrote me a prescription for Monistat tablets. I don't know if Monistat is still being prescribed today, but in 1980, Monistat was the drug of choice for vaginal yeast infections. I didn't have a vagina, and I'd broken up with my girlfriend and cleaned up my act back in August, so I had to wonder how the hell I'd suddenly acquired the lingual overcoat. I'd had some mild flu-like aches and fever a few weeks earlier, but I didn't connect it with the yeast infection, which happily responded to the Monistat.
That was almost 30 years ago. 30 years with HIV. 30 years, and I'm still here.
Wish I could sleep...
(Check out my website, Davidweissny.com, which I've been busy revising for the last two hours!)
Last year, the Bush Administration's PEPFAR bill was to have eliminated the HIV travel ban. The bill was signed into law. But that wasn't the end of the ban.The final step in removing the policy of excluding those with HIV required the Department of Health and Human Services to remove HIV from its regulation listing "communicable diseases of public health significance." (42 CFR 34.2(b).) That's not what happened.
On April 10, 2009, HHS forwarded regulations to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. As of now, visitors to the U.S. will still be asked whether they have HIV. They will then be asked to sign the following certification:
I certify that:
a) I do not currently show symptoms indicative of an active AIDS-related condition that is
contagious or that requires urgent treatment.
b) I am aware of, understand, and have been counseled on the nature and severity of my
medical condition. I am also aware of and have been counseled on the communicability of my
medical condition, including the fact that I must not donate blood or blood components.
c) I am knowledgeable of the routes of transmission of HIV, including sexual contact, sharing needles, and blood transfusions, and understand that I must avoid these activities to minimize the danger of transmission of the infection to any other person in the United States.
d) If I have been prescribed antiretroviral drugs, I have access to an adequate supply for my
anticipated stay in the United States.
e) I possess sufficient assets or insurance, acceptable in the United States, to cover any medical care that I may require in the event of illness at any time while in the United States. Therefore, I will not create any cost to the United States, or a State or local government, or any agency thereof, without the prior written consent of that agency.
f) I am seeking admission solely for activities that are consistent with B-1 (business visitor) or B-2 (visitor for pleasure) nonimmigrant classifications.
g) I understand that I am not eligible to seek admission under section 217 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which allows some visitors from specified countries to be admitted without visas.
h) I understand and agree that no single admission to the United States will be for more than 30 days.
In signing below, I understand that I am waiving the opportunity to apply for any extension of nonimmigrant stay (except under the appropriate circumstances, at its discretion the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) may grant an additional period of stay before satisfactory departure), a change of nonimmigrant status, or adjustment of status to that of permanent resident (except in asylum cases), whether filed affirmatively with DHS or defensively in response to an action for removal. I understand and agree that any failure to comply with conditions of admission will result in a permanent inability to apply for the benefits of this provision.
___________________
(Applicant's Signature)
At first glance, the procedure doesn't seem so bad; it merely asks if you are positive, and if you disclose the truth, that you assure the government that you'll exercise a little caution, right? But why are we asked about HIV at all? And who reviews these forms after they are submitted? Can HIV+ travelers still be banned from entering the U.S.?
The simple fact is that we are still being subjected to institutional scrutiny, and there are no guidelines or limits to the authority of the immigration agents who review the disclosure forms. You can still be excluded from the U.S.because you have HIV.
Has Obama betrayed us? Why are there still any HIV+ travel restrictions? One can only conclude that our government still assumes that there are a significant number of HIV+ men and/or women who might spread HIV through carelessness or worse, intentionally. It assumes that we can't be trusted.
As a result, no U.S. Government agency has published a definitive rule that prohibits itself or its employees from excluding HIV+ visitors.
This isn't the first time that America has marginalized a suspect minority. In 1944, In Korematsu v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed that it was perfectly fine and dandy to relocate Japanese-Americans to protect the country from saboteurs and spies for the public good. Despite much criticism, including a "proclamation" by President Gerald R. Ford in 1976 that the segregation of Japanese-Americans was wrong, Korematsu remains the law today.
So what can we do about it? Do the numbers support this de facto AIDS apartheid? Is it fair to assume that we are a public health risk? Uncle Sam seems to think so. Unfortunately, and unless our voices are heard, he'll keep pointing a finger of suspicion and stigma at all of us.
David H Weiss is an attorney admitted to practice before the Courts of the State of New York and the United States. He has been living with HIV for almost 30 years. His website, which is desperately in need of an update, can be viewed at DavidWeissNY.com
People living with HIV could soon monitor their own condition at home using a hand-held device, similar to ones used by diabetics .
Scientists at three of London's largest research centres have been granted £2m to develop a hi-tech, finger prick blood-testing gadget.
The device's tiny mechanical sensors - microcantilever arrays - measure HIV levels to warn of impending flare ups.
A display then alerts the user if there is any need for them to visit a doctor.
 |
It would be very useful if HIV patients could check their own viral measures
 Lisa Power of the Terrence Higgins Trust
|
Investigator Dr Anna-Maria Goretti, an NHS consultant and co-investigator based at the Royal Free Hospital, said: "If patients neglect to take their treatments or need prompting to see their GP the device will provide a simple way of letting them know. "It will really empower HIV patients to keep a close eye on their health and their treatments." Read the rest of the article at Self-monitoring
When properly used, the ability to test your own viral load makes sense for most of us, although I'm sure that there that will always be a few of us who become obsessive about it or break out the test kit after every episode of "True Blood". Not that I want to shill for the medical profession, but it shouldn't replace working with your doctor.
Like so many of you, I have experienced abuse by the private health care industry in America. The following is a summary of the complaint to the New York State Attorney General, Andrew Cuomo, that I have drafted and will send shortly:
"I am a 58 year-old attorney living with HIV. My wife and I subscribed to Health Net last year and my coverage was renewed this year by COBRA election after we divorced. Health Net states that my coverage has been in effect this year since 3/7/09, but they are still not paying for my medication, Atripla, a claim for which was submitted by my pharmacy and rejected by Health Net. It appears that Health Net is playing the float by requiring patients to pay for their medications in advance and submit claims to Health Net for reimbursement. In effect, the HMO gets paid for twelve months but only provides services for eleven. This is the second year in a row that they have done this. Kindly assist."
My experience with Health Net is hardly unique. In September 15, 2008, for example
Health Net agreed to a multimillion-dollar settlement over allegations of unfair claims handling and policy cancellations, according to the California Department of Insurance. The Woodland Hills, California, health care insurer was required to pay $14.2 million in billed medical charges and waive $7.2 million in insurance premiums and possibly pay a $3.6 million penalty to the state. The company was also required to reinstate health care coverage for 926 consumers whose policies were canceled during the past four years and prevent improper rescissions going forward, according to the California regulator's statement.
The worst HMOs are fly-by-night operations with little knowledge of health care. In order to maximize profits they exclude sicker patients from enrollment, ration care through inconvenience, impose burdensome micro management of clinical decisions by nonmedical staff. In the worst cases they deny expensive care that would be beneficial for their enrollees. The profits go to the executives and stockholders, not the patient care.
When will our legislators fix the health care system? WILL they fix it?
"I am a 58 year-old attorney living with HIV. My wife and I subscribed to Health Net last year and my coverage was renewed this year by COBRA election after we divorced. Health Net states that my coverage has been in effect this year since 3/7/09, but they are still not paying for my medication, Atripla, a claim for which was submitted by my pharmacy and rejected by Health Net. It appears that Health Net is playing the float by requiring patients to pay for their medications in advance and submit claims to Health Net for reimbursement. In effect, the HMO gets paid for twelve months but only provides services for eleven. This is the second year in a row that they have done this. Kindly assist."
My experience with Health Net is hardly unique. In September 15, 2008, for example
Health Net agreed to a multimillion-dollar settlement over allegations of unfair claims handling and policy cancellations, according to the California Department of Insurance. The Woodland Hills, California, health care insurer was required to pay $14.2 million in billed medical charges and waive $7.2 million in insurance premiums and possibly pay a $3.6 million penalty to the state. The company was also required to reinstate health care coverage for 926 consumers whose policies were canceled during the past four years and prevent improper rescissions going forward, according to the California regulator's statement.
The worst HMOs are fly-by-night operations with little knowledge of health care. In order to maximize profits they exclude sicker patients from enrollment, ration care through inconvenience, impose burdensome micro management of clinical decisions by nonmedical staff. In the worst cases they deny expensive care that would be beneficial for their enrollees. The profits go to the executives and stockholders, not the patient care.
When will our legislators fix the health care system? WILL they fix it?
It now appears that the U.S. government will limit prosecutions of medical marijuana sellers in those states where medical marijuana can be legally purchased:
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said federal agents will now target marijuana distributors only when they violate both federal and state laws, a departure from the policy of the Bush administration.
It's not seen by many as a move by the Obama administration toward the legalization of marijuana. Obama's dismissal of legalization in the recent "town hall" discussion makes that clear. However, it could end much of the confusion among state and federal authorities dealing with the mishmash of laws in which cultivating, using and selling pot for medical purposes is allowed by states but outlawed by the federal government. "This signals, in my mind, a true kind of federalism," said Jody Armour, a law professor at the University of Southern California. "The federal government is allowing states to take chances, to take experiments and see what happens."
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said federal agents will now target marijuana distributors only when they violate both federal and state laws, a departure from the policy of the Bush administration.
It's not seen by many as a move by the Obama administration toward the legalization of marijuana. Obama's dismissal of legalization in the recent "town hall" discussion makes that clear. However, it could end much of the confusion among state and federal authorities dealing with the mishmash of laws in which cultivating, using and selling pot for medical purposes is allowed by states but outlawed by the federal government. "This signals, in my mind, a true kind of federalism," said Jody Armour, a law professor at the University of Southern California. "The federal government is allowing states to take chances, to take experiments and see what happens."
California is one of 13 states that allows medical use of marijuana. Over the past 2 1/2 years, the federal Drug Enforcement Administration has raided at least 80 dispensaries in California, the majority in the Central District that extends from the Central Coast down to Orange County and includes Los Angeles. Yet criminal charges have only been filed in several of those cases against the biggest distributors accused of breaking both federal and state laws, said Thom Mrozek, spokesman for the U.S. attorney's office in the Central District of California.
"What we have done in all of our narcotic cases is to focus on large-scale traffickers," Mrozek said. "In terms of what happens in the future, the federal government will continue to enforce federal narcotics law."
(read the rest of the article on Yahoo at Medical Marijuana )
Recent Comments