Author Archives: IvaGabbard

Bernie Delegates Ease Up on Protest Plans

by IvaGabbard Posted on July 26, 2016

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

On Monday afternoon, Bernie Sanders sent a message to his delegates requesting that they not disrupt the convention by mounting protests inside the Wells Fargo Center. He followed up that evening, on the opening night of the Democratic National Convention, with a forceful speech declaring that to advance the progressive revolution he has championed, his supporters should work fervently to elect Hillary Clinton. Now the Sanders delegates who came to Philadelphia disappointed, angry, and looking to express their dissatisfaction with Clinton, the Democratic Party, and the whole damn political process are grappling with what to do.

On Monday, some Sanders delegates appeared to be looking for a fight. Organizers of the Bernie Delegates Network—an outfit independent of the Sanders campaign—talked of convention floor protests or walkouts and even the possibility of nominating a vice presidential candidate to challenge Tim Kaine, whom some Sanders supporters view as too centrist. Sanders delegates at breakfast meetings jeered Clinton. And when Sanders addressed his delegates that afternoon and urged them to support Clinton against Trump, he was met with a wall of loud boos and seemed unnerved by the fierce reaction.

But by Tuesday morning, there was a shift. Clinton delegates reported that the anti-Clinton mood of many Sanders delegates had seemed to soften. Mitch Cesar, a Democratic Party official in Florida and a Clinton delegate, recalled, “I watched the Bernie people’s reaction very carefully as the evening went on, with Michelle Obama, Elizabeth Warren, and Bernie speeches. There was a slow warming. I saw the Bernie delegates becoming more energized and enthusiastic in reacting to Clinton. It was incremental but continuous. It’s a process. And we’re just looking for progress.” And though some Sanders delegates had booed references to Clinton at the start of the day’s proceedings, the booing did diminish over the course of the first night.

At a Tuesday morning briefing held by the Bernie Delegates Network, no one was discussing protests or walkouts. Norman Solomon, the co-chair of the group, told reporters that an effort to challenge Kaine had failed after a Sanders supporter went to a Democratic National Committee office in search of the forms needed to file such a challenge and was not provided with the necessary paperwork. He claimed the DNC had thwarted this move in an unfair manner. Solomon said the anti-Kaine Sanders delegates had recruited a known “genuine progressive” to run against Kaine in what he acknowledged would be a symbolic endeavor. But Solomon refused to identify this progressive. Reporters protested that he was not being transparent. But Solomon insisted that the progressive who had offered to take on Kaine had agreed to do so on the condition that he or she would remain anonymous until it was clear this challenge could actually occur.

The press conference grew a bit heated, as incredulous reporters pressed Solomon for the name and he insisted the issue was “moot” due to the supposed DNC shenanigans. At one point, a reporter requested that Solomon text the person and ask if he could disclose his or her name. Solomon and his fellow Sanders delegates at the event did not identify any other organized actions that Sanders delegates might conduct to express their discontent with Kaine, Clinton, or the Democratic Party. But one delegate from New Mexico, Teva Gabis-Levine, who is a whip for his state’s Sanders delegation, noted that on Monday when he received instructions from the Sanders campaign to tamp down the booing, he did not pass that guidance to his delegation. He said he wanted Sanders delegates to “speak their mind as they see fit.”

At the event, Donna Smith, executive director of Progressive Democrats of America and a Sanders supporter, said she couldn’t stop crying during Sanders’ convention speech: “There’s a great deal of heartbreak surrounding listening to Bernie Sanders…A feeling of a moment history passed.” She asserted that there remained a need to allow Sanders delegates to “have a voice.” Though Sanders and pro-Sanders speakers at the convention noted that they had achieved concessions from the Clinton campaign in drafting a progressive platform and implementing a rules change lessening the influence of superdelegates, Solomon contended that the Clinton camp and the DNC has not done enough to achieve party unity: “The onus rests in the hands of Hillary Clinton and the DNC.” But he did not present options for the Sanders delegates.

Smith and Solomon did note that Sanders was right regarding the threat posed by Trump. “It’s essential to defeat Donald Trump,” Solomon said. But it appeared that he and Smith—and perhaps other Sanders backers—are having a tough time resolving what may be conflicting impulses: how to continue the Sanders’s anti-establishment revolution while supporting the establishment candidate who can keep Trump out of the White House. As Solomon said of Sanders, “he’s making the best of the box he’s in.”

Visit site: 

Bernie Delegates Ease Up on Protest Plans

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Bernie Delegates Ease Up on Protest Plans

Is It “Madness” to Rebuild a Flu Virus That Wiped Out 50 Million People?

by IvaGabbard Posted on June 12, 2014

Mother Jones

Flu-stricken soldiers at Camp Funston in Kansas. US Army/Wikipedia

Remember the Spanish Flu of 1918? Of course you don’t. That’s the freakishly deadly influenza strain that swept the globe in 1918 and 1919, wiping out 30 million to 50 million people. It infected about one in four Americans and killed about 675,000. It didn’t just kill little kids and the elderly, either, like most flu strains. This one was unusually devastating in young, healthy people—although why the “mother of all pandemics” behaved as it did is not fully understood.

This week, Yoshihiro Kawaoka, an influenza researcher at the University of Wisconsin-Madison (which happens to be my hometown), published a new study—”Circulating Avian Influenza Viruses Closely Related to the 1918 Virus Have Pandemic Potential.” It describes the creation of a highly pathogenic flu virus that varies by just 3 percent from the Spanish Flu. “To assess the risk of emergence of a 1918-like virus and to delineate the amino acid changes that are needed for such a virus to become transmissible via respiratory droplets in mammals, we attempted to generate an influenza virus composed of avian influenza viral segments that encoded proteins with high homology to the 1918 viral proteins,” he and his coauthors wrote.

Needless to say, some of Kawaoka’s scientific peers think he’s insane to do such a thing. As Harvard epidemiologist Mark Lipsitch told the Guardian, “I am worried that this signals a growing trend to make transmissible novel viruses willy-nilly, without strong public health rationale. This is a risky activity, even in the safest labs. Scientists should not take such risks without strong evidence that the work could save lives, which this paper does not provide.”

This isn’t the first time Kawaoka’s work has created a stir. I’ve written previously about how his lab and Ron Fouchier’s came under fire after they created potential pandemic flu strains that could be spread by air between ferrets—a reliable model for human-to-human transmission. Back in 2002, in fact, I telephoned Kawaoka to ask whether, in the wake of 9/11, he felt it might be dangerous to publish techniques for reconstituting killer viruses, as his lab had previously done. His response was prickly. “That has to be published,” he said. “That’s science. If you say you shouldn’t publish this or that, we should say you shouldn’t make knives or guns—or airplanes, because that was used as a weapon in September.”

It would require a high level of expertise to do the work, he argued, and a terrorist would first have to acquire the sequence. When I countered that the sequences were published, he said, “You can do it, but it would take forever.”

Not so long these days, thanks to advances in equipment and methodology. “This is not rocket science,” the Nobel Prize-winning virologist Peter Doherty told me last year. “Anyone with a basic training in molecular virology can do these experiments. People can do it in their garage if they were sophisticated and they had a bit of money.” He added: “We published the sequence of the resurrected 1918 virus with very little controversy around 2000, I think it was. Nobody made much fuss and it’s a deadly virus—anyone could’ve rebuilt that virus.”

It’s been done, actually. And now Kawaoka has come pretty darn close using using gene segments from modern viruses. “It’s madness, folly,” virologist Simon Wain-Hobson told the Guardian. “It shows profound lack of respect for the collective decision-making process we’ve always shown in fighting infections. If society, the intelligent layperson, understood what was going on, they would say ‘What the F are you doing?'”

The debate is no longer even about terrorism. It’s about whether the scientists themselves can keep these things in check. The risk here is accidental infection, perhaps from a laboratory mishap. The scientists who work with these viruses, Doherty assured me, are really top-level people working “under extraordinary security conditions.” And yet, shit happens. In a study published last May in the journal PLOS Medicine, Harvard’s Lipsitch calculated that “a moderate research program of ten laboratories at high safety level standards for a decade would run a nearly 20% risk of resulting in at least one laboratory-acquired infection, which, in turn, may initiate a chain of transmission.”

When the next terrifying flu emerges, we are at least more equipped to deal with it than we were back in 1918. “We’re incredibly better at monitoring it and reacting quickly,” Doherty says. “There’s a great global network of influenza centers, and the technology is infinitely better. A lot of people in 1918 probably died from secondary bacterial infections. We’ve got antibiotics to deal with bacteria, and so we’d do better there. Also, it looks as though we’ll be able to make a lot of flu vaccine very fast. At the moment, it takes us at least six months to get much out there.”

Then again, there’s this.

Clarification: At the suggestion of a reader, a PhD student in virology, I updated the story to note that the actual 1918 flu was reconstituted in a lab in 2005. Kawaoka created a similar virus using modern sequences. “To be honest, even after reading the paper I’m not sure why,” the student noted.

View article:  

Is It “Madness” to Rebuild a Flu Virus That Wiped Out 50 Million People?

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Is It “Madness” to Rebuild a Flu Virus That Wiped Out 50 Million People?