Wednesday, July 30, 2014


News Clips For The Day

http://healthmap.org/site/diseasedaily/article/human-trials-ebola-vaccine-11812

The Disease Daily
Human Trials For Ebola Vaccine?
Jason Hayes – Research and Policy
November 8, 2012

Recent Ebola outbreaks in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Uganda underscore a persistent challenge about the terrifying little virus: we don’t yet know how to prevent it. In fact, we only recently made steps towards curing it.

However, based on new research from Canada, the same scientists who identified antibodies that stopped Ebola infection in monkeys believe they have identified antibodies that may predict whether the immune system can overcome Ebola. The new discovery from Gary Kobinger and his team at the Public Health Agency of Canada means that scientists can assert if a vaccine for Ebola will work.

Quick refresher: Antibodies are proteins that the immune system produces when it detects the presence of pathogens. Each pathogen has a particular set of identifiers, called antigens, which trigger the release of specific antibodies. The immune system releases antibodies to identify and neutralize pathogens.

Until now, the serum that saved monkeys in the lab could not be tested on humans because it would require scientists to expose humans to one of the deadliest viruses in the world, without knowing if they could be saved.

Kobinger’s research provides reassurance. In a study published in Science, Kobinger compared animals with IgG levels – blood borne immune system triggers – of the antibody produced against potentially lethal inoculations of Zaire ebolavirus (ZEBOV). The findings confirm that this specific antibody can offer immunity. As a rule of thumb with other diseases, the antibodies Kobinger found provide correlates of protection, or expected immunity – with up to 99 percent accuracy. Not only can scientists now predict immunity but they can also confirm a vaccinated person will become immune, which is a step towards human trials.



http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/no-more-ebola-outbreaks-hopes-canadian-expert-1.1924926

CTV News – My Health
Helen Branswell, The Canadian Press 
Last Updated Monday, July 21, 2014 7:54PM EDT
No more Ebola outbreaks, hopes Canadian expert

TORONTO -- A Canadian scientist who recently returned from the front lines of the West African Ebola outbreak says he hopes this is the last time the world has to combat the virus without specific treatments or protective vaccines.

Dr. Gary Kobinger, chief of special pathogens at Canada's National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg, suggested this outbreak -- the largest on record -- will speed efforts to get emergency use approvals to employ some of the experimental vaccines and therapies in future Ebola epidemics.

"My really, really deepest wish -- and I don't want to call this a dream, because it's not a dream -- is that there won't be another outbreak like this. (That) this is the last one. Next time, we'll be ready," Kobinger said in an interview Monday.

But Kobinger agreed with others in his field who have argued that it would be unwise to use these untested tools this time, saying the Ebola vaccines and drugs must go through Phase 1 clinical trials in people before they could be used in an outbreak setting. Phase 1 trials involve giving a drug or vaccine to a small number of healthy adult volunteers to ensure that it is safe for human use.

"These are all experimental drugs that have not met the requirements ... even for a Phase 1 (trial) right now in humans. So they have to pass all the toxicity (tests), they have to pass the safety trials," he said.

A case that serves as a reminder of the importance of clearing these regulatory hurdles involves an Ebola drug being developed by Tekmira Pharmaceuticals Corporation of Burnaby, B.C. Their product was one of the Ebola treatments considered to be furthest along in the developmental pipeline.

The company was recently told to suspend its Phase 1 trial by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which is demanding more information about a reaction experienced by one of the subjects in the study. On Monday, Tekmira said it was preparing its response to the FDA's clinical "hold" letter.

Kobinger and two other researchers from the Winnipeg laboratory -- Allen Grolla and Dr. Jim Strong -- returned late last week after nearly a month in Guinea and Sierra Leone, working as part of the international efforts to contain the prolonged outbreak. Grolla and Strong are both specialists in diagnostics for special pathogens, the term used by laboratories to describe deadly viruses such as Ebola and the related Marburg virus.

Over the past 15 years or so the Winnipeg lab and several in the United States have made significant headway in developing Ebola vaccines and treatments that look highly promising when studied in non-human primates. The vaccines even appear to prevent death in some cases when given after exposure to the virus, if they are administered quickly enough.

But bringing these treatments to the field has proven to be difficult, with financial and regulatory hurdles frustrating the best efforts of the scientists involved.

The scale of this outbreak is renewing interest in breaking down those barriers, however. A number of experts are now talking of the need, once this outbreak is over, to chart a path so the next time there will be therapeutic options.




Hopefully the funds will be provided to finish the trials on this vaccine so that it can be used on humans. Even an experimental vaccine would be welcome in an outbreak like this one that is ravaging Africa today, and threatens to spread to wider regions. One health worker got on a plane recently while feeling healthy, only to find that he had developed a fever by the time he reached his destination. It is not impossible for the next travel destination to be Europe or the US. I'm looking forward to some good news about the vaccine. I hope the slowness of the research on this disease isn't due partly to the fact that most of the citizens of Africa are black. I wonder why no scientists in the US have been doing research on it. According to these two articles we are close to having a successful vaccine, though. That is great news.






How to retire with no retirement savings
By STEVE VERNON MONEYWATCH July 30, 2014, 5:30 AM

What retirement planning advice do I have for people who make an average salary in America and have little to no retirement savings?

A reader posed this question in the comments section of a recent post I wrote that provided retirement planning advice for a hypothetical 65-year-old woman who earned $75,000 per year and had accumulated $500,000 in retirement savings. Our reader pointed out that most workers in the U.S. make less than $75,000 annually and probably don't have that much in retirement savings.

So, I'll take on this challenge. This time, let's say this 65-year-old woman makes $50,000 per year -- close to the median U.S. household income in 2011 according to Census Bureau statistics. Further, let's assume she has no retirement savings.

I'll start by stating the obvious: Investing strategies and methods for generating retirement income from savings won't help her because she doesn't have any assets to invest.

At this point, the most important decision she can make is to continue working until age 70 and wait to start her Social Security benefits at that age. Based on estimates from the Quick Calculator on Social Security's website, if she had retired at age 65 and started collecting her Social Security benefit then, her monthly benefit would roughly be about $1,500 per month, or close to 36 percent of her monthly salary. But if she keeps working until age 70 and starts Social Security then, her monthly income will increase to about $2,050, or close to 49 percent of her monthly salary.

If she wants to retire full-time at age 70 and no longer earn any employment income, she'll need to reduce her living expenses to the level of her Social Security income. She'll need to focus on buying "just enough" to meet her needs and be happy. Most likely this will be a struggle, unless she has paid off the mortgage on her house, which will make things a little easier.

To help cover her living expenses, one option she may want to consider is the "Golden Girls" solution of sharing living quarters with other people in her situation. If she owns her house, she may want to consider renting a room to bring in more income.

While these ideas may have obvious drawbacks, they would help reduce her living expenses significantly and also address the issue of loneliness, a serious problem for many elderly people.

If she wants to continue her current standard of living, instead of retiring full-time at age 70, she'll need to continue working to supplement her Social Security income. In fact, she could work half-time and still have about the same total income compared to when she was working full-time (remember that her Social Security benefit equals about half of her salary if she starts it at 70).

This way, she'll still have plenty of extra time to pursue her interests and feel like she's retired. Eventually she'll need to reduce her living expenses, though, because chances are good she won't be able to work much past 80. At that age, it's still likely she'll live for several more years, based on current life expectancies.

If she has home equity, another option would be to sell her home to gain some liquid assets, then deploy those assets to generate retirement income. If her home equity is $500,000 or more, this plan would help her retire earlier than age 70. In this case, she could use the retirement income generating strategies presented in a recent post.

Another possibility is for her to use a reverse mortgage to generate supplemental retirement income. Most likely, however, her home equity is much less than $500,000, so she should wait to deploy her home equity until she's physically no longer able to work and truly needs the additional income.

Many people might groan at the idea of working into their 70s, but our hypothetical retiree really doesn't have much of a choice unless she's able to dramatically reduce her standard of living. It's entirely possible she can't wait to retire for a variety of reasons -- she's bored at work, she doesn't like her job, she doesn't want to keep pace with changes at work, her health prevents her from working and so on. But that only identifies the problems she needs to address.

She could continue working if she found work that was flexible, enjoyable and keeps her physically and socially active, working with people whose company she enjoys. Easier said than done, I know, but that's the goal. She might take some consolation in evidence that suggests working in your retirement years enables you to keep your wits longer and be healthier.

To be satisfied with her life, our retiree will want to shift her goal from being retired full-time to being happy because a traditional retirement of "not working" in her mid-60s may not be feasible for her. Retirement for her will be more of a state of mind than a reality.

I can imagine that some readers will comment that the suggestions in this post aren't ideal or fair, and that hard-working people deserve a better outcome. While that may be the case, I'm addressing the reality of the circumstances of people who arrive at their retirement years with little or no savings.

People in their retirement years with little or no retirement savings have limited choices -- that's the reality of retirement in the U.S. today. I'm encouraged, however, by the flexibility, resilience and resourcefulness of most Americans, who'll need these characteristics to survive in their retirement years.




I have considered having a housemate into my old age (which I consider to be 75 or so) because I have always enjoyed the companionship of another woman who is politically and philosophically similar to me. I like having someone to sit with in the living room or at the dining room table and talk. I don't really want to be married again, though people in their sixties and seventies are doing that now, and not totally without sexual activity, either. Either way the rent and living costs are shared if you buy groceries and cook together. I think people who are absolutely against the thought of moving into an apartment with someone rather than staying by themselves in a house with all the expenses of house living may need to change their attitude and outlook unless they can find a way to bring in more income.

My income is completely from Social Security and a very small pension now, but I do have a few thousand dollars in savings, which I try not to spend. If my car breaks down and a large amount of money needs to be spent to fix it, I may have to bite the bullet and give up driving. After all the city has bus service from the very door of my apartment building to most places around the city, though it may require changing buses several times. Senior citizens get to ride free of charge, however, and I have plenty of time on my hands to spend on long and tedious bus routes, and I always carry a library book to read. In addition I live in Federally subsidized housing, so that if my income goes down so does my rent. I have managed to set up a budget that is within my monthly income and I'm not dipping into savings.

I don't buy extras, of course. Luckily I have no desire for a new smart phone every time one comes out or a big-screen wall mounted television. I do want to keep my computer and the Internet, which is not cheap, but so far I'm able to afford it. My advice to people who have retired without much in savings is to set up a reasonable budget that fits within your income and strictly live on it. It really isn't bad at all.






GOP demand for IRS special counsel faces long odds
By STEPHANIE CONDON CBS NEWS July 30, 2014, 6:04 AM

House Republicans have made it abundantly clear that they don't trust the Obama administration to investigate the way the IRS from 2010 to 2012 unfairly targeted some political groups.

In May, the House went so far as to pass a resolution calling for Attorney General Eric Holder to appoint special counsel to investigate the misconduct. On Wednesday, the House Judiciary Committee will press the matter further, hearing from legal experts about the case for a special prosecutor.

"Over a year has passed since we first learned that the IRS had been targeting conservative groups for additional scrutiny as they applied for tax exempt status and today, no one has yet been held accountable," committee chairman Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., said in a statement.

Charging that President Obama and administration officials have "repeatedly and publicly undermined" investigations into the matter, Goodlatte said, "The American people have lost confidence in the Justice Department's ability to get to the bottom of this scandal without spinning or covering up the facts."

What Goodlatte and others seeking a special prosecutor will hear Wednesday won't be entirely encouraging: even some legal experts who agree that a special prosecutor would be appropriate for the case say that Holder has complete discretion over the matter. Since the rules regarding the appointment of independent special prosecutors were changed in 1999, only one special prosecutor has been appointed: in 2003, the Justice Department appointed U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald to investigate the leak of a CIA agent's identity.

Meanwhile, the White House said bluntly last month that they're not considering the appointment of a special prosecutor, dismissing the interest in one as politically motivated.

"There have been a large number of claims and conspiracy theories that have been floated about this process by Republicans that just have not panned out, frankly," White House spokesman Josh Earnest said. "And we've demonstrated our willingness to collaborate with them with legitimate oversight."

Earnest pointed to the extensive work Congress has done investigating the misconduct, without finding any solid evidence of White House connections. He also noted that an independent inspector general concluded that no one outside of the IRS was involved. That lack of evidence of White House interference suggests there's no conflict of interest corrupting the Justice Department's own investigation.

Still, some see plenty of evidence of a conflict of interest. They're holding out hope that the Justice Department may change course as Republicans in Congress keep up the pressure.

"If you look at the facts of the case, this is unique in our history not simply because it's an agency that's confessed to wrongdoing -- that's happened before," Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice told CBS News.

"You've also got here the Justice Department's engagement in this -- the DOJ's investigating itself, in a sense," he added, pointing to evidence such as an email from Lois Lerner -- the former IRS official at the heart of the scandal -- suggesting the Justice Department wanted to "piece together" a case against the political groups the IRS was targeting.

Sekulow represents several of the conservative groups that were subject to undue scrutiny by the IRS, and he plans to tell Congress Wednesday that the Justice Department has "reached a point where there's a complete lack of credibility."

At the same time, Sekulow acknowledges in his prepared testimony that under current federal regulations, "the appointment of a Special Counsel is completely discretionary with the Attorney General."

He told CBS News, "My hope is the cumulative efforts, through hearings like this one and the daily disclosures of what really went on here, would lead Eric Holder to make the right call, and that would be to appoint general counsel."

Charles Tiefer, a law professor at the University of Baltimore, told CBS News that the Justice Department's involvement in this scandal is scant compared to past instances when the White House similarly refused to appoint a special prosecutor.

For instance, Senate Democrats in 2007 formally asked for a special prosecutor to investigate the claims Attorney General Alberto Gonzales made to Congress about the NSA wiretapping program.

"Unlike today's Justice Department conspiracy, this was a potential very specific perjury charge against the attorney general personally, making the conflict of interest patent and strong," Tiefer says in his prepared testimony for Wednesday's hearing.

Additionally, in 2006, dozens of House members asked Attorney General Michael Mukasey to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate whether the enhanced interrogation of detainees -- justified by a memo written by a Justice Department official -- was illegal.

Prior to 1999, the rules governing the appointment of special counsel were not simply federal regulations but codified law.

In the wake of the Watergate scandal, Congress passed a law in 1978 requiring the attorney general to appoint a special prosecutor -- one named by a court panel -- if there were credible criminal allegations against certain executive branch officials.

"When it was a statute... it took away a lot of the [attorney general's] discretion and made it more obligatory for the Justice Department to appoint special counsel," Tiefer said. That's why in the 1990s, he said, "Ken Starr was made the Whitewater independent counsel and got piece after piece of prosecutorial jurisdiction -- Janet Reno was hemmed in by the statute." Both Tiefer and Sekulow said that no one is calling for a return to this kind of legal requirement.

"Anyone who lived through the Clinton administration, the never-ending Kenneth Starr role -- nobody can want that back," Tiefer said.

The 1998 elections, he argued, proved that point. That year marked the only midterm election in modern history during an administration's second term in which the president's party actually gained seats.




“In May, the House went so far as to pass a resolution calling for Attorney General Eric Holder to appoint special counsel to investigate the misconduct. On Wednesday, the House Judiciary Committee will press the matter further, hearing from legal experts about the case for a special prosecutor.... What Goodlatte and others seeking a special prosecutor will hear Wednesday won't be entirely encouraging: even some legal experts who agree that a special prosecutor would be appropriate for the case say that Holder has complete discretion over the matter. Since the rules regarding the appointment of independent special prosecutors were changed in 1999, only one special prosecutor has been appointed....”

"There have been a large number of claims and conspiracy theories that have been floated about this process by Republicans that just have not panned out, frankly," White House spokesman Josh Earnest said.... He also noted that an independent inspector general concluded that no one outside of the IRS was involved. That lack of evidence of White House interference suggests there's no conflict of interest corrupting the Justice Department's own investigation.”

I, personally, don't think Obama is basically dishonest or as predatory in his party politics as Richard Nixon was, so I doubt that the IRS would be told by him to investigate conservatives as a dirty trick or a political warfare technique. Articles from a year or so ago which spoke for the IRS said that rules on how to select organizations had been reworded slightly, making the distinctions less clear. The matter had to do with how much political activity the organization does, as opposed to their social services or church work, in order to decide whether they should get tax free status. IRS officials said that they had misinterpreted the new wording and had ceased the practice since. In other words, it wasn't a conspiracy, but a mistake. That article also said that liberal organizations which did a great deal of political work were also cut out from going tax free. I believe them.






Mississippi abortion law ruled unconstitutional in appeals court
AP July 29, 2014, 3:26 PM

JACKSON, Miss. - A federal appeals court panel ruled Tuesday that a Mississippi law that would close the state's only abortion clinic is unconstitutional.

The three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued its 2-1 ruling in a case involving the state's 2012 law, which required physicians at the clinic, Jackson Women's Health Organization, to obtain admitting privileges at a local hospital.

Physicians at the clinic applied for the privileges at Jackson-area hospitals but were unable to get them.

Attorneys for Mississippi argued that if the clinic closed, women could get abortions in other states.

"Today's ruling ensures women who have decided to end a pregnancy will continue, for now, to have access to safe, legal care in their home state," Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, said in a news release.

The appeals court panel ruled that a U.S. Supreme Court decision in 1973 established a constitutional right to abortion. The panel ruled that Mississippi may not shift its obligation for established constitutional rights of its citizens to another state.

"Pre-viability, a woman has the constitutional right to end her pregnancy by abortion. H.B. 1390 effectively extinguishes that right within Mississippi's borders," wrote the two judges in the majority ruling, E. Grady Jolly of Mississippi and Stephan A. Higginson of Louisiana.

The Mississippi law, signed by Republican Gov. Phil Bryant, was in House Bill 1390.
The 5th Circuit handles cases from Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas. Judge Emilio M. Garza of Texas wrote that he disagreed with the ruling by Jolly and Higginson.

"Because the undue burden test requires an assessment of the difficulty of obtaining abortion services, whether in a woman's own state or a neighboring state, and because neither the district court nor the majority has undertaken this assessment, I respectfully dissent," Garza wrote.

In late March, the 5th Circuit upheld a 2013 Texas law that puts several restrictions on abortion clinics, including requiring their physicians to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles. After that, the Center for Reproductive Rights filed a new lawsuit challenging parts of the Texas abortion law, including the admitting privileges requirement.





“The three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued its 2-1 ruling in a case involving the state's 2012 law, which required physicians at the clinic, Jackson Women's Health Organization, to obtain admitting privileges at a local hospital. Physicians at the clinic applied for the privileges at Jackson-area hospitals but were unable to get them. Attorneys for Mississippi argued that if the clinic closed, women could get abortions in other states.... The panel ruled that Mississippi may not shift its obligation for established constitutional rights of its citizens to another state.”

State laws simply enacting rules that make it impossible for an abortion clinic to operate is a sneaky, backdoor way of attacking a woman's right to an abortion. Being a lawyer or a legislator requires a great deal of legal scholarship and research just to keep up with the times. Just because the Supreme Court deemed abortion under certain circumstances to be legal doesn't mean that the war won't go on. Of course, religious people may believe that it is a holy war, but not everyone in this country is required to be religious, and those citizens have rights, too. I am relieved to see this case put forward to challenge the Mississippi law. The same people who call a woman's right to choose whether or not to bear a baby, “murder,” often are “conservative” about the death penalty and approve of it thoroughly. Whenever there is an execution there are Catholics outside the prison protesting, and "conservative" Protestant citizens cheering the process on. The death penalty and soldiers fighting in a war could both be called “murder.” Yet pacifists are scorned by many and considered to be unpatriotic. The "culture wars" go on unabated as we move through this new century. 2014 is a lot like 1975 -- it gets tiresome, but I will continue to support Democratic causes, give what little money I can and vote at every election.






Speaker Boehner Shoots Down Impeachment Talk, Blasts Democrats for Pushing It – ABC
By Jeff Zeleny
July 29, 2014

Speaker John Boehner shot down talk of impeachment once again today -- raising his voice as he blamed Democrats for trying to push the idea for political gain.

“We have no plans to impeach the president. We have no future plans,” Boehner said, answering a question from ABC News at a news conference. “Listen, it’s all a scam started by Democrats at the White House.”

Scam or not, Democrats say they are raising record amounts of money over the threat of impeaching President Obama. Republican leaders have repeatedly said they have no plans to call for articles of impeachment. But they are moving forward with a lawsuit against the president, accusing him of overreaching his executive authority, which has kept the talk of impeachment alive. The House is set to approve this rare lawsuit in a vote Wednesday.

On the Senate floor today, Majority Leader Harry Reid also seized on the impeachment idea.

“We shouldn't be off on the tracks of impeachment and suing the president,” Reid said. “We should be legislating.”

Democratic leaders have flooded supporters with fundraising appeals, including one that said: “House Republicans Refuse to Rule Out Impeachment.” The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee said it raised $2.1 million in online contributions last weekend alone.

But Boehner blasted Democrats for misleading Americans.

“This whole talk about impeachment is coming from the president’s own staff and coming from Democrats on Capitol Hill,” he said. “Why? Because they’re trying to rally their people to give money and to show up in their year’s elections.”





Well, if this is a scam aimed at raising Democratic participation and donation of funds, it is certainly working. I wonder if the Republicans will profit from trying to sue Obama for doing what George W. Bush did before him. If Obama's administration has been clever in its methods, that's all to the good. Obama saw Boehner and his Tea Party friends block Democratic bills time after time and decided to act within his authority to make some improvements. It shows his initiative and political courage. Hooray for him!





New York Skyscraper's Separate 'Poor Door' Sparks Outrage – NPR
by JANET BABIN
July 30, 2014

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio's administration is under fire for signing off on a building plan that allows a new luxury high-rise on Manhattan's western edge to have a separate entrance for low-income residents.

About 20 percent of the units in the 33-story tower will be reserved for low- and middle-income residents. But all the affordable units will be grouped in one area, and those tenants will have to enter through a separate door.

"This developer must go back, seal the one door and make it so all residents go through the same door," City Councilwoman Helen Rosenthal said. "It's a disgrace."

Rosenthal is demanding an end to what some here have dubbed the "poor door."

Civil rights attorneys say a significant number of tenants in the subsidized apartments could be minorities. Lawyer Randolph McLaughlin says that makes the building's design more than disgraceful — but possibly illegal.

"To permit developers or encourage them to create separate and unequal buildings and take tax credits and benefits from the city," he said, "I think that's a constitutional violation."

The developer, Extell Development, defends the two doors, saying it complied with zoning laws by essentially creating two separate buildings.

Housing advocates say Extell is exploiting a loophole in the laws, while City Hall blames the prior administration for creating those laws and approving the deal. De Blasio swept into office promising to address income inequality.

"The plans for this building were submitted and construction commenced on the project in 2013, prior to the new mayor being elected," said Alicia Glen, the deputy mayor for housing and economic development.

Extell's president, Gary Barnett, said the zoning law is aimed at creating more affordable housing. In this building, he said, the affordable units will rent for about $15 a square foot, whereas market-rate units will fetch five or six times that.

"Would you rather not have the affordable housing? Ask any one of the thousands of people who are applying for that, and they don't give a damn," he said. "They want to have a beautiful apartment, in a beautiful neighborhood, and you know, at a super price."

But some New Yorkers aren't persuaded by that super price.

"Once again we're putting segregation right up front, and we're making it legal to segregate people," a caller from Queens said on WNYC's Brian Lehrer Show.

On streets near the new building, it was hard to find a resident who would mind a separate entrance in exchange for a sweet, cheap rental.

"I definitely understand why people would be upset, but I would not take it too personally," said Roman Golubov, who lives in a subsidized apartment. "If I had the opportunity to live in a skyscraper and I had to walk through the poor door, I'd get over it."

Meanwhile, City Hall is trying to get over the controversy. Officials are promising a comprehensive review of the zoning laws and say they will work to close the poor-door loophole.





It's two steps forward and one step back in the social culture of the US. Some conservatives are really undemocratic in their views, to the degree that they will require poor people to go to another door. That's directly from old Victorian novels in England and the Jim Crow South – the hero who was not an aristocrat or who as a black person was supposed to go to the kitchen door to enter the house. There is no logical reason for that except to humiliate the members of the poorer classes. Everybody should be able to walk through the same door, and should nod and say hello when they meet someone there.