After years of struggle, and some truly distressing failures, this is the one and only successful HIV vaccine trial.

It was definitely took an odd approach. Take two failed vaccines, combine them together, and see if they’ll work. The first vaccine stuffed into a tamed Canarypox virus some of the critical functional proteins of the HIV virus. (Canarypox is in the same broad family of viruses that includes Smallpox. Birds are the desired home of Canarypox; it’s capable of getting into human cells, but not properly replicating itself once in. As such, it has the ideal vaccine combination of really pissing off the human immune system while being incapable of causing injury.) The second, booster, vaccine was simply some of the purified and isolated surface protein (gp120) from the HIV virus. (This booster vaccine is a bit like going around the human immune system with a mugshot of the HIV virus. The isolated protein is incapable of causing disease, but gives the whiff of what the real deal is like.) When the study was first proposed, parts of the scientific community were non-plussed. Isn’t zero times zero still zero?

Nope, it’s one third. What do you do with a vaccine that only works sometimes, or only for some? For a vaccine to be considered clinically useful (i.e, after the shots are done, you can feel confident in telling someone they are vaccinated and protected against the infection), you’d hope to have at least 70-80% of those vaccinated to be protected. (Herd immunity takes care of the rest of the risk, eventually.) Further, this vaccine combination (bizarrely) failed to produce neutralizing antibodies even in the successfully vaccinated.

For the next few months and years, the results of this study will be torn into, trying to answer some of these questions. In the meantime, this is an extremely heartening sign–indicating a real potential to salvage other failed vaccines into successful combination therapies.

Science can help. First up, the ideal gas law: PV = nRT. (It’s pronounced peev-nert. Say that to your friendly local mechanical engineer and you’ll likely receive a ’8.31, yo!’ back in return. Plus or minus a fist pump, or high five. Know you’ve done well.)

You probably know this law, at least in a practical sense. Think of the last time you’ve used an aerosol spray can. After a while, it gets cold. Decompressing a gas (from high pressure inside the can to relatively low pressure in the air) requires adding some heat to the gas. The heat is taken from the surrounding environment. The can gets cold. On the flip side, think of the last time you filled up a tire with air. As you compress air into the tire, it gets hot. Compressed gasses need to give off some heat, making the surroundings hotter.

You can think about the molecules in a gas as being like a class worth of kindergartners. At low pressure, it’s like they’re at recess–each running around like a hyperactive lunatic. When compressed, gasses are more like the kids sitting quietly around at story time; some fidgeting is going on, but each must be calmer and closer together. Pressurizing a gas from recess to story time requires a whole bunch of hyperactivity energy to be blown off.

Compressing gasses gives off energy as heat. Decompressing gasses absorbs heat. Air conditioners do this in a constant loop. Inside your house, a gas is depressurized, absorbing heat from the room in the process, cooling the air. The low pressure gas is then pumped outside. Outside, the gas is compressed, releasing the heat energy taken from inside. Then it heads back in. Over and over again.

From NOAA:

NOAA’s National Weather Service has issued a report that analyzes forecasting performance and public response during the second deadliest tornado outbreak in U.S. history. The report, Service Assessment of the Super Tuesday Tornado Outbreak of February 5-6, 2008, also addresses a key area of concern: why some people take cover while others ride out severe weather.
….
In reviewing the public response, the team found that two-thirds of the victims were in mobile homes, and 60 percent did not have access to safe shelter (i.e., a basement or storm cellar). The majority of the survivors interviewed for the assessment sought shelter in the best location available to them, but most of them also did not have access to a safe shelter. Some indicated they thought the threat was minimal because February is not within traditional tornado season. Several of those interviewed said they spent time seeking confirmation and went to a safe location only after they saw a tornado. Many people minimized the threat of personal risk through “optimism bias,” the belief that such bad things only happen to other people.

2. Willed ignorance in the face of growing danger, in service of greed.

From the Boston Globe:

The federal agency that insures bank deposits, which is asking for emergency powers to borrow up to $500 billion to take over failed banks, is facing a potential major shortfall in part because it collected no insurance premiums from most banks from 1996 to 2006.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, which insures deposits up to $250,000, tried for years to get congressional authority to collect the premiums in case of a looming crisis. But Congress believed that the fund was so well-capitalized – and that bank failures were so infrequent – that there was no need to collect the premiums for a decade, according to banking officials and analysts.

Now with 25 banks having failed last year, 17 so far this year, and many more expected in the coming months, the FDIC has proposed large new premiums for banks at the very time when many can least afford to pay. The agency collected $3 billion in the fees last year and has proposed collecting up to $27 billion this year, prompting an outcry from some banks that say it will force them to raise consumer fees and curtail lending.

3. Manipulate and lie, to temporarily cover your ass.

From NakedCapitalism:

Readers may recall that during Lehman’s demise, a pitched battle was underway between some short sellers, epitomized by David Einhorn of Greenlight Capital. Einhorn raised questions about Lehman’s financial statements, specifically, inconsistencies and rosy looking valuations. The struggle became weirdly per[s]onalized, as Lehman sought to burnish the image of charmismatic CFO Erin Callen, as contrasted with the presumed to be evil company wrecking Einhorn. Of course, if the real performance (as opposed to what the reports said) was as bad as Einhorn’s line of inquiry suggested, it was management that had done the company-wrecking, but that level of detail is often lost on CNBC.

And one of the regular features of the Lehman versus its detractors affair was leaks to the media, leaks of a sort that even if the firm had done it in a way that it had plausible deniability, were clearly intended to reach outside parties, particularly the media.

Now let us turn to Citi. Recall what transpired, per the Wall Street Journal:

Citigroup Inc. was profitable in the first two months of 2009 and is having its best quarter in a year and a half, Chief Executive Vikram Pandit said in an internal memo aimed at boosting employee and investor confidence in his struggling bank.

Yves here. This is simply stunning. The Journal says up front a supposed internal memo was in fact intended to reassure investors.
….
Dunno about you, but this looks to me like a bald faced attempt to manipulate the stock price, and it certainly worked.

Let’s look at the pro-Prop 8 text from the official voters guide:

YES on Proposition 8 does three simple things:
It restores the definition of marriage to what the vast majority of California voters already approved and human history has understood marriage to be.

It overturns the outrageous decision of four activist Supreme Court judges who ignored the will of the people.

It protects our children from being taught in public schools that “same-sex marriage” is the same as traditional marriage.

Proposition 8 protects marriage as an essential institution of society. While death, divorce, or other circumstances may prevent the ideal, the best situation for a child is to be raised by a married mother and father.

The narrow decision of the California Supreme Court isn’t just about “live and let live.” State law may require teachers to instruct children as young as kindergarteners about marriage. (Education Code § 51890.) If the gay marriage ruling is not overturned, TEACHERS COULD BE REQUIRED to teach young children there is no difference between gay marriage and traditional marriage.

We should not accept a court decision that may result in public schools teaching our kids that gay marriage is okay. That is an issue for parents to discuss with their children according to their own values and beliefs. It shouldn’t be forced on us against our will.

Some will try to tell you that Proposition 8 takes away legal rights of gay domestic partnerships. That is false. Proposition 8 DOES NOT take away any of those rights and does not interfere with gays living the lifestyle they choose.

Claiming “the best situation for a child is to be raised by a married mother and father” is false. Children raised in a household led by a same-sex couple are indistinguishable from those raised by heterosexual parents. Study after study has demonstrated this.

Preventing “children from being taught in public schools that ‘same-sex marriage’ is the same as traditional marriage” however does cause demonstrable harm. Kenneth B. Clark’s “Doll Test” tells us that letting proposition-8 stand will damage children who are biologically determined to be attracted to the same sex–telling them their capacity for love is wrong and beneath that of the heterosexual majority.

The mob has no right, in our country, to strip a minority of its dignity. Make a note of it, California Supreme court.

Autism is not caused by vaccination.

Autism is not caused by vaccination.

Autism is not caused by vaccination.

Autism is not caused by vaccination.

Autism is not caused by vaccination:

…..a special federal court ruled Thursday that the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine and vaccines that contained a mercury-based preservative were not connected to the autism that developed in three children.

Can we please–pretty please, with a cherry on top–please, please, please stop looking for a causal connection between vaccination and autism? Please? Because, after decades of intensive research–I could have found hundreds upon hundreds of published studies looking into this question, each demonstrating a lack of connection, or unconvincing connections or correlations–we have the answer: Vaccines do not cause autism.

Given how little money is available for scientific research in general, and research on pediatric health in particular, this is just simply wasteful. Criminally wasteful. The continuing obsession by some parents–absolutely certain in the existence of a non-existent connection between vaccination and autism–is wasting precious time and money. This money could be used to develop therapies for autism, to look for far more promising causal agents or studying other serious illnesses of childhood.

Please. Please. Vaccines don’t cause autism. Can we stop asking now?

Rather than go after an outright ban on animal use in labs, these effective activists came up with a regulatory structure–a set of rules an overwhelming majority of people could agree with. Animals used in laboratory research have strict housing and care guidelines–requiring a vet checking over things, no overcrowding, fresh food and water and as disease-free of an environment as can be created. All animal research must be pre-approved by a panel–including vets, fellow scientists and citizens (i.e. animal rights activists.) Everyone working with animals must undergo extensive training–renewed at least once a year. And so on. Animals used in a lab are treated better than children in the care of most States.

It was an adult path to take–recognizing the ethical interest in both developing new cures or health knowledge through scientific study of animals and the preventing cruelty to animals. This path took much work–time spent talking to vets, scientists, reading and writing laws, lobbying politicians and building public support. It’s much less fun than meeting up with your buddies for a Friday night protest outside a small business.

It worked in almost every way possible. By forcing all labs to engage in the highest level of animal care practices, animal research became more expensive and onerous. As a result, the decision to start an animal study is a profoundly serious one in labs–with every alternative exhausted. Fewer animals are used, and those used are cared for in the best and kindest way possible. Labs that violate these rules are subject to the severest penalties–including a total loss of funding.

Imagine what the twenty or so NARN activists–currently wasting hours with childish comments on SLOG, or purposeless protests of a single restaurant serving a single dish–could do if they switched tactics. Most of us–omnivores and vegetarians (such as myself)–are totally and completely disgusted with the practices of industrial farms: the use of hormones and antibiotics, the use of disgusting industrially rendered and non-physiological feeds, the overpacking, the mutilation to allow overpacking into cages, the total lack of concern about disease and health. The details coming out about this month’s salmonella outbreak could be applied to outbreaks in hamburgers, berries, or a dozen of other abusively produced foods.

How about NARN–these same small handful of people–sitting down with vets and food safety experts and drafting up a set of realistic regulations for industrial farms: no clipping of beaks, no overcrowding of animals, no pro-acidic diets for ruminants, no autophagy–for example. Demand that any industrial farm directly or indirectly receiving federal subsidy follow these guidelines. Go after people’s hearts through their stomachs.

It would take work–long boring hours reading scientific documents, writing proposals, lobbying politicians, and educating the public. More importantly, it’ll take an adult recognition that while you might not want to eat meat, others will. If you are serious about the betterment of animals–instead of whining about silly bans–focus on small, broadly agreeable changes in how food animals are treated. By crafting regulations that both vegans and omnivores can agree upon, you’ll genuinely help animals and actually advance your cause in a meaningful way.

It worked for your fellow activists concerned about laboratory animals. You should learn from them, NARN.

And here’s what might be most shocking–despite being saddled with the costs and responsibilities of being the largest private pension and health insurance provider in the world, GM has made clever and key investments that deserve fulfillment. Yes, I’m talking about an American car-maker; hear me out.

Nevermind the now-defunct EV-1–the first modern mass-produced electric car. GM’s heavy-duty hybrid technology would be far more revolutionary than Toyota’s.

The Toyota technology can only be applied to smaller, lighter vehicles–topping out at perhaps the Highlander SUV. Such vehicles are only suited to commuting. In contrast, GM’s technology (developed with BMW and Chrysler) can be applied to huge vehicles–pickups, commercial trucks, and buses.

Why is the GM technology superior? The efficiency gains from hybrid technology are vastly larger in big vehicles. A Prius has only about a 20% gain in operating efficiency, compared to a similarly sized and shaped car. In contrast, the improvement for a full-sized pickup is more like 200-250%.

The Prius, in many instances, is replaceable; bicycles for short trips, mass transit for basic travel. Commute-shmommute; abandoning those cars will give us greater gains than switching to slightly better engines. But those larger vehicles, their tasks are still imperative.

Even if you buy into the environmentally clean car commute bullshit, GM’s approach here is objectively better than anyone else. The Chevy Volt drives its wheels only with electric motors, supplementing the energy stored in a modest battery pack with a gasoline-fired electric generator.

Electric motors produce all their torque right from the start–obviating the need for any sort of energy-sapping transmission system, particularly the ornate sort required when both gas and electric motors are driving the wheels. The small battery pack is sufficient in capacity for the vast majority of trips taken by people with these sorts of cars. The vast majority of energy in vehicle is stored as liquid fuel–that is more weight, space and energy efficient than batteries will ever be. And, since the gas-fired motor is only attached to a generator, it can always operate at its optimal speed using only fixed gearing. The whole package uses each part to its maximal advantage, while being overall simpler than the Prius-hybrid approach. If people are going to continue to commute by car, and live in sprawl, this is the better approach.

I just crawled out of bed and sat down at my kitchen table, giving my brain an attempt at accepting all that has happened tonight.

The results for the Washington State races seem almost unbelievably good–Tim Eyman destine for definitive defeat, transit for a definitive victory along with death with dignity, the reelection of our democratic governor and the potential victory of Darcy Burner.

And then, there is Obama. It doesn’t seem possible. We live in a country willing and able to reelect George W Bush a mere four years ago, to probably pass a punitive and vicious discriminatory State Constitutional amendment on this very evening. And yet, Obama. With a landslide.

And it’s all over the country. As I write this, there is a distinct chance that the Democrats will achieve a 60 person super majority in the Senate and pick up a larger than expected number of seats in the House.

We asked the country, and received “yes” as an answer this time.

On my kitchen table are the week’s New York Times–surrounding me with the pre-election moment.

A few scattered headlines:

“Steep Decline in October Auto Sales Leaves No Seller Immune”

“New Terrain For Arbiters Of a Bailout”

“Afghan Officials Aided an Attack on U.S. Soldiers”

“U.S. Rejects G.M.’s Call For Help In a Merger”

“Debt Links to Huge Buyouts Is Tightening the Economic Vise”

“Next President Will Face Test On Detainees”

“Fed Adds $21 Billion To Loans For A.I.G”

“New Anxiety Grips Russia’s Economy”

“Economy Shrinks With Consumers Leading the Way”

“Mortgage Plan May Aid Many And Irk Others”

“Specter of Deflation Lurks As Global Demand Drops”

“A Rescue Hindered By Politics”

After eight–perhaps twelve–years of terrifying, out-of-control skidding it finally feels as though our collective feet have found purchase. We’ve finally stopped our plummet, or at least started to stop our decline, far closer to the edge of a deep abyss than any of us would like. Or so I hope.

Trudging back up is going to make the next four years (and probably many more) as difficult as anything known to the overwhelming majority of us. And have no more illusions. It won’t be the Chinese, the Russians, the EU. We must be in the lead of the difficult rise as much as we were the leaders of the swift and easy fall.

McCain, and particularly Palin, were selling the notion that these problems weren’t real, that the real problem is we aren’t belligerent and profligate enough, that all we need to do was double down. Obama means we’re finally ready to about face, and start grappling with the long-neglected reality of our situation.

So, as I sit anxiously awake at four AM, all these thoughts–and a few others, of the sweet feeling of victory, of the vanquishing of so much hatred and fear, of relief of the end of procrastination–swirl through my mind. Much coalesces to a sharp point. I’d work for the Obama administration, grinding my life against what we collectively face.

And I suspect I am not the only one.

For those of you keeping track, we’re not really bailing out US homeowners; we’re bailing out the bondholders of Freddy mac and Fannie Mae. The predominant bondholder? The central banks of Asian nations. How are we financing this bailout? Using US Government Treasury bonds. Who is buying those? The central banks of Asian nations. For now, at least.

If confidence in US Treasury Bonds falters, we’re all doomed. This is not an exaggeration.

The next president, who in turn will set the regulatory environment, really matters. The best, perhaps the only way, to restore investor confidence in US and global financial institutions is through tight regulation. To be blunt: investors are correct. The Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac bonds were far crappier than they were told. Until everyone in convinced things are worth their claimed worth, things are only going to get worse. We need a president who can take on the financial industries, who is above corruption on this issue above all others.

What follows is a cartoon depicting his involvement in the Keating Five scandal–the last big collapse of US financial institutions, that cost taxpayers over $200 billion (in today’s dollars.)

FiveThirtyEight makes an excellent point:

In a perfect world, we would all like a President who is Ready on Day One (TM); it is not uncommon for a newly-elected president to face a major crisis almost immediately upon taking office. But more commonly, a President takes the Oath of Office under relatively calm waters, allowing them something of a learning curve.

On the other hand, when a Vice President takes over for a president, the nation is necessarily undergoing a crisis, because the death (or resignation) of a president is perhaps as traumatic an event as can reasonably be imagined (in the “best” case resulting from a slowly-developing illness, and the worst, an attack by terrorists or foreign adversaries).

In that light, the GOP’s recent political theater bullshit isn’t just silly. It’s dangerous. I’m totally and completely fed up with Sarah Palin and her personal, professional and political problems. Enough of the notion that deciding to carry a child with trisomy-21 to term makes one capable of leading the nation in a crisis. Enough.

Every single one of these family planning problems have long been solved. I’m willing to bet that Sarah Palin couldn’t make a coherent ethical argument against medically accurate sexual education and contraception, even if you gave her unlimited access to a Jesuit priest and every peer-reviewed medical article ever written. It’s bullshit–pure, unmitigated, willful ignorance parading as a sound ethical position.

I can tell you any couple should have access to the dozens of safe and effective forms of birth control. I can even tell you the precise failure rates of the different methods.

Back when I was in high school–going to school with assholes like this guy–and before the world wide web was really active, I was the source of medically accurate information for a terrifying number of my classmates. Everyone knew my mother was a public health nurse; there was nowhere else to go.

No child in the United States should be so ignorant that they wait until three periods have been missed, all the way to the twilight of the first trimester, before wondering what their choices are. No one should be confused about when and how a couple can get pregnant. No couple should be denied access to–or information about–contraception.

These problems are solved. Long ago solved. Solved in a way that so many of the other problems facing our nation are not solved, are being left now ignored as we debate something that is, in any reasonable sense, undebatable.

Enough of Sarah Palin and the idiotic family planning policies she represents. Enough.

We no longer have the luxury of this debate–with our economy, environment and petroleum-fueled lifestyle all teetering. Her case for herself is centered around her family planning choices. We need our next Vice President–who will only become president during of crescendoing crisis–to be better, more thoughtful and more focused on the actual problems we face.

I’m watching this again, just to bring my brain back up to the serious state needed to start addressing our nation’s and world’s real problems: