Tracker

(Another one bites the dust) Anti-Vax Priest Who Claimed Vaccines Contain ‘Aborted Embryos’ Dies of COVID An Italian priest who shunned COVID-19 vaccines over the false belief that they contain “aborted embryos” has died at the age of 51 after battling coronavirus for several weeks. Don Paolo Romeo had resisted pleas to get vaccinated from friends and colleagues who tried to talk sense into him, according to the L’Unione Sarda newspaper. Romeo, who served as parish priest at Santo Stefano Abbey in Genoa, had clung to the conspiracy theory espoused by followers of French Catholic Archbishop Marcel François Marie Joseph Lefebvre: that vaccines are made using cells from aborted embryos. (This claim is false and has been debunked even by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, which noted in a statement released in January that “neither Pfizer nor Moderna used an abortion-derived cell line in the development or production of the vaccine.”) Fetal cell lines, which are cloned copies of cells taken from elective abortions that were performed decades ago, were used in the testing of vaccines and have frequently been used for the testing of widely used drugs like ibuprofen and aspirin. But even the Vatican has stressed that COVID-19 vaccines are “morally acceptable” and “can be used in good conscience” during the pandemic. Romeo refused to be swayed, however, and he continued to celebrate Mass despite coronavirus infections spreading. He was diagnosed with the virus in January and was admitted to a hospital near his church after his health rapidly deteriorated, according to local reports. Anti-Vax Priest Don Paolo Romeo, Who Claimed Vaccines Contain ‘Aborted Embryos,’ Dies of COVID (thedailybeast.com)

It is starting to look like a circus, and going to get weirder and weirder.

So far it looks like the defence will be set soon and even better than last year, given the continuity. The only possible fly in the ointment might be Richie Hall's health.

Fact-checker torches Chip Roy for circulating false conspiracy about Canadian PM fleeing to the United States Fact-checkers are pushing back against Rep. Chip Roy's (R-Texas) false claims about Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. According to The Daily Beast, Roy's post stems from a conspiracy about Trudeau fleeing Canada "in fear of a group of truck drivers who are protesting vaccine mandates" in Ottawa, Canada. In a series of Twitter posts shared on January 31, Roy slammed Trudeau and even called for him to be deported from the states even though he is not in the country. With a photo of Trudeau, Roy tweeted, “Is there a more gutless and cowardly display than a tyrant on the run?” The following day, he tweeted: "If Justin Trudeau is hiding in the United States, we should return him to Canada and make him face his own people immediately." He added, "No safe haven for fleeing COVID tyrants. #LiveFree #DeportTrudeau." And he included a graphic that featured a promotional logo for his congressional campaign, a photo of Trudeau, and the words "DEPORT TRUDEAU." Fact-checker torches Chip Roy for circulating false conspiracy about Canadian PM fleeing to the United States - Alternet.org

I have little doubt he was playing for minimum wage for the honour (?) of playing for the Riders. He can retire knowing that he did his bit to create the season the Riders had.

Isn't Argula some sort of veggie?

O'Toole was doomed from the start. He somehow convinced himself that he could reconcile oil and water and unsurprisingly failed. PCs have a long and sordid history of assassinating leaders who do not produce immediate results and this is no exception. No matter who is chosen next, he/she will meet the same fate and the party will inevitably split. The intoxicating success of Harper simply delayed the inevitable.

This Breakthrough Cancer Treatment Has Prevented Leukemia Relapse for Over a Decade Doug Olson was 49 years old with a wife and four kids when he was diagnosed with chronic lymphocytic leukemia in 1996. His initial treatments were pretty successful, but by 2010 almost 50 percent of his bone marrow was cancerous again. That’s when he enrolled into a clinical trial of a new cancer therapy led by his oncologist, David Porter from the University of Pennsylvania’s Perelman Center for Advanced Medicine, together with one other patient. The experimental treatment, also known as CAR T-cell therapy, would tweak Olson's own immune cells to spot and kill leukemia cells, and reintroduce them into his body through blood infusion—something that previously showed promise only in trials on mice. Olson started physically feeling the results after just a couple of weeks. “That’s when Dr. Porter came into my hospital room and he announced, hot off the press, that 18 percent of my white cells were CAR T-cells,” Olson said during a press conference Tuesday. “I will tell you that moment, I was absolutely convinced that this thing was working and that I was gonna be okay.” The next week, Porter told Olson the clinicians couldn’t find a single cancer cell in his body. It’s been more than 10 years now, and Olson is still cancer free. In a peer-reviewed study published today, in the journal Nature, Porter and the clinicians who followed Olson’s journey document the experimental treatment and its results. The findings show that even after ten years, Olson and the other patient have remained cancer-free thanks to CAR T-cell therapy—validating its incredible efficacy and opening the door for its use in many more cases of leukemia and other cancers in the future. “It was an exciting new therapy, but we've all been involved in many, many, many, many different new therapies and it is rare to hit on something to work so dramatically,” said Porter, lead author of the new paper. “The responses have been beyond our, certainly my, wildest expectations.” T-cells are an essential component of the immune system. They can both direct other immune cells to attack invading pathogens, as well as kill pathogens themselves. T-cells live for a very long time, and can form a lifelong memory of what they’ve recognized before, like from viral exposure in childhood. In CAR T-cell therapy for cancer, a patient’s own T-cells are collected and genetically engineered to produce a molecule called a Chimeric Antigen Receptor, or CAR. These CARs enable the T-cells to identify cancer cells with a laser-eyed focus and eliminate them. Millions upon millions of CAR T-cells are made in the lab, and then re-inserted in the patient through a blood infusion. In theory, CAR T-cells should be able to swoop in and clear out tumor cells with extreme precision and speed. And since they retain such good memory and can circulate in the body for a long time, they should be able to prevent the same cancer from popping up again. But Porter and his colleagues were stunned to see the therapy prevent a resurgence of cancer cells for such a long time in this latest study, given the high rate of remission for leukemia. They suspect CAR T-cells evolve within patients over time to learn better ways to hunt down tumor cells. “[CAR T-cells are] wearing multiple hats,” Joseph Melenhorst, a UPenn immunologist and co-author of the new paper, told reporters Tuesday. “We've called these cells, you know, a living therapy. The major finding that shows in this paper is that 10 years down the road, you can find them, but they have evolved.” The researchers don’t know if there are still leukemia cells forming in Olson’s body and simply being rapidly killed by the CAR T-cells on patrol; or whether there has truly been an absence of cancerous activity in the patient since 2010. What they do know, however, is that when Olson’s CAR T-cells were taken out of his body and confronted with leukemia in the lab, they were still able to kill. Since that clinical trial in 2010, CAR T-cell therapy has now been FDA approved for six different indications, and acute leukemia is treated routinely with this therapy worldwide. But these are the first results to establish how long-lasting it could work for the tens of thousands who’ve already been treated. The major barrier for patients, unfortunately, is price. CAR T-cell therapy can cost anywhere from $300,000 to $500,000. Researchers are trying to create less expensive over-the-counter therapies that have the same approach, with cells made from other donors in large amounts. Then, hopefully, it’ll be possible to expand this therapy to tackle solid cancers too, like breast cancer, lung cancer, or pancreatic cancer. Trials are currently underway, but the results so far haven’t been particularly encouraging. And although the two cases explored in the new paper have had very positive outcomes, the long-term effects of CAR T-cell therapy still need more extensive study. Some patients report worse side-effects because CAR T-cells do have some unique toxicities. Even Olson’s positive outcome was tempered by a bout with tumor lysis syndrome, where the rapid destruction of cancer cells leads to an adverse immune reaction and causes flu-like symptoms like nausea, vomiting, and joint pains. And there are some instances where the CAR T-cells lose some of their efficacy, especially in trials against solid tumors. “The biology of long-lived persisting CAR T-cells isn’t fully understood,” Sara Ghorashian, a CAR T-cell researcher from University College London who was not involved in the study, told The Daily Beast. It’s not entirely clear yet why some patients will see CAR T-cells that last for years, while others might experience fading efficacy in less than six months. A host of unknown factors could be at play, and Ghorashian cautioned against extrapolating the findings to all CAR T therapy settings. Still, within the span of a decade, CAR T-cells have broken out as a game-changing form of cancer treatment. And findings like Porter’s and his colleague’s will only fuel more efforts to learn more about how this therapy works and how we can make it accessible to more patients who are fighting for their lives. CAR T-Cell Therapy Prevented Leukemia Cancer Remission in Patients for Over 10 Years (thedailybeast.com)

( Looks like a lot of Americans Frequent This Mexican Airport)

Thought it was news. Can be deleted.

Couture turns down $200k to sing with Bombers for $180K! The band is getting back together!!!

The GOPers? Hypocritical? Surely you jest! And I'm not calling you Shirley.

But he really got nailed on one play. He was left hung out to fry.

Jesus H. Christ was a quarterback? For Calgary?

The announcement probably means his salary will be cut, but he will have the exclusive right to all the empties in and around Mosaic stadium.

As an aside which will make not a whit of difference to foaming-mouth brigade in Ottawa, the president of the Manitoba Trucking Association stated yesterday that some 90% of his members were fully vaccinated and see no problem with the jab. When you consider that the truckers who do not have to cross borders are not required to be tested or vaccinated (except maybe by their employers) that means well over 90% of international truckers are fully vaccinated, A friend who hauls from western Canada to Texas and a bit of the eastern US, and he says that virtually all of his colleagues from other lines see this vaccination and testing as minor inconvenience. Yet the sycophants out there continue to portray the protesters as representing most, if not all truckers. Incidentally, the morons blocking ports of entry are beginning to draw the ire of sane truckers, whose income depends on their getting their loads to the recipients on time. If this goes on much longer, one of the blockers is going to sustain a brain injury, but it will be hard to tell the effect on them.

There is and always has been, except for a brief honeymoon, a power struggle between the (relatively) sane traditional Conservatives and the nutso Reform Party members and it was always destined to end badly. He has been trying to ride two horses headed in two different directions and here he is. He will probably be actually relieved to leave, even if he is driven out. Dignity does have associated costs. The "broken down" person in Ottawa would be Erin O'Toole, would it not?

(Just when you think the idiots couldn't display their stupidity any further, here is one who believes God instigates rape and approves_) GOP gubernatorial candidate says women should be forced to carry pregnancies to term because the fetus 'may be the next president' A Republican candidate for governor of Michigan is being highly criticized for comments he made around his desire to implement a Texas-style vigilante abortion ban, even for victims of rape. Chiropractor Garrett Soldano, who has no experience in government, says he wants to “defend DNA” by forcing women who have suffered the horrific experience of rape to carry the fetus and give birth to their rapist’s child. “They don’t know that little baby inside them may be the next president, may be the next person who changes humanity,” Soldano said on a podcast in January, as The Washington Post reports Tuesday. After relaying a story of a woman who was “gang-raped by five guys,” Soldano, one of the top Republican contenders, said: “What we must start to focus on is not only to defend the DNA when it’s created, but however how about we start inspiring women in the culture to let them understand and know how heroic they are,” to give birth after being raped. “God put them in this moment,” he added. “We must always, always protect that DNA and allow it to have a voice.” On his campaign website, Soldano says he is the author of “God’s True Law, a parent’s guide to raising successful children.” He has been permanently banned from YouTube. GOP gubernatorial candidate says women should be forced to carry pregnancies to term because the fetus 'may be the next president' - Alternet.org

One in 10 Americans say they're OK with violence now against government: poll The poll found Republicans more likely (71 per cent) versus Democrats (62 per cent) to say violent protest is justified right now against the federal government.© Provided by National Post The poll found Republicans more likely (71 per cent) versus Democrats (62 per cent) to say violent protest is justified right now against the federal government. Nearly a quarter (23 per cent) of Americans say it’s sometimes OK to use violence against the government — and 1 in 10 say violence is justified “right now.” The COVID States Project, a team effort by researchers at Northeastern, Harvard, Rutgers and Northwestern universities, has been polling Americans since April 2020 to determine their feelings about COVID. Having recently become aware of the growing number of “armed protests, threats, and violence against government officials following mask mandates, COVID-19 related closures, and the 2020 election (including, most notably, the deadly Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol),” the team instead focused their latest survey on respondents’ feelings about the violence. Rather than their typical questions, such as whether one mask filters better than another and what they think of vaccine mandate, this time the authors asked 23,000 people across the country whether it is “ever justifiable to engage in violent protest against the government.” Nearly 1 in 4 said violence was either “definitely” or “probably” justifiable, and the answer was not dependent on political leanings — responses were equally balanced between liberals and conservatives. As astonishing as that result may seem, project co-director David Lazer told NPR.org it shouldn’t be — that it may actually be a result of the way American history is taught. “You know, we begin with the American Revolution against an illegitimate government and so we are, in a sense, taught from grade school that it is at some points in history justifiable to engage in violent protest,” he said. Donald Trump’s bid to keep Capitol riot records secret spurned by U.S. Supreme Court Is democracy dying? After hopeful end to 20th Century, the institution withers worldwide Of the 1 in 10 Americans who said violence is justified right now, Republicans and ideological conservatives were most likely to respond that way, the report found. Among Republican men, the response was nearly 1 in 5. Sixty-two per cent say violent protest right now is definitely not justified. Two-thirds of those who believe violent protest is justified say the federal government is an appropriate target, while about one-third say it’s state government. Local government was seen as an appropriate target by 21 per cent. Republicans are more likely (71 per cent) versus Democrats’ (62 per cent) to say violent protest is justified right now against the federal government. Violence against their state’s government right now is approved by more Democrats (43 per cent) than Republicans (26 per cent). Independents logged the highest approval at 38 per cent. Of those who believe violent protest against government is justified right now, 37 per cent of Republican respondents said violence is justified when their state is controlled by a Democratic governor than the 18 per cent who say it’s OK against one from their own party. Rioters surround the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.© Amanda Voisard Rioters surround the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. The Project’s findings have been seen in other survey as well. NPR noted that a University of Chicago poll found almost 1 in 10 Americans believed the use of force was justified to restore Donald Trump to the presidency after he lost. And in December, The Washington Post and University of Maryland together found that 1 in 3 Americans think violence against the government is sometimes justified. The number of Americans who support violent political protests has doubled over the last decade, Rachel Kleinfeld, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, told NPR. (She was not involved in the survey.) Kleinfeld believes there need to be repercussions, not just for those who would go so far as to storm the Capitol, but for those who threaten election workers, school boards and the like — “the warp and weft of our democratic system.” Men, younger Americans and ideologues (liberals and conservatives) are more likely than women, older Americans and ideological moderates to say it is “definitely” or “probably” justified to ever engage in violent protest against the government. A 12 percentage point gender gap appeared in the results. Just 17 per cent of women, compared with 29 per cent of men, said violent protest is “definitely” or “probably” ever justifiable. The 5 per cent gender gap separating men (13 per cent) and women (8 per cent) on whether it is currently justified to violently protest against the government compared with an 11 point gap for whether it is ever justified. Supporters of then-President Donald Trump fight with riot police outside the Capitol building on Jan. 6, 2021 in Washington, D.C.© ROBERTO SCHMIDT / AFP Supporters of then-President Donald Trump fight with riot police outside the Capitol building on Jan. 6, 2021 in Washington, D.C. Younger Americans (ages 18 to 29) were more likely to say violent protest is justifiable, with nearly 2 in 5 (36 per cent) agreeing it is “definitely” or “probably” justified to protest violently. This compares with 23 per cent of 30 to 49-year-olds, 18 per cent of 50-to-64-year-olds, and 14 per cent of those 65 and older. While there was a 22 percentage point gap between the youngest and oldest Americans in whether it is ever justified to protest violently, that gap shrinks to just 11 percentage points in whether violent protest is justified right now (16 per cent of 18-29-year-olds say yes versus 5 per cent of seniors). Views on the justifiability of violence did not differ significantly by race, the poll found. Republicans are only four points more likely than Democrats to say that violence is justifiable. Republican men and Independent men posted a 32 per cent approval for violence ever being justifiable, while Democratic men logged 23 per cent. A significantly smaller portion of the latter group said violence was justifiable right now. Trump supporters invade the U.S. Capitol building on Jan. 6, 2021.© Roberto Schmidt/AFP via Getty Images Trump supporters invade the U.S. Capitol building on Jan. 6, 2021. NPR notes that some researchers, who weren’t involved in conducting the survey, worry that the findings may overstate American support for political violence. Sean Westwood, a professor of government at Dartmouth College, is attempting to correct for survey errors in measurement that come about when people are questioned about political violence. “When trying to measure violence, there’s this tendency to try to be as general as possible to try and capture as much support as possible,” Westwood told NPR. And people who are indifferent — who haven’t thought much about political violence or protests — may randomly pick between the options, which could lead to an over-counting of people who support political violence, he said. One in 10 Americans say they're OK with violence now against government: poll (msn.com)

Trump: Pence Should Be Investigated for Not Reversing My Election Loss Former President Donald Trump has urged congressional Jan. 6 investigators to open up a probe against his former vice president, Mike Pence, over his refusal to help Trump overturn the 2020 election result. Pence and Trump haven’t been on speaking terms since last year, when the then-VP went against Trump’s orders and fulfilled his duty to certify Joe Biden’s election victory in Congress. But their relationship plumbed new depths Tuesday, when Trump released a statement saying that Pence should be under investigation for not reversing the 2020 election result. In a furious statement posted by Trump spokeswoman Liz Harrington on Tuesday, the former president once against attacked the House committee investigating the Capitol riot, and said the panel should be focusing on Pence and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, rather than himself. The ex-president wrote: “The Unselect Committee should be investigating why Nancy Pelosi did such a poor job of overseeing security and why Mike Pence did not send back the votes for recertification or approval, in that it has now been shown that he clearly had the right to do so!” Trump Says Pence Should Be Investigated for Not Reversing His Election Loss (thedailybeast.com)

Bomb Threats Reported At Historically Black Colleges For Second Day Campuses were shut down and classes moved to remote learning following the latest wave of threats taking place on the first day of Black History Month. Howard University in Washington, D.C., is pictured. The historically Black university, founded in 1867, was the target of bomb threats this week. For the second day in a row, historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs) were the target of bomb threats across the country, with this latest wave coming on the first day of Black History Month. Campuses were shut down and classes moved to remote learning following the threats impacting more than a dozen schools as of Tuesday morning. Bomb Threats Reported At Historically Black Colleges For Second Day | HuffPost Latest News (Just 'Muricans being 'Muricans)

Our best hope lies in the decent, concerned politicians both presenting a united front against the neo-Nazi movement and vigorously prosecuting any and all who commit or advocate violence. The American example unfolding now is a frightening demonstration of how badly things can go. All that is necessary for evil to triumph is that good people remain silent.

Probably, and that will relegate the PCs to the back benches for another 5 years, and his replacement will experience the same fate. I am surprised that he lasted this long.