The phone rep is almost easier, because all they can do is withhold their confirmation. So, I told the Sirius guy who I was and that they were no longer authorized to charge my card, hung up, and wrote a note in my files. Sirius charged me again, and I submitted a chargeback. Quick and easy.
Sirius were obnoxious when I didn't convert from free to paid, on a service I wasn't using. The number of times I got phone calls and emails from them ended up with me repeating to them that their behaviour was guaranteeing I would never use them, and would tell friends not to either.
> Though substantial progress was being made, Pfizer decided to pull support ... [t]he “gliptin” class of drugs peaked at annual revenues of around $10 billion and remains a major oral therapy for type 2 diabetes.
> Pfizer found other routes to remain successful (some, such as their mRNA COVID19 vaccine, also in-licensed from smaller companies).
> Even the biggest blockbusters can be dismissed ... by ... ambitious people, ... because ... ideas of how the market will react... .
> These same dynamics are undoubtedly playing out today [seemingly referring to previous statements on their COVID-19 vaccine], and it will likely take decades to determine just how costly some of today’s mistakes will prove to be.
> then the implication is that they released the mRNA vaccine because it too would increase disease (and thus avenues for profitability)
Sure, a disease that kills a patient very quickly is bad for business. Better for them to be alive and fall ill later on from a laundry list of profitable ailments.
> Even when viral load is undetectable, ... may have detectable HIV genetic material in ... semen, but there is no scientific evidence that such material is associated with HIV transmission.
Transmission has never been found when the number of copies of the HIV RNA are below 200 copies/mL--the quantity of virus matters.
For context, the typical ejaculation from someone untreated contains between 10,000 and 1,000,000 copies/mL. With treatment, the average is 1-10 copies/mL.
Besides HPTN 052, there have been three other studies--PARTNER, PARTNER 2, and DISCOVER, of real-world (condomless) usage in mixed serotype couples
> Findings from the breakthrough NIH-funded HPTN 052 clinical trial, a decade-long study involving more than 1,600 heterosexual couples, offered clear-cut evidence that ART that consistently suppresses HIV also prevents sexual transmission of the virus. In 2011, the HPTN 052 investigators reported that starting ART when the immune system is relatively healthy, as opposed to delaying therapy until the immune system has been weakened by the virus, dramatically reduces the risk of sexually transmitting HIV. The protective effect of starting ART early was sustained over four additional years of follow-up. Importantly, when viral loads were measured, no HIV transmissions were observed when ART consistently, durably suppressed the virus in the partner living with HIV.
Wild speculation is that the genetic material you mention is inactivated and therefore unable to transmit the virus, but is still detectable. I am just an internet rando surfing the knowledge graph, but the science appears sound.
I find "absolute minimum" an unfortunate choice of phrasing when the process necessarily has large elements of randomness and could in principle well proceed from a single cell getting successfully infected.
But it's interesting to note that the way HIV generates its infamous genetic variability can result in a remarkably large fraction of the virions being mutated beyond viability.
The infection risk would have to involve a factor of virions getting to a susceptible cell without getting destroyed anyway of course, but given that many of the contenders might not be capable of infecting even if they get there it seems even more understandable if one would usually end up with 10 as the number needed to satisfy some chosen level of statistical significance.
I don't buy U=U, I've not seen a proper impossibility proof re. provirus mutation. There's probably infections drowned out against the background rate.
I don't think I am, in the provirus state you can think of it as essentially a DNA virus in an inert state, and if the DNA fragments the right way it would turn into something similar to a bare DNA vaccine. That design of vaccine essentially does not work, but they have an effect that is not literally zero. I think there's enough holes in the layers of "Swiss cheese" that normally prevent this chain of events that U does not literally equal U.
Edit: right, I'm also assuming the possibility of provirus mutation before this chain of events, and I don't think anyone can deny at least the mutation of HIV before it becomes a provirus.
Are you a virologist, epidemiologist or other specialist with peer-reviewed research pointing in the direction opposite to the conclusions in the paper above? If so, you should publish your findings because that would be a huge refutation of current knowledge and would possibly help the epidemiology of transmission in the greater public.
Until then, I'll take the word of public health practitioners who've been steeped in the field for their entire careers. Their work has been significant enough to be published in Lancet which is a pretty good signal to this layman (though with a bachelor's of science in an unrelated scientific field, so no stranger to reading primary literature).
I probably could write something, but HIV is an epidemiologist's game at this point, and I honestly think the epidemiologists want to say HIV can't transmit in ways that the Hepatitis B virus, a DNA virus, has clearly been demonstrated to transmit. If you press a virologist in private I'm not sure they'll stick to "can't", especially after the COVID-19 virus mutation rate fiasco, and, though not a virus, the prion situation.
I think "can't" deserves at least something physically (as in physics) unlikely, not something that's been demonstrated in a DNA virus previously (and like I said, HIV in provirus form is not unlike a DNA virus).
>Their work has been significant enough to be published in Lancet which is a pretty good signal to this layman (though with a bachelor's of science in an unrelated scientific field, so no stranger to reading primary literature).
i've no opinion on the topic at hand, but I would urge you to find a plethora of signals to form your opinions.
The Lancet has been responsible for quite a few negative 'public health' trends.
The Lancet is responsible, at least partially, for the whole 'vaccines == autism' thing of Andrew Wakefield's; and even ignoring that they have a history of poor review and retraction of work that ends up either being entirely wrong, or guilty of experimental misconduct.
In 1992 they published stuff that suggested a causal link between HIV infection and the oral polio vaccines.
In 1998 they published a (big tobacco funded) peper indicating that second hand smoke doesn't have as much risk as earlier thought.
In 2000 they published a study that claimed that St Johns Wort was as effective an anti-depressant as conventional SSRIs and TCAs.
Just because something has become 'prestigious' doesn't mean it should be trusted wholeheartedly.
This isn't about the Lancet specifically. It's about someone on the internet challenging the overwhelming medical consensus without providing a shred of evidence to support their claims. I can assure you that 'people saying things on the internet' have a far worse record on medical matters than the Lancet, or the medical consensus more generally.
You could try asking a virologist if they think it's possible for the HIV-1 provirus to ever be in a state where it could theoretically be infectious given the right DNA fragmentation.
"A defendant in a criminal prosecution who is acquitted or discharged is not liable for any costs or fees of the court or any ministerial office, or for any charge of subsistence while detained in custody."
Edit: You can search scholar.google.com for "939.06" and find cases such as:
Starkes v. State, 292 So.3d 826 (2020) wherein the 1st DCA issued a writ of mandamus commanding the trial court to certify the defendant's costs (so that they may be reimbursed).
The opinion is not nearly as broad as certain sources say it is. What it actually says is that immunity as to "core" powers is absolute, but it doesn't define the scope of those powers. It says other official powers have some immunity, but are not immune basically if allowing the prosecution wouldn't impair future presidents. Those are both exceptions that are larger than the rule.
Some are saying it is broader than it is because they want charges to be dismissed. Others are saying it's broader because they want a more powerful executive. Others are saying it try to make the court look bad, or to get votes. Some are saying it because they're mistaken / confused. On 4 out of 5 counts, the court remanded for further proceedings without deciding whether Trump has immunity. All of these voices could have easily come out with a different take, claiming victory and saying he will likely be convicted on most counts.
It's not about what the president deserves, but what the people deserve. The founders (after overthrowing one government, forming another, deciding it failed) were tasked with forming a government that can "long endure"... with structuring an office that can both facilitate liberty, but also contend with major enemies foreign (and domestic). The scale of the question is beyond one life or death, but operates on centuries-long timelines. It deals with the equities that face millions of people, not merely the single person holding office.
What is the scope of these "core" powers? During times of war, the Commander in Chief directs military maneuvers etc. in active theatres of combat. At all times he directs readiness and training.
I wouldn't say that the history and tradition of the office is to have Delta Force manufacture artistic pottery cups for children to drink milk from while at school. That action in that time and place would not seem to fall within the role of Commander in Chief (regardless of his intent / subjective belief that the use of fine porcelain may provide some tactical advantage).
Two reasons. First, it's the office that's immune, not the person. If you prosecute a person for something they did "as president" then you're prosecuting the office. Second, it's not to be fair to the person. It's to protect the government from collapsing. People forget that happens all the time, often due to ineffective executive leadership. Look at Haiti, etc. So, I think it's true that Presidents will get away with a few things here and there that they shouldn't, Congress can still impeach and remove them. If Congress is on-board with what the President is doing, then that's a decent safeguard that "at least whatever the President is doing isn't going to destroy the country."
> Under a plain reading, a President is more than welcome to instruct the Justice department to investigate or charge anyone, or to not investigate certain crimes, and that is completely permissible.
I think we have fundamentally different views of the Executive's role. We have 3 branches of government, and the President is the guy who enforces the law. The Justice department is not a 4th branch of government.
The Executive branch does have the authority to enforce laws, but that authority is not absolute. The President cannot go to the Justice department and say "hey, that guy who committed murder, don't prosecute him, because he promised to pay me a lot of money if I let him off". The President cannot go to the Justice department and say "stop investigating me and my political allies or I'll fire you". That second one is what led to Nixon having to resign.
At least, that's what I think should be the case. The majority in this case disagree. They seem to think that any usage of the powers of President is free from any criminal liability.
> The President cannot go to the Justice department and say "stop investigating me and my political allies or I'll fire you". That second one is what led to Nixon having to resign.
There’s definitely nothing legally stopping the president from doing this. This was the Saturday Night Massacre.
The only thing that can stop this is public perception and the threat of impeachment then removal by the Senate.
> There’s definitely nothing legally stopping the president from doing this.
Ford famously pardoned Nixon, which would imply he believed Nixon would be subject to potential criminal liability. And I believe that should be the case.
> The only thing that can stop this is public perception and the threat of impeachment then removal by the Senate.
That’s certainly what the Supreme Court majority believes. I think that is woefully insufficient. You can abuse the powers of the President all you like, and the worst thing that can happen to you is you don’t get to be President anymore. If that’s the case, on the last day of their term, a President can simply say “selling pardons, $1M each”. The president will walk away rich, those pardons can’t be overturned by a future president, and Congress wouldn’t be able to impeach and remove them in enough time for it to matter.
