no humans available?

What sort of veterinarian would be willing to intentionally irradiate primates for Homeland Security research dollars? Anthrax research is so 2001- we're preparing for nuclear attack now.

contact:
Mark Cline, DVM, PhD
Wake Forest University School of Medicine
jmcline@wfubmc.edu

---

The Primate Studies Core will facilitate the conduct of late-stage preclinical studies of radioprotectants or mitigators of radiation damage in nonhuman primates, following the specific priorities of the consortium. Because of the high degree of genetic and physiologic similarity of nonhuman primates to human beings, this resource is a critical component of translational assessment of candidate deliverable agents, in an experimental setting under which relevant doses of whole-body irradiation can be given to healthy subjects.

Core investigators have unique skills in the experimental use and clinical medicine of nonhuman primates including irradiation; veterinary medical care and management of myelosuppressed animals; comparative pathology of primates; pathology of radiation injury; biochemistry, clinical pathology and endocrinology of primates; and adaptation of molecular biologic techniques to the primate model. Core services will include acquisition and maintenance of specific-pathogen-free primates, exposure of animals to radiation, administration of therapeutic interventions, and clinical and pathologic assessments of treatment outcomes in nonhuman primates, including necropsy and tissue collection and sharing for baseline characterization of radiation responses and assessment of mitigating interventions.

---

wfupc

a seat at the table

[ click to enlarge ]

“For many people in the industry, these contributions are a defensive measure. Health care is the No. 1 domestic policy issue, and they want access, a seat at the table.”
~ Phillip J. Blando, a political strategist who advises insurance and biotechnology companies

“As long as the candidates are willing to talk to us, we can educate them.”
~ Mary Nell Lehnhard, senior vice president of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association

source: NYT-10/28/07

---

"Are you telling me that we're gonna sit at a table and negotiate with those people? . . . Anybody who thinks that we don't have a fight in front of us is living in Never-Never Land."
~ John Edwards, on health care companies

someone had to say it

from Michael Moore:
Barack Obama is a good and inspiring man. What a breath of fresh air! There's no doubting his sincerity or his commitment to trying to straighten things out in this country.

But who is he? I mean, other than a guy who gives a great speech? How much do any of us really know about him? I know he was against the war. How do I know that? He gave a speech before the war started. But since he joined the senate, he has voted for the funds for the war, while at the same time saying we should get out.

He says he's for the little guy, but then he votes for a corporate-backed bill to make it harder for the little guy to file a class action suit when his kid swallows lead paint from a Chinese-made toy.

In fact, Obama doesn't think Wall Street is a bad place. He wants the insurance companies to help us develop a new health care plan -- the same companies who have created the mess in the first place.

He's such a feel-good kinda guy, I get the sense that, if elected, the Republicans will eat him for breakfast. He won't even have time to make a good speech about it.

But this may be a bit harsh. Senator Obama has a big heart, and that heart is in the right place.

Is he electable? Will more than 50% of America vote for him? We'd like to believe they would. We'd like to believe America has changed, wouldn't we?

Obama lets us feel better about ourselves -- and as we look out the window at the guy snowplowing his driveway across the street, we want to believe he's changed, too.

But are we dreaming?


Who Do We Vote For This Time Around?

impeach cheney

with 381 days to go,

imagine the mischief.

sign the petition

while there's still time.

thanks for the reminder AC

"all your base are belong to us"

TRex addresses VodkaPundit's dissatisfaction with Iowan Republicans:

[excerpt]

"Get ready for the GOP of 2008, 'Theology! Chastity! Creepy!' The cross-eyed, toothless snake-handlers that you people rounded up to put your boy Dubya over the line back in 2000 and 2004 have spoken. And they don’t cotton much to the likes of you, college boy. They want a candidate who Reflects Their Values, which means, basically, a grown man who believes that Noah’s Ark ran aground high atop Mount Ararat and that Adam and Eve didn’t have belly-buttons.

. . . . .that’s your base. I don’t know what gave you the illusion that the Republican Party is ultimately made up of Ayn Rand-reading, college-educated, free market worshiping tax scofflaws, but here’s a news flash for you. This is the real face of the Republican Party."

---

a more temperate analysis from digby

[excerpt]

The Republican establishment obviously has no idea what to do about him. He's a creature of the monster they created when they empowered the "low information" rural evangelical base. I suspect they will try to get to the preachers and turn them against him, but they can't afford to go after him too hard or too obviously or they will suffer hugely in the down ticket races in the fall if the evangelicals stay home. And the alternative who seems to be emerging is John McCain, someone who is loathed by the same evangelicals. It's a problem.

What we are seeing is the three wings of the conservative movement fighting for supremacy: Romney from the money wing, McCain (or Rudy) from the hawk wing and Huck from the God wing. The first two are part of the political establishment and rely on it for guidance. Up until now, the God wing did too. But now they have one of their own and they really don't need the permission of the money boyz or the hawks to vote for him. And they sure don't care what the pointy headed TV gasbags think about it.

Huckabee won big last night with no money and no organization. Maybe he can't replicate it anywhere else. But I think he might. The religious right is the biggest single voting bloc in the GOP --- the people they cultivated and trained to vote en masse for the Republicans. They have a very specific agenda of social issues that they care about and understand very well. They are true believers.

last words

. . . for those who knew me well enough to be saddened by my death, especially for those who haven't known anyone else lost to this war, perhaps my death can serve as a small reminder of the costs of war. Regardless of the merits of this war, or of any war, I think that many of us in America have forgotten that war means death and suffering in wholesale lots. A decision that for most of us in America was academic, whether or not to go to war in Iraq, had very real consequences for hundreds of thousands of people. Yet I was as guilty as anyone of minimizing those very real consequences in lieu of a cold discussion of theoretical merits of war and peace. Now I'm facing some very real consequences of that decision; who says life doesn't have a sense of humor?

But for those who knew me and feel this pain, I think it's a good thing to realize that this pain has been felt by thousands and thousands (probably millions, actually) of other people all over the world. That is part of the cost of war, any war, no matter how justified. If everyone who feels this pain keeps that in mind the next time we have to decide whether or not war is a good idea, perhaps it will help us to make a more informed decision. Because it is pretty clear that the average American would not have supported the Iraq War had they known the costs going in. I am far too cynical to believe that any future debate over war will be any less vitriolic or emotional, but perhaps a few more people will realize just what those costs can be the next time.

This may be a contradiction of my above call to keep politics out of my death, but I hope not. Sometimes going to war is the right idea. I think we've drawn that line too far in the direction of war rather than peace, but I'm a soldier and I know that sometimes you have to fight if you're to hold onto what you hold dear. But in making that decision, I believe we understate the costs of war; when we make the decision to fight, we make the decision to kill, and that means lives and families destroyed. Mine now falls into that category; the next time the question of war or peace comes up, if you knew me at least you can understand a bit more just what it is you're deciding to do, and whether or not those costs are worth it.

excerpted from Andy Olmsted's last blog post at Obsidian Wings

that's how the light gets in . . .

Menomena

José