For obvious reasons, there has been a lot of attention paid to work going into developing vaccines that could prevent Covid-19 infection, and drugs that could treat it. In particular, there has been some excitement about new animal trial data for remdesivir, a drug developed by Gilead Sciences. Gilead's share price rose nearly 10% on the day the trial data were announced.
It will be some time yet before the safety and efficacy of remdesvir is established, if ever (it's worth noting that it was tried, unsuccessfully, as a treatment for Ebola). And since I started work on this post…

Our Beloved Denver (Big Guy), Thank you for teaching us the true meaning of what love was always meant to be. You were a beautiful dog with a beautiful

Hi my angel Day 283 : Damn Each day is worse than the day before. “Time does not heal anything, it just teaches us how to deal with the pain . . .”

Our Beloved Denver, Thank you for teaching us the true meaning of what love was always meant to be. You were a beautiful dog with a beautiful soul that

Dear Shim Shim, I hate this month, it's so miserable and even more so cos you passed on Halloween eve. I remember it all so vividly, your loss and Zeusy's

Hi my baby girl, How are you? Are you playing and having a good time? Are you staying close to Rufus? I hope you're happy and have all kinds of new friends

Hi my big guy, How are you are you having fun? Are you playing and have you made new friends? Are you keeping an eye on Diana? I hope you are happy and

И как оставаться свободным в изменившемся мире

И как здоровый образ жизни помогает быть счастливым

Как любовь спасла его родителей, а ученые рассказали об их судьбе

«Правмир» провел прямой эфир в Zoom

Медики уже месяц живут в госпитале, а число пациентов растет

Как уверовать перед смертью, чтобы жить дальше

Люди рискуют заразиться на призывных пунктах, а потом принести вирус в семьи

Жизнь хрупка, нам нужно бережнее относиться друг к другу

Как они стали волонтерами в эпидемию и что оказалось самым трудным

И почему фандрайзингом в фонде должны заниматься все

В номере: Перенесение мощей благоверных князей Бориса и Глеба, Проповедь на Евангельское чтение, Господь верит в нас, Вопрос священнику: Плохо в доме, проблемы. Как быть? От лечения ослеп и перестал глотать.

Хозяева нашли ее спустя два месяца

Как живет в эпидемию сельский приход

13 способов справиться со стрессом во время карантина

А самое сложное — чувство беспомощности

О поиске пропавших без вести и встречах с эвакуированными из блокадного Ленинграда

Вся наша семья осталась в живых — нам повезло

Почему она скрывала военное прошлое и как живет сейчас

По КТ у нее начальная стадия пневмонии

Неизвестные сообщили в правоохранительные органы о взрывном устройстве

  Visiting libraries is great. Neat things to learn about communities, comfy places to sit, clean bathrooms. I went to...

I started 132 books this year and finished 127. New this year: a twitter thread of everything I read in...

После высказываний о домашнем насилии телеведущая оказалась в эпицентре скандала.

Truncated by Planet PHP, read more at the original (another 29525 bytes)

A few weeks ago, the US telecom industry began pushing a bullshit narrative through its usual allies. In short, the claim revolves around the argument that the only reason the US internet still works during a pandemic was because the Trump FCC ignored the public, ignored most objective experts, and gutted itself at the behest of telecom industry lobbyists. The argument first popped up over at AEI, then the Trump FCC, then the pages of the Wall Street Journal, and has since been seen in numerous op-eds nationwide. I'd wager that's not a coincidence, and I'd also wager we'll be seeing a lot more of them.

All of the pieces try to argue that the only reason the US internet works during a pandemic is because the FCC gutted its authority over telecom as part of its "restoring internet freedom" net neutrality repeal. This repeal, the story goes, drove significant investment in US broadband networks (not remotely true), resulting in telecom Utopia (also not true). The argument also posits that in Europe, where regulators have generally taken a more active role in policing things like industry consolidation and telecom monopolies, the internet all but fell apart (guess what: not true).

Usually, like in this op-ed, there's ample insistence that the US broadband sector is largely wonderful while the EU has gone to hell:

"Unlike here, European networks are more heavily regulated. This has led to less investment and worse performance for consumers for years. American consumers are being generally well served by the private sector."

Anybody who has spent five minutes talking to Comcast customer support -- or tried to get scandal-plagued ISP like Frontier Communications to upgrade rotten DSL lines -- knows this is bullshit. Still, we penned a lengthy post exploring just how full of shit this argument is, and how there's absolutely zero supporting evidence for the claims. The entire house of cards is built on fluff and nonsense, and it's just ethically grotesque to use a disaster to help justify regulatory capture and market failure.

While it's true that the US internet, in general, has held up relatively well during a pandemic, the same can't be said of the so called "last mile," or the link from your ISP's network to your home. Yes, the core internet and most primary transit routes, designed to handle massive capacity spikes during events like the Superbowl, has handled the load relatively well. The problem, as Sascha Meinrath correctly notes here, is sluggish speeds on consumer and business lines that, for many, haven't been upgraded in years:

"Right now, an international consortium of network scientists is collecting 750,000 U.S. broadband speed tests from internet service provider (ISP) customers each day, and we’ve been tracking a stunning loss of connectivity speeds to people’s homes. According to most ISPs, the core network is handling the extra load. But our data show that the last-mile network infrastructure appears to be falling down on the job."

Again, your 5 Mbps DSL line might be ok during normal times, but it's not going to serve you well during a pandemic when your entire family is streaming 4K videos, gaming, and Zooming. And your DSL line isn't upgraded because there's (1) very little competition forcing your ISP to do so, and (2) the US government is filled to the brim with sycophants who prioritize campaign contributions and ISP revenues over the health of the market and consumer welfare. And while there's a contingency of industry-linked folks who try very hard to pretend otherwise, this is a policy failure that's directly tied to mindless deregulation, a lack of competition, and, more importantly, corruption. In short, the complete opposite of the industry's latest talking point.

For years we've been noting how US telcos have refused to repair or upgrade aging DSL lines because it's not profitable enough, quickly enough for Wall Street's liking. Facing no competition and no regulatory oversight, there's zero incentive for a giant US broadband provider to try very hard. Similarly, because our lawmakers and regulators are largely of the captured, revolving door variety, they rubber stamp shitty mergers, turn a blind eye to very obvious industry problems, routinely throwing billions in taxpayer money at monopolies in exchange for fiber networks that are usually only partially deployed -- if they're deployed at all.

Meanwhile, US telcos that have all but given up on upgrading aging DSL lines have helped cement an even bigger Comcast monopoly across vast swaths of America. It's a problem that the telecom sector, Trump FCC, and various industry apologists will ignore to almost comical effect. Also ignored is the fact that this results in US broadband subscribers paying some of the highest prices for broadband in the developed world:

"Numerous studies, including those conducted by the FCC itself, show that broadband pricing is the second-largest barrier to broadband adoption (availability is the first). It’s obvious that if people are being charged a lot for a service, they’re less likely to purchase it. And independent researchers have already documented that poor areas often pay more than rich communities for connectivity. Redlining of minority and rural areas appears to be widespread, and we need accurate pricing data from the FCC to meaningfully address these disparities."

Try to find any instance where Ajit Pai, or anybody in this chorus of telecom monopoly apologists, actually admits that the US broadband market isn't competitive and, as a result, is hugely expensive for businesses and consumers alike. You simply won't find it. What you will find are a lot of excuses and straw men arguments like this latest one, designed to distract the press, public, and policymakers from very obvious market failure. Market failure that was a major problem in normal times, and exponentially more so during a pandemic where broadband is an essential lifeline.

You may recall in the early days of the pandemic, that pharma giant Gilead Sciences -- which has been accused of price gouging and (just last year!) charging exorbitant prices on drug breakthroughs developed with US taxpayer funds -- was able to sneak through an orphan works designation for its drug remdesevir for COVID-19 treatment. As we pointed out, everything about this was insane, given that orphan works designations, which give extra monopoly rights to the holders (beyond patent exclusivity), are meant for diseases that don't impact a large population. Gilead used a loophole: since the ceiling for infected people to qualify for orphan drug status is 200,000, Gilead got in its application bright and early, before there were 200,000 confirmed cases (we currently have over 1.3 million). After the story went, er... viral, Gilead agreed to drop the orphan status, realizing the bad publicity it was receiving.

After a brief dalliance with chloroquine, remdesivir has suddenly been back in demand as the new hotness of possible COVID-19 treatments. Still, a close reading of the research might give one pause. There have been multiple conflicting studies, and Gilead's own messaging has been a mess.

On April 23, 2020, news of the study’s failure began to circulate. It seems that the World Health Organization (WHO) had posted a draft report about the trial on their clinical trials database, which indicated that the scientists terminated the study prematurely due to high levels of adverse side effects.

The WHO withdrew the report, and the researchers published their results in The Lancet on April 29, 2020.

The number of people who experienced adverse side effects was roughly similar between those receiving remdesivir and those receiving a placebo. In 18 participants, the researchers stopped the drug treatment due to adverse reactions.

But then...

However, also on April 29, 2020, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) announced that their NIH trial showed that remdesivir treatment led to faster recovery in hospital patients with COVID-19, compared with placebo treatment.

“Preliminary results indicate that patients who received remdesivir had a 31% faster time to recovery than those who received placebo,” according to the press release. “Specifically, the median time to recovery was 11 days for patients treated with remdesivir compared with 15 days for those who received placebo.”

The mortality rate in the remdesivir treatment group was 8%, compared with 11.6% in the placebo group, indicating that the drug could improve a person’s chances of survival. These data were close to achieving statistical significance.

And then...

“In addition, there is another Chinese trial, also stopped because the numbers of new patients with COVID-19 had fallen in China so they were unable to recruit, which has not yet published its data,” Prof. Evans continues. “There are other trials where remdesivir is compared with non-remdesivir treatments currently [being] done and results from some of these should appear soon.”

Gilead also put out its own press release about another clinical trial, which seems more focused on determining the optimal length of remdesivir treatment. Suffice it to say, there's still a lot of conflicting data and no clear information on whether or not remdesevir actually helps.

Still, that hasn't stopped people from trying to figure out just how much Gilead will price gouge going forward:

The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), which assesses effectiveness of drugs to determine appropriate prices, suggested a maximum price of $4,500 per 10-day treatment course based on the preliminary evidence of how much patients benefited in a clinical trial. Consumer advocacy group Public Citizen on Monday said remdesivir should be priced at $1 per day of treatment, since “that is more than the cost of manufacturing at scale with a reasonable profit to Gilead.”

Some Wall Street investors expect Gilead to come in at $4,000 per patient or higher to make a profit above remdesivir’s development cost, which Gilead estimates at about $1 billion.

So... we've got a range of $10 to $4,500 on a treatment that we don't yet know works, and which may or may not save lives. But, given that we're in the midst of a giant debate concerning things like "reopening the economy" -- something that can really only be done if the public is not afraid of dying (or at least becoming deathly ill) -- the value to the overall economy seems much greater than whatever amount Gilead wants to charge. It seems the right thing to do -- again, if it's shown that remdesevir actually helps -- is to just hand over a bunch of money to Gilead, say "thank you very much" and get the drug distributed as widely as possible. Though, again, it should be noted that a decent chunk of the research around remdesevir was not done or paid for by Gilead, but (yet again) via public funds to public universities, which did the necessary research. The idea that it's Gilead that should get to reap massive rewards for that seems sketchy at best. But the absolute worst outcome is one in which Gilead sticks to its standard operating procedure and prices the drug in a way that millions of Americans can't afford it, and it leads to a prolonging/expanding of the pandemic.

There has been a lot of talk about how this moment in history is going to be remembered -- and as Professor Jay Rosen has been saying, a key part is going to be an effort by the many people who failed to respond properly to rewrite the history of everything that happened:

There is going to be a campaign to prevent Americans from understanding what happened within the Trump government during the critical months of January to April, 2020. Many times Donald Trump told the nation that it has nothing to worry about because he and his people have the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus well in hand. They did not. He misled the country about that.

“It’s one person coming in from China, and we have it under control,” he told CNBC on January 22. “We pretty much shut it down coming in from China,” he told Sean Hannity on February 2. On February 24, Trump tweeted that “the Coronavirus is very much under control in the USA.”

He misled the country. This basic fact is so damning, the evidence for it so mountainous, and the mountain of evidence so public — and so personally attached to Donald Trump — that the only option is to create confusion about these events, and about the pandemic generally, in hopes that people give up and conclude that the public record does not speak clearly and everything is propaganda.

The battle over rewriting history is going to take many forms in many different ways -- and so it's good to see a company like Twitter making it easier for researchers to look at the actual history of the public conversation during these months.

To further support Twitter’s ongoing efforts to protect the public conversation, and help people find authoritative health information around COVID-19, we’re releasing a new endpoint into Twitter Developer Labs to enable approved developers and researchers to study the public conversation about COVID-19 in real-time.

This is a unique dataset that covers many tens of millions of Tweets daily and offers insight into the evolving global public conversation surrounding an unprecedented crisis. Making this access available for free is one of the most unique and valuable things Twitter can do as the world comes together to protect our communities and seek answers to pressing challenges. 

It would be interesting to see if others (cough Facebook cough) would do the same thing as well. How the history of these times is written is going to be important in seeing how we deal with the next such crisis.

In Jonah 1:6, the sailors try to save their lives by throwing their cargo overboard. But what is Jonah doing? He is sleeping. He does not even pray.

In this commentary on Jonah 1:7, we see that the sailors cast lots to see who is responsible for the storm, and the lot falls on Jonah. We look at some of the theology and background to the casting of lots.

In this commentary on Jonah 1:8, we see the sailors ask Jonah several questions. These question are to help them figure out why God sent the storm. The sailors are desperate for answers because they are desperate to save their lives.

In Jonah 1:9, Jonah explains to the sailors that he worships Yahweh, who made the sea and dry land. But what really does Jonah tell the sailors? Is his portrayal of God accurate? How will the sailors understand what Jonah say?

In Jonah 1:10-11, the sailors are so afraid of what Jonah told them about God, that they ask Jonah what they can do to appease God and rescue their lives. Jonah has so injured the honor of God, that the sailors were certain God was out for revenge upon Jonah, and they were unlucky enough to be around him when God struck.

Jonah teaches the sailors some horrible theology about God in Jonah 1:12. He basically tells them that God accepts human sacrifice. Why would Jonah say this? What is Jonah thinking? It is not even correct theology! It seems that Jonah wants to die.

Even though Jonah taught the sailors horrible theology about God, the sailors try to do the right thing in Jonah 1:13 by rowing back to shore. Even pagan sailors recognize when a follower of God is telling them things that are not right.

Before the sailors do what Jonah asked of them, they pray to God in Jonah 1:14 and let Him know they are just obeying what His prophet instructed. This verse is not exactly a request for forgiveness, for the sailors think that this what will please God. After all, that is what Jonah told them.

In Jonah 1:15-16, the sailors do what Jonah said, and sacrifice him to the raging sea. When it calmed, they made vows and sacrifices to God. They probably did not become monotheists, for Jonah had not given them enough information about God for that.

After Jonah was thrown into the sea, Jonah 1:17 indicates that God sent a great fish to swallow Jonah. What does this mean and why did God do it? This verse shows that God is preserving Jonah’s life despite Jonah’s frequent attempts to end it.

In Galatians 5:19-23, Paul writes about the flesh. What does he mean by this term? Is it just our physical body? Is it the sin nature? Is it the human tendency to engage in sensual pleasures? The answer is NO to all these questions. Listen to this study to find out what Paul means by the term FLESH.

In Ephesians 2:1-3, Paul writes about the flesh. What does he mean by this term? Is it just our physical body? Is it the sin nature? Is it the human tendency to engage in sensual pleasures? The answer is NO to all these questions. Listen to this study to find out what Paul means by the term FLESH.

There is great confusion among Christians about the unforgivable sin. Jesus talks about it in Matthew 12:31-32. This brief study summarizes what the unforgivable sin is, and how you can know you have not committed it. This study is an excerpt from my Gospel Dictionary online course.

In Matthew 3:8-10, John the Baptist invites his audience to bear fruit worthy of repentance. Is he talking about good works? No, the context indicates that the good fruit does not refer to good works, but to good words that are in alignment with Scripture. This is important for properly understanding the gospel.