pitpatagain
It is not illegal for witnesses to disclose things from their own testimony. But in this conversation, Halligan is directly commenting on things disclosed by other parties thus making indirect disclosures of her own by implication.
It's incredibly risky ground to be treading, that she is doing for no apparent reason, having reached out to a reporter who wasn't even actively reporting on the case. It's pretty wtf.
The prosecutor is not supposed to be disclosing information from the grand jury, and then spends a shockingly long signal thread talking on record with a journalist that constantly implicitly discusses/confirms information they aren't supposed to be talking about at all.
It doesn't reach the same level as the Hegseth Signal leak, but it's really bizarre stuff.
I live in a very sunny desert area and it's kind of funny when people assume people from here would be "more tanned". We stay in the shade, the sun will kill you! Anyone working outside is wearing wide brimmed hats and typically has all of their skin covered with clothing even in the heat, people typically have their faces covered with cloth as well.
Spending time outside with minimal clothing in direct midday sun is a modern weird behavior.
The NHTSA has an active probe into Tesla for not following the reporting guidelines for their level 2 systems: https://apnews.com/article/tesla-crashes-self-driving-robota...
Specifically that they haven't been reporting on time, months instead of the required days.
"If they had been more impactful accidents there would be more public information." does not track with Tesla's history of reporting thus far.
You can make excuses all you want for them but late reports + redacting information other companies do not reads loud and clear as "trying to hide something" to me, not "legit autonomous vehicle company that wants to establish reliability and safety to the public".
They have reported that accidents happened, and redacted all of what actually happened. It's very clear what the complaint is in the article despite how hung up on the headline you are.
Compare Waymo report:
"On [XXX] at 10:31 PM PT a Waymo Autonomous Vehicle ("Waymo AV") operating in San Francisco, California was in a collision involving a scooterist on [XXX] at [XXX].
The Waymo AV was stopped at the curb facing north on [XXX] for a passenger drop-off when the passenger in the Waymo AV opened the rear right door. As the rear right door was being opened by the passenger, a scooter ....
Waymo is reporting this crash under Request No. 2 of Standing General Order 2021-01. Waymo may supplement or correct its reporting with additional information as it may become available."
Tesla reports is:
"[REDACTED, MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION]"
Tesla has consistently tried to have it both ways saying they are "not autonomous" and therefore don't have to report, but also then claiming in other contexts that they are driving huge numbers of "autonomous" miles.
So now they finally do a handful of reports and it's all REDACTED? They are finally doing barely what's required but also not being forthcoming at all.
The weird thing is that between the extremely underwhelming tiny supervised test they run in Austin and the nonsensical permitting games they want to play in California, they don't really seem like a company that actually wants to launch a robotaxi.
On top of being structurally a dsDNA virus which doesn't change much, HPV is subject to "purifying selection": because of the way it is built and the mechanism it uses to interact with host cells, it is very difficult for it to have productive mutations that don't immediately die out. It's highly constrained in a way that eg influenza, COVID, HIV, are not.
Some pathogens are just easier to deal with than others:
We have been curing syphilis since 1943 with just penicillin. It doesn't develop resistance because it doesn't have horizontal gene transfer and the mechanism it has that penicillin targets is too critical and conserved, it just can't mutate away from it.
Polio mutates quickly, but is extremely constrained, almost all mutations are defective, and the capsid structure is highly conserved. That vaccine has been in use since 1955 without losing effectiveness or introducing new variants.
The biology of HPV says it will be more like those cases, and since the introduction of the vaccine in 2006, that's what studies have been finding empirically.
To emphasize the difference in meaning of "strain" for HPV: There are 200+ HPV genotypes that have been numbered this way, but they are all of ancient origin. There are observed shifts in prevalence of different genotypes, but not newly evolved genotypes.
We also only care about targeting oncogenic strains. If we open up selective pressure for non-oncogenic strains to be more relatively successful and take over, great.
16/18 are the most carcinogenic strains, they have been close to eradicated in Denmark. "Denmark close to wiping out leading cancer-causing HPV strains after vaccine roll-out" is the full headline and 100% accurate.
Those were the only two high risk strains covered by the vaccine used in the time frame studied. The study covers the first cohort of girls given the 2008 version of the vaccine when they recently reached age to start screening. It is expected to not see other strains affected in this study, even though current vaccines are broader. The total number of high risk HPV cases in the study went down post-vaccination.
The notion of numbered strains of HPV is about diverging lineages going back hundreds of thousands of years in a highly conserved, slowly mutating virus. They are not comparable to things like seasonal COVID or flu strains.
HPV is a double-stranded DNA virus with very high replication fidelity. The emergence of types like 16 and 18 happened hundreds of thousands of years ago.
I did know it was quite slow but not just how slow. Very long term vaccine efficacy is expected.
16/18 were chosen because they are highly carcinogenic and cause the most cancer, they are the two most aggressive high risk types. They cause 70% of all the cancer but are much less than 70% of the cases of high risk strains.
It takes real mental gymnastics to downplay how positive this vaccine is.
“In 2017, one of the first birth cohorts of women in Denmark who were HPV-vaccinated as teenage girls in 2008 reached the screening age of 23 years,” Nonboe explained."
It will take several more years to see the effects on other strains. It seems to have been wildly successful so far.
It's incredibly prevalent, but most people clear it within a couple years, and won't even know that they had it. The time to clear it is just variable and depends on your body's immune response, the longer you go without clearing it the higher the cancer risk.
Something like 80% of people are sexually active at all will be infected with HPV at some point. You may not have been sexually active, but your future partners may have been. I personally have a friend who went through stage 4 cancer contracted from her (now ex) husband.
So, of course not literally everyone needs to take it, assess your own risks, but it's quite an easy, highly effective vaccine: don't overthink it.
Wait, assassinating elected politicians is... better? Interesting take.
https://www.newsweek.com/charlie-kirk-death-penalty-public-e...
Never heard of him before today but he seems to have been a delight.
I don't think the Plato's Cave analogy is confusing, I think it's completely wrong. It's "not in the article" in the sense that it is literally not conceptually what the article is about and it's also not really what Plato's Cave is about either, just taking superficial bits of it and slotting things into it, making it doubly wrong.
That reflection seems totally off to me: fluent, and flavored with elements of the article, but also not really what the article is about and a pretty weird/tortured use of the elements of the allegory of the cave, like it doesn't seem anything like Plato's Cave to me. Ironically demonstrates the actual main gist of the article if you ask me.
But maybe you meant that you think that summary is good and not textually similar to that post so demonstrating something more sophisticated than "shortening".
What the people in this study have causes abnormal visceral fat accumulation in the belly and back and itself causes disturbing changes in body shape and appearance, does not respond or normal weight loss, and hasn't had real treatment options. That ozempic has beneficial effects for it in an RCT is actually awesome, it's the framing given by the headline that is bad.
Previous experience is definitely part of it. It's not just Truvada, this isn't the first long acting injectable prep. Cabotegravir (integrate inhibitor) was approved 4 years ago for this use and is given every two months, so there's already information from how that was studied, approved and what's happened with several years of actual use.
"This means that before it can work the virus has already infected the cell and added its RNA to the host cells DNA permanently." is not correct, capsid inhibitors interfere before both reverse transcription and nuclear import.
Both of the drugs in Truvada, which was has had 13 years of use in the wild since approval and is very successful, are NRTIs, they work at the reverse transcription step, they are literally later in the cycle than the new drug (but before nuclear import also) and work just fine as prep.
So the whole premise for why this drug in particular shouldn't work in theory is flawed.
To your questions about how the lenacapavir trials were run and why they rule out occult infection (which is the term for what you're describing): I'd like to find more details on the study honestly. But do I think the multiple studies that convinced the FDA to give approval just completely overlook this well known concept/possibility? Not really?