All posts by medical

Duke Immunology

The immune system defends us against infection and provides surveillance against tissue damage and cancer. Studies of the immune system are therefore essential to understanding and treating a myriad of diseases. Exciting discoveries in immunology promise, and are delivering, better vaccines to protect against infection, new approaches to suppress allergy, inflammation, autoimmunity and transplant rejection, and new tools to attack cancer.

Learn More

Go here to see the original:
Duke Immunology

What we know about Covid reinfection, immunity and vaccines – The Guardian

How long does natural protection from a first infection last?

There is no clearcut answer to this, but several studies suggest protection generated by a previous infection lasts for at least a few months.

According to one preprint study from Public Health England (PHE) released in January, which looked at hospital staff, the median interval between the first infection and reinfection was more than 160 days about five months. Meanwhile, a study from Qatar suggests protection by natural immunity of about 95% efficacy lasts about seven months.

Again, that is unclear. Different people will react differently to reinfection, depending on how their immune responses reacted to the first infection, probably, says Julian Tang, a clinical virologist and honorary associate professor in the respiratory sciences department at the University of Leicester.

For some, a second infection is less severe than the first. According to a study from Qatar, less than 0.2% of people tested positive for Covid at least 45 days after their first positive test, with only about a fifth of these showing strong or good evidence for reinfection. Of these 54 people, just one was hospitalised, and even then only with a mild infection.

A second study from Qatar yet to be peer-reviewed supports this, with two-thirds of reinfections only picked up through random or routine testing. Again it suggest reinfection is rare, with just 129 people out of 43,044 followed showing evidence of reinfection over a median of 16.3 weeks.

The PHE study also suggested that reinfection tended to be less severe, with about a third of those who caught Covid for a second time showing symptoms, compared with 78% for first infection.

But there have been a number of cases around the world of reinfection leading to worse disease.

A recent study from researchers in Brazil, about to be published in the Journal of Infection, found that of 33 people thought to have caught Covid for a second time, 12% were hospitalised one of whom died - although none required such care for their first infection.

If you didnt have a good immune response, you could get infected again by exactly the same virus, says Deborah Dunn-Walters, a professor of immunology at the University of Surrey and the chair of the British Society for Immunologys Covid-19 and immunology taskforce.

If that immune response was good, the chances of being reinfected by the same variant will be lower, but reinfection might still occur by other variants.

However, the situation is not black and white as this depends on the mutations a new variant contains, and how they affect the ability of the virus to infect the cell and its interactions with the bodys antibodies and T-cell responses generated by the immune system as a result of the previous infection.

The possibility for a new variant to fuel reinfections has been highlighted by researchers in Brazil: despite about three-quarters of the population of Manaus thought from antibody tests to have been infected with Covid by October, there was a sharp uptick in hospital admissions for Covid in January this year. One explanation, they say, is the emergence of new variants of the coronavirus that may evade immunity gained from earlier infection.

Indeed, research published this week by researchers in Oxford, yet to be peer-reviewed, revealed that people who had recovered from Covid showed T-cell activity towards new variants, including the South African variant. But in general their antibodies were less able to neutralise the Kent and South African variant than the original coronavirus variant, suggesting a potentially lower level of defence.

It appears so, but there are several factors at play. Whether you catch it or not is a combination of whether you have got immunity and whether you have seen [the virus], says Dunn-Walters.

Some people may be at greater risk because of social factors such as occupation, which means they have greater chance of coming into contact with the virus again for example, healthcare workers would be expected to be at greater risk of both infection and reinfection because of this.

But there are also biological factors that might leave some people more at risk of catching Covid for a second time. Each human is unique, as are their immune responses, which govern both the risk of reinfection and the severity of these reinfections, so it is very difficult to generalise research findings and clinical trial results to individuals in any population, says Tang.

Vaccination plays a key role in protecting individuals from a first infection. But it is also important for those who have already had Covid. While natural immunity can be gained from a previous infection, jabs give much more certainty over the level of protection produced and boost protection gained from a previous infection.

Vaccines may also offer greater protection against different variants. According to the preprint by Oxford researchers, people who received two doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech jab had a strong T-cell and antibody response against the original coronavirus and the Kent and South African variants, suggesting the vaccine probably offered protection against infection for all of these variants. That contrasts with the findings for those who had only previously had a natural infection.

Natural infection doesnt guarantee you immunity as well as perhaps the vaccination might, says Dunn-Walters.

While studies have suggested that some other Covid vaccines may be less effective against the South African variant than against the original or Kent variants of the coronavirus, experts say these jabs still offer good levels of protection against serious disease. Whats more, vaccines are being tweaked to better target new variants, a move that will also bolster protection.

This article was amended on 13 February 2021. The original incorrectly stated that a study about to be published in the Journal of Infection found that of 33 people thought to have caught Covid for a second time, one died, and 12 were hospitalised. It was actually 12.1% (four people) of the 33 who needed treatment in hospital.

Visit link:
What we know about Covid reinfection, immunity and vaccines - The Guardian

Second COVID Shot Packs the Big Punch – MedPage Today

Like scores of other physicians and healthcare workers, T.J. Maltese, DO, a neurologist in private practice on Long Island in New York state, had no problem with his first dose of the Moderna coronavirus vaccine -- but he was knocked out by the second.

Maltese got his second shot at 4:30 p.m. on a Friday. Within 2 hours his arm was sore. He developed flu-like symptoms overnight, and had chills and body aches on Saturday. His low-grade fever (peaking at 101.4F) lingered all day. If he had to work, he could have pushed through, he said, but he rode out his symptoms on his couch with the help of the occasional Tylenol.

By 9 p.m. Saturday, Maltese started to feel better. He got a good night's sleep and was back to normal on Sunday.

"I know plenty of people with minimal symptoms after the second dose, so it's not definite you'll feel side effects," he wrote in a Facebook post. "But be prepared for the possibility."

The healthcare worker scuttlebutt is that the second dose of any COVID-19 vaccine packs a punch -- unless you've already had COVID, then the first dose can hit just as hard.

These perceptions are substantiated by immunology and by data from the vaccines' phase III trials, and some hospitals have even altered their healthcare worker scheduling in anticipation of second-dose side effects.

Priming the Immune System

Immunologists and infectious disease experts interviewed by MedPage Today said it's not unexpected that second-dose reactions are more intense than the first.

"The first time the immune system comes into contact with something, it's getting primed," said Purvi Parikh, MD, an immunologist at NYU Langone Health in New York City. "That goes for everything, from vaccines to allergies. It's rare on the first time to have a strong reaction. After that, the immune system recognizes it, so you have a much stronger reaction."

"We saw it in the trials, so it's really not surprising," Parikh added. "Now we're seeing it in real time as the vaccines are being rolled out."

In both Pfizer's and Moderna's phase III trial data, systemic adverse events were reported more frequently after dose 2 than dose 1. For the latter, rates were 54.9% versus 42.2% for placebo after the first dose and 79.4% versus 36.5% for placebo after the second dose. Fever, headache, fatigue, myalgia, arthralgia, and chills were far more common after the second dose compared with the first dose and with all placebo doses.

Stanley Weiss, MD, an infectious disease specialist and epidemiologist at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, said since his institution served as a site for the Moderna trial, the primary investigator was able to give faculty and administrators an early update on what to expect following vaccination.

"They said there was a very high rate of fatigue after the second dose, so we encouraged administrators ... to figure that many healthcare workers getting the vaccine might not be well enough to work the day after the second dose," Weiss told MedPage Today.

Weiss added that administrators were also careful not to vaccinate staff from within the same unit -- an ICU team, for instance -- on the same day.

Fewer Problems for Older Patients?

Both Weiss and Parikh said they had a far stronger response to the second dose of the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines, respectively. Weiss had fatigue and a severe headache for 2 days. Parikh's chills, fatigue, and headache resolved within 24 to 36 hours.

Zubin Damania, MD, a.k.a. ZDoggMD, said the second dose of his Moderna vaccine knocked him out: "I couldn't sleep, I had a fever, rigors, body aches, a headache -- full-on man-flu," he joked on a recent episode of his show.

His guest for that show was vaccine expert Paul Offit, MD, who also had fever and fatigue for about 48 hours after the second dose of the Pfizer vaccine.

"That reaction is less common in people over 65, and I'm over 65, so I'm thinking I'm not going to suffer that, but I did," Offit said.

Indeed, older patients are thought to have less of a reaction due to typical weakening of the immune system as people age, Parikh said: "The idea is that their immune system is not as robust as a young person's."

Dose 1 Rougher for Those with Previous COVID

Parikh said the same immunological concept behind a stronger response to the second dose also applies to first-dose effects for those who've had COVID-19 before.

"It's the same reason why some people who've had COVID and recovered get these effects with the first shot sometimes. The immune system has seen it before," she said.

Victoria Arthur, MD, of Lexington Pediatrics in Massachusetts, suspects she had COVID in March 2020, but wasn't able to confirm her diagnosis. Still, while all of the other physicians and healthcare staff in her office felt fine after the first dose of the Moderna vaccine, she did not.

"How I felt was how everyone else was describing their second vaccine," Arthur told MedPage Today.

Within three hours of her first dose, she had a headache, neck pain, and cognitive fog. She woke up at 3 a.m. with bad nausea and stomach cramps, and spent the entire next day in bed. By Monday, though, her only lingering symptom was a sore arm.

Her reaction to her second dose was similar, she said. Nonetheless, she was glad for it.

"I'm always grateful when I have a reaction, that means the body is doing its thing," she said. "I'm very fortunate to have been given the vaccine, so any side effect is worth it."

Being appreciative of having been vaccinated, despite the side effects, was a common sentiment among these healthcare professionals.

Weiss said second-dose side effects shouldn't deter anyone from getting vaccinated: "The benefits greatly overwhelm the risk of side effects. It's not a reason to delay."

"I'll take 30 hours of some mild misery," Maltese said, "over days to weeks of much worse -- and more unpredictable -- misery."

Kristina Fiore leads MedPages enterprise & investigative reporting team. Shes been a medical journalist for more than a decade and her work has been recognized by Barlett & Steele, AHCJ, SABEW, and others. Send story tips to k.fiore@medpagetoday.com. Follow

Go here to see the original:
Second COVID Shot Packs the Big Punch - MedPage Today

STING activation may be a new approach to reduce graft-versus-host disease – News-Medical.net

MUSC Hollings Cancer Center researcher Yongxia Wu, Ph.D., identified a new target molecule in the fight against graft-versus-host disease (GVHD). Bone marrow transplant, a treatment for certain blood cancers, is accompanied by potentially life-threatening GVHD in nearly 50% of patients. A January 2021 paper published in Cellular and Molecular Immunology revealed that activating a molecule called STING may be a new approach to reduce GVHD.

Xue-Zhong Yu, M.D., professor in the Department of Microbiology and Immunology, focuses on understanding the intricate immune mechanisms that regulate GVHD development and anti-tumor activity.

Recently, STING (stimulator of interferon genes) has been highly studied in the context of cancer. Data from other groups has shown that STING activation in T cells helps the immune cells fight cancer. Cancer cells are essentially a "bad" version of the body's own cells and an appropriate target for its immune system. In contrast, in the case of GVHD, T cells fight the body's own "good" cells - in essence, the body attacks itself. Based on the previous data, it seemed logical that high STING activation, though good when it comes to cancer, would be bad in the context of GVHD.

Yu's findings in a mouse model of GVHD confirmed this hypothesis. In the mouse model, which was obtained from collaborator Chih-Chi Andrew Hu, Ph.D., a Wistar Institute professor of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, GVHD was induced by bone marrow transplant, which closely models the disease development in humans.

To understand how GVHD develops after bone marrow transplantation, one must consider two immune systems: the donor's and the recipient's. The key immune cells are the antigen-presenting cells and the T cells. The immune system knows what to attack based on specific "tags," called antigens, that are shown to the T cells by the specialized antigen-presenting cells. Dendritic cells are the most effective antigen-presenting cells, and they play a critical role in GVHD.

Work from other research groups in cancer has demonstrated that STING signaling can regulate antigen- presenting cell function. STING is an important molecule in a DNA-sensing pathway that results in the production of inflammatory cytokines. But it is not known how STING regulates these cells in the context of GVHD.

The researchers used the mouse models to determine whether GVHD improved or worsened when STING was 1) absent in the donor immune cells, 2) absent in the recipient immune cells and 3) overexpressed in the recipient immune cells. GVHD severity was not changed when STING was absent from the donor immune cells. However, GVHD was more severe and mortality rates were higher when STING was missing from the recipient immune cells.

Yu and collaborators then looked at different cell subsets to try and understand which cells were most impacted by the loss of STING. Surprisingly, STING expression in the recipient mouse's antigen-presenting cells (dendritic cells) reduced donor T cell expansion and migratory ability after bone marrow transplant. In other words, it made it less likely that the T cells of the recipient mouse would attack its "good" cells and lead to GVHD. This finding was confirmed using a pharmacological drug that turned on the STING molecule. Activating STING in the host before transplantation reduced GVHD severity.

The finding in a mouse model that activating STING with a pharmacological drug reduced GVHD could be clinically relevant in that it suggests the possibility that a STING-activating drug might protect bone marrow transplant recipients from GVHD. Much more basic and clinical research will be required to assess that possibility, but Yu's findings suggest that such research is warranted.

To understand why the research team observed what they did, they will continue to unravel the biological functions of the STING molecule. Unanswered questions include what makes STING function differently in different immune cell subsets.

Tools such as the mice from our collaborator allow us to study this more thoroughly. Total-body deletion of a protein does not allow for specific study in cell subsets, and we think that STING must have different roles in different cells."

Xue-Zhong Yu, M.D., Professor, Department of Microbiology and Immunology, MUSC Hollings Cancer Center

Source:

Journal reference:

Wu, Y., et al. (2021) STING negatively regulates allogeneic T-cell responses by constraining antigen-presenting cell function. Cellular & Molecular Immunology. doi.org/10.1038/s41423-020-00611-6.

Read more:
STING activation may be a new approach to reduce graft-versus-host disease - News-Medical.net

Jounce Therapeutics Appoints Luisa Salter-Cid, Ph.D., to its Board of Directors – GlobeNewswire

CAMBRIDGE, Mass., Feb. 12, 2021 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Jounce Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: JNCE), a clinical-stage company focused on the discovery and development of novel cancer immunotherapies and predictive biomarkers, today announced the appointment of Luisa Salter-Cid, Ph.D., to its board of directors.

We are thrilled to welcome Luisa to our board of directors, said Perry Karsen, chairman of the board of Jounce Therapeutics. Luisa brings over 20 years of experience in the healthcare industry, specifically in immunology and immuno-oncology, and we look forward to the unique and valuable perspective that her strategic leadership will bring to Jounce.

Dr. Salter-Cid currently serves as the chief scientific officer of Gossamer Bio, Inc., which she joined in 2018, and has helped to build their portfolio of clinical and new discovery programs. Previously, she held several roles of increasing responsibility over the prior 13 years at Bristol Myers Squibb, leading teams that advanced over 20 compounds into clinical development and chairing the immunoscience target science team. She holds a Ph.D. in Immunology from the University of Miami School of Medicine, an M.S. in Biology from Florida International University and a B.S. in Biology from the University of Lisbon, Portugal.

Luisas addition comes at an important time for Jounce, said Richard Murray, Ph.D., chief executive officer and president of Jounce Therapeutics. She will provide invaluable insight as we continue to advance our clinical programs and implement our Translational Science Platform approach to bring new first-in-class discovery programs into the clinic and utilize translational and predictive biomarker analyses of programs during clinical development.

I am very excited to join the Jounce board of directors and to work alongside this impressive leadership team, particularly at this important time for the development of JTX-8064. Jounce has established a track record of innovative science and the ability to bring multiple new and competitive programs to the clinic, said Dr. Salter-Cid, Ph.D. Their differentiated approach to immuno-oncology defines Jounce as a true pioneer within the cancer immunotherapy treatment landscape, and I look forward to contributing to the advancement of Jounces science to patients.

About Jounce TherapeuticsJounce Therapeutics, Inc. is a clinical-stage immunotherapy company dedicated to transforming the treatment of cancer by developing therapies that enable the immune system to attack tumors and provide long-lasting benefits to patients through a biomarker-driven approach. Jounce currently has multiple development stage programs ongoing while simultaneously advancing additional early-stage assets from its robust discovery engine based on its Translational Science Platform. Jounces lead macrophage program, JTX-8064, is a LILRB2 (ILT4) receptor antagonist shown to reprogram immune-suppressive tumor associated macrophages to an anti-tumor state in preclinical studies. A Phase 1 clinical trial, named INNATE, for JTX-8064 as a monotherapy and in combination with JTX-4014, Jounces internal PD-1 inhibitor, or pembrolizumab is currently enrolling patients with advanced solid tumors. Jounces most advanced product candidate, vopratelimab, is a monoclonal antibody that binds to and activates ICOS, and is currently being studied in the SELECT Phase 2 trial. JTX-4014 is a PD-1 inhibitor intended for combination use in the INNATE and SELECT trials and with Jounces broader pipeline. Additionally, Jounce exclusively licensed worldwide rights to JTX-1811, a monoclonal antibody targeting CCR8 and designed to selectively deplete T regulatory cells in the tumor microenvironment, to Gilead Sciences, Inc. For more information, please visit http://www.jouncetx.com.

Investor and Media Contacts:Malin DeonJounce Therapeutics, Inc.+1-857-259-3843mdeon@jouncetx.com

Mark YoreJounce Therapeutics, Inc.+1-857-200-1255 myore@jouncetx.com

Read more from the original source:
Jounce Therapeutics Appoints Luisa Salter-Cid, Ph.D., to its Board of Directors - GlobeNewswire

Sri Lanka : Sri Lanka Ministry of Health says attention on the new COVID variant, public will be made aware of the next steps – Colombo Page

* Sri Lanka Ministry of Health says attention on the new COVID variant, public will be made aware of the next steps Fri, Feb 12, 2021, 10:50 pm SL Time, ColomboPage News Desk, Sri Lanka.

Feb 12, Colombo: The highly transmissible new variant of the COVID-19 coronavirus found in the UK has been detected in Sri Lanka from whole genome sequencing, Dr. Chandima Jeewandara, the Director of the Department of Immunology and Molecular Medicine of the University of Sri Jayewardenepura said.

Scientists at the Department of Immunology and Molecular Medicine and Allergy, Immunology and Cell Biology Unit, University of the Sri Jayewardenepura have launched studies to detect the new COVID-19 Variant B.1.1.7 that is spreading fast in several countries.

Accordingly, the new variant has been found in samples obtained from infected in Colombo, Avissawella, Vavuniya and Biyagama, said.

Two new strains of the corona virus are currently spreading around the world. The variant, B.1.1.7, was identified from England and the other from South Africa. Virologists estimate that the new variant spreads by about 50 percent faster than other Covid-19 strains.

In January 2021, Sri Lanka reported that a new variant of the coronavirus found in the UK had entered Sri Lanka and a person, who had arrived from the UK confirmed to have been infected with this new variant.

Meanwhile, the Deputy Director General of Health Services of the Ministry of Health, Dr. Hemantha Herath stated that the Director General of Health Services has already taken the necessary steps to take action regarding the reporting of a new strain of the virus in Sri Lanka.

Accordingly, the Director General of Health Services has instructed the heads of epidemiology units to inform about the action to be taken regarding the new strain of the virus reported in several parts of the island.

He also said that steps will be taken to make the public aware of the advice as soon as it is received.

The Deputy Director General of Health Services said that until these instructions are issued, the public will be advised to follow health guidelines and stay away from public places as much as possible.

Read more:
Sri Lanka : Sri Lanka Ministry of Health says attention on the new COVID variant, public will be made aware of the next steps - Colombo Page

PhysIQ and U.S. Veteran’s Affairs Advance to Interventional Trial Phase – Business Wire

CHICAGO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--physIQ, Inc. and the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) have advanced their collaboration to address heart failure care to an interventional trial phase. In this next phase, Veterans will be actively monitored so care can be administered in near real-time to avoid or lower the chance of re-hospitalization, allowing the VA to improve patient care while driving down costs.

In early 2020, physIQ and the VA shared the results of a breakthrough study aimed at validating the ability to detect the onset of heart failure exacerbation using wearable sensors and machine learning-based personalized physiology analytics. Published in Circulation Heart Failure, a journal of the American Heart Association, the observational phase of the LINK-HF study was designed to assess the ability to predict rehospitalization due to heart failure exacerbation using sophisticated analytics applied to continuous wearable sensor data. This study demonstrated a 7-10-day early warning timeframe, which showed promise to reduce hospitalization and improve quality of life of patients with heart failure.

This new interventional study will provide the real life experience needed to demonstrate how this cutting-edge technology can be leveraged to provide clinicians with more proactive information to manage at risk patients, such as those with heart failure, to keep them out of the hospital. Utilizing this type of innovative solution will enable VA to provide the best possible care to Veterans at the highest value, says Dr. Stephen L. Ondra, former Senior Advisor for Health Affairs to the VA Secretary under President Obama. The LINK-HF study demonstrated the potential to detect clinical changes early enough in the process to intervene before a patient became more seriously ill. This study will put the technology to the test in clinical practice, and in doing so, has the potential to improve care and the quality of life of patients with heart failure and eventually other high risk medical conditions.

Heart failure patients are most vulnerable in the weeks following a recent hospitalization, and often find themselves readmitted. In this multi-site interventional study, patients at discharge will be provided a set of disposable adhesive biosensor patches for the chest, and a smartphone to upload their data to the pinpointIQTM platform. Within the platform, sophisticated FDA-cleared artificial intelligence-powered algorithms learn the dynamic digital signature of each patients individual vital sign behavior and detect changes, even subtly. Such changes in vital signs can be an early warning of a deteriorating physiological condition reflecting exacerbation of the underlying disease.

In the study, patients will be contacted in the event that the analytics suggest a need for early intervention to avoid an exacerbation before it becomes an acute care emergency. PhysIQs innovative solution addresses a critical, unmet need for continuous remote monitoring of patients vital signs which could mitigate the cost and risk of invasive heart failure hemodynamic monitoring devices that have shown effectiveness in the last decade.

PhysIQs technology is allowing doctors and nurses to be proactive, as opposed to reactive, in the management of chronic illnesses, which could result in preventing any further deterioration, said Gary Conkright, CEO of physIQ. As we continue to push the boundaries of this emerging technology, we are thankful for a partner like the VA and are proud for the opportunity to serve those that have served us.

In the U.S., hospitalizations for heart failure (HF) represent 80% of costs attributed to HF care. HF is the most common hospital discharge diagnosis for Veterans. Furthermore, hospitalization for HF is associated with adverse prognosis - the risk of mortality increases more than 4-fold in the first 3 months after discharge. Within the VA system, the importance of decreasing preventable HF hospitalizations has been recognized by The Chronic Heart Failure Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (CHF QUERI), and the 30-day readmission rate is one of the VAs Strategic Analytics for Improvement and Learning (SAIL) measures.

About physIQ

PhysIQ is the leader in digital medicine, dedicated to generating unprecedented health insight using continuous wearable biosensor data and advanced analytics. Its enterprise-ready cloud platform continuously collects and processes data from any wearable biosensor using a deep portfolio of FDA-cleared analytics. The company has published one of the most rigorous clinical studies to date in digital medicine and are pioneers in developing, validating, and achieving regulatory approval of Artificial Intelligence-based analytics. With applications in both healthcare and clinical trial support, physIQ is transforming continuous physiological data into insight for health systems, payers, and pharmaceutical companies.

For more information, please visit http://www.physIQ.com. Follow us on Twitter and LinkedIn.

Read more from the original source:
PhysIQ and U.S. Veteran's Affairs Advance to Interventional Trial Phase - Business Wire

Anatomy of an Insurrection – Washington Monthly

Screen Grab/C-Span

Democratic Congressman and House Impeachment Manager Joe Neguse

In a well-run courtroom, the judge makes the issues clear: What is the charge? What evidence is important? What do the lawyers need to prove? What does the trier of fact (jury, or judge in a bench trial) need to determine, to resolve the dispute?At the end of the trial, the judge lays out exactly what the jury must decidefor example, did the defendant in fact fire the fatal shot? If so, did the defendant act in self-defense? If it wasnt in self-defense, did the defendant intend to kill the deceased? Was the killing premeditated? And so on.

This weeks Senate proceedings are, as a matter of constitutional text, a trial; but there is no judge to guide the advocates or to provide legal instructions to the Senators who must decide.

Thus, on Friday, the Senate and the nation heard the final evidence in two different casesone laid out by the House in its Article of Impeachment and the accompanying trial brief, and the other rebutted by the lawyers for former President Donald Trump.

The House Article charges that, beginning months before the insurrection of January 6, Trump deliberately lied about the result of the election, attempted through corrupt means to invalidate it, and encouraged violence to prevent the constitutionally required certification of the electoral-vote total. His campaign apparatus spent as much as $50 million to spread the lie via advertising. He contacted state officials in contested states and pressured and threatened in an attempt to get them to set aside the vote and give him the states electoral votes.

As spelled out in the brief and the video evidence, he repeatedly encouraged violence against his political enemies and asked the most dangerous extremists in the country to stand back and stand by. He called his followers to a wild! rally on January 6, at which it was known to all in the government that violence was being planned, and thenaware of the intent of many in the crowd directly told them to march on the Capitol. When they got there, the mob, predictably, turned violentand the Vice President and the Speaker of the House were nearly assassinated. During the most dangerous hours of the assault, while five people were being killed, the President (despite desperate pleas from his allies) remained silent; he refused to call on his loyal insurgents to stop, and he did not dispatch federal law enforcement and military personnel to defend the Capitol, the members of Congress and the besieged U.S. Capitol Police. Afterwards, he sent the insurgents home with praise and the assurance that we love you.

As seen by the prosecution, then, the charge is that Trump engaged in a course of criminal action over months, which involved legitimization of violence, targeting of mass rage, defamation of individuals whose lives were endangered, organization of an insurrectionary gathering, passive acceptance of the violence when under way and then subsequent ratification of it once it was over.

If I were defending Trump from this charge, I would try to do what Trumps lawyersformer Pennsylvania prosecutor Bruce Castor, Alabama litigator David Schoen, and Philadelphia lawyer Michael T. Van der Veenattempted. Faced with vivid evidence of Trumps course of conductcalls for violence, repeated false claims of a stolen election, expenditure of time and money to gather a mob, knowledge that the crowd would be dangerous, and rhetoric that did nothing to discourage the violencethey refused to engage the issue.

All of that stuff, it turns out, is irrelevantDonald Trump, they argue, is being tried for speaking the word fight. And since we all use the word fight, he cant be guilty. Dont believe me? Heres a clip of Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Nancy Pelosi, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Chuck Schumer and Madonna and Johnny Depp and (at one point I had to answer the door) probably His Holiness the Dalai Lama all using bad words like fight. To make that clearer, sometimes the video was repeatedly looped so it seemed like the speaker was saying fight five or six times in a row. That proves Trump is innocent. Why? Well, the word fight is a word. Words are speech. The First Amendment protects speech, so Trump can say fight.

Constricting the time frame of events is a time-honored lawyers tactic. In a courtroom, judges may put some limits on the freedom to distort the chronological frame of a criminal indictment. But here, the case is put to the Senate (and, equally important, the nation) as two different cases; if the past few years are any guide, it will be analyzed purely according to the pre-existing political commitments of the listeners.

In their first appearance on Tuesday, February 9, the Trump legal team proved incapable of even laying out that argument. Instead, they described a terrifying threat: One day a trial-happy Senate would come back and impeach Eric Holder. On Friday, having had time to recoup, they did get the he-said-fight argument in outline form. To them, they say, the only question is whether when Trump said fight like hell to the rally on January 6, these words were (1) unprotected by the First Amendment and (2) so powerful that they created a blood-crazed zombie mob that surprised everyone by assaulting the Capitol.

Thus posed, of course, the answer must be no. Trumps behavior, as he claimed, was totally appropriate and its just one a jolly bad break that the criminals in the mob chose at that precise moment to run wild and engage in acts that no one deplored more than Donald Trump himself.

Its very hard to believe that the defense presentation changed a single mind. Members of the House and Senate themselves were present on January 6 (as the defense team was not). Members of Congress know what happened. Many of the were terrified and appalled; remarkably many, however, found the breach of the Capitol to be just part of a working day that began with a spurious challenge to the electoral votes from Arizona and thenafter an interlude of violence and bloodended in a similar false challenge to the electoral votes from Pennsylvania. The aim of those challengers and the rioters alike was cancelling the results of the 2020 election. The means chosen were different; for some, parliamentary motions, for others, stun guns, bear mace, zip ties, clubs and spears, and a gallows. But the intent was the same. Theres no evidence that most of the challengers repent their actions; nor is there evidence that Donald Trump feels anything but perhaps regret that the insurrection failed.

This is the way to understand the contention that the First Amendments free speech clause bars the conviction of Donald Trump. Theres no doubt that Trump could tell his followers to fight. He might even use the word several times. And look! Look! Democrats say the word fight too!

But the charge is not limited to one speech on January 6. It is of a plan, and perhaps a full-fledged criminal conspiracy, initiated months before and moved forward with communications, organization, finance, and political support from Trump and his White House, which involved repeated lies and corrupt behind-the-scenes maneuvers and led predictably to a violent assault that came close to destroying our Congress.

The First Amendment doesnt cover planning, financing, organizing, and inciting an armed attack on the United States. If you are convinced by the Houses evidence, then you will favor conviction. Or you can look the other way because what about Nancy Pelosi. Those are your choices.

Follow this link:
Anatomy of an Insurrection - Washington Monthly

Greys Anatomy Star Hypes A Terrifying And Exhilarating Season 17 Return – Cinema Blend

On top of that, the winter finale saw another local hospital hit capacity, so that now all new patients have to head to Grey Sloan. Opal, the sex trafficker from Season 16, is back after two girls were (finally) rescued from the grasp of one of her co-conspirators, and DeLuca and his sister are on her trail with results that might be less than pleasant for our heroes. Add to that everything that Meredith is going through, and, basically, all is not quiet on the western front. It's a big ol' mess, y'all. But, according to what Jesse Williams said about the spring premiere, the situation can definitely get worse.

View post:
Greys Anatomy Star Hypes A Terrifying And Exhilarating Season 17 Return - Cinema Blend

Dissecting Anatomy Lab: The Lifecycle of Anatomy Instruction – Pager Publications, Inc.

Editors Note: We are featuring a series of essays by Kate Crofton on anatomy lab. Her essays are based on 27 interviews with medical students, faculty, clinicians and donors. This is the third installment in the series. Read the second installment here.

It is the day before the first anatomy lab for the first-year medical students, and a single professor walks alone, up and down rows of tables laden with twenty-six naked, embalmed bodies. He silently shares a few minutes with the donors, a private thank-you. Soon the donors will be covered in white sheets, and the students will tentatively spill through the locked wooden doors of the labs, a rush of anticipation, teamwork, questions and learning. But right now, no one makes a sound. There is no buzzing of saws, whirring of the suction machine, or gentle clinking of hemostats and Metzenbaum scissors against the metal tables, no nervous laughter, exclamations of discovery or confused mumblings.

The professor will be joined by an eclectic team of his colleagues. They are educators who use dead people as their teaching medium. They spend hours on end in rooms reeking of formaldehyde. Above all, they care deeply about doing their work with respect. With their turquoise gloves, blue paper surgical shoe covers, rainbow of expo markers, memorized atlas page numbers, thoracic spine necklaces, golden dissecting scissors and pockets full of little colored wires, they will help each student learn to find their way.

These professors find beauty in anatomy: the relationships of the structures to each other, the functionality of the human body, unique variations and even pathology. The brachial plexus dissection is a favorite of one professor, a lab which reveals a complicated bundle of nerves branching and recombining to serve the arm. For another, the most beautiful structures are the hands and the head, the parts worn outside of clothing that express personality and individuality. They love the search for structures: When you first look at the tissue, it looks like a messnon-descript gauze. There is no real reason to think there are nerves or vessels running through that. But then once you find them and then you see how tightly packed things are, you realize just how incredible it is.

Another instructor asserts that her upbringing in a family of hunters contributed to her early interest in anatomy and her understanding of the place of death in the lifecycle. My brothers and my dad hunted, and so from the time that I was really little, I was used to seeing deer butchered in our garage. I was struck by the intricacy and the beauty of how a body could be put together and function properly I can remember my mom buying one pound of ground beef, and she would make our meals for the week goulash, Spanish rice, things that would spread it out. I realized that deer put meat on our table and kept deer from starving; it managed the population. Death is a natural part of life.

My dad and brother are also deer hunters, and I remember deer carcasses hanging in my dads shop during my childhood. I perched on overturned five-gallon buckets amidst sawdust and pine two-by-fours and watched as my dad sliced away the hide and wrapped chunks of bloody meat in crisp white freezer paper. I loved the warm, buttery taste of venison and intuited more easily then the cycling of life into death into life again. The deer were beautiful, running through our hay fields, and they were beautiful still as carved up slabs of meat in the deep freezer.

To find beauty in the anatomy lab might seem crass; after all the mechanical process of disassembling the donor is brutal, and at the end the body is a carcass, a dried-out pile of flayed skin and bones. Professors acknowledge this difficulty, I am always intrigued by different things that I see in the lab beautiful dissections and I know the word beautiful is sometimes a complicated word in that space Youre right, its by seeing many donors over time that you come to appreciate that were all the same, theres a pattern, but were also all unique. Everybody has an interesting story, and their body often tells that.

I interrogate the professors for a list of the most fascinating anatomy theyve seen. They oblige with developmental abnormalities: situs inversus, horse-shoe kidneys, bifid muscles, extra blood vessels and abnormal arrangements of nerves. They also mention impressive pathology: swollen cirrhotic livers, big black lymphatic balls of cancer, white hardened atherosclerotic plaque, occluded coronary vessels and cerebral hemorrhages. They recount biomedical devices and remnants of medical procedures, too, a demonstration of medicines advances to thwart pathology: coronary bypasses and stents, pacemakers, orthopedic prosthetics and deep-brain-stimulating electrodes.

I ask one professor if theres any anatomical anomaly that hes still hoping to see in his career. He gently chides, No, its not like Im going to go out looking for donors to have things that Im interested in; thats not the point. And I realize that I have indeed missed the point. The anatomists dont see donors as collections of interesting or rare anatomy but instead see them as their partners in teaching us.

The anatomy instructors are guardians. One professor explains that she feels a deep sense of responsibility to take care of the donors so that they may teach her students, Its funny, Ive described myself as the curator of those donors. I feel like Im a caretaker of sorts. When I walk into that anatomy lab, I find it to be a very comforting space. When I go in there its quiet and I think about the various lives that are represented by the donors in there, and I think about that gift that they were willing to share to let all of you learn.

I picture an art gallery, with paintings carefully framed on the walls. The anatomy instructor appears, robed in a long white coat and blue scrubs, hair held in place precisely with a barrette. She softly dusts each painting, adjusts the lighting, and adds a placard underneath each one so that it may be better understood. My job is to make sure that all of them are cared for well and that they are the best learning tool for all of you to learn that anatomy and have it be memorable.

The relationship between professor and donor can prompt reflection and even conflict, in the professor. When a young medical professional died of a drug overdose and donated his body to medical education, it provoked one lab instructor to be more reflective than usual. An eighty-seven-year-old died of a heart attack Ive heard that one before, but a twenty-seven-year-old is there something thats fundamentally been lost even more in the twenty-seven-year-old? For whatever reason I did stop and think more and feel a little bit sad, not to the point of tears, but sad and reflective.

She pauses, and then continues, I also felt grateful and then felt a little sick about feeling grateful because that dissection was really beautiful. It looked so much like [the anatomy textbook] a lot of the time the muscle integrity, color, shading, shape and distinction. Things werent blending together, there was no marbling of fat infiltrating the muscles. It was such a beautiful, easy dissection and the students learned so much.

These professors didnt always have such mature relationships with the donors. One faculty member recalls her first experience in an anatomy lab as a student, looking at the donor and thinking, I dont know if I recognize you as a personor a dissection tool. I relate deeply to her memory, and it resonates also with many of my interviews with students. As novices in anatomy, its much more difficult and requires a more deliberate effort to switch between viewing the cadaver as a body and as a person. I am cutting the body, and the person is gone, but the person chose for the body to be here. Its clunky. The professors are more fluid with this duality and coexist with it in a more peaceful way.

When I ask the same professor whether she now views the donor as a person or a body she responds with an analogy: Its like electrons in orbitals. They can be in one place but never in-between. I try to maintain respect for what I imagine as the person that they were in the decision that they made to be here, the life that they had. But at the same time, I dont believe theyre alive anymore or have any sort of soul inhabiting whats left. Theres all this meat and bones left behind, but theres nothing that can be hurt or embarrassed. The donors are gifts, teaching tools, partners and even friends, extending an invitation to come learn.

The anatomy lab is not an immediately comfortable place for everyone, and even the professors, whom we view as our seasoned guides, once needed to habituate to the space. An instructor recalls her first time leading an anatomy course, I had a really profound visceral response to every dissection. For the first half hour walking in there, I felt nauseated, I felt faint. I always made sure I was bracing myself on a table or against a wall just in case, and I didnt admit it to anyone because I was in charge. I recollect my own experience in lab, repeating a silent mantra mind over matter as the room clouded over and the din grew distant, willing myself to remain vertical. Mind over matter carried me through the course for weeks, and I left the lab each day feeling like a soggy balloon, sapped of all emotional reserves.

The professor continues, Ive been trying to figure out what changed. My first time [as a student] I was fine, and this time Im falling apart and not admitting it to anyone. I think a couple things the crazy amount of stress of trying to learn anatomy, run the course and teach all at the same time. Also, in that instructor role, you cant immerse yourself in dissection. Youre walking from one table to another and watching as people make these incisions and take things apart, and you dont have control over it yourself.

She describes being in lab one day when students were dissecting the lower extremity. At that point, the legs had been severed from the trunk of the body, and they were propped at ninety-degree angles to practice the anterior drawer test. A living person might assume the same position, perhaps strewn out on the sofa reading a book, feet on the cushions and knees bent in the air. It didnt feel right, because it [aligned] too much with what I think an intact human looks like. She adapted and the second year developed strategies to be more comfortable as an instructor in the space. I knew that if I could reduce the smell, that helps. I got Vicks Vapor Rub, and I would wear a mask that year. I realized that getting hands-on as soon as possible helped, so I made sure to get in on someones dissection as soon as I got in the room. Partly just seeing it again and again, I habituated.

To our instructors, the donors are far more than dead bodies; they are teachers. Textbooks and plastic models only represent our notion of typical, but donors show us great variation. In an even voice with steady conviction, an anatomy instructor explains, I see [the donors] silently saying Bring the book over here, and if you dont see it, change the book because this is real. The anatomical donor population provides an immediate education of what we currently understand about how human bodies function and some of the ways they stop functioning. The donors inform our knowledge and make us better scientists and clinicians.

They also move us to be better people. Groups in power have historically used pseudoscientific arguments to justify their social status. For example, in the 1800s Samuel George Morton thought that it was possible to define the intellectual ability of a race by skull size. Rigorous scientific methods and access to good data have refuted his racist claims. If our anatomy is all the same, then how can biology determine the inherent superiority of one class of people? As one professor believes, the donors show us the importance of inclusion and respect for all human beings. There used to be quite a bit of wrong speculation of how bodies were put together and how they functioned. Over the past century, we finally have moved into an understanding of how things really work, and the donor population is a large part of the reason why we now understand.

The donors help us understand anatomy, and they also help us come to terms with our own mortality. I ask one professor if anatomy has changed his view of death. He tells me no, rather its the opposite; because of donors, his personal grief has emerged in the classroom. The year that his father died, the first day of class fell on his fathers birthday and there happened to be a cadaver in lab that resembled the professors father. A first-year student in that class had recently lost his mother to breast cancer. When the student peeled back the white sheets in preparation for anterior dissections, he discovered a breast-less chest bearing the scars of a mastectomy, and so we bothhad these acute reminders of the grief that we were going through. When the same professors wife of thirty-eight years died of colon cancer, he knew that he would need to take extra care in order to be able to teach the gastrointestinal anatomy. Well its not like all twenty-six cadavers died of colon cancer. So it wasnt something every day that I had to deal with. The stress for me is the teaching part; I want to make sure that Im doing a good job You put things aside, and you cant be thinking about grief and the death of someone all the time, you just wouldnt be functional. Its not that I intentionally put it aside, its just other things become more important in the moment and then I go home and think about it.

Anatomy instruction has both accelerated and become more humanistic over the last fifty years. A professor contemplates his first anatomy course as a student in the 1970s, I can remember that there were students who put clothes on their cadavers. Surprisingly there was not a lot of student reaction to that; people just werent as thoughtful or as sensitive about it as they are now. We didnt do it, but someone did it to our cadaver. Thats probably my most vivid memory. Decades later, he shifts uneasily in his chair and his eyes moisten. Some of our professors rules make more sense now. Photography is not allowed in the gross anatomy labs, only medical students may enter the locked space, and we are warned to treat the donors with respect for their personhood.

He continues reminiscing, Although [medical school] had a body donation program, we also had unclaimed bodies. Our cadaver was African-American, and Im going to guess that he was unclaimed just from the wear and tear. So thats changed now too, the anatomical program has changed. Anatomical gift programs really began to get formalized in the mid-20th century and werent really codified well until the 1960s. All the cadavers used at our medical school today are donated. I try to imagine what it would feel like to dissect a body that was discarded at the hospital or county morgue, perhaps because the decedents family couldnt afford to pay a bill. It feels ugly. I am grateful for my donors gift of his body, and also immensely grateful that it was a gift. The professor agrees that he is much more comfortable with our exclusively donor-based anatomy program.

A students time in anatomy lab today is abbreviated compared to our professors educations. [My medical anatomy class] had three hundred hours. When I first came here in 1985 we had a one hundred ninety hour [anatomy] course and one hundred sixty [of those hours] were laboratory. We are down now to less than one hundred hours of lab. Surprisingly the detail [that we teach you] hasnt changed that much. We had to become more efficient. Our education today prioritizes early clinical exposure and multi-disciplinary learning. A consequence though, is that it is more difficult for the anatomy professors to get to know their students, and theres less time for students to process the experience as they rush to learn all the material.

What do our anatomy instructors want us to learn? Hopefully some basic anatomy, replies a professor, but I know that unless you are using it, its going to disappear. So, Im sure that if I started asking you questions I laugh nervously, and stammer, please dont desperately trying to remember the branching of the cranial nerves in case he does quiz me. Maybe he has a skeleton in his office that he will pick up, pointing to the pinprick fossa of the skull? But he continues, More importantly is when you get to the clerkships during your third and fourth years and someones going to ask you some anatomy do you know where to go to review that? Have we made you a good learner?

Other professors respond, We need to have excellent physicians,and to bean excellent physician you have to know anatomy. The best way to teach anatomy is through dissection.

Equally important, youve learned about yourselves.

You have to learn teamwork, patience, perseverance, humility and gratitude.

Its these moments: watching lightbulbs go off for students as they make a connection across disciplines or overcome challenges, that come up again and again as our teachers biggest joys. Ive always been motivated to teach, and that stems from when I was a little kid taking swimming lessons. By the time that I graduated from tadpole to polliwog, I would help as a teachers aide for the group behind me. I loved when people were able to gain a skill, and I found being part of that process to be very rewarding. I always felt somehow that teaching needed to be part of what I would do for a living. Teaching forms a key part of their identities.

And so, I am surprised, though maybe I shouldnt be, that when I ask if they want to be anatomical donors when they die, a high proportion of our professors responds with an emphatic YES. (One says that if hes healthy enough, hed prefer to be an organ donor. Others qualify that theyd personally be interested in whole body donation but would need to take their familys needs into account, and some havent yet settled on their end of life wishes.) These are people who know with staggering detail everything that happens in the anatomy lab. They know the entire series of maneuvers of the gloved fingers, scalpels, scissors, chisels, and saws required to deconstruct and study what may someday be their cold, bloodless bodies on the dissecting tables.

Its because I know exactly what happens in that space that its important to me. I realize how thorough the dissections are, I realize how much students can learn, I realize how memorable those experiences are, and I realize that it is a space for learning more than just anatomy. If I can support that for one more year, thats incredibly important to me.

I imagine that I am again a first-year student several weeks into gross anatomy lab, and the funeral director visits my table to tell us about our donor. How startling it would be to learn that the body that we had been dissecting belonged to an anatomy professor. One instructor tells me that she loves the ideal of the reveal, Its meta an anatomy professor teaching anatomy again, thats so cool. I am also hoping that it will give comfort to students who feel uncomfortable knowing that theyre dissecting donors who didnt know all the details. [For example] were going to bisect your pelvis thats the one that gets most people to know that most people in the room didnt know that, but heres someone who knew all the nitty gritty details of what was going to happen, and they chose it anyway. I hope that it would give them comfort. They are teachers in life and teachers in death.

Image Credit: Courtesy of the National Library of Medicine. Image is in the public domain.

Contributing Writer

University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry

Kate Crofton is a fourth year medical student at the University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry in Rochester, New York, class of 2021. In 2016, she graduated from Carleton College with a Bachelor of Arts in biology. In her free time, she enjoys writing poetry, reading narrative nonfiction, and baking sourdough. After graduating medical school, Kate intends to pursue a career in OB/GYN.

Follow this link:
Dissecting Anatomy Lab: The Lifecycle of Anatomy Instruction - Pager Publications, Inc.