there really is an xkcd for everything.
We have previously discussed the difficulty in measuring immune response based solely on neutralizing antibody titers. Ars does an explainer on how it is that this works, at least in part. Worth mentioning again, that the human immune system would put the Rube Goldberg-iest Rube Goldberg device to shame, with the feedback loops, promoters, suppressors, checkpoints and modes of action. Nonetheless, just to add to the confusion:
as my favorite pharma-blogger has said on multiple occasions-- âthe immune system is hard.â
I just knew I had that shit nailed down in pre-clinicals. Test came and went, and I found out that I was so wrong. So very, very wrong.
I think I have an ok grasp on it now, but donât ask for too many details.
Serious understatement.
Thatâs it exactly. Itâs unspeakably complicated from 10,000 feet. With more granularity, it just gets much, much worse. Any body system that warrants itâs own specialty, and leads the specialists who spend their whole careers studying it to still throw up their hands, is worthy of respect.
Interesting take on endemicity, including a deep discussion of what the term actually means.
Not for every poster in our local Facebook group. Not a single one of them went to any type of medical school yet they all know exactly how the immune system works.
There is an actual doctor that weighs in occasionally with actual facts but from what I can tell based on replies to his comments he really doesnât have a clue. The idiots in my county know so much more than him.
Super sad newsâŚ
If youâre not familiar with the Frogman, aka Ben Grelle, he has a long running online comedy blog. He has several conditions which keeps him generally homebound. Heâs a funny guy who seems really sweet. He had a dog that he regularly featured, a corgi named Otis, who passed away a year or two ago.
In Phase 1 trials, pretty good way to go, but could be very useful, especially where mRNA vaccines fear to tread.
Is it getting the âwarp speedâ treatment?
or is the emergency over 
I think I can feel a Chamberlain energy here.
Okay, I know that the prime minister was very defamed by his notorious home frenemy at time and wasn´t that naive politician pictured in his memories.
Snopes did a write up on the paper.
Apparently, this film attempts to rehabilitate Chamberlain somewhatâŚ
I donât know how successfully it will be, but weâll seeâŚ
i read a book about the end of the chamberlain administration and the transition to the churchill prime ministership in the 90s which tried to make the point that while chamberlain initially believed in hitler and took him at his word until the whole conflict over czechoslovakia started at which point he realized that hitler was a scoundrel and used the munich conference as a way to buy time to rebuild the british military that he and his predecessors in office had downgraded. i wasnât completely convinced by the authorâs arguments but it did give me a lot to think about.
i guess i take kind of an intermediate position about chamberlain, that is i donât think that he was an utter fool about hitlerâs intentions but iâm not convinced that he got enough out of the sacrifice of czechoslovakia to make it a reasonable exchange.
I think thatâs the position the film takes? I donât know the scholarship around this well, so I think itâs entirely possible.
To be fair (with regards to Czechslovakia), itâs not like the English speaking west isnât completely willing to sacrifice other countries for our own comfortâŚ
