Oh I doubt your myeloid cells are safe from this. First they came for the lymphocytes...

Thanks, I hate it

A failure of peer review... this should have never been published.

That would be a mistake IMO, she is way too tainted by the right wing media to have any chance of winning even moderate independents for national office. But she can definitely win a NY statewide race. She could have 100x the influence as a senator vs. running a doomed pres campaign.

Oh I was just TODAY telling my wife that it's time AOC ran for his seat. But to suggest that he agrees with the $400m cut is just wild.

"...My worry is that this $400 million was just done in typical Trump fashion: indiscriminately, without looking at its effect."

FAR cry from "Schumer says he agrees with Trump’s decision to pull $400 million from Columbia.". It's so far that I worry it's not in the same plane of existence.

"... What is the $400 million? It could be hurting all students. Students who go there who have nothing to do with the protest, students who might have protested peacefully, or Jewish students who were victims of some of those protests. So I think we have to see..."

Doesn't seem like he said anything of the sort. Maybe this is not a good source of information to follow. Here's what he actually said:

"So what did they do? They took away $400 million. I’m trying to find out what they took away. Are they taking away money from cancer research, or Alzheimer’s?..."

So, fully HALF of the papers do not show any good evidence that Paxlovid causes rebound and instead support the idea that this is just a normal feature of this infection regardless of treatment.

@danielgriffinmdphd.bsky.social interested in your take on this.

Ref 6: P>U
Ref 17: P=U
Ref 19: P>U (extremely low N)
Ref 20: P=U (numerically P>U, but you have to torture the data to get significance)
Ref 22: P>U
Ref 23: P>U
Ref 26: P=U (numerically P>U but statistically non-significant)
Ref 27: P=U

Decided to pull up all those refs at the end of the quote and look at the data to see whether that statement is accurate.

(below, P>U means Paxlovid caused more rebound than Untreated, and P=U means there was no difference in rebound between groups)

I think you know this, but MDPI is not a journal, it's a publisher of journals. The journal that paper is published in is IJMS.

Also, wow, the WHN is just a who's who of pathologically online people who don't know anything about the immune system.

I did not know that. That makes a lot of sense.

You just know that there had to have been an earlier version of this paragraph that was about Judy Mikovits instead of Duesberg...

Yeah I wonder why!

Installing the wrong thickness filter into a filter wheel and cramming the retainer ring on not understanding that this will not go well, only for the retainer ring to then scratch the crap out of the filter wheel housing as the wheel rotates because it sticks out.

I think you're giving this way too much credit. This paper is basically meaningless and the conclusions are in no way justified by the data. Peer review fail.

Coat slide with CellTak, put live cells on it for an hour, then fix and mount.