Archive for May, 2006

Just like home…

Tuesday, May 30th, 2006

I haven’t posted much in the last few days because I’ve been in Victoria, British Columbia, and largely not near my computer. I’m most certainly not paying any attention to the news or the majority of my normal feeds. In fact, the only reason I’m writing this right now is because I woke up from falling asleep reading/with the light on to turn the light off, and am now having a hard time falling back asleep because there’s someone screaming threats to someone else outside.

Just like home.

So, I’m laying here in bed, the open window letting the sea-scented breeze in (and it’s cold and so brisk and wonderful on all my skin save my right hand, which I keep shoving under the quilt), the tasteful nudes that are hung on the wall barely visible ghosts in the light of the laptop screen, and I’m thinking about the internet.

Specifically, I’m thinking about the accesibility created by the internet. Things like handing in homework online, not so new or interesting to me – I’ve been doing that for, Buddha help me, 18 years. I understand it’s a novel idea for some, but it’s something I grew up with.

What I didn’t grow up with was everyone being on the internet. And I don’t mean just your teachers and parents and friends and cousins and neighborhood grocer. I mean everyone. I mean, find your favourite celebrities online and read their blog and have contact, everyone.

If you’re like me, 99% of these blogs/websites/etc that I find, I find by accident. I have a sort of weird relationship with the idea of fame – namely, I don’t much care about it. If Tom Cruise were to wake me up in the morning, my only reaction would be one of “wtf is Tom Cruise doing in here waking me up?” I’ve met enough celebs at this point in my life that I can be pretty certain of my response.

But, if that person waking me up in the morning were switched to, say, Neil Gaiman or someone from Whose Line, or Mariska Hargity or so on and forth, I’d turn into a stuttering idiot. (I know – I routinely play the stuttering idiot game when I go to Gaiman signings.) What’s the difference? A pretty simple, and ultimately, silly thing. They’re people I admire and respect.

This came up on another community I read, where I clarified that I probably wouldn’t be freeze framing a television show where, with said technology, you can apparently catch one of the characters with his “delicate bits dangling”. The link to said trivia was provided based on my commenting on a photo of the actor’s bare chest… The thing is, the reason I admire and respect and am all fannish about the actor is that I admire his wit, think he’s incredibly smart, and I would love to sit down and just have a conversation about whatever came up (well, assuming I wasn’t stuttering and trying to remember what vowels sound like). I can’t for the life of me think of someone I “follow” (ie am a squealing fangirl about) because they’re eye candy and no more.

I guess the truth of the matter is, any lust I have is for mental ability, not the body proper.

Anyhow, this all comes up because I was poking around on MySpace earlier, having gotten there through a couple of links and clicks, and suddenly I was looking at Drew Carey’s MySpace account. A few more pokes, and I’m seeing a good number of the improv comics I love and their profiles (and genuinely being them, confirmed or directly linked to by their website and so forth – I do my homework, thanks).

And this is weird to me. This open accessibility of people I genuinely admire and respect and so forth. In many cases, the accessibility is a 1/1 sort of thing, and… well, it’s weird. The only reason I know of them is their celeb status, but I could care less about the status, because they seem like people I would like even if I had just met them at the pub.

I’m tired and drifting, my thoughts scattering on the breeze like so many butterflies… I suppose my entire point is the smallness of the world made accessible by a few wires, and how it still, 18 years later, still inspires within me, awe.

0

UK drug trial disaster – the official report

Friday, May 26th, 2006

New Scientist Breaking News – UK drug trial disaster – the official report

The final report into a catastrophic drug safety trial that left six men fighting for their lives in the UK in March 2006 has severely criticised Parexel, the firm that carried out the trial.

Parexel’s catalogue of errors, listed in the report issued by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, include failing to complete proper patient medical records and not providing 24-hour medical cover.

However, the report concludes that the serious adverse reactions experienced by the healthy volunteers were the result of an “unpredicted biological action of the drug in humans” – echoing an interim report issued in April 2006.

Why, for all it’s flaws, the FDA (or some sort of regulatory agency) is a good idea. Granted, it does sound like it was simply a problem with the drug itself – which is why we do clinical trials – but there were enough flaws within Parexel’s protocol that it highlights why we need oversight agencies.

This is becoming an even worse problem in the third world countries, or upcoming ones such as India, where drug companies are fleeing at alarming rates to do their trials – no FDA, no regulatory agency, no institional review boards, nothing. Just free reign and the money to buy people who’re desperate enough for the cash that they’ll do just about anything – especially with trials, where you have a chance of placebo and walking away with money and no side effects.

Of course, this British disaster shows the problem with that logic – it’s a Big Pharma version of Russian roulette.

Gabon has taken the unusual step of bringing in bioethics experts to educate their government about drug trials, and to insist that all trials done in their country follow US FDA protocols and procedures. This insures greater safety for their citizens, and Big Pharma still goes there, cuz it’s still cheaper. It’s almost a win-win situation; I wonder, and should dig, on just what FDA rules are for accepting clinical trials run outside the USA. And I think I have just the book to do it,…

1
Posted in Bioethics |

Can’t Stop The Serenity – Big Damn Movie, Big Screen Benefits

Friday, May 26th, 2006

Can’t Stop The Serenity – Big Damn Movie, Big Screen Benefits

24 Screenings Confirmed As Of May 25, 2006

June 23 is the one-year anniversary of the third and final advance screening of Serenity prior to its release. It’s also Joss Whedon’s birthday. Will you be organizing a charity screening to benefit Equality Now for that day (or any day during the week leading to June 23)? Browncoats in the following cities are — so get organizing.

Goddamn, Browncoats are cool. ‘Scuz me while I wipe away the I’m-a-mushy-sobball tears at being a part of such a generous, kind group of people. Joss inspires such amazing things in people – I don’t get how such a self-effacing geek does it.

Anyhow. Portland is down with this, and since I’ll be in Portland June 23rd (I assume, anyhow), I’ll be there. I hope you’ll join a theatre in your city and celebrate Joss’s birthday in style – with Browncoats, supporting Equality Now!

1

How Many Times Can They Re-Release Blade Runner?

Friday, May 26th, 2006

Sci Fi Wire — The News Service of the Sci Fi Channel

Warner home video will issue a new remastered director’s cut of the classic SF movie Blade Runner in September now that it has cleared up rights issues, followed by a theatrical release of a version promised to be truly director Ridley Scott’s final cut, Variety reported. Warner’s rights to Blade Runner lapsed a year ago, but the studio has since negotiated a long-term license.

The movie has a troubled history. When Scott ran overbudget, completion bond guarantors took control of it and made substantial changes before its 1982 theatrical release, adding a voice over and a happy ending. That version was replaced by the much better-received director’s cut in 1992, but Scott has long been unhappy with it, complaining that he was rushed and unable to give it proper attention.

Scott started working on the final cut version in 2000, but that project was shelved by Warner soon after, apparently because the studio couldn’t come to terms with Jerry Perenchio over rights issues.

The restored “Director’s Cut” will debut on home video in September and will remain on sale for only four months, after which time it will be placed on moratorium. Blade Runner: Final Cut will arrive in 2007 for a limited 25th anniversary theatrical run, followed by a special-edition DVD with the three previous versions offered as alternate viewing. Besides the original theatrical version and director’s cut, the expanded international theatrical cut will be included. The set will also contain additional bonus materials.

Talk about milking a cash cow…

1

HIV’s Ancestry Traced to Wild Chimps

Friday, May 26th, 2006

HIV’s Ancestry Traced to Wild Chimps

Twenty-five years after the first AIDS cases emerged, scientists have confirmed that the HIV virus plaguing humans really did originate in wild chimpanzees, in a corner of Cameroon.

At this point, I’m sure you’ve seen this news, but I think it’s important enough to document here. It’s more than historic interest that makes knowing where the virus comes from – once you understand where it comes from, you’re closer to being able to find, if not a cure, at least a vaccine.

As noted in the article, non-human primates have their own version of HIV, called SIV. In fact, a *IV exists in almost every species – humans are actually an oddity that our *IV doesn’t live in relative, non-fatal harmony with us.

Anyhow, knowing where the disease originates means being able to track the variances between the original version of the disease and the new, infectious one. Being able to track those changes means it will be much more likely to come up with a way to at least block the infection from happening. It’s sort of like reverse engineering the mutation in order to prevent it from happening again, if that makes any sense.

Given how many people are infected with HIV, and that some 25% in the United States who are infected don’t know they’re infected, anything that brings us closer to a vaccine or cure is a good thing needing attention.

0