Scientist Find Way to Seperate HIV virus from Infected Cells

Perhaps a potential cure in the future? (Raw Story)

The scientists engineered an enzyme which attacks the DNA of the HIV virus and cuts it out of the infected cell, according to the study published in Science magazine.

The enzyme is still far from being ready to use as a treatment, the authors warned, but it offers a glimmer of hope for the more than 40 million people infected worldwide.

"A customized enzyme that effectively excises integrated HIV-1 from infected cells in vitro might one day help to eradicate (the) virus from AIDS patients," Alan Engelman, of Harvard University's Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, wrote in an article accompanying the study. (snip)...

That enzyme was able to eliminate the HIV virus from infected human cells in about three months in the laboratory.

Hopefully, these scientists will be able to perfect it soon.

--------

In the mood for a little silliness but still would like to learn something? Well I got something for you.....Jon Stewart of the Daily Show.

Highlighting the demonizing, slightly racist, and often false rhetoric coming out of the Nativist side of the immigration debate. I like this one

""Simple, pure hope that one day these tubercular, leprous, molesting immigrants can repeat the uniquely American journey of the fiendish, green-blooded Irish, from unwanted immigrants to not wanting immigrants."" Oh, they are good.

Mexican Standoff (Daily Show) - video at bottom

-------

A hat tip to Atrios of Eschaton for pointing out how rare and gratifying it is to see actual journalism the way it is supposed to be.

Article in question comes from McClatchy's Washington Bureau

Long Excerpt

Facing eroding support for his Iraq policy, even among Republicans, President Bush on Thursday called al Qaida "the main enemy" in Iraq, an assertion rejected by his administration's senior intelligence analysts.

The reference, in a major speech at the Naval War College that referred to al Qaida at least 27 times, seemed calculated to use lingering outrage over the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, to bolster support for the current buildup of U.S. troops in Iraq, despite evidence that sending more troops hasn't reduced the violence or sped Iraqi government action on key issues.

Bush called al Qaida in Iraq the perpetrator of the worst violence racking that country and said it was the same group that had carried out the Sept. 11 attacks in New York and Washington.

"Al Qaida is the main enemy for Shia, Sunni and Kurds alike," Bush asserted. "Al Qaida's responsible for the most sensational killings in Iraq. They're responsible for the sensational killings on U.S. soil."

U.S. military and intelligence officials, however, say that Iraqis with ties to al Qaida are only a small fraction of the threat to American troops. The group known as al Qaida in Iraq didn't exist before the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, didn't pledge its loyalty to al Qaida leader Osama bin Laden until October 2004 and isn't controlled by bin Laden or his top aides.

Bush's references to al Qaida came just days after Republican Sens. Richard Lugar of Indiana, the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and George Voinovich of Ohio broke with Bush over his Iraq strategy and joined calls to begin an American withdrawal.

"The only way they think they can rally people is by blaming al Qaida," said Vincent Cannistraro, a former chief of the CIA's Counter-Terrorism Center who's critical of the administration's strategy.

Next month, the Senate is expected to debate the Iraq issue as it considers a Pentagon spending bill. Democrats are planning to offer at least three amendments that seek to change Iraq strategy, including revoking the 2002 resolution that authorized Bush to use force in Iraq and mandating that a withdrawal of troops begin within 120 days.

Bush's use of al Qaida in his speech had strong echoes of the strategy the administration had used to whip up public support for the Iraq invasion by accusing the late Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein of cooperating with bin Laden and implying that he'd played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks. Administration officials have since acknowledged that Saddam had no ties to bin Laden or 9-11....(snip)

In his speech, Bush made other questionable assertions.

He claimed that U.S. troops were fighting "block by block" in Baqouba, a city northeast of Baghdad, as part of an offensive to clear out al Qaida fighters.

But Gen. Raymond Odierno, the U.S. ground commander in Iraq, said earlier this month that 80 percent of the insurgents American troops expected to encounter in Baqouba had fled before the operation began, including much of the insurgent leadership. (snip)

I know I know, that was a very long excerpt but it was necessary in order to better show how good this journalism is, and how unlike it is to what passes for journalism.

The problem with much of newspaper and Television journalism is that they mistakenly see its way of keeping balance is to run the claims of both sides of an issue, but do not take any steps itself to analyze or check if one or both sides claim are correct.

Often you see: Administration claims X, critics claim Y. And sometimes they do not even add the critics. That is NOT balance because in this manner it gives equal credence and equal status to the validity of both sides statement without doing the paper doing any work itself and seeing if perhaps one side is more correct or one side is lying or otherwise provide no additional information that helps the public better know which one is correct.

In this McClathcy article the author takes on a more traditional journalistic role.

The article itself doesn't simply report both sides account, it made a judgement about which side is more likely given the information based on the facts. And you get that sense from the article.

This is above and beyond what passes for journalism these days: In fact, as is often the case, the administration claim would have been dutifully passes along without any serious rebuttal.

McClatchy (formerly Knight-Ridder) News is one of those Mainstream news services that has had a very good track record for good journalism. Prior to the Iraq war they were one of the few news services who did their journalistic jobs and truly looked into how valid and invalid the administration claims where in its case for war. They were no stenographers (look it up).

And their coverage has been above par since then as well. They truly have a differing concept as a news service that hearkens back to the traditional role that media is supposed to serve: as a check on government power.

This journalistic ethos is in plain view if one looks at the new tagline/cathphrase for its news service: "Truth to Power"

A very bold tagline, and one of the few media organizations in which it is genuinely appropriate.

Keep on the good work McClatchy...

PS: Normally I have one blog post on any given day but today will likely produce two. So look out for number 2