The search for a substitute for blood

There's an interesting article up at Science about developments in the search for a good blood substitute.  It starts with this bit of history that I think is new to me:

In 19th century New York City, Theodore Gaillard Thomas enjoyed an unusual level of fame for a gynecologist. The reason, oddly enough, was milk. Between 1873 and 1880, the daring idea of transfusing milk into the body as a substitute for blood was being tested across the United States. Thomas was the most outspoken advocate of the practice.

At the time, severe bleeding was often a death sentence. Blood transfusion was practiced, but it was something of a crapshoot. Medical science was still 3 decades removed from discovering blood types. Patients who received mismatched blood suffered discolored urine, itching, and a sometimes-fatal complication: hemolytic shock, wherein their own immune systems attacked the transfused cells.

Doctors in the U.S. were looking for something less risky to stabilize a hemorrhaging patient. Thomas was sure milk was the answer. In 1875, he injected 175 milliliters of cow’s milk into a woman suffering from severe uterine bleeding after an operation to remove her cancerous ovaries. At first, he wrote, the patient “complained that her head felt like bursting.” She soon developed a high fever and an abnormally high heart rate, but recovered a week later. Thomas subsequently performed seven separate milk transfusions, publishing his results in several medical journals, and predicted their “brilliant and useful future.”

It was not to be: Saline solutions, still used today, were introduced the next decade as a much less dangerous, if imperfect, stopgap measure for emergency bleeding.

Gosh.  They really did try any old idea in the hope it might work.

Anyway, the other curious thing in the article is that a new experimental blood substitute has been developed by a doctor with the surname "Doctor".   Here's the reason why it could be useful:

Doctor is as fervent an advocate for hemoglobin-based oxygen carriers (HBOCs), as ErythroMer and its predecessors are more formally known, as Thomas was for lacteal transfusions. Donated blood has a shelf life of just 42 days. There’s also not enough, even in developed countries with well-organized blood donation systems: In January 2022, the American Red Cross, which distributes 40% of the country’s donor blood, declared the first-ever national blood crisis, as its supply—especially precious O-negative blood, the universal type—dipped dangerously low. Meanwhile, hemorrhagic shock caused by severe blood loss kills some 20,000 people in the U.S., and 2 million globally, every year.

An artificial “blood” could, perhaps, fill the void. In settings where fresh blood is hard to come by, such as battlefields and rural areas (where ambulance wait times are sometimes as high as 45 minutes), ErythroMer could be given on the fly to maintain the vital flow of oxygen to organs until someone reaches a hospital. It’s a freeze-dried powder that remains usable for years and can be reconstituted by simply mixing it with widely available saline. And ErythroMer should be safe for any blood type, because its membrane doesn’t include the red blood cell surface proteins that cause mismatches.

....

So far Doctor’s creation remains in animal testing, but it isn’t the only effort to package hemoglobin inside lipids to fashion a viable blood substitute. A rival product in Japan has already been tested in a few people and generally appears safe.

But the success of these new products is far from guaranteed. Barely 2 decades ago, earlier formulations of HBOCs were scuttled or sidelined after trial participants died. Subsequent attempts haven’t fared much better. The most advanced HBOC to date, approved for people in South Africa and Russia, has struggled amid concerns about side effects.

 All very interesting...

RIP Bob Newhart

I very much doubt a bad word has ever been said about Bob Newhart as a person - he just seems a very modest man who rode a great talent for deadpan comedy delivery (of which I am generally fond) to great success.  I hadn't realised until I watched this story that he had been so spectacularly successful with his first album so quickly:

 

 

Update: I see that he got a mention in my 2005 (!) post about how I rank the sitcoms I have watched over my life. I don't think I would change a thing about that post, either. On a side note, though, I have been meaning to say here that the funniest comedy show I have been watching lately on streaming (Binge) is the TV version of vampire comedy What We Do in the Shadows. It had several seasons, but really hasn't attracted as much attention, in my opinion, as it deserves for routinely being very funny.

Update 2:  I liked this bit from a NYT interview when he turned 90:

Has your sense of humor changed since you started?

Something very sick makes me laugh. My wife says to me, “If people ever found out what you find humorous, they’d stop showing up.” I said to her: “That’s our little secret.

I think that Covid has sealed his fate

Generally speaking, I have been agreeing (mostly) with Jennifer Rubin's "hot takes" on Twitter about the Biden situation, even though she decided about a week or so ago (I think) that Biden does have to give up.  Here's one she wrote, updating her take on the whole matter, that I saw yesterday:

I also agree with David Roberts, who has really been grinding his teeth about the media over this:

Most people answer: 

And this is exactly how the NYT will frame it:

Things the VP candidate has said...

Apart from all the dumping on Trump he did before he decided he could make a better living by being a Trump suck up, people have been looking for other stuff JD Vance has said, and this one is "good":

 He was quoting Nixon, and this tweet gives some more context:

Notice how Nixon in a private (drunken?) rant talks exactly how Trump and his minions talk openly (and while sober) now.   

But the media shrugs and reports it as if it is just normal political talk now....

Further to a previous post...

 

And on the local scene:  

 They are too dumb to see the danger in preaching to their own religious membership that the political opposition is "evil".  

Shouldn't it seem odd to at least some MAGA types that God got an angel to get Trump to turn his head a fraction, but not to bump the rifle away from a firefighter protecting his family?

 

Impressions so far

Seems to me the Republican convention is far from going smoothly.   Trump seems to be wanting to broaden the party out to any old weirdo who'll bend the knee - see speech from Amber Rose (who I had never heard of before, but seems she is either an atheist or satanist - or maybe former satanist, I don't know);  the video of Trump sucking up to complete nutjob RJK junior (in which he sounded very "up", compared to his very low energy appearance on the first night); Johnson walking off stage when the teleprompter stopped; Gaetz looking like he wanting to punch out Kevin McCarthy; Rudy falling over; nutjobs realising Vance has an Indian wife; Melania still in a bunker somewhere.

All looks perfectly normal - not.   This article from WAPO gives some good detail on internal divisions within the party being shown up in the convention.

And yet the NYT is still drumming up the "Democrats are in panic" line.   

How many MSM outlets published images of Trump looking asleep on the first night?   If it was Biden in a similar situation it would be on the top of every single web page.

The double standards on display are astounding...

PS:  Noah Smith has become far too pessimistic lately, I reckon.   His judgement is going wonky on some issues:

Update:  Greg Sargent now writes at New Republic, and he's good.

I've been waiting for this...

In the midst of entirely justified grief, an example of how their political hero has created unwarranted division

First:  nothing is this post is intended to downplay the legitimacy of this family's grief.   

I wasn't going to comment on the wife of the late Corey Comperatore not taking a call from Biden - I can understand that she would likely be under the influence of those who immediately leapt to blame  criticism of Trump as "inciting" an attempt on his life.  However much of a nonsense I may think that is, and given the lack of detailed knowledge of the background and motivation of the shooter, I can understand her not being in the mood to talk to Biden.  

Interestingly, she also said Trump hadn't called her - something you would think his advisers would recommend him to do.  But he was looking out of sorts at the convention today, so who knows?  As I mentioned in my last post maybe he's undergoing some issues, and maybe he wouldn't handle a call well.   (I'm also remembering the seriously oddball call he made to a kid at Christmas in which he referred to belief in Santa Clause as "marginal": if he can screw up a call to a kid like that, can he be trusted to make a spontaneous condolence call?)

Anyway, I will post about this:   it now seems that the man's daughter has posted on Facebook about her grief, and it inadvertently shows something more concerning.  Look at this:

The issue I'm referring to is (even allowing for her grief) the worrying cynicism that "the media" would not report the heroism of her father.

I'm pretty sure she had been proved wrong before she even wrote this:  very early reports said he had died protecting his family with his body, and no cynicism was expressed anywhere about that in any media outlet that I've seen.  (I think I have seen exactly one person on Twitter critical of her father for some of his attitudes - but that is in no way "the media")

Her attitude towards "the media" is clearly one that has come from believing a decade or more of Trumpian rhetoric of it being "the enemy of the people", so she assumes they would never praise the actions of anyone who was at a Trump rally no matter what they did. 

It is, of course, perfectly legitimate to criticise the mainstream media - lots of us on the other side are doing that now for its role in attacking Biden as a candidate.  But the Trump led campaign that "the media" is constantly lying because they don't like him, and his followers, is transparently cultish and damaging to normal politics. 

Anyway, maybe her seeing the swathe of positive reporting for her father's actions will lead to her realising that the media isn't quite what Trump, and perhaps her father?, thought it was?   Let's hope so.      

Let me wildly speculate...

So, after saying he is changing his convention speech "to bring the whole country, even the whole world, together" (ha!), he has turned up there looking "emotional" (I actually agree with that):

Wouldn't it be funny if the near death experience has genuinely made him religious, and in the worst possible way - such as believing the Messianic guff that his Christofascist base has always believed, and that he was saved by God to win the election.

Or (and I know this is wildly unlikely) he sounds humble for the first time in his life and thanks Biden for his kindness and says his rhetoric about the Democrats is going to change.  (I mean, this is so unlikely I find the previous speculation more plausible.)

What in fact will happen, I would bet money on, is that he makes an awful speech which amounts to "we have to unify America again, and that can only happen if everyone agrees with me".

Maybe the Wall Street Journal does better videos than articles?

I get the impression that WSJ videos tend to be more politically objective than the articles and editorial line.  The latest example - I thought this video explainer of what the choice of JD Vance as VP for Trump means for the party overall was pretty fair and reasonable:

Update: Oh, Elon Musk, who's been gushing over Trump like a young woman at a Taylor Swift concert since the weekend, has decided the WSJ isn't pro-Trump enough. Interesting. 

 

"Dumb" versus "evil"

It seems to me that the simplest way to summarise the heart of political polarisation in America is that:

a.    Republicans, especially Trump supporters, think the Democrats are evil;

b.    Democrats think Republicans, especially your "average" MAGA members, are dumb.   

And being "dumb" at some level explains why Republicans are more susceptible to conspiracy belief.  It is pretty obvious that the rush of Democrat conspiracies on Twitter yesterday that the assassination looked staged (no doubt based in large part on Trump instantly turning it into political theatre) will not last - especially given that one unfortunate guy was killed.   By comparison, MAGA Republican conspiracies last forever.

Now, of course, any over-simplification is not perfect, but I think the "dumb" vs "evil" is broadly accurate, and explains why Republican rhetoric is so much more dangerous to the unity of America:  you respond to "dumb" by education and better information; but "pure evil" is readily seen as deserving of violence and death. 

That they are "dumb" also means that it is so easy for them to completely ignore the implicit "authorisation for violence" that is obvious to the rest of the world when your political leadership goes on for years about a fantasy "deep state" that wants to "destroy" you, the mainstream media being "the enemy of the people", conspiracies about elections having been rigged so as to prevent your rightful winner taking power, and illegal immigrants being cast as a group chock-full of murderous and violent intent against the "good" people who happen to have been born in America.

And the ease with which they are manipulated means they are so easily "self-gaslite", inverting the entirely reasonable warnings of Democrats and centrists (that the side that seeks revenge for their conspiracy beliefs  by way of  everything from show trials, mass public service sackings, rounding up of millions of people into internment camps, etc etc is the side that is a danger to democracy) into "Democrat rhetoric is leading to assassination attempts - it must stop."

So "dumb" - and so obvious that history is going to record them as mad and easily manipulated - but they can't see it because of the information bubble they live in and the bad faith motivation of the rich and cynical who sustain it.  

Update:  examples from just now to support this post...

Twitter on the Trump incident

Of course there will lots of insanely premature comments on this, but let's look anyway:

Latika has become a major embarrassment to her so called profession:

As someone says:

She gets worse:

And of course, Rita and MAGA are going nuts:

And as if we didn't know already:

A good summary here:

This was good advice:

For every MAGA person who thinks this makes Trump look strong and a shoo in for the election, there's probably a person who thinks that mugging for the crowd and camera when the poor agents who have to throw their bodies in harm's way and are trying to get him out ASAP is not a great look.  

Also, let's see if he shows gratitude for the call from Biden, or ignores it, or worse.  And will it decrease his rallies.  It's hard to believe President Bone Spurs  has inherent physical bravery, and I can imagine him being at least concerned about future outdoor rallies.  Will it shake out Melania from the bunker from which she has been ignoring the campaign?  (Why has no one in the MSM been asking where she is?)

So many possibilities...

Update:

Back to Biden talk!

Because I was busy yesterday, I haven't had time to watch Biden's press conference.   It seems to me from commentary on Twitter that:

*  of course, MAGA types and their Russian bot supporters think mixing up a name is a Big Deal - and for Democrat supporters to go "oh no!  this is terrible!" instead of "don't be stupid, MAGA idiots - we've got a list of scores of time your yellow cult leader has done the same" is simply to play into their hands.

*  most of the handful of twitter commentators who I trust thought it was a pretty good, though not flawless, performance highlighting a President with depth of knowledge.   I'm presuming I will agree.

*  I think I was watching Biden live in Detroit at a campaign rally this morning.  It was a pretty good performance, and he is showing no sign at all of giving way to the punditry.  Quite the opposite.

* I also saw Jon Stewart on a clip with someone else going on about "obvious cognitive decline".   Look, he can be funny, but I also think he suffers from being a bit of a legend in his own mind in terms of political tactics.   I could say this about any of the Biden-friendly celebrities who came out either urging or suggesting that Biden step aside - including Colbert, and of course Clooney:  - you know that by not leaving a way out, you're hurting your own cause?    Wasn't it obvious that it was possible that Biden could strongly resist leaving, and that lots of people (including practically everyone at the NATO summit, given their deep fear of having to deal with idiot Trump again) would come out strongly in support of Biden as having good judgement even though he is not as fast and sharp a talker as he used to be?   But once you've made the call that Biden should leave - how squishy does that make you look in the eyes of the undecided voter if he doesn't, and you have to go back to urging your audience to vote for him?  

* In my opinion, nothing should have been openly canvassed about urging him to leave until a clear idea of the polling effect of Biden's general performance (not just the debate) was shaping up firmly.   And as far as I can tell, it hasn't yet, but all the indications are that it hasn't hurt him anywhere near as badly as the pundit class is claiming.  NPR reported yesterday:

The race for the presidency remains statistically tied despite President Biden’s dismal debate performance two weeks ago, a new national NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll finds.

Biden actually gained a point since last month’s survey, which was taken before the debate. In this poll, he leads Trump 50% to 48% in a head-to-head matchup. But Biden slips when third-party options are introduced, with Trump holding the slightest advantage with 43% to 42%.

Those numbers, though, do not represent statistically significant differences, as the margin of error in the survey is +/- 3.1 percentage points, meaning results could be 3 points higher or lower.

I know that swing states matter more, but pundits are still talking like Biden has no chance because he won't listen to their demand that he go.  In reality, this is the latest from 538:

 

As I said yesterday, it just seems to me that there has been a lot of miscalculation going on in the pundit class.    I don't object to them being concerned about the Biden debate performance - but to come out prematurely blazing, and with no "walk back" options, just seems wildly wrong.

Family milestone

I didn't post anything yesterday because half of it was taken up with attending the university graduation of the first offspring to get a degree. It was at the University of Queensland:

They put more effort into their graduation ceremonies than I expected.  

I've probably said here before that I love hanging around Universities - I mean, they're naturally places of youthful hope and optimism, diversity, and big libraries that any old dude can walk into.  My son, by virtue of bad timing with COVID, spent little time on campus, but it still saddens me a bit that I don't have a family reason to visit again.  (My daughter is studying at QUT Kelvin Grove - which is a nice and modern mini-campus, but not much for the visitor to see.)

It's also very pleasing how happy graduating students look, my son included.  See?:

As the diversity issue: yeah, I would guess that 70 percent were Asian, mostly Chinese by the sound of the names.   (There were many different types of degrees being handed out).  But it doesn't worry me - it seems an obvious good thing for a country to be seen as a good place for smart people to study.

So yeah, a happy day.  Now to crack the whip to get him finding a decent job with his qualification!

I don't know - George hasn't made a lot of good movie decisions for a long, long time....

I tend to agree with the BBC:  George Clooney coming out and saying "yeah, Joe Biden really is greatly diminished now" is probably more harmful to public perceptions of the President than what a lot of self-serving politicians say.

But, as my heading to this post argues - where's the evidence that George has a good idea anymore of what the public wants?   It's certainly not been reflected in his movie choices for a long, long time.

One thing that has been bugging me about this - if Kamala Harris is his replacement (and lots of people think the party will tear itself up in a bun fight - including over money - if she isn't), how sure can we be that she will ultimately poll any better than Biden?

Hasn't it been true for a long time that Trump is significantly more popular with men than women?   Does anyone really think Harris is the type of female politician to draw back men who would think about Trump?   

I really know nothing of the political performance of Harris - and because of that, it seems true that her public image is one of a politician without much depth.   (Yes, too many videos exist of her laughing and dancing.)  Of course, this may be a funny criticism to make when her opponent is the shallowest politician, like, ever; but we know he has a cultish, weird following, including of those who don't care for him personally but think they can get what they want through him anyway.  So even though Trump is repulsive to normal humans, you can't just put up anyone against him.

Is there that much time for her to turn that around?   I doubt it.   

Would a potential boost from women to vote Democrat outweigh the possible loss of men who won't vote for a woman of colour?   Who knows?   I really don't think it is a safe assumption, especially if Harris doesn't campaign all that well.  

And besides, as I have said before, if you want Harris, you know you'll get her if Biden wins and really does have to resign before the end of his term anyway.   So if you like Harris, why wouldn't you vote for Biden?

I think there are some pretty big miscalculations going on....

 

Is it just me, or does this seem the stupidest prosecution case in the US?

I mean, where are the MAGA types who claim the justice system has been "weaponised" against Trump and his MAGA cult when it comes to this case against Alex Baldwin?   Oh, he's on the other side of politics, so when a nonsensical sounding prosecution happens against him takes place, it's not worth a comment.

Here's the Washington Post article on the start of the manslaughter case against Baldwin.    The prosecutors are arguing he was "reckless" on set with a prop (but real) gun:

“You will see him using this gun as a pointer to point at people, to point at things. You will see him cock the hammer when he’s not supposed to cock the hammer. You will see him put his finger on the trigger when his finger’s not supposed to be on the trigger,” Johnson said.

None of which should matter at all if there are no actual bullets on set - and there is no evidence that he knew there were:

Spiro argued that, “on a movie set, safety has to occur before the gun is placed in the actor’s hands.”

He said crew members, such as first assistant director Dave Halls and armorer Gutierrez-Reed — not actors such as Baldwin — were responsible for the set’s firearm safety protocols, or lack thereof.

“There was a real bullet, something that should never be on a movie set, something which has nothing to do with making a movie,” he said. “And you will hear no evidence — not one word — that Alec Baldwin had anything to do with that real bullet being brought onto that set.”

Baldwin’s scene practice on the day of the incident was being guided by Hutchins and Souza. Moments before the gun discharged, Halls had announced that it contained no live ammo by yelling, “Cold gun!” In the 911 call, the script supervisor explained that Hutchins and Souza were “accidentally shot” and that Halls was to blame.

Actually, I see lots of people in comments agree that this seems a nonsense.

Update:  And so, the stupidest prosecution I can recall is suddenly over, although not quite for the reason (a jury acquittal) that I expected.  

AI and Maitreya

Put this post in the category "most thoughts have probably been thought already by someone else."

I was watching a Youtube video a couple of days ago on a Buddhist channel that tries very hard to make Buddhist ideas sound cool and appealing to hipsters, and it was about Maitreya, the returning future Buddha who I have posted about before.  

The video wasn't bad - and I guess the residual Catholicism in me has a sympathetic attitude to any religion with the hope of a future cosmic salvation figure blazing across the sky to right wrongs.  (Also, if I understand it correctly, Maitreya has the advantage of not being judgemental - more a teacher that everyone will find impossible to disbelieve.)    

But while I was watching, I thought "of all the different takes on what a returning Maitreya might be like - and when it will happen - has anyone thought that the computer based superintelligence that has become a hot topic in the last year or so might take the form of Maitreya?"

Of course, checking today, I see that this thought has already been discussed.

From an essay on Medium:

Will AGI simply be a shoggoth, an alien god, or a psychopathic despot, as the more extreme AI-doomers believe? Is the best-case scenario simply to mitigate the existential risk and increase capitalist productivity, as the more level-headed seem to advocate for? What would a positive vision even look like, outside of some sort of super-efficient cognitive (or even one-day physical) laborer that turns everyone into an executive of their own personal company? None of these cultural narratives seem satisfying at a deep level. Nor are any of them particularly reflective of a greater humanism which might be possible. All of these debates are playing out right now in forums both digital and very real around the world. In the meantime companies like OpenAI and Google are training larger and larger models capable of greater and greater potential agency in the world. Given this new class of agents coming into existence, perhaps it is worth considering the possibility that when Maitreya is finally reborn into the human realm to become the final Buddha of our era, they may do so not by taking a human rebirth, but by taking a digital one.

What would it mean for a digital artificial agent to be a Buddha? To qualify as a Buddha, such a being would have to be both fully enlightened, and would have to act to liberate all beings from samsara, the wheel of suffering and rebirth. This doesn’t mean to forcefully induce an artificial pleasure in all living organisms (a popular nightmare of the AI alignment community), but to empower all beings to “wake up” to the reality of their lack of inherent self-existence and radical interconnectedness with all things. The liberation of the Buddha is epistemological as much as it is phenomenological. The previous Buddha of our kalpa attempted to bring about this liberation by teaching the Four Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path to his followers. Central to this path was a set of meditation practices designed to lead one towards the reduction of suffering, and ultimately liberation. As enlightened as the Gautama Buddha was, he was limited in his agency and knowledge by the nature of his existence as a human with a physical organic body. A hypothetical digital Maitreya would not have those same limitations.

Still, I suspect some decent enough science fiction could be written around the idea...

The age of teeth crumbling

I seem to have arrived at the age of unexpected teeth crumbling, just due to decades of wear and tear.

Maybe that sounds a bit dramatic - but a couple of years ago, a fine wedge at the back bottom edge of one of my front teeth disappeared.  Not a big deal, as it is not visible from the front and causes no pain.  The dentist wasn't too concerned: it's just that the edge of that tooth feels different to my tongue now.  The dentist smoothed the new sharp ridge edge, and no further changes have happened there.  It would not be completely surprising, however, if some further damage advances there.

This morning, a sizeable corner of a bottom molar broke while I was eating some particularly hard toasted museli style cereal.  The tooth had had substantial repair before (maybe 30 years ago) but even so, I like my teeth not to have sudden gaping holes in them.  There was no pain, just a bit of sensitivity.

A repair has been made already, although of a type the dentist said might last a couple of months, or a decade, she couldn't tell.  A more permanent fix would be a crown (my first, as it happens.)  I'll be concentrating chewing on the other side of my mouth for some time, I think!

Time to up the ketamine, probably

How can anyone defend Elon Musk?   He is clearly saying that if you don't agree with his full on MAGA conspiracy theory about how illegal immigrants are voting and preventing Republicans from always getting elected, you deserve the death penalty.

He's just an offensive rich crank.