Get levitra online

Monoclonal antibodies could hold promise in erectile dysfunction treatment and prevention if get levitra online the results bear out in clinical trials for efficacy, the nation's leading infectious diseases expert told MedPage Today."There's a lot of activity and it's a highly concentrated, highly specific, direct antiviral approach to a number of diseases. The success in Ebola was get levitra online very encouraging," said National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) Director Anthony Fauci, MD.Most recently thrust into the spotlight as effective treatments for Ebola, monoclonal antibodies are currently being researched as a potential treatment for HIV, as well as erectile dysfunction treatment. This month, the NIH highlighted trials of monoclonal antibodies being conducted among several different erectile dysfunction treatment patient populations.

Outpatients with erectile dysfunction treatment, patients hospitalized with the disease, and even a trial in household get levitra online contacts of confirmed cases, where the therapy was used as prophylaxis.Fauci explained how the mechanism of monoclonal antibodies "is really one of a direct antiviral.""It's like getting a neutralizing antibody that's highly, highly concentrated and highly, highly specific. So, the mechanism involved is blocking of the levitra from essentially entering its target cell in the body and essentially interrupting the course of ," he said.While Fauci noted the success of monoclonal antibodies to treat Ebola, he added that they are not practical for other levitraes that only last a day or two, where the levitra may already be cleared once the patient receives the treatment."If you have a disease that's serious enough and prolonged enough, such as what we saw with Ebola, and what we are currently seeing with erectile dysfunction treatment, then you have enough opportunities to get the monoclonal antibody to actually work," he added.Monoclonal antibodies are currently being administered intravenously, though Fauci said if the treatment works, "you try to get it to a form where you can give it subcutaneously or intramuscularly," a much more convenient way of administering the therapy.He also explained the difference between monoclonal antibodies and convalescent plasma, describing them as "extremely pure," due to their homogeneous nature. Therefore the recent published side effects seen in trials of convalescent plasma in erectile dysfunction treatment patients may not apply."The difference between monoclonal antibodies and convalescent plasma is plasma has a lot of other things in it, get levitra online which could lead to allergic and other reactions," Fauci said.

"Theoretically, there are more complex factors in plasma than there are with a monoclonal antibody."Ultimately, when asked if one of his patients asked him about monoclonal antibodies, Fauci said he would say they are a "promising form of therapy.""Many of them are still in clinical trials and not available for routine use, but the data that has accumulated recently indicates they are a very promising form of prevention and treatment," get levitra online he noted. Molly Walker is an associate editor, who covers infectious diseases for MedPage Today. She has get levitra online a passion for evidence, data and public health.

Side effects levitra vs cialis

Levitra
Fildena
Cialis with dapoxetine
Does medicare pay
No
Yes
Online
Daily dosage
Online Pharmacy
RX pharmacy
RX pharmacy
Online price
Yes
No
No
Where to get
Pharmacy
On the market
Canadian Pharmacy
Can cause heart attack
Muscle pain
Upset stomach
Memory problems
Buy with mastercard
No
No
No

UC Davis and two other universities have been awarded a $2.3 million grant from the National Institutes of Health to train https://tzoleipzig.de/2017/10/19/25-firmenjubilaeum/ and empower community health workers in research best practices, which could help reduce disparities related to the side effects levitra vs cialis ongoing erectile dysfunction treatment levitra. An NIH grant will allow UC Davis Health to train community health workers to help with research efforts to reduce health disparitiesThe grant from the NIH’s National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences is shared by the UC Davis Clinical and Translational Science Center (CTSC) and the Center for Reducing Health Disparities (CRHD), the University of Michigan, and side effects levitra vs cialis the University of Florida. All three universities do extensive work in promoting health equity among Latinx and Black populations.The award acknowledges the increasing role that community health workers play in research to engage individuals from underserved communities.“We have been successfully training community health workers for many years to help diverse populations improve their health, and now we’ll have an opportunity to take that training to the next level, to formally teach the essentials of research to community health workers,” said Sergio Aguilar-Gaxiola, director of the CRHD and also director of the community engagement program of the CTSC. As with most gatherings nowadays, the training will be held online.Community health workers, sometimes known as promotoras de salud, are frontline public health workers who are trusted members of the community or have side effects levitra vs cialis an unusually close understanding of the community they serve. Sometimes they are embedded within underserved communities side effects levitra vs cialis.

In recent years, they have taken on a critical role in research for their ability to reduce barriers in translation, particularly in in the area of health disparities.The grant’s timing allows Spanish-speaking community health workers to be trained in critical research like contact tracing to help slow the spread of erectile dysfunction treatment, Aguilar-Gaxiola said.Latinos in California are infected with erectile dysfunction treatment at a rate more than three times higher than whites, according to the California Department of Public Health. Latinos, who are 39% of California’s side effects levitra vs cialis population, make up 60% of erectile dysfunction treatment cases. Also, nearly 80% of erectile dysfunction treatment related deaths in the 35-49 age group are Latinx, while this side effects levitra vs cialis age group represents 41.5% of the California population. In the same age group, whites represent 7.8% of the deaths and 32.5% of the population.“This particular grant could not be more timely because of the dire need to have this workforce of promotoras or community health workers to potentially help with contact tracing, which is much needed in hard-to-reach populations,” Aguilar-Gaxiola said. €œPromotoras are in the ideal position of using their cultural and linguistic skills to reach their communities and help slow the spread of the disease.”Grant will develop “champions” among peer mentorsIn addition to side effects levitra vs cialis training community health workers, the grant also seeks to:Provide standardized education in research best practices for community health workersReduce barriers to accessibility of competency-based training and tools for training community health workers onlineEmpower select community health workers to become training “champions” to serve as peer mentors and facilitate the training of their colleagues at community sitesThe principal investigators are Aguilar-Gaxiola.

Susan Murphy, an associate professor of physical medicine and rehabilitation at Michigan Medicine and Linda B side effects levitra vs cialis. Cottler, a dean’s professor of epidemiology and director of community engagement of the University of Florida Clinical and Translational Science Institute.“This grant will allow us to enable community health workers to better support research within their community,” Murphy said. €œThis is especially important in underserved communities where quality and translation of clinical research are hampered due to health disparities.”The three investigators’ institutions will serve as the first training hubs for the program.UC Davis Health also will work closely with partners that can assist in outreach and recruitment, including the Mexican Consulate in Sacramento, side effects levitra vs cialis Health Education Council, Rio Vista CARE and other organizations. Community health workers and community members in California, Michigan and Florida will be engaged in content generation, as well as provide feedback on the training and its implementation.“Community health workers understand the needs of their community and are an incredibly valuable resource, especially when it comes to engaging their community members in research that could help us reduce health disparities in the future,” Cottler said..

UC Davis and two other universities have been awarded a $2.3 million grant from the get levitra online National Institutes of Health to train and empower what do i need to buy levitra community health workers in research best practices, which could help reduce disparities related to the ongoing erectile dysfunction treatment levitra. An NIH grant will allow UC get levitra online Davis Health to train community health workers to help with research efforts to reduce health disparitiesThe grant from the NIH’s National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences is shared by the UC Davis Clinical and Translational Science Center (CTSC) and the Center for Reducing Health Disparities (CRHD), the University of Michigan, and the University of Florida. All three universities do extensive work in promoting health equity among Latinx and Black populations.The award acknowledges the increasing role that community health workers play in research to engage individuals from underserved communities.“We have been successfully training community health workers for many years to help diverse populations improve their health, and now we’ll have an opportunity to take that training to the next level, to formally teach the essentials of research to community health workers,” said Sergio Aguilar-Gaxiola, director of the CRHD and also director of the community engagement program of the CTSC. As with most gatherings nowadays, the training will be held online.Community health workers, sometimes known as promotoras de salud, are frontline public health workers who are trusted members of the community get levitra online or have an unusually close understanding of the community they serve.

Sometimes they are get levitra online embedded within underserved communities. In recent years, they have taken on a critical role in research for their ability to reduce barriers in translation, particularly in in the area of health disparities.The grant’s timing allows Spanish-speaking community health workers to be trained in critical research like contact tracing to help slow the spread of erectile dysfunction treatment, Aguilar-Gaxiola said.Latinos in California are infected with erectile dysfunction treatment at a rate more than three times higher than whites, according to the California Department of Public Health. Latinos, who are 39% of California’s get levitra online population, make up 60% of erectile dysfunction treatment cases. Also, nearly 80% of erectile dysfunction treatment related get levitra online deaths in the 35-49 age group are Latinx, while this age group represents 41.5% of the California population.

In the same age group, whites represent 7.8% of the deaths and 32.5% of the population.“This particular grant could not be more timely because of the dire need to have this workforce of promotoras or community health workers to potentially help with contact tracing, which is much needed in hard-to-reach populations,” Aguilar-Gaxiola said. €œPromotoras are in the ideal position of using their cultural and linguistic skills to reach their communities and help slow the spread of the disease.”Grant will develop “champions” among peer mentorsIn addition to training community health workers, the grant also seeks to:Provide standardized education in research best practices for community health workersReduce barriers to accessibility of competency-based training and tools for training community health workers onlineEmpower select community health workers to get levitra online become training “champions” to serve as peer mentors and facilitate the training of their colleagues at community sitesThe principal investigators are Aguilar-Gaxiola. Susan Murphy, an associate professor of physical medicine get levitra online and rehabilitation at Michigan Medicine and Linda B. Cottler, a dean’s professor of epidemiology and director of community engagement of the University of Florida Clinical and Translational Science Institute.“This grant will allow us to enable community health workers to better support research within their community,” Murphy said.

€œThis is especially important in underserved communities where quality and translation of clinical research are hampered due to health disparities.”The three investigators’ institutions will serve as the first training hubs for the program.UC Davis Health also will work closely with partners that can assist in outreach and recruitment, including the Mexican Consulate in Sacramento, Health Education Council, Rio Vista CARE get levitra online and other organizations. Community health workers and community members in California, Michigan and Florida will be engaged in content generation, as well as provide feedback on the training and its implementation.“Community health workers understand the needs of their community and are an incredibly valuable resource, especially when it comes to engaging their community members in research that could help us reduce health disparities in the future,” Cottler said..

What may interact with Levitra?

Do not take vardenafil if you are taking the following medications:

Vardenafil may also interact with the following medications:

Tell your prescriber or health care professional about all other medicines you are taking, including non-prescription medicines, nutritional supplements, or herbal products. Also tell your prescriber or health care professional if you are a frequent user of drinks with caffeine or alcohol, if you smoke, or if you use illegal drugs. These may affect the way your medicine works. Check with your health care professional before stopping or starting any of your medicines.

Levitra 20mg half life

The risk of collisions in space, the fate of the United States in orbit after the space station retires and continuing debates over NASA's path back levitra 20mg half life to the moon dominated a two-hour hearing on Thursday (Oct. 21) held by a Senate committee focused on space and science. The wide-ranging conversation came as the Senate and the House of Representatives attempt to reconcile how they want levitra 20mg half life NASA to move forward. That debate hinges around passing not just an appropriations bill to fund NASA, but an authorization bill that can shape the agency's activities. "We need an authorization bill," Sen.

Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) said during the levitra 20mg half life hearing as she pushed panelists to speak to the importance of an authorization bill. "We're not going to continue to have this game where you just get appropriations. It is not going to serve the Artemis program or NASA well." She had sharp words in particular levitra 20mg half life for the state of the Artemis lunar exploration program. Congress has long pushed NASA for more elaborate — and realistic — timelines and schedules. (Perhaps of note, the program's 2024 target for a human landing on the moon was established in 2019, two years after the most recent NASA authorization act.) "Why are we in a situation where the dates that are on a piece of paper right now make no sense?.

" Cantwell said levitra 20mg half life. "Everybody knows that. So how is that levitra 20mg half life a good strategy?. " But otherwise, the path to the moon made up a surprisingly small portion of the hearing — just a little chatter about how to approach the Human Landing System, which is currently stymied by legal objections from Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin, which was not chosen for the program. (NASA went with SpaceX and its Starship transportation system.) Space station uncertainties Instead, NASA's currently operating human spaceflight program, its participation in the International Space Station (ISS), was a key topic of the hearing.

"NASA has yet to clearly define its needs for services after the ISS ends, nor does it plan to do so for some time," Mary Lynne Dittmar, an executive vice president at Houston company Axiom Space, said levitra 20mg half life during the hearing. (Axiom intends to fly a private module to the space station in 2024 as the seed of a future free-flying outpost, although Dittmar noted at the beginning of the hearing that her comments reflected her own views, not the company's.) Meanwhile, although many hope to see the space station last until 2030, engineering realities may cut that timeline short, increasing the risk of a gap in the U.S.'s ability to support humans in orbit. "There's no guarantee we're going to make it to 2030," former levitra 20mg half life NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine said. "We know it can't last forever. How far can it last?.

I don't think we have levitra 20mg half life that answer." Bridenstine also cast doubt on how long authorities should expect it to take for another American-led orbiting facility to be available. "We are not ready for what comes after the International Space Station," he said. "Building a space station takes a long time, especially when you're doing it in a way that's never been done before, which in the future will be commercial." Space junk and politics A second key topic of the hearing was the intertwined challenges of space junk and space-traffic management as low Earth orbit becomes ever more crowded. Bridenstine was particularly vociferous about the U.S.'s need to act on the situation, as he emphasized that all the statistics about collision rates are estimates — and levitra 20mg half life likely underestimates at that. "The challenge is much bigger than we know, but we know that we don't have any idea what that risk is," he said.

A large part of that challenge is posed by communications levitra 20mg half life megaconstellations, of which the most plentiful in orbit is SpaceX's Starlink. "Yet we're still launching and licensing these massive constellations without knowing what the risk really is." He also noted the U.S.'s poor standing to guide other countries on their use of orbit. "We don't have the authority as a nation to turn around and tell other countries, 'You're not allowed to have your own constellation,' when we ourselves are licensing exactly the same thing," Bridenstine said. Conversations about levitra 20mg half life the number of satellites in orbit intertwine with those about the orbital debris that such satellites can become if they aren't de-orbited in a controlled fashion, and the potential for resulting collisions. "When I have a nightmare, it's usually about cybersecurity, but this is now equally imposing onto my sleep patterns," Sen.

John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.), said of levitra 20mg half life orbital debris. And here too, Bridenstine offered blunt words. "Everybody claims that they follow the guidelines that NASA creates," he said. "In practice, do levitra 20mg half life all nations follow those guidelines?. Absolutely not.

And so that's a challenge." The levitra 20mg half life politics of spaceflight The hearing was framed as a discussion of "international collaboration and competition in space," and plenty of the conversation revolved around how the U.S. Spaceflight scene fits into the global picture. Those discussions particularly emphasized China and how the strained relationship between the two countries might play out in space into the future. "China is playing the long game, make no mistake, bolstering their space capabilities through levitra 20mg half life military-civil fusion and through the exploitation of weaknesses in the U.S. Space industrial base and our glacial pace of acquisition and procurement," Dittmar said.

"We face a formidable competitor," Dittmar said. "American companies have admitted to losing customers to China as it employs strategies levitra 20mg half life to undercut the U.S. Commercial space sector through mechanisms such as state-backed financing that market-driven companies in the U.S. Cannot compete with." China's launch this year of the first module of its new space station raises the stakes of the continuing concern that the levitra 20mg half life U.S. Won't have a new orbital facility in place before the International Space Station ends, she noted.

Throughout the hearing, speakers touched on larger existential questions about how space fits into the U.S.'s agenda and image, both at home and abroad. Internationally, spaceflight levitra 20mg half life is a powerful marker. "Space is a tool of diplomacy for this country," Bridenstine said. "It's something that every country wants, and we can help provide it." And while NASA has focused on its partnerships with the private sector, Cantwell raised concerns about how that might shape the levitra 20mg half life agency's image. "Frankly, it's frustrating to me to see the spirit of NASA turned into the cheering of billionaires or competition with each other, because I'm pretty sure that that's not what our mission of Artemis is about," Cantwell said.

But what's clear is that when it comes to the Artemis program, NASA is carrying the burden of history. Multiple speakers referenced the challenge that the string of failed proposals to send humans to the levitra 20mg half life moon over the past few decades poses. "There is great skepticism among both partner and rival nations relative to NASA's ability to sustain a program to return astronauts to the surface of the moon," Mike Gold, an executive vice president at space manufacturing company Redwire Space, said during the hearing. And that skepticism points straight back to the role the legislative branch levitra 20mg half life may look to play. "Without robust and ongoing bipartisan support, we will not be able to lead a global coalition to the moon, Mars or any other destination," Gold said.

"We cannot unite the world if we cannot first unite here in Congress." Copyright 2021 Space.com, a Future company. All rights levitra 20mg half life reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.NASA's newest space telescope will face 29 "harrowing" days after launch as it makes its way to a deep-space destination nearly 1 million miles (1.6 million km) from Earth, the agency says in a new YouTube video. The video, called "29 Days on the Edge," was released Monday (Oct. 18).

It focuses on the journey and 50 expected deployments the James Webb Space Telescope will undergo after its expected launch on Dec. 18. The telescope has been much delayed over the years due to technology challenges, the erectile dysfunction levitra and other issues. And there will be significant hurdles to overcome after launch as well. [embedded content] "We have 300 single-point failure items, and they all have to work right.

When you're a million miles from the Earth, you can't send someone to fix it," Webb program director Greg Robinson says in the video. After Webb gets through that gauntlet, it will begin making observations that could transform our understanding of the cosmos. Scientists will use the telescope to learn more about the universe's early days and investigate the atmospheres and nature of distant exoplanets, among other tasks, NASA officials have said. The new nine-minute video focuses on the many technological obstacles that Webb must overcome. For example, its 21.3-foot (6.5-meter) mirror is built to "fold like origami," as the video notes, because the mirror must fit inside the payload fairing of its Arianespace Ariane 5 rocket during launch.

The unfolding will need to happen in space, far from direct human assistance. The Ariane 5 must do its job on Dec. 18, of course. And Webb's own thrusters must work properly as well — particularly about 12 hours after liftoff, when they're expected to fire up and send Webb toward its deep-space destination. As Webb makes that journey, it will be pushed around by the solar wind, or the constant stream of particles coming from the sun, so the telescope will unfold a "trim tab" for stability.

One of the biggest things Webb will have to unfold is a complex, tennis court-sized sunshield array, which has 140 release mechanisms, 70 hinge assemblies, 400 pulleys, 90 cables and 8 deployment motors, bearing springs and gears, NASA says in the video. All of these items will need to work correctly to get the sunshield unfolded so Webb can do its science work. But NASA maintains that its years of training and project management will assist Webb with this complex set of operations. "Those two weeks after launch will be like our Super Bowl, World Cup — you pick the analogy," says Amy Lo, Webb deputy director for vehicle engineering, in the video. "Years of training comes down to these moments." Copyright 2021 Space.com, a Future company.

All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Five of the nation’s top ice scientists found themselves in a conundrum. They’d been tasked with a formidable job. Reviewing candidates for the American Geophysical Union’s fellows program, the most prestigious award given by the world’s largest earth and space science society. But when the group looked at its list of candidates, all nominated by peers, it spotted a problem.

Every nominee on the list was a white man. €œThat was kind of a bit of a showstopper for me,” said Helen Fricker, a glaciologist at Scripps Institution of Oceanography and one of the five committee members. The AGU fellows program, established nearly 60 years ago, recognizes members who have made exceptional contributions to their fields through scientific innovation, breakthroughs and discoveries. It’s a high honor. Fellows often serve as “external experts, capable of advising government agencies and other organizations outside the sciences upon request,” according to AGU.

The selection process this past spring was an arduous, careful operation from beginning to end. Candidates, typically middle- or senior-level scientists, are first nominated by peers. The nominees are divided into groups with 20 or 30 names, and then organized by scientific disciplines within AGU — atmospheric sciences, ocean sciences, planetary sciences and so on. Committees representing each section review the pool of nominees, select a few final candidates and send them on to an upper-tier committee. This last group, the “union committee,” makes the final selections.

The process proceeds the same way each year and concludes, ostensibly, with the same outcome. A new batch of AGU’s best and brightest scientists. Fricker and her colleagues — Jeff Dozier, Sinead Farrell, Bob Hawley, Don Perovich and Michele Koppes — represented the AGU’s cryosphere section, comprising scientists focused on the Earth’s snow and ice. The group was just one of about two dozen different committees, all reviewing their own lists of candidates. The homogeneous pool of nominees didn’t sit right.

Fricker had been named a fellow herself in 2017, when relatively few women were recognized. €œOne of the reasons I was put on the committee was because I’d been quite vocal about the year that I’d been a fellow, I was very much in the minority, and we needed to do better and get more women,” she said in an interview. So the committee members made an uncomfortable decision. They declined to recommend any nominees at all. The decision has triggered a spirited dialogue among AGU members and other earth scientists about the persistent lack of diversity in science awards — and how to address it.

Within the AGU fellows program, it’s a pervasive issue. AGU selected a total of 59 fellows this year, and 45 of them are men. Additionally, 46 of the fellows are from the U.S., while only 13 are from other countries. The trend has been similar in recent years. In 2020, 46 out of 62 fellows were men, and 43 fellows were from the U.S.

In 2019, 47 out of 62 fellows were men, and 36 were from the U.S. AGU doesn’t publish data on the race or ethnicity of its fellows. But AGU scientists and committee members have pointed out that people of color tend to be underrepresented. €œWe are disappointed that there were fewer women and fewer individuals from international countries nominated and awarded in 2021,” AGU said in a statement last month, shortly after announcing the new class of fellows. €œFor the first time ever, one Section chose not to advance any of their Sections’ nominees to the Union Fellows Committee for consideration.

The Section felt that this was their only course of action due to a lack of diversity in the nomination pool.” The cryosphere committee further explained its decision in a letter to its section members, which it also shared publicly on Twitter. €œWhile it is tempting to blame the levitra and see this year as anomalous, the Cryosphere Fellows committee now realize that the slate of nominations received this year is part of an alarming trend in Fellows nominations that warrants review,” the letter stated. The number of female cryosphere nominees has steadily dwindled over the past five years, the committee pointed out. It reached a low point in 2021. €œWe realize that our decision means that excellent scientists who have done nothing wrong and who were strong candidates for recommendation by the Cryosphere section were denied the support of the Cryosphere Fellows committee at the AGU Union Fellows level this year,” the committee added.

€œWhat we hope is that this moment will serve as both a time to reflect on community engagement and a call to action.” Declining to recommend otherwise strong candidates was “the hardest part,” Fricker added. €œIt was a very sad, sort of tough thing to have to do, because there’s people on that list who were truly, amazingly deserving,” Fricker said. "But the honest truth is that they will get nominated again and they will become fellows. There’s no question there. It will just be a fairer process.” ‘Nothing would change’ The cryo committee’s decision has triggered a flurry of responses from AGU members and other earth scientists.

Reactions have been mixed. Raymond Bradley, director of the climate system research center at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, was among the first to publish a statement to AGU’s online member forum, AGU Connect. He called for the committee members to resign. €œWhat the committee should have done is what they were tasked to do, which is to select from the nominations they received the best people and put them forward,” Bradley said in an interview. €œAt the same time they could recognize that there aren’t enough nominations being received from women and underrepresented groups, and they could shake up their members and say, ‘Hey, come on, let’s nominate more people.’” AGU data from the past few years suggests that there are significantly fewer female fellow nominees than male nominees.

Of those nominees, a slightly greater percentage of women than men go on to be selected as fellows, Bradley pointed out. €œThis hardly supports the idea that there is some sort of implicit bias in the selection process,” he said in a follow-up email. €œThe problem lies in the low number of nominations, and that depends on the effort people make to submit candidates for Fellow.” But others have disagreed. Simply drumming up more nominations isn’t as simple a solution as it might sound, said Twila Moon, a scientist with the National Snow &. Ice Data Center.

€œThere have been some really well-thought-out responses in AGU Connect pointing out that often the work of nominating more diverse groups of people falls to people who are within those diverse groups,” she said in an interview. €œAnd that those are maybe people who are especially hard hit in having time available.” That’s especially true now, as the levitra has disproportionately affected women, people of color and other underrepresented groups, she added. Writing nominations requires time and effort. Others have voiced their support for the committee’s decision. €œI think that the committee’s response was bold, but it definitely got the conversation started, and for that reason alone I think that it was a great reaction to the nomination pool,” said Melisa Diaz, a postdoctoral scholar and geochemist at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.

€œWhen you have a nomination pool that consists of one very specific demographic, how can you actually tell that that demographic is truly the best in our field?. € Nicole Gasparini, a geoscientist at Tulane University, agreed that the committee’s gesture kick-started important conversations within the organization. While there have been both positive and negative responses on AGU Connect, reactions across social media, including Twitter, have been overwhelmingly supportive, she added. €œI think their decision is absolutely bringing attention to the fact that there is a lack of diversity in AGU awardees,” she said. According to Fricker, raising awareness was a major goal when the committee made its decision.

€œEverybody's given us all this great advice on what we could have done. But honestly, I don’t think anything would have had the impact of what we ended up doing,” she told E&E News. €œIf you just go forward and put names forward and then say, ‘OK, we’ve put these names forward, but honestly guys this is a terrible pool and you need to do better next year,’ nothing would change.” ‘Real change’ AGU is hardly the only organization to reckon with issues of diversity in awards. Studies have indicated that women and other underrepresented groups are often less likely to receive science prizes. One recent study, just published last month in Quantitative Science Studies, found that women are less likely to receive prestigious science awards than men.

Examining 141 of the world’s most distinguished international research awards, the study found that the prizes were given to 2,011 men between 2001 and 2020, compared with just 262 women. The Nobel Prizes, widely considered the world’s most prestigious science awards, have been subject to particular scrutiny in recent years. Only about 3 percent of Nobel science prizes have gone to women since the awards were established more than 100 years ago. Not a single one has been awarded to a Black scientist. The AGU fellows announcement was followed by this year’s Nobel science prizes, all of which went to men.

Despite persistent problems with diversity in science awards around the world, researchers say there are plenty of ways to tackle the problem. Implicit bias plays a major role in who receives science awards, according to Mary Anne Holmes, a geologist and professor emeritus at the University of Nebraska, Lincoln. It’s an unconscious bias or prejudice that can lead people to identify more strongly with people from their own social groups. If awards nominators or selection committees are composed primarily of homogeneous groups — for instance, white people or men — that can lead to an unintentional skew in the people who are nominated or selected for awards. Holmes served on AGU’s Union Honors and Recognition Committee, which oversees all of its honors and awards programs, between 2013 and 2019.

She also previously worked with the Association for Women in Science on a National Science Foundation-funded project aimed at studying and addressing gender disparities in science awards. She and colleagues LaToya Myles and Blair Schneider, who also served on AGU’s honors committee, published some of their insights last year in the journal Advances in Geoscience. €œWe’re all committing acts of implicit bias every day, all the time, without meaning to be biased,” Holmes said in an interview. Implicit bias training for awards selection committees “is huge,” she added. Experts say canvassing committees, designed to scout for worthy nominees and encourage people to nominate them, can also make a difference.

These committees can also help answer questions about the nomination process, which is often long and time-consuming. Gasparini, the Tulane scientist, is a member of AGU’s earth and planetary sciences section. A few years ago, she and several other members began canvassing after noticing a gap in the number of women in their section receiving awards. €œWe went out and we found all the letter writers and did all this work, and it worked. Women started winning,” she said.

These committees can also help tackle the issue of implicit bias, she added. €œIt’s not that men don’t see women doing good work or white people don’t see people of color doing good work,” she said. €œBut people need to be pushed to do it, and when they do it they might think only of the superstar who’s already won seven awards and published 10 Nature papers. And the truth is there's a lot of people making a lot of impact who aren’t those people.” Other scientists have pointed out that there may be broader structural issues in science awards. Prizes aren’t always designed to recognize all the people contributing to scientific breakthroughs, they say.

€œScience is so collaborative now,” said Diaz, the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution scientist. €œSo does it really make sense to give awards to a single person?. They’re not doing the work by themselves. There are students and postdocs and collaborators and friends. So I think we really need to think about who we want these awards to go to and what we want them to represent.” Other scientists share the sentiment.

€œI actually think that there are some broken elements to the larger awards system,” said Moon, the NSIDC scientist. €œI think that there’s really interest, particularly in the early and middle-career generations of scientists, who are for a system that recognizes a wider range of what it means to be a scientist and what it means to contribute to the scientific endeavor in its success.” Fricker hopes this year’s events will spark a bigger conversation within AGU, perhaps culminating in new recommendations from the organization about how to diversify future pools of award nominees. €œI’m looking forward to some real change,” she said. Holmes, the former honors committee member, said she’s optimistic that the conversations around science awards are evolving. €œI think people who normally wouldn’t have paid any attention to this are paying attention,” she said.

€œAt least I hear people talking about it as if, yes, this is an issue now. That’s a big leap forward from 20 years ago.” Reprinted from E&E News with permission from POLITICO, LLC. Copyright 2021. E&E News provides essential news for energy and environment professionals.Melissa Creary was three years old when she was diagnosed with sickle cell disease. The genetic condition, which affects more than 100,000 people in the U.S., is caused by a mutation that distorts red blood cells into sickle-shaped crescents that can get stuck in blood vessels and trigger episodes of agonizing pain.

People in the thick of an episode have described the sensation as something akin to broken glass flowing through their veins. Others liken it to being electrocuted or stabbed. Creary was in her early 40s when she developed a rare complication that turned her mild case into a severe one. Suddenly she began experiencing pain like never before. To dilute the sickle cells clogging her bloodstream, she had to undergo monthly blood transfusions.

Creary felt tethered to the health-care system, literally and figuratively, in ways she had never expected. €œI remember moments where I was so angry all the time—angry at the betrayal of my body, angry at the betrayal of my genetics,” says Creary, a health policy researcher at the University of Michigan. She recalls feeling resigned to the fate spelled out in her DNA. But as new gene therapies emerged, she began to see glimmers of hope. Creary studies the biology, policy and social determinants of health related to sickle cell disease in the U.S.

And Brazil. Her experience of severe sickle cell disease led her to talk with physicians about gene therapy in a new way—not as an academic exchanging ideas with colleagues but as a patient seeking answers. The dialogue progressed from talk of technology to deeper discussions about identity, history, trust, education, equity and emotion. Even now Creary is not sure what she would do if an experimental treatment were offered to her tomorrow. A handful of gene-targeted treatments are under development for sickle cell disease, and hundreds more are being investigated for a variety of conditions, including cystic fibrosis, muscular dystrophy, hemophilia, Huntington’s disease, HIV and cancer.

Several gene therapies have already won FDA approval. The notion of rewriting a person’s DNA is finally becoming a clinical reality. In previous decades, conversations about gene therapy had to address and overcome the field’s tragic past missteps. But today, after so much scientific progress, researchers and practitioners are dealing with an unexpected challenge. Excessive hope.

That hope takes different forms in different groups of people, and it alters expectations about gene therapy in ways that can have far-reaching consequences. As a result, some researchers have begun shifting their focus from the machinations of the genetic material and viral delivery systems that make up these therapies to the perspectives of the human beings who will ultimately be affected by their deployment. €œIt’s crucial at this point to start to explore what patients [and the public] think they need to know and their attitudes toward these therapies because these are therapies that cost millions of dollars to develop,” says Olalekan Lee Aiyegbusi, an applied health researcher at the University of Birmingham in England. If people expect too much too quickly, they will end up disappointed or distrustful of the research enterprise. If expectations are too low, not enough people will invest money, time or patient power in the cause.

TROUBLING ASSUMPTIONS The term “gene therapy” emerged in the public consciousness nearly five decades ago. By fixing defects in our DNA, scientists speculated, gene therapy had the potential to undo thousands of inherited conditions. When gene therapy comes up in conversation, however, some people’s thoughts slide from treating disease to engineering human traits such as eye color, IQ and athletic ability—a concept referred to as genetic enhancement. That association, researchers say, is not only inaccurate but harmful. Speculation about such Gattaca-like futures swelled in 2018 after the Chinese scientist He Jiankui announced that he had created the world’s first gene-edited babies by removing copies of a gene in embryos before they were implanted.

He was convicted of “illegal medical practice” and sentenced to three years in prison, and scientists around the globe have called for a moratorium on genetic edits that could be passed on to future generations. Experts say that conflating such morally fuzzy research with studies focused on treating disease could derail the conversations that need to take place around the more pressing applications of gene therapy. Juliette Delhove, a gene therapy researcher at the University of Adelaide in Australia, has examined dozens of studies of public opinion and attitudes toward gene therapy and gene editing. In 2020 she published a scientific review showing that people’s support can shift depending on how gene therapy is defined. There is substantially less support for enhancement technologies—which one person likened to “playing God” and another criticized as “going against nature”—than there is for therapies for serious or fatal diseases.

In one study, only 35 percent of respondents believed it was definitely acceptable to use gene therapy to enhance memory, compared with 93 percent who supported its use to treat an inherited form of blindness known as Leber congenital amaurosis. Delhove and others have found that people bring their life experiences to conversations about the technology, and such experiences shape their perspectives. Studies show that people with more education and some knowledge of genetics are generally more accepting of gene therapy, whereas those with strong religious ties tend to be less accepting, even when it is used to treat cancer or prevent blindness. But perhaps the biggest factor in how someone views gene therapy is whether they or someone they love is affected by a disease the innovation aims to cure. Ultimately, says Holly Peay, a social scientist and genetic counselor at the nonprofit RTI International, “a lot of what we’re seeing in the literature that exists are people’s emotional reactions.” THE RISKS OF HOPE Talking about gene therapy can seem like a hypothetical exercise—for someone without anything at stake, it is a chance to explore technological progress or debate ethical principles.

But for patients, such discussions have real-life implications. Every new data point is a signal that they might be just steps away from overcoming their illness. When Creary thinks about gene therapy, she considers its potential impact on her daily life. €œThere’s a scientific innovation that will take the pain away,” she says. €œThat is the crux of the hope conversation.

I could live a day without pain.” Creary has been wary about giving herself over to that hope, but patients generally tend toward enthusiasm, often holding unrealistic expectations of benefits from treatments that have not yet proved effective in clinical trials. Researchers have a name for this. Therapeutic optimism. €œWe are, as a species, wildly optimistic about ourselves,” says Peay, who works with patients and families with the progressive muscle disorder Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Repeatedly she has heard patients share their hopes that a clinical trial will heal them, even after they have read extensive informed consent forms and heard investigators explain that they are just as likely to receive no benefit.

Peay thinks that optimism is not necessarily a bad thing. €œPeople need hope,” she says. €œHope is important. Therapeutic optimism is an expression of hopefulness.” The problem starts when people fail to recognize that a clinical trial is an experiment, not a treatment. Researchers have named this phenomenon, too.

Therapeutic misconception. They describe it as a blurring of the lines—an inability to distinguish between an approved treatment chosen and dosed specifically for a patient and a trial designed to further the science. €œIt’s kind of a perfect storm of the natural optimism and expectation of people who are desperate and clinical investigators who are, honestly, hyping their trials,” Peay says. She spends a lot of time trying to rectify mismatched expectations, which often arise in those facing rare diseases with unmet medical needs. According to unpublished research by bioethicist Jonathan Kimmelman of McGill University, only about one in 70 people in a phase 1 clinical trial will receive a drug at a dose that will ultimately receive FDA approval, whereas up to 15 percent of participants could experience a severe side effect.

Setbacks during the early iterations of gene therapy [see “Overcoming Gene Therapy’s Long Shadow”] showed scientists how much more they needed to learn about the underlying biology. Research has since filled in critical knowledge gaps, resulting in several FDA-approved gene therapies and dozens more likely to be approved by 2030. Remarkable successes could lead some people to believe the field is moving faster than it really is, warns Rachel Bailey, a gene therapy researcher at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center. She points to one treatment, for a fatal neurodegenerative condition called Batten disease, that moved from concept to human testing in a little more than a year. Gene therapy has slowed the progression of Batten disease, but “at this point,” Bailey says, “we’re not at the cure stage yet.

We are at the treatment stage.” A true cure will take much more research. €œI think what’s important for patients to understand is that it takes a very large amount of time, effort and funding to develop these gene therapy products,” Bailey says. QUESTIONS OF EQUITY Gene therapy’s rise to prominence has come with an extraordinarily high price tag. Novartis’s newly approved gene therapy, a one-time treatment for spinal muscular atrophy, is now the world’s most expensive drug at $2.1 million. On average, currently available gene therapies are priced at more than 30 times the average household income.

€œWe must be thinking right now about the equity question and how we make sure that as many people as possible benefit from the technology that’s built on government funding, that’s built on great science,” says Vence Bonham, acting deputy director of the National Human Genome Research Institute and leader of the NHGRI Health Disparities Unit. Bonham has been talking about this issue for a while. In 2017, before the first gene-editing trial for sickle cell disease had been approved, his team interviewed more than 100 patients, families and physicians to gauge their attitudes and beliefs about the technology. Many were hopeful but cautious. €œIf this treatment becomes available to the public, will it be available to everyone equally?.

€ one patient asked. €œI have sickle cell. I struggle with it daily.... I don’t want the reason why I can’t get it done to be because, oh, your insurance, or you don’t have the money.” Cost is not the only concern. In the U.S., only about one in four people with sickle cell disease receives the standard of care.

These patients can be marginalized and dismissed, often having to wait longer for help in the emergency department than other pain patients. Creary herself has spent hours writhing in pain in hospital emergency rooms, misperceived by staff as drug seeking because she is Black and has sickle cell disease. She found a way to get her Ph.D. Added to her medical record and learned to code switch, dropping hints about her academic titles in the hopes that health-care staff might equate her, she says, with “acceptable auspices of humanity.” Creary has noticed scientists promoting the narrative of gene therapy as social justice—a way of repairing the damage done to those living with sickle cell disease. She points to the Web site for the NIH’s Cure Sickle Cell Initiative, which opens with, “It’s time to rewrite the story of sickle cell.” The statement seems to suggest that scientific innovation can rewrite history or at least right the wrongs wrought by historical neglect and racism.

But Creary, who studies a concept she calls bounded justice, believes any justice achieved by targeting new gene therapies to marginalized populations will inevitably be limited by the very inequities that caused those groups to be marginalized in the first place. €œYou let [gene therapy] out into the wild, and then all of these historical, societal and anthropological things are going to muck it up,” Creary says. Her research suggests that discussions about gene therapy, at least for sickle cell disease, must address big issues such as colonialism, slavery, racism, and “all the things that come from generations and generations of oppression.” Part of that is recognizing that physicians make assumptions about who may or may not be a good candidate for gene therapy. It also involves addressing social supports that could counteract the disadvantages many gene therapy patients face, such as health insurance to cover the procedure, transportation to and from the hospital, child care and paid time off for recovery. €œIt is tough, I think, because on some level it’s this recognition that it’s never enough,” she says.

DEMOCRATIZING INFORMATION One way that scientists can help their technologies land equitably in the world, Bonham says, is to center conversations on building trust, providing quality information and ensuring transparency. It is an important triumvirate that will take concerted effort from all involved. Emily Howell, a science communication expert at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, says that the trust part happens when researchers meet people where they are by asking about their concerns, their hopes and their fears. Howell, who studies how to communicate controversial topics such as fracking and gene editing, says starting with emotions and values rather than with facts and figures can help to foster trust. People tend to trust someone when that person not only is competent but also seems to care about the same things as they do, Howell says.

Clarity of information has been another big obstacle. Patients have had a difficult time finding information that is accurate, actionable and understandable. U.T. Southwestern’s Bailey says people with genetic diseases often have little choice but to try to make sense of esoteric research papers on their own or to hunt down scientific experts like her to answer their questions. She chairs the American Society of Gene and Cell Therapy’s Patient Outreach Committee, which aims to foster open dialogues and easy access to information with a Web site that breaks down various aspects of gene therapy from a patient’s perspective.

Delhove concurs and says that accurate information empowers people to make decisions for their own health. €œThat’s what you want for patients,” she says. €œThey shouldn’t just be bystanders. They should be in control and know what is available for them.” The last of Bonham’s trio—transparency—requires researchers to lay out precisely what is and is not possible and to be open and honest when something goes awry. In 1999 18-year-old Jesse Gelsinger died while participating in a gene therapy trial that he hoped would help others with the same rare liver disorder.

In the years since, any safety scare has raised the specter of repeating history. Two gene therapy trials for sickle cell disease were temporarily suspended earlier this year after one of the participants developed cancer (it was later deemed unrelated to the treatment). Bonham says the pause was a clear sign of the scientific community’s renewed commitment to engagement and transparency. €œI think we’ve seen a really positive shift occurring with regard to our understanding that gene-based therapies have potential,” he says, “but that doesn’t mean that they don’t have any risks.” Today, after several frank discussions buoyed by her own deep dives into the literature, Creary is well aware of those benefits and risks. She knows gene therapy might completely erase her sickle cell disease, untethering her from its pain and complications.

But she has also learned how intense the procedure would be, with punishing rounds of chemotherapy and lengthy hospital stays. €œI think about measuring that destabilization in that moment with what I could gain, in addition to the risks, and I’m still not sure,” she says. More than a million people could be eligible for gene therapy in the next 15 years. The conversations researchers have today, both with the general population and with their patients, may ultimately determine how the field evolves. With the right support, it could be revolutionary.

Without it, an immeasurable amount of time and treasure will have been spent honing a technology that may never fulfill the hopes of the patients it was designed to help. This article is part of “Innovations In. Gene Therapy,” an editorially independent special report that was produced with financial support from Pfizer..

The risk of collisions in space, the fate of the United States click this site in orbit after the space station retires and continuing debates over NASA's path get levitra online back to the moon dominated a two-hour hearing on Thursday (Oct. 21) held by a Senate committee focused on space and science. The wide-ranging conversation came as the Senate and the House of get levitra online Representatives attempt to reconcile how they want NASA to move forward. That debate hinges around passing not just an appropriations bill to fund NASA, but an authorization bill that can shape the agency's activities.

"We need an authorization bill," Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) said during the hearing as she pushed panelists to get levitra online speak to the importance of an authorization bill. "We're not going to continue to have this game where you just get appropriations. It is not going to serve the Artemis program or get levitra online NASA well." She had sharp words in particular for the state of the Artemis lunar exploration program.

Congress has long pushed NASA for more elaborate — and realistic — timelines and schedules. (Perhaps of note, the program's 2024 target for a human landing on the moon was established in 2019, two years after the most recent NASA authorization act.) "Why are we in a situation where the dates that are on a piece of paper right now make no sense?. " Cantwell get levitra online said. "Everybody knows that.

So how get levitra online is that a good strategy?. " But otherwise, the path to the moon made up a surprisingly small portion of the hearing — just a little chatter about how to approach the Human Landing System, which is currently stymied by legal objections from Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin, which was not chosen for the program. (NASA went with SpaceX and its Starship transportation system.) Space station uncertainties Instead, NASA's currently operating human spaceflight program, its participation in the International Space Station (ISS), was a key topic of the hearing. "NASA has yet to get levitra online clearly define its needs for services after the ISS ends, nor does it plan to do so for some time," Mary Lynne Dittmar, an executive vice president at Houston company Axiom Space, said during the hearing.

(Axiom intends to fly a private module to the space station in 2024 as the seed of a future free-flying outpost, although Dittmar noted at the beginning of the hearing that her comments reflected her own views, not the company's.) Meanwhile, although many hope to see the space station last until 2030, engineering realities may cut that timeline short, increasing the risk of a gap in the U.S.'s ability to support humans in orbit. "There's no guarantee we're going to get levitra online make it to 2030," former NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine said. "We know it can't last forever. How far can it last?.

I don't get levitra online think we have that answer." Bridenstine also cast doubt on how long authorities should expect it to take for another American-led orbiting facility to be available. "We are not ready for what comes after the International Space Station," he said. "Building a space station takes a long time, especially when you're doing it in a way that's never been done before, which in the future will be commercial." Space junk and politics A second key topic of the hearing was the intertwined challenges of space junk and space-traffic management as low Earth orbit becomes ever more crowded. Bridenstine was get levitra online particularly vociferous about the U.S.'s need to act on the situation, as he emphasized that all the statistics about collision rates are estimates — and likely underestimates at that.

"The challenge is much bigger than we know, but we know that we don't have any idea what that risk is," he said. A large part of that challenge is posed by communications megaconstellations, of which the most plentiful in orbit is get levitra online SpaceX's Starlink. "Yet we're still launching and licensing these massive constellations without knowing what the risk really is." He also noted the U.S.'s poor standing to guide other countries on their use of orbit. "We don't have the authority as a nation to turn around and tell other countries, 'You're not allowed to have your own constellation,' when we ourselves are licensing exactly the same thing," Bridenstine said.

Conversations about the number of satellites in orbit intertwine with those about the orbital debris that such satellites can get levitra online become if they aren't de-orbited in a controlled fashion, and the potential for resulting collisions. "When I have a nightmare, it's usually about cybersecurity, but this is now equally imposing onto my sleep patterns," Sen. John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.), said of get levitra online orbital debris. And here too, Bridenstine offered blunt words.

"Everybody claims that they follow the guidelines that NASA creates," he said. "In practice, get levitra online do all nations follow those guidelines?. Absolutely not. And so that's a challenge." The politics of spaceflight The hearing was framed as a discussion of "international collaboration and competition in space," and plenty of the conversation get levitra online revolved around how the U.S.

Spaceflight scene fits into the global picture. Those discussions particularly emphasized China and how the strained relationship between the two countries might play out in space into the future. "China is playing the long game, make no mistake, bolstering their get levitra online space capabilities through military-civil fusion and through the exploitation of weaknesses in the U.S. Space industrial base and our glacial pace of acquisition and procurement," Dittmar said.

"We face a formidable competitor," Dittmar said. "American companies have admitted to losing customers to China as get levitra online it employs strategies to undercut the U.S. Commercial space sector through mechanisms such as state-backed financing that market-driven companies in the U.S. Cannot compete with." China's launch this year of the first module of its new space station get levitra online raises the stakes of the continuing concern that the U.S.

Won't have a new orbital facility in place before the International Space Station ends, she noted. Throughout the hearing, speakers touched on larger existential questions about how space fits into the U.S.'s agenda and image, both at home and abroad. Internationally, spaceflight is a get levitra online powerful marker. "Space is a tool of diplomacy for this country," Bridenstine said.

"It's something that every country wants, and we can help provide it." And while NASA has focused on its partnerships with the private sector, Cantwell raised get levitra online concerns about how that might shape the agency's image. "Frankly, it's frustrating to me to see the spirit of NASA turned into the cheering of billionaires or competition with each other, because I'm pretty sure that that's not what our mission of Artemis is about," Cantwell said. But what's clear is that when it comes to the Artemis program, NASA is carrying the burden of history. Multiple speakers referenced the challenge that the string of failed proposals to send humans to the get levitra online moon over the past few decades poses.

"There is great skepticism among both partner and rival nations relative to NASA's ability to sustain a program to return astronauts to the surface of the moon," Mike Gold, an executive vice president at space manufacturing company Redwire Space, said during the hearing. And that skepticism points straight back to the role the legislative branch may get levitra online look to play. "Without robust and ongoing bipartisan support, we will not be able to lead a global coalition to the moon, Mars or any other destination," Gold said. "We cannot unite the world if we cannot first unite here in Congress." Copyright 2021 Space.com, a Future company.

All rights reserved get levitra online. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.NASA's newest space telescope will face 29 "harrowing" days after launch as it makes its way to a deep-space destination nearly 1 million miles (1.6 million km) from Earth, the agency says in a new YouTube video. The video, called "29 Days on the Edge," was released Monday (Oct. 18).

It focuses on the journey and 50 expected deployments the James Webb Space Telescope will undergo after its expected launch on Dec. 18. The telescope has been much delayed over the years due to technology challenges, the erectile dysfunction levitra and other issues. And there will be significant hurdles to overcome after launch as well.

[embedded content] "We have 300 single-point failure items, and they all have to work right. When you're a million miles from the Earth, you can't send someone to fix it," Webb program director Greg Robinson says in the video. After Webb gets through that gauntlet, it will begin making observations that could transform our understanding of the cosmos. Scientists will use the telescope to learn more about the universe's early days and investigate the atmospheres and nature of distant exoplanets, among other tasks, NASA officials have said.

The new nine-minute video focuses on the many technological obstacles that Webb must overcome. For example, its 21.3-foot (6.5-meter) mirror is built to "fold like origami," as the video notes, because the mirror must fit inside the payload fairing of its Arianespace Ariane 5 rocket during launch. The unfolding will need to happen in space, far from direct human assistance. The Ariane 5 must do its job on Dec.

18, of course. And Webb's own thrusters must work properly as well — particularly about 12 hours after liftoff, when they're expected to fire up and send Webb toward its deep-space destination. As Webb makes that journey, it will be pushed around by the solar wind, or the constant stream of particles coming from the sun, so the telescope will unfold a "trim tab" for stability. One of the biggest things Webb will have to unfold is a complex, tennis court-sized sunshield array, which has 140 release mechanisms, 70 hinge assemblies, 400 pulleys, 90 cables and 8 deployment motors, bearing springs and gears, NASA says in the video.

All of these items will need to work correctly to get the sunshield unfolded so Webb can do its science work. But NASA maintains that its years of training and project management will assist Webb with this complex set of operations. "Those two weeks after launch will be like our Super Bowl, World Cup — you pick the analogy," says Amy Lo, Webb deputy director for vehicle engineering, in the video. "Years of training comes down to these moments." Copyright 2021 Space.com, a Future company.

All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Five of the nation’s top ice scientists found themselves in a conundrum. They’d been tasked with a formidable job. Reviewing candidates for the American Geophysical Union’s fellows program, the most prestigious award given by the world’s largest earth and space science society.

But when the group looked at its list of candidates, all nominated by peers, it spotted a problem. Every nominee on the list was a white man. €œThat was kind of a bit of a showstopper for me,” said Helen Fricker, a glaciologist at Scripps Institution of Oceanography and one of the five committee members. The AGU fellows program, established nearly 60 years ago, recognizes members who have made exceptional contributions to their fields through scientific innovation, breakthroughs and discoveries.

It’s a high honor. Fellows often serve as “external experts, capable of advising government agencies and other organizations outside the sciences upon request,” according to AGU. The selection process this past spring was an arduous, careful operation from beginning to end. Candidates, typically middle- or senior-level scientists, are first nominated by peers.

The nominees are divided into groups with 20 or 30 names, and then organized by scientific disciplines within AGU — atmospheric sciences, ocean sciences, planetary sciences and so on. Committees representing each section review the pool of nominees, select a few final candidates and send them on to an upper-tier committee. This last group, the “union committee,” makes the final selections. The process proceeds the same way each year and concludes, ostensibly, with the same outcome.

A new batch of AGU’s best and brightest scientists. Fricker and her colleagues — Jeff Dozier, Sinead Farrell, Bob Hawley, Don Perovich and Michele Koppes — represented the AGU’s cryosphere section, comprising scientists focused on the Earth’s snow and ice. The group was just one of about two dozen different committees, all reviewing their own lists of candidates. The homogeneous pool of nominees didn’t sit right.

Fricker had been named a fellow herself in 2017, when relatively few women were recognized. €œOne of the reasons I was put on the committee was because I’d been quite vocal about the year that I’d been a fellow, I was very much in the minority, and we needed to do better and get more women,” she said in an interview. So the committee members made an uncomfortable decision. They declined to recommend any nominees at all.

The decision has triggered a spirited dialogue among AGU members and other earth scientists about the persistent lack of diversity in science awards — and how to address it. Within the AGU fellows program, it’s a pervasive issue. AGU selected a total of 59 fellows this year, and 45 of them are men. Additionally, 46 of the fellows are from the U.S., while only 13 are from other countries.

The trend has been similar in recent years. In 2020, 46 out of 62 fellows were men, and 43 fellows were from the U.S. In 2019, 47 out of 62 fellows were men, and 36 were from the U.S. AGU doesn’t publish data on the race or ethnicity of its fellows.

But AGU scientists and committee members have pointed out that people of color tend to be underrepresented. €œWe are disappointed that there were fewer women and fewer individuals from international countries nominated and awarded in 2021,” AGU said in a statement last month, shortly after announcing the new class of fellows. €œFor the first time ever, one Section chose not to advance any of their Sections’ nominees to the Union Fellows Committee for consideration. The Section felt that this was their only course of action due to a lack of diversity in the nomination pool.” The cryosphere committee further explained its decision in a letter to its section members, which it also shared publicly on Twitter.

€œWhile it is tempting to blame the levitra and see this year as anomalous, the Cryosphere Fellows committee now realize that the slate of nominations received this year is part of an alarming trend in Fellows nominations that warrants review,” the letter stated. The number of female cryosphere nominees has steadily dwindled over the past five years, the committee pointed out. It reached a low point in 2021. €œWe realize that our decision means that excellent scientists who have done nothing wrong and who were strong candidates for recommendation by the Cryosphere section were denied the support of the Cryosphere Fellows committee at the AGU Union Fellows level this year,” the committee added.

€œWhat we hope is that this moment will serve as both a time to reflect on community engagement and a call to action.” Declining to recommend otherwise strong candidates was “the hardest part,” Fricker added. €œIt was a very sad, sort of tough thing to have to do, because there’s people on that list who were truly, amazingly deserving,” Fricker said. "But the honest truth is that they will get nominated again and they will become fellows. There’s no question there.

It will just be a fairer process.” ‘Nothing would change’ The cryo committee’s decision has triggered a flurry of responses from AGU members and other earth scientists. Reactions have been mixed. Raymond Bradley, director of the climate system research center at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, was among the first to publish a statement to AGU’s online member forum, AGU Connect. He called for the committee members to resign.

€œWhat the committee should have done is what they were tasked to do, which is to select from the nominations they received the best people and put them forward,” Bradley said in an interview. €œAt the same time they could recognize that there aren’t enough nominations being received from women and underrepresented groups, and they could shake up their members and say, ‘Hey, come on, let’s nominate more people.’” AGU data from the past few years suggests that there are significantly fewer female fellow nominees than male nominees. Of those nominees, a slightly greater percentage of women than men go on to be selected as fellows, Bradley pointed out. €œThis hardly supports the idea that there is some sort of implicit bias in the selection process,” he said in a follow-up email.

€œThe problem lies in the low number of nominations, and that depends on the effort people make to submit candidates for Fellow.” But others have disagreed. Simply drumming up more nominations isn’t as simple a solution as it might sound, said Twila Moon, a scientist with the National Snow &. Ice Data Center. €œThere have been some really well-thought-out responses in AGU Connect pointing out that often the work of nominating more diverse groups of people falls to people who are within those diverse groups,” she said in an interview.

€œAnd that those are maybe people who are especially hard hit in having time available.” That’s especially true now, as the levitra has disproportionately affected women, people of color and other underrepresented groups, she added. Writing nominations requires time and effort. Others have voiced their support for the committee’s decision. €œI think that the committee’s response was bold, but it definitely got the conversation started, and for that reason alone I think that it was a great reaction to the nomination pool,” said Melisa Diaz, a postdoctoral scholar and geochemist at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.

€œWhen you have a nomination pool that consists of one very specific demographic, how can you actually tell that that demographic is truly the best in our field?. € Nicole Gasparini, a geoscientist at Tulane University, agreed that the committee’s gesture kick-started important conversations within the organization. While there have been both positive and negative responses on AGU Connect, reactions across social media, including Twitter, have been overwhelmingly supportive, she added. €œI think their decision is absolutely bringing attention to the fact that there is a lack of diversity in AGU awardees,” she said.

According to Fricker, raising awareness was a major goal when the committee made its decision. €œEverybody's given us all this great advice on what we could have done. But honestly, I don’t think anything would have had the impact of what we ended up doing,” she told E&E News. €œIf you just go forward and put names forward and then say, ‘OK, we’ve put these names forward, but honestly guys this is a terrible pool and you need to do better next year,’ nothing would change.” ‘Real change’ AGU is hardly the only organization to reckon with issues of diversity in awards.

Studies have indicated that women and other underrepresented groups are often less likely to receive science prizes. One recent study, just published last month in Quantitative Science Studies, found that women are less likely to receive prestigious science awards than men. Examining 141 of the world’s most distinguished international research awards, the study found that the prizes were given to 2,011 men between 2001 and 2020, compared with just 262 women. The Nobel Prizes, widely considered the world’s most prestigious science awards, have been subject to particular scrutiny in recent years.

Only about 3 percent of Nobel science prizes have gone to women since the awards were established more than 100 years ago. Not a single one has been awarded to a Black scientist. The AGU fellows announcement was followed by this year’s Nobel science prizes, all of which went to men. Despite persistent problems with diversity in science awards around the world, researchers say there are plenty of ways to tackle the problem.

Implicit bias plays a major role in who receives science awards, according to Mary Anne Holmes, a geologist and professor emeritus at the University of Nebraska, Lincoln. It’s an unconscious bias or prejudice that can lead people to identify more strongly with people from their own social groups. If awards nominators or selection committees are composed primarily of homogeneous groups — for instance, white people or men — that can lead to an unintentional skew in the people who are nominated or selected for awards. Holmes served on AGU’s Union Honors and Recognition Committee, which oversees all of its honors and awards programs, between 2013 and 2019.

She also previously worked with the Association for Women in Science on a National Science Foundation-funded project aimed at studying and addressing gender disparities in science awards. She and colleagues LaToya Myles and Blair Schneider, who also served on AGU’s honors committee, published some of their insights last year in the journal Advances in Geoscience. €œWe’re all committing acts of implicit bias every day, all the time, without meaning to be biased,” Holmes said in an interview. Implicit bias training for awards selection committees “is huge,” she added.

Experts say canvassing committees, designed to scout for worthy nominees and encourage people to nominate them, can also make a difference. These committees can also help answer questions about the nomination process, which is often long and time-consuming. Gasparini, the Tulane scientist, is a member of AGU’s earth and planetary sciences section. A few years ago, she and several other members began canvassing after noticing a gap in the number of women in their section receiving awards.

€œWe went out and we found all the letter writers and did all this work, and it worked. Women started winning,” she said. These committees can also help tackle the issue of implicit bias, she added. €œIt’s not that men don’t see women doing good work or white people don’t see people of color doing good work,” she said.

€œBut people need to be pushed to do it, and when they do it they might think only of the superstar who’s already won seven awards and published 10 Nature papers. And the truth is there's a lot of people making a lot of impact who aren’t those people.” Other scientists have pointed out that there may be broader structural issues in science awards. Prizes aren’t always designed to recognize all the people contributing to scientific breakthroughs, they say. €œScience is so collaborative now,” said Diaz, the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution scientist.

€œSo does it really make sense to give awards to a single person?. They’re not doing the work by themselves. There are students and postdocs and collaborators and friends. So I think we really need to think about who we want these awards to go to and what we want them to represent.” Other scientists share the sentiment.

€œI actually think that there are some broken elements to the larger awards system,” said Moon, the NSIDC scientist. €œI think that there’s really interest, particularly in the early and middle-career generations of scientists, who are for a system that recognizes a wider range of what it means to be a scientist and what it means to contribute to the scientific endeavor in its success.” Fricker hopes this year’s events will spark a bigger conversation within AGU, perhaps culminating in new recommendations from the organization about how to diversify future pools of award nominees. €œI’m looking forward to some real change,” she said. Holmes, the former honors committee member, said she’s optimistic that the conversations around science awards are evolving.

€œI think people who normally wouldn’t have paid any attention to this are paying attention,” she said. €œAt least I hear people talking about it as if, yes, this is an issue now. That’s a big leap forward from 20 years ago.” Reprinted from E&E News with permission from POLITICO, LLC. Copyright 2021.

E&E News provides essential news for energy and environment professionals.Melissa Creary was three years old when she was diagnosed with sickle cell disease. The genetic condition, which affects more than 100,000 people in the U.S., is caused by a mutation that distorts red blood cells into sickle-shaped crescents that can get stuck in blood vessels and trigger episodes of agonizing pain. People in the thick of an episode have described the sensation as something akin to broken glass flowing through their veins. Others liken it to being electrocuted or stabbed.

Creary was in her early 40s when she developed a rare complication that turned her mild case into a severe one. Suddenly she began experiencing pain like never before. To dilute the sickle cells clogging her bloodstream, she had to undergo monthly blood transfusions. Creary felt tethered to the health-care system, literally and figuratively, in ways she had never expected.

€œI remember moments where I was so angry all the time—angry at the betrayal of my body, angry at the betrayal of my genetics,” says Creary, a health policy researcher at the University of Michigan. She recalls feeling resigned to the fate spelled out in her DNA. But as new gene therapies emerged, she began to see glimmers of hope. Creary studies the biology, policy and social determinants of health related to sickle cell disease in the U.S.

And Brazil. Her experience of severe sickle cell disease led her to talk with physicians about gene therapy in a new way—not as an academic exchanging ideas with colleagues but as a patient seeking answers. The dialogue progressed from talk of technology to deeper discussions about identity, history, trust, education, equity and emotion. Even now Creary is not sure what she would do if an experimental treatment were offered to her tomorrow.

A handful of gene-targeted treatments are under development for sickle cell disease, and hundreds more are being investigated for a variety of conditions, including cystic fibrosis, muscular dystrophy, hemophilia, Huntington’s disease, HIV and cancer. Several gene therapies have already won FDA approval. The notion of rewriting a person’s DNA is finally becoming a clinical reality. In previous decades, conversations about gene therapy had to address and overcome the field’s tragic past missteps.

But today, after so much scientific progress, researchers and practitioners are dealing with an unexpected challenge. Excessive hope. That hope takes different forms in different groups of people, and it alters expectations about gene therapy in ways that can have far-reaching consequences. As a result, some researchers have begun shifting their focus from the machinations of the genetic material and viral delivery systems that make up these therapies to the perspectives of the human beings who will ultimately be affected by their deployment.

€œIt’s crucial at this point to start to explore what patients [and the public] think they need to know and their attitudes toward these therapies because these are therapies that cost millions of dollars to develop,” says Olalekan Lee Aiyegbusi, an applied health researcher at the University of Birmingham in England. If people expect too much too quickly, they will end up disappointed or distrustful of the research enterprise. If expectations are too low, not enough people will invest money, time or patient power in the cause. TROUBLING ASSUMPTIONS The term “gene therapy” emerged in the public consciousness nearly five decades ago.

By fixing defects in our DNA, scientists speculated, gene therapy had the potential to undo thousands of inherited conditions. When gene therapy comes up in conversation, however, some people’s thoughts slide from treating disease to engineering human traits such as eye color, IQ and athletic ability—a concept referred to as genetic enhancement. That association, researchers say, is not only inaccurate but harmful. Speculation about such Gattaca-like futures swelled in 2018 after the Chinese scientist He Jiankui announced that he had created the world’s first gene-edited babies by removing copies of a gene in embryos before they were implanted.

He was convicted of “illegal medical practice” and sentenced to three years in prison, and scientists around the globe have called for a moratorium on genetic edits that could be passed on to future generations. Experts say that conflating such morally fuzzy research with studies focused on treating disease could derail the conversations that need to take place around the more pressing applications of gene therapy. Juliette Delhove, a gene therapy researcher at the University of Adelaide in Australia, has examined dozens of studies of public opinion and attitudes toward gene therapy and gene editing. In 2020 she published a scientific review showing that people’s support can shift depending on how gene therapy is defined.

There is substantially less support for enhancement technologies—which one person likened to “playing God” and another criticized as “going against nature”—than there is for therapies for serious or fatal diseases. In one study, only 35 percent of respondents believed it was definitely acceptable to use gene therapy to enhance memory, compared with 93 percent who supported its use to treat an inherited form of blindness known as Leber congenital amaurosis. Delhove and others have found that people bring their life experiences to conversations about the technology, and such experiences shape their perspectives. Studies show that people with more education and some knowledge of genetics are generally more accepting of gene therapy, whereas those with strong religious ties tend to be less accepting, even when it is used to treat cancer or prevent blindness.

But perhaps the biggest factor in how someone views gene therapy is whether they or someone they love is affected by a disease the innovation aims to cure. Ultimately, says Holly Peay, a social scientist and genetic counselor at the nonprofit RTI International, “a lot of what we’re seeing in the literature that exists are people’s emotional reactions.” THE RISKS OF HOPE Talking about gene therapy can seem like a hypothetical exercise—for someone without anything at stake, it is a chance to explore technological progress or debate ethical principles. But for patients, such discussions have real-life implications. Every new data point is a signal that they might be just steps away from overcoming their illness.

When Creary thinks about gene therapy, she considers its potential impact on her daily life. €œThere’s a scientific innovation that will take the pain away,” she says. €œThat is the crux of the hope conversation. I could live a day without pain.” Creary has been wary about giving herself over to that hope, but patients generally tend toward enthusiasm, often holding unrealistic expectations of benefits from treatments that have not yet proved effective in clinical trials.

Researchers have a name for this. Therapeutic optimism. €œWe are, as a species, wildly optimistic about ourselves,” says Peay, who works with patients and families with the progressive muscle disorder Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Repeatedly she has heard patients share their hopes that a clinical trial will heal them, even after they have read extensive informed consent forms and heard investigators explain that they are just as likely to receive no benefit.

Peay thinks that optimism is not necessarily a bad thing. €œPeople need hope,” she says. €œHope is important. Therapeutic optimism is an expression of hopefulness.” The problem starts when people fail to recognize that a clinical trial is an experiment, not a treatment.

Researchers have named this phenomenon, too. Therapeutic misconception. They describe it as a blurring of the lines—an inability to distinguish between an approved treatment chosen and dosed specifically for a patient and a trial designed to further the science. €œIt’s kind of a perfect storm of the natural optimism and expectation of people who are desperate and clinical investigators who are, honestly, hyping their trials,” Peay says.

She spends a lot of time trying to rectify mismatched expectations, which often arise in those facing rare diseases with unmet medical needs. According to unpublished research by bioethicist Jonathan Kimmelman of McGill University, only about one in 70 people in a phase 1 clinical trial will receive a drug at a dose that will ultimately receive FDA approval, whereas up to 15 percent of participants could experience a severe side effect. Setbacks during the early iterations of gene therapy [see “Overcoming Gene Therapy’s Long Shadow”] showed scientists how much more they needed to learn about the underlying biology. Research has since filled in critical knowledge gaps, resulting in several FDA-approved gene therapies and dozens more likely to be approved by 2030.

Remarkable successes could lead some people to believe the field is moving faster than it really is, warns Rachel Bailey, a gene therapy researcher at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center. She points to one treatment, for a fatal neurodegenerative condition called Batten disease, that moved from concept to human testing in a little more than a year. Gene therapy has slowed the progression of Batten disease, but “at this point,” Bailey says, “we’re not at the cure stage yet. We are at the treatment stage.” A true cure will take much more research.

€œI think what’s important for patients to understand is that it takes a very large amount of time, effort and funding to develop these gene therapy products,” Bailey says. QUESTIONS OF EQUITY Gene therapy’s rise to prominence has come with an extraordinarily high price tag. Novartis’s newly approved gene therapy, a one-time treatment for spinal muscular atrophy, is now the world’s most expensive drug at $2.1 million. On average, currently available gene therapies are priced at more than 30 times the average household income.

€œWe must be thinking right now about the equity question and how we make sure that as many people as possible benefit from the technology that’s built on government funding, that’s built on great science,” says Vence Bonham, acting deputy director of the National Human Genome Research Institute and leader of the NHGRI Health Disparities Unit. Bonham has been talking about this issue for a while. In 2017, before the first gene-editing trial for sickle cell disease had been approved, his team interviewed more than 100 patients, families and physicians to gauge their attitudes and beliefs about the technology. Many were hopeful but cautious.

€œIf this treatment becomes available to the public, will it be available to everyone equally?. € one patient asked. €œI have sickle cell. I struggle with it daily....

I don’t want the reason why I can’t get it done to be because, oh, your insurance, or you don’t have the money.” Cost is not the only concern. In the U.S., only about one in four people with sickle cell disease receives the standard of care. These patients can be marginalized and dismissed, often having to wait longer for help in the emergency department than other pain patients. Creary herself has spent hours writhing in pain in hospital emergency rooms, misperceived by staff as drug seeking because she is Black and has sickle cell disease.

She found a way to get her Ph.D. Added to her medical record and learned to code switch, dropping hints about her academic titles in the hopes that health-care staff might equate her, she says, with “acceptable auspices of humanity.” Creary has noticed scientists promoting the narrative of gene therapy as social justice—a way of repairing the damage done to those living with sickle cell disease. She points to the Web site for the NIH’s Cure Sickle Cell Initiative, which opens with, “It’s time to rewrite the story of sickle cell.” The statement seems to suggest that scientific innovation can rewrite history or at least right the wrongs wrought by historical neglect and racism. But Creary, who studies a concept she calls bounded justice, believes any justice achieved by targeting new gene therapies to marginalized populations will inevitably be limited by the very inequities that caused those groups to be marginalized in the first place.

€œYou let [gene therapy] out into the wild, and then all of these historical, societal and anthropological things are going to muck it up,” Creary says. Her research suggests that discussions about gene therapy, at least for sickle cell disease, must address big issues such as colonialism, slavery, racism, and “all the things that come from generations and generations of oppression.” Part of that is recognizing that physicians make assumptions about who may or may not be a good candidate for gene therapy. It also involves addressing social supports that could counteract the disadvantages many gene therapy patients face, such as health insurance to cover the procedure, transportation to and from the hospital, child care and paid time off for recovery. €œIt is tough, I think, because on some level it’s this recognition that it’s never enough,” she says.

DEMOCRATIZING INFORMATION One way that scientists can help their technologies land equitably in the world, Bonham says, is to center conversations on building trust, providing quality information and ensuring transparency. It is an important triumvirate that will take concerted effort from all involved. Emily Howell, a science communication expert at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, says that the trust part happens when researchers meet people where they are by asking about their concerns, their hopes and their fears. Howell, who studies how to communicate controversial topics such as fracking and gene editing, says starting with emotions and values rather than with facts and figures can help to foster trust.

People tend to trust someone when that person not only is competent but also seems to care about the same things as they do, Howell says. Clarity of information has been another big obstacle. Patients have had a difficult time finding information that is accurate, actionable and understandable. U.T.

Southwestern’s Bailey says people with genetic diseases often have little choice but to try to make sense of esoteric research papers on their own or to hunt down scientific experts like her to answer their questions. She chairs the American Society of Gene and Cell Therapy’s Patient Outreach Committee, which aims to foster open dialogues and easy access to information with a Web site that breaks down various aspects of gene therapy from a patient’s perspective. Delhove concurs and says that accurate information empowers people to make decisions for their own health. €œThat’s what you want for patients,” she says.

€œThey shouldn’t just be bystanders. They should be in control and know what is available for them.” The last of Bonham’s trio—transparency—requires researchers to lay out precisely what is and is not possible and to be open and honest when something goes awry. In 1999 18-year-old Jesse Gelsinger died while participating in a gene therapy trial that he hoped would help others with the same rare liver disorder. In the years since, any safety scare has raised the specter of repeating history.

Two gene therapy trials for sickle cell disease were temporarily suspended earlier this year after one of the participants developed cancer (it was later deemed unrelated to the treatment). Bonham says the pause was a clear sign of the scientific community’s renewed commitment to engagement and transparency. €œI think we’ve seen a really positive shift occurring with regard to our understanding that gene-based therapies have potential,” he says, “but that doesn’t mean that they don’t have any risks.” Today, after several frank discussions buoyed by her own deep dives into the literature, Creary is well aware of those benefits and risks. She knows gene therapy might completely erase her sickle cell disease, untethering her from its pain and complications.

But she has also learned how intense the procedure would be, with punishing rounds of chemotherapy and lengthy hospital stays. €œI think about measuring that destabilization in that moment with what I could gain, in addition to the risks, and I’m still not sure,” she says. More than a million people could be eligible for gene therapy in the next 15 years. The conversations researchers have today, both with the general population and with their patients, may ultimately determine how the field evolves.

With the right support, it could be revolutionary. Without it, an immeasurable amount of time and treasure will have been spent honing a technology that may never fulfill the hopes of the patients it was designed to help. This article is part of “Innovations In. Gene Therapy,” an editorially independent special report that was produced with financial support from Pfizer..

Levitra and grapefruit interaction

The number of reported erectile dysfunction treatment cases across the globe has surpassed 25 million, with the U.S., Brazil and best online pharmacy generic levitra India leading the grim count, according to data from Johns Hopkins University levitra and grapefruit interaction. The erectile dysfunction has killed more than 843,000 people worldwide since it emerged from Wuhan, China, late last year, with the Americas reporting the bulk of fatalities. The U.S., Mexico and Brazil represent more than 40% of levitra and grapefruit interaction the global death toll, according to Johns Hopkins. Reported erectile dysfunction treatment cases first surpassed 10 million in late June, then reached 20 million just over six weeks later on Aug.

10, according to Johns levitra and grapefruit interaction Hopkins data. "This levitra is going to be with us for a while. Without a treatment, it's going to be with us for years," Carissa Etienne, levitra and grapefruit interaction director of Pan American Health Organization and the World Health Organization's regional director for the Americas, said during a news briefing Tuesday. "Reopening does not mean that the fight is over."Some European countries have started to report a recent resurgence in cases.

France Prime Minister Jean Castex said the levitra has spread rapidly among young people, forcing the government to levitra and grapefruit interaction intervene. Castex said France "must do everything to avoid a new confinement," the Associated Press reported on Thursday. s in Spain, which has the levitra and grapefruit interaction highest case count among European countries, have climbed to nearly 440,000 cases since the country lifted its lockdown in late June, according to Hopkins. The U.S.

Continues to struggle with the world's worst outbreak and largest reported case count, though the growth in new cases appears to be levitra and grapefruit interaction leveling off after a summer of surging outbreaks.The U.S. Reported an average of 42,000 new s a day over the last week, a decline of more than 3.0% compared with the prior week, according to a CNBC analysis of Hopkins' data. New cases in the levitra and grapefruit interaction U.S. Peaked at 67,317 daily cases on July 22, based on a seven-day average, after a resurgence of erectile dysfunction cases ripped through the Sun Belt states in June and July."The current plan — wearing a mask, watching your distance, washing your hands, supplemented by smart testing, according to the state plans, surge testing and extreme technical assistance by CDC as well as our craft teams — continues to yield results," Assistant Secretary for Health Adm.

Brett Giroir told reporters on a conference call last week.However, health officials are concerned that the erectile dysfunction may spread to America's heartland. As of Sunday, cases were growing levitra and grapefruit interaction by 19% or more in Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota, according to a CNBC analysis of buy generic levitra online Hopkins' data. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Robert Redfield recently told Dr. Howard Bauchner levitra and grapefruit interaction of the Journal of the American Medical Association that there are worrying signs in the middle of the country where cases appear to be plateauing but not falling.

Redfield said the area "is getting stuck," which is a concern as seasonal influenza threatens to overwhelm hospitals and cause preventable deaths. "We don't levitra and grapefruit interaction need to have a third wave in the heartland right now," he said. "We need to prevent that particularly as we're coming to the fall."The U.S. Is gearing up to distribute a levitra and grapefruit interaction treatment, which is expected sometime early next year, as part of the Trump administration's Operation Warp Speed.

Health officials have said there's no returning to "normal" until a treatment is distributed. On Wednesday, the CDC proposed guidelines for who would receive the first doses once a treatment candidate is approve, prioritizing health-care levitra and grapefruit interaction workers, essential personnel and vulnerable Americans, such as the elderly and those with underlying health conditions. White House erectile dysfunction advisor Dr. Anthony Fauci has said the levitra and grapefruit interaction initial supply of treatment doses is expected to be limited and won't be widely available to Americans until "several months" into 2021.

The federal government has spent billions in treatment development, locking in a minimum of 800 million doses as soon as the immunizations are cleared later this year or early next year. Russia registered levitra and grapefruit interaction a treatment, called "Sputnik V," on Aug. 11, though scientists warn that its candidate has only gone through phase one and phase two clinical trials and not large human trials to prove the treatment's efficacy. Russia said it would begin phase three levitra and grapefruit interaction trials in August.

€” CNBC's Will Feuer, Berkeley Lovelace Jr. And Holly Ellyatt contributed to this report..

The number of reported erectile dysfunction treatment cases across the use this link globe has surpassed 25 million, with the U.S., Brazil and India leading the grim get levitra online count, according to data from Johns Hopkins University. The erectile dysfunction has killed more than 843,000 people worldwide since it emerged from Wuhan, China, late last year, with the Americas reporting the bulk of fatalities. The U.S., Mexico and Brazil represent more than 40% of the global death toll, according to get levitra online Johns Hopkins. Reported erectile dysfunction treatment cases first surpassed 10 million in late June, then reached 20 million just over six weeks later on Aug. 10, according to get levitra online Johns Hopkins data.

"This levitra is going to be with us for a while. Without a treatment, it's going to be with us get levitra online for years," Carissa Etienne, director of Pan American Health Organization and the World Health Organization's regional director for the Americas, said during a news briefing Tuesday. "Reopening does not mean that the fight is over."Some European countries have started to report a recent resurgence in cases. France Prime Minister get levitra online Jean Castex said the levitra has spread rapidly among young people, forcing the government to intervene. Castex said France "must do everything to avoid a new confinement," the Associated Press reported on Thursday.

s in Spain, which has the highest case count among European countries, have climbed to nearly 440,000 cases since get levitra online the country lifted its lockdown in late June, according to Hopkins. The U.S. Continues to struggle with the world's worst outbreak and largest reported case count, though the growth in new cases appears to be leveling get levitra online off after a summer of surging outbreaks.The U.S. Reported an average of 42,000 new s a day over the last week, a decline of more than 3.0% compared with the prior week, according to a CNBC analysis of Hopkins' data. New cases in the get levitra online U.S.

Peaked at 67,317 daily cases on July 22, based on a seven-day average, after a resurgence of erectile dysfunction cases ripped through the Sun Belt states in June and July."The current plan — wearing a mask, watching your distance, washing your hands, supplemented by smart testing, according to the state plans, surge testing and extreme technical assistance by CDC as well as our craft teams — continues to yield results," Assistant Secretary for Health Adm. Brett Giroir told reporters on a conference call last week.However, health officials are concerned that the erectile dysfunction may spread to America's heartland. As of Sunday, cases were get levitra online growing by 19% or more in Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota, according to a CNBC analysis of Hopkins' data. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Robert Redfield recently told Dr. Howard Bauchner of get levitra online the Journal of the American Medical Association that there are worrying signs in the middle of the country where cases appear to be plateauing but not falling.

Redfield said the area "is getting stuck," which is a concern as seasonal influenza threatens to overwhelm hospitals and cause preventable deaths. "We don't need to have a third wave in the heartland right now," he said get levitra online. "We need to prevent that particularly as we're coming to the fall."The U.S. Is gearing up to distribute a treatment, which is expected sometime early next year, as part of the Trump administration's get levitra online Operation Warp Speed. Health officials have said there's no returning to "normal" until a treatment is distributed.

On Wednesday, the CDC proposed guidelines for who would receive the first doses once a treatment candidate is approve, prioritizing health-care workers, get levitra online essential personnel and vulnerable Americans, such as the elderly and those with underlying health conditions. White House erectile dysfunction advisor Dr. Anthony Fauci has said the initial supply of treatment doses is expected get levitra online to be limited and won't be widely available to Americans until "several months" into 2021. The federal government has spent billions in treatment development, locking in a minimum of 800 million doses as soon as the immunizations are cleared later this year or early next year. Russia registered a treatment, called "Sputnik V," on Aug get levitra online.

11, though scientists warn that its candidate has only gone through phase one and phase two clinical trials and not large human trials to prove the treatment's efficacy. Russia said it would get levitra online begin phase three trials in August. €” CNBC's Will Feuer, Berkeley Lovelace Jr. And Holly Ellyatt contributed to this report..