Harold writes:
Hi Twiv team,
Regarding your recent banter on German humor, I can’t speak to what differentiates Northern vs Southern German humor, but I can share a joke:
How many Germans does it take to change a light bulb?
One. We are very efficient and do not care for humor.
That gets a laugh around here, but maybe that’s just midwestern perception of the ancestral homeland.
Cheers,
Harold
Anthony writes:
Your Aunt Sadie who sells on ebay Pharma, Corner Candy Store Pharma to replace Big Pharma?
# # #
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/11/rfk-jr-hhs-fda-deep-state-00286826
FWIW
Anthony Olszewski
@anthonyolszewski.bsky.social
Brenda writes:
I am sure you have seen this:
Shouldn’t he be commissioning a survey of all the scientists currently researching the cause of autism before adding new ones?
I wonder how many of the current ones have had their funding withdrawn.
Maybe they should lawyer up and make a fuss.
Yours
Brenda
Joanne writes:
Dear TWiV,
I was born in the 1950’s and had chicken pox as a child. A few years prior to Covid, one of my close co-workers came down with chicken pox. A few weeks after he became ill, I developed some blisters on my arm that strongly resembled those caused by chicken pox.
Fearing that I might be contagious, I went to the doctor to see what should be done. He confirmed that the blisters indeed looked like chicken pox, especially given my recent exposure. He advised to work from home until the blisters cleared up. I never felt ill, no fever, etc. Only symptom was those few itchy blisters. My poor co-worker was not so lucky and was extremely ill for weeks.
So now I am wondering, why did I get a mild case of chicken pox rather than coming down with shingles? Is there a difference based on re-exposure to the virus vs reactivation of the virus? Is this any different immunologically? This incident did prompt me to get the Shingrix vaccine.
I should point out that I never had any lab tests to confirm infection. Diagnosis was based on history of recent exposure and visual observation.
Keep up the good work at TWiV! These are dark times indeed.
Sincerely,
Joanne
David writes:
Dear Team; Keep up the great work.
Re: Vitamin A, anti-vax, RFK, vaccine deniers, et.al., aren’t they simply demonstrating both Darwin’s natural selection (of the fittest) AND Lamarck’s inheritance of characteristics acquired from one’s parents? Think about it before you discuss. We have vastly overestimated our culture, alas.
So, we go backwards to pre 19th century when, apparently, when the concept of science and scientists gained its first traction according to:
Spare Parts: The Story of Medicine Through the History of Transplant Surgery Hardcover – May 10, 2022
by Paul Craddock (Author)
Just sayin’
David J. Davin MD, Syracuse, New York
Anne writes:
Finally
From Barrons:
Two top Wall Street analysts are calling on the White House to remove Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services, saying he is “undermining public health.”
The new research note from Cantor Fitzgerald biotechnology analysts Josh Schimmer and Eric Schmidt was spurred by the surprise resignation of Dr. Peter Marks, a top Food and Drug Administration official responsible for regulating vaccines.
The analysts said Monday that the forced departure of Marks, who led the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, had been a “step too far for us.”
“RFK Jr. is undermining the trusted leadership of healthcare in this country,” they wrote. “HHS cannot be led by an anti-vax, conspiracy theorist with inadequate training.”
“We together feel that this is an attack on science, an attack on the normal process of government reviews by a nonscientist, and it’s a very, very slippery slope from here into a dangerous place,” Schmidt told Barron’s in an interview on Monday. “It’s about the science. Its bigger than profits. Its bigger than politics. It’s human lives. That’s where we’re coming from.”
In his resignation letter on Friday, Marks said that he had been willing to work to address Kennedy’s concerns about the safety of vaccines, but that Kennedy “wishes subservient confirmation of his misinformation and lies.”
Marks’s letter pointed to apparent efforts by Kennedy, a prominent vaccine skeptic, to use his role at HHS to promote vaccine skepticism. In their Monday note, Schimmer and Schmidt said that drugmakers needed to speak out against Kennedy.
“This has nothing to do with biopharmaceutical sales,” they wrote. “Several industry leaders have been playing nice with the administration in an effort to protect their businesses. It’s time to take a stand against something that is more important than bottom lines.
Schimmer and Schmidt are two of the best-known investment bank analysts covering biotechnology stocks. They both joined Cantor from Evercore ISI in 2023, and each has covered biotechnology stocks for more than 20 years.
Their note was far from the usual fare distributed by sell-side biotechnology analysts. Other analyst notes Monday voiced varying degrees of alarm about Marks, but most focused on near-term impacts on stocks. Schimmer and Schmidt’s note went much farther.
Schmidt told Barron’s that the industry groups that represent drugmakers—BIO, and PhRMA—have looked to negotiate with the administration. “I think we’re past that, in my opinion,” he said. “I think the administration has played those industry groups.”
Neither BIO nor PhRMA immediately responded to a request for comment on Schmidt and Schimmer’s note. In a statement Saturday, BIO’s president and CEO John Crowley had said his group was concerned that the “loss of experienced leadership at the FDA will erode scientific standards” and impact the development of new drugs.
“If you care about the industry, if you care about healthcare in America, you should be very, very disturbed by what happened on Friday evening,” Schmidt told Barron’s.
A spokesman for HHS said the agency had no comment on the analysts’ note.
FYI,
Anne