Recently, controversy erupted over a P.E.I. radiopersonality's reposting of a social media meme that drew criticism from the local LGBTQ community.

Ocean 100 morning show co-host Kerri Wynne MacLeod and Stingray Radio apologized for the post, and in the social media furor that ensued, Pride P.E.I. issued a joint statement with the station supporting her.

The post was a meme that talked about the challenges of parenting and howdifficult it must be for parents these days to have the "birds and the bees" talk with their kids, since there seem to be more genders and sexual preferences than in the past.

But is it really more challenging to talk to kids about sexuality and gender now, as more people openly identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, non-binary or any other shade of the rainbow?

"No, I don't feel that," said Andrea MacPherson, corporate secretary with the LGBTQ advocacy group Pride P.E.I.,who came out as transgender about five years ago. She went from being "dad" to being "mom" to her now 11-year-old twins. She said it was not difficult, and her kids accepted it right away.

"It's a parent's responsibility to explain to the kid, what's going on in the world, and really, kids are sponges," she said.

MacPherson said she simply told her kids transgender people exist. "And they were like, 'OK!'" she said.

"Telling them that some people are boys, some people are girls, some people are both, some people are neither they accepted that," MacPherson said. "Kids don't care about things more complicated than that."

Angele DesRoches with PEERS Alliance, a group that promotes sexual health and drug-use harm reduction on P.E.I., doesn't have children but is an active aunt to seven kids and has been an early childhood educator in the past.

"There's lots of reasons why I feel bad for parents today COVID, climate change. If acknowledging the diversity around human sexuality and gender throws off your quote-unquote 'birds and the bees'talk, then my concern is really how woefully inadequate that talk probably was," DesRoches said.

"The real issue is we still have parents who think of a sex talk as focusing on penis-vagina penetration, and a one-off conversation."

Talking to kids about human reproduction, preventing sexually transmitted infections or unplanned pregnancies, and communication and boundary-setting in personal relationships are worthwhile conversations, Desroches said.

"When we focus on penis-vagina penetration as the definition of sex, we're missing all kinds of sex that young people are having, that also have risks associated," she said, promoting conversations that can introduce strategies to reduce harm, such as condom use.

Adults who find it challenging to talk to young people about gender and sexual diversity may want to examine where that discomfort and fear comes from, she suggests.

"Sex is absolutely everywhere in our society, but we're still a very sex-negative culture. Sex is sinful, it's still dirty, it's something tobe hidden," she said. "Really, that's grownup baggage."

Some work is being done to educate Island students.The P.E.I. Public Schools Branch, withhelp fromPEERS Alliance and the P.E.I. Transgender Network,is developinggender diversity guidelines for Island schools, following many other provinces across the country thatalready have suchguidelines. The aim is tocreate more inclusive and safelearning environments for students while demonstrating respect for diverse sexual orientations and gender identities.

For children in kindergarten to Grade 4, DesRoches said, "what we really are focusing on is celebrating our uniqueness and identifying gender stereotypes where they exist, and giving students the tools needed to recognize and resist those stereotypes," she said.

For older kids, it's important to ditch the narrative that being transgender means transitioning wholly from one gender binary (man or woman) to another.

"We're at a pointnow where we just know that that isn't true ... gender diversity is much more nuanced, beautiful and complicated than that. And so we're really talking about an entire spectrum of diversity that ranges from cisgender to transgender to non-binary to gender-fluid to gender-queer. Gender can be exciting! Folks should play, and folks should have room to be who they are."

What children and youth need to know about just as much, or more, than gender or sexual preference are things like consent, DesRoches believes.

Historically traditional "scripts" around sexuality can be unhealthy, she said, including notions that men should pursue women and sex and "win" them, or that sex is a "prize" to be taken by men.

"One of the things I've been very keen on doing in my transition is involving my kids along theway," MacPherson said. "Setting expectations is the biggest key in making sure it's as stress-free as possible."

MacPherson's kids already knew about Jazz Jennings, a celebrity who came out as transgender at just six years old, when Barbara Walters interviewed her for the TV show 20/20. Jennings wrote a children's book calledI Am Jazz, which MacPherson's children had read and loved.

"I explained some people are like Jazz, but don't realize it till they're a lot older, and that's what I'm like," she said.

Her own children sometimes mix up her pronouns, referring to her as "him," or calling her "dad," but she said that's fine.

She also sat down with the kids' teachers and school administration to tell them about her transition, so the kids wouldn't have to faceuncomfortable questions, and they were "super supportive," MacPherson said.

And itdidn't take long for kidsand their parents to switch to using "her" and "Andrea."

"A few of their friends' parents have asked how they should refer to me, and I say I'm still their parent, my name is this now," she said.

"Some people might make mistakes and that's fine. Mistakes will be made, you don't make a big deal out of it."

MacPherson said kids especially are remarkably quick to correct themselves if they get it wrong, and just move on quickly with an "OK!"

When is it appropriate to introduce kids to the idea of different genders and sexual preferences? CBC Kidsproduced an animated primerabout this that parents can watch with their kids.

"I'm of the firm belief that there is no age that's too young to really explain to them," MacPherson said.

"As soon as my kids noticed that some things looked like 'boy' stuff and some things looked like 'girl' stuff, I made a point of saying 'some things are neither,'" sheexplains.

"Some people are boys, some people are girls, some people are both, some people are neither ... there's ways to talk about it at all ages that's age-appropriate."

DesRoches directs parents who seek information from PEERS about gender diversity and human sexuality to resources including Cory Silverberg'sSex is a Funny WordandWhat Makes a Baby,both books that explain sexuality while removing gendered assumptions. Use Google, she said, and find lots of good first-person stories from gender-diverse people on YouTube.

Don't wait until you are personally affected to get educated, either: sooner rather than later, you will likely meet someone who is transgender, MacPherson said.

"Even if kids aren't struggling with their own gender, just being able to explain it," she said. "So many people now just simply know a trans or non-binary person ... it's a good thing for everyone to know."

Knowledge can help make people more comfortable and reduce stigma, she said.

If you're a parent or caregiver of a transgender person of any age, PEERS has a program called Roots and Shoots parents can come together to "unlearn myths about gender identity and replace those myths with knowledge and support around issues of gender diversity," the PEERS website says. At the same time, their trans or gender-creative children aged five to 13 can participate in Sierra Club Wild Child programming and meet like-minded peers and play in nature "while being their awesomely unique and authentic selves."

PEERS also recommends those raising gender diverse young children check out a free online course offered by StanfordSchool of Medicine, Health Across the Gender Spectrum.

Want a short primer on terms you might want to use when discussing these issues with your kids? They might already know them, but they might be impressed you know them too!

asexual: someone who is not sexually attracted to anyone.

bisexual: someone who isattracted to their own gender and another gender. Often shortened to "bi."

dead name: a transgender person's former name, usually their birth name.Use that person's new name, as hearing their former name or pronouns can negatively affect many trans people.

gender-fluid: a person whose gender is fluid sometimes they may identify as and express themselves more as female, other times more as male.

gender non-conforming: people whodon't conform outwardly to the societal norms expected of their gender. For example, currently a boy who wears a dress could be seen as gender-non-conforming.

non-binary:someone whose identity doesn't fit into a strictly male/female binary, and usually uses they/them pronouns.Celebrity Demi Lovato recently came out as non-binary.

polyamory: love relationships involving more than a couple. Polyamorous relationships can take many shapes and sizes.

pronouns: he/him, she/her or they/them are pronouns. More people are introducing themselves and stating their pronouns, depending on how they identify. These are often seen on email signatures or social media profiles.

straight: straight people are attracted to those of the opposite gender.

top surgery: removal of breasts. Many trans and non-binary people get top surgery.

transgender: a person who changes their gender from that which they were assigned at birth. For instance male-to-female, female-to-male, female-to-non-binary, etc. Sometimes shortened to "trans."That change can be social (the way people appear and dress) and also medical (involving gender reassignment surgery). Halifax-born actor Elliot Page recently came out as transgender, transitioning from female to male.

trans man:a man who was assigned female at birth.

trans woman: a woman who was assigned male at birth.

queer:The LGBTQcommunity hasbegun to reclaimthe word queer, taking away past negativity and using it as a term to encompass anyone who is not straight or transgender.

Original post:
Talking to kids about gender and sexuality is harder these days or is it? - CBC.ca

Ive been writing about why I think the Churchs teaching on sexuality particularly homosexuality and contraception is evil. Mostly Ive been talking about history, and the question of how the teaching came to be what it is in the first place. I want to put that aside for the moment and talk about the present: how do these teachings cause grave and demonstrable harm to real human beings living in the world right now?

Im going to start with contraception.

In theory, the Catholic Church recognizes two essential (and essentially correct) principles regarding reproductive choice:1. That people should practice responsible parenthood, seeking to have children only when it is responsible and reasonable to do so, and 2. That the decision to seek or avoid pregnancy is private, that only the parents can determine whether they are financially, emotionally, physically and spiritually able to care for a child.What this means, actually, is that certain people within the hierarchy made good arguments in committee meetings showing that providentialism (the belief that you should just have as many children as you can because God will provide) is a terrible idea. One suspects that these individuals expected the Church to arrive at the obvious conclusion: that the teaching prohibiting contraception needs to be overturned because it is opposed to reason, common-sense, and the actual good of human beings. In practice, however, these obviously sane observations were incorporated into the documents in principle, but undermined in practice.

The problem is that responsible parenthood and parental discernment only become possible when people have access to reliable means of avoiding pregnancy. But thousands of years ago men who did not understand how human reproduction and sexuality actually work came to the conclusion that sex is fundamentally problematic and can only be grudgingly justified when it is necessary for procreation.

Overturning the flawed reasoning of these men would involve admitting that celibate guys might not have infallible insight into human sexuality and if that were admitted, the entire house of cards might start to collapse. People might see that priests, bishops, canonized theologians and even popes are just ordinary, fallible human beings and not specially selected ambassadors of the Holy Spirit with magical powers to know the truth about things they have no experience of.

So the Church came up with a compromise that provides the worst of both worlds: you are obligated to think carefully about whether having a child is a good idea and to choose responsibly and then you are supposed to effect those decisions using hideously unreliable means.

The Tree By Its Fruits

NFP allows the Church to maintain that they have been right for all of those centuries while acknowledging that choice and responsibility are necessary elements of any reasonable sexual ethic. Its a perfect solution with only one niggling drawback: it doesnt work. Of course, if youre an unmarried man who is only accountable to other unmarried men, this minor difficulty can be overlooked for the sake of the obvious institutional advantage of being able to claim infallible insight, prescient wisdom, and pastoral understanding while also shoring up the putative moral superiority of the celibate class.

This is why I call Humanae Vitae evil. It is a document whose fundamental purpose is to maintain the power and authority of the Catholic hierarchy regardless of the harm that this does to the people who have to practice it. Some of those responsible for formulating the doctrine, like Ottaviani, almost certainly knew this. I suspect that most of its supporters, however, have convinced themselves that there is no real conflict of interests, that on some deeper level the good of humanity is best served by upholding the power of the Church or that the doctrine really is about the truth and dignity of human sexuality and not about the need to avoid the embarrassment of admitting that over a thousand years of teaching had been wrong. Few people are genuine Machievellians, and theres been a lot of ink spilled trying to show that NFP is better for women, better for children, better for society If you and your colleagues dont have to actually live with the consequences of the teaching, its not that hard to assume that the rosier portrayals are probably the most accurate.

In reality, though, Humanae Vitae was not prescient, wise or merciful. Widespread access to contraception has not resulted in increased government interference in peoples reproductive lives: the forced sterilization campaigns and coercive birth-limiting policies that Paul VI predicted have not materialized. On the contrary, in the years since the publication of HV such policies have become increasingly unacceptable to individuals and to the international community. Why? Because it turns out that when you give people access to reproductive choice, they will generally make reasonable and responsible decisions. In areas with stifling population densities, like Japan, birth-rates fall. In times of traumatic population loss, like World War II, there are baby booms. Its almost as if our species has evolved to survive without the reproductive management of the Vatican.

The Churchs teaching on contraception is, however, deeply harmful to the minority of Catholics who sincerely believe that the Vatican has the right to regulate their sexual behaviour. It is coercive, misogynistic and harmful to children.

No Exit

For those who have never been a devout believer in an authoritarian religion, it can be difficult to relate to the way in which religious authorities are able to exercise control over adherents. Even now, as someone who had that experience, when I look in from the outside Im perplexed. It seems so obvious that there is no being outside of time and space who will torture people for eternity if they use a condom. That this has never happened. Could never happen. That even if God existed, it would still be a preposterous belief.

When youre in that world, though, it somehow seems real. And in the case of contraception, its particularly insidious.

With most sins, Catholicism offers an escape clause. In some cases, this takes the form of straightforward justification: stealing isnt stealing if its the only way to feed your children, killing isnt killing if you do it in self-defense or in war, missing Mass doesnt count if youre sick, etc. With contraception, however, there is no justification for married couples. It doesnt matter if youre trying to prevent the transmission of HIV, or if your children are literally starving to death, or if another pregnancy would put the mothers life at risk. Contraception, unlike driving a bayonet through someones innards, is intrinsically evil. This means it can never be morally acceptable.

The other escape clause in Catholicism is forgiveness: sure, youre not going to live a perfect life, God understands that. You will sometimes be overcome by temptation. Youll drink more than you intended, youll break down in a moment of weakness and watch porn, hell, you might even lose control of yourself and kill your spouse in a fit of rage. God understands. If you are sorry for what you have done, you can confess your sins confident in Gods forgiveness.

What you cant do is presume on Gods forgiveness. You cant set out to commit a sin thinking Meh, Ill do this now and go to confession later and itll all be good. This is actually an important idea: in the case of evils that are, you know, evil, its an essential safeguard. You cant be a serial rapist who scrupulously schedules your predations around the confession schedule at your local parish, and you cant be a gangster who plans to make it all good in the end with a deathbed confession and a hefty donation to Mother Church. You cant treat the confessional as a loophole that relieves you of your moral obligations to other people.

For most sins, this means that you can both believe in hell and exist as a human being without being in a state of constant, paralyzing terror. You try your hardest, sometimes you fail, God is merciful. But with contraception, if you are trying your hardest to avoid contracepting, you will in fact not succeed in avoiding pregnancy. You cant get your tubes tied or go get the shot with the intent of confessing it later thats presumption. If you go to confession and seek forgiveness for using a condom or taking the Pill, youre not really contrite (and therefore cannot receive absolution) unless you intend to throw away the rest of your contraceptives when you get home.

Effective contraception involves a committed, deliberate, long-term, rational choice. You have to think ahead, discuss it with your partner, and take responsibility for your reproductive life. Its not something that you do on the spur of the moment, in a fit of weakness, because your flesh got the better of you. Weakness, lust and irresponsibility are much more likely to result in failure to use contraception, and possibly in unplanned pregnancy. People dont get vasectomies because they are overcome by temptation they get vasectomies because theyve concluded that it is the rational, moral, responsible thing to do.

It is exactly this kind of deliberate, conscientious, rational discernment that the Church cannot tolerate if it leads to the conclusion that the Church is wrong.

The Existential Smoking Gun

This is why the teaching on contraception becomes so burdensome, so coercive. You are quite literally being told that if you make a responsible decision the right decision for yourself and for your family you risk eternal torture. Good Catholics are encouraged to meditate on the Last Things, and there is a great deal of spiritual art and writing that describes in vivid, lurid detail the horrors that await the damned. Also, even if you are reasonably confident that God will be merciful and you wont suffer forever, the Church assures you that you will face the pains of purgatory: hundreds of years of horrific misery and torment where you receive a temporal punishment for your sins that vastly exceeds any actual harm and suffering that you might have brought about by, say, masturbating in the shower or sleeping in instead of going to Church on Sunday.

In the case of contraception, you will have to suffer for the harm that you have caused to the Church by selfishly refusing to be open to life.

Heres where the snake starts to eat its tail. On the one hand, you are supposed to practice responsible parenthood. On the other, you are always supposed to be open to life. Even if you have carefully discerned that it would be an absolutely terrible idea to have a child right now, you are still supposed to be open to the possibility that God wants you to have a child. How do you know God wants you to have a child even though it seems like a bad idea? Well, you will know if you find yourself facing an unplanned pregnancy. So if, for example, you use a highly ineffective method of family planning because its the only one you are permitted to use, and it fails, thats not evidence that the method is hideously flawed and unreliable its evidence that God really wanted you to have a child right now. It is therefore very selfish of you to practice responsible parenthood in a way that has a reasonable chance of succeeding.

A woman in this position feels as if she has a massive existential gun to her head. The threat of hell has been reinforced and magnified by repeated graphic depiction and internalized through meditation practices designed to instill intense fear in the believer. Authorities that you trust have told you that you will be punished with pain so severe that it exceeds your most horrific imaginings, and that this pain will go on for periods of time that you cant even begin to wrap your head around. If you selfishly withhold your reproductive labour from your husband and from the church, you are not only doing evil, you are turning yourself into garbage that deserves to be burned in eternal fire.

But if you just give up control of your life and your body and endure the finite and measurable sufferings that you face in the present, then you will be redeemed. So which is it gonna be, doll?

This kind of coercion is traumatic. You are psychologically held down by the weight of hundreds of years of tradition and the authority of thousands of powerful men, selected by God to enforce his commandments. You are terrified to struggle free or to try to run because you sincerely believe that there is an all-powerful, all-seeing deity who has your body and your soul in his crosshairs. You are also terribly confused because youve been told that this psychological violence is the only true kind of love and that this is being done to you because its the only way to make you into a worthwhile person.

Women and Children Last

So you submit. You obey. You hope and pray and plead with God and try different kinds of NFP and every time it fails, you blame yourself for having failed yet again. Youre told that NFP is as effective as the Pill. Youre told that the problem is you. And you dont find that hard to believe. After all, even if youve only just done one year of praying the rosary every day, you will have repeated to yourself that you are a sinner over 20 000 times and pleaded to be saved from the fires of hell 1825 times. Thats only one year, one type of prayer Catholicism is very good at imprinting the idea that if there seems to be a problem, its probably you.

The second worst thing about it is that NFP fails the most spectacularly for the people who need it the most. It doesnt work for the poor because its success rate plummets without consistent support from a qualified NFP instructor and access to good, free, support is spotty at best. It doesnt work for women in abusive marriages because its success is completely dependent on the idea that the couple is a unit, that they are working together in a mutually supporting way to make the method work. It doesnt work for women who are overworked or have complicated schedules like, say, mothers with lots of children because the success rates plummet if you arent able to take measurements and record symptoms consistently at the exact same time each day. It doesnt work for women who are stressed and sick nobody has even gathered statistics on whether the method is successful at all for women with irregular menstrual cycles. It doesnt work for women struggling with addiction or mental illness because it relies on a womans consistency and control over her actions.

In other words, many of the more serious reasons for avoiding pregnancy reduce the likelihood of being able to effectively use NFP.

The worst thing about it, though, is that when you force women, especially women in poverty, in abusive situations, in crisis, to rely on a method of family planning that does not work, the result is that children are born into poverty, abuse and crisis. Its not just that the hierarchy is shoring up its own infallible authority at the expense of women. It is also doing it at the expense of children. In almost every case where a woman does not think it is a good idea for her to have a child, it is not a good idea for her to have a child. Having more children than you can handle is not good for the children. Having children in an abusive marriage is not good for the children. Having children because you are afraid of hell is an absolutely terrible reason to have children.

Using coercive threats to force women to risk pregnancy against our better judgement is an act of violence against women and children. The Church engages in this violence because the hierarchy is too arrogant and stubborn to be able to say You know, we have learned a lot in the past centuries and we got some things wrong.

This is evil.

Next time, well look at how the same kinds of misogyny and power-lust are at the heart of the Churchs teachings on homosexuality.

Read the rest here:
The Hate that Calls Itself Love pt 3: Reproductive Coercion - Patheos

MPro is a SARS-CoV-2 enzyme that catalyzes the formation of a number of essential proteins for the viral reproduction.

MPro inhibitors block this catalytic process to potentially inhibit the viral replication in human cell hosts and prevent viral infection.

The lead compound, MPI8, exhibited potent in vitro antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2 and all of the major Variants of Concern (VoCs) (alpha, beta, delta and gamma) tested.

Sorrento intends to develop the lead MPro inhibitor in oral administration form and as a component of an antiviral cocktail therapy to potentially eliminate current and emerging coronavirus infections.

SAN DIEGO, Aug. 24, 2021 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc. (Nasdaq: SRNE, "Sorrento") today announced that it has entered into an option agreement (Option) with The Texas A&M University System (TAMUS) for exclusive rights to the intellectual property covering highly potent main protease (MPro) inhibitors against SARS-CoV-2. This latest agreement bolsters Sorrentos wide-ranging portfolio of preclinical and clinical therapeutic candidates targeting COVID-19, including new and emerging variants of concern of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Under the terms of the agreement, Sorrento has an exclusive option to exclusively license patents covering the MPro inhibitor drug candidates.

Discovered and developed by Dr. Wenshe Ray Liu and his research team at Texas A&M University, the MPro inhibitors have demonstrated strong cellular antiviral potency against SARS-CoV-2 in preclinical studies. Several MPro inhibitors were identified that exhibited antiviral effects against diverse SARS-CoV-2 variants, including Indian (Delta), UK (Alpha), Brazilian (Beta) and South Africa (Gamma) variants of concern. The potential advantage of using small molecules, in oral and/or intravenous administration, that target MPro is that they are not affected by mutations in the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, which may enable MPro drugs to be effective against SARS-CoV-2 and its variants of concern (VOCs), as well as against other coronaviruses that currently exist or might emerge in the future.

Story continues

MPro is a SARS-CoV-2 enzyme that catalyzes the formation of a number of essential proteins for the viral reproduction. MPro inhibitors block this catalytic process to inhibit the viral replication in human cell hosts achieving the eradication of the virus, according to Dr. Liu.

We are excited to be collaborating with Dr. Liu and his team at Texas A&M and look forward to advancing the development of these novel drug candidates to address COVID-19, and a multitude of other respiratory viruses, stated Dr. Henry Ji, Chairman and CEO of Sorrento. This agreement further strengthens our dynamic COVID-19 product portfolio and is well aligned with our overall strategic plan to combat COVID-19 through a combination of potent small molecules and antibodies, cellular therapies and vaccines.

Sorrento may exercise its right to enter into a worldwide exclusive license agreement at any time during the option period.

About Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc.

Sorrento is a clinical stage, antibody-centric, biopharmaceutical company developing new therapies to treat cancers and COVID-19. Sorrento's multimodal, multipronged approach to fighting cancer is made possible by its extensive immuno-oncology platforms, including key assets such as fully human antibodies (G-MAB library), clinical stage immuno-cellular therapies (CAR-T, DAR-T), antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs), and clinical stage oncolytic virus (Seprehvir). Sorrento is also developing potential antiviral therapies and vaccines against coronaviruses, including COVIGUARD, COVI-AMG, COVISHIELD, Gene-MAb, COVI-MSC and COVIDROPS; and diagnostic test solutions, including COVITRACK, COVISTIX and COVITRACE.

Sorrento's commitment to life-enhancing therapies for patients is also demonstrated by our effort to advance a first-in-class (TRPV1 agonist) non-opioid pain management small molecule, resiniferatoxin (RTX), and SP-102 (10 mg, dexamethasone sodium phosphate viscous gel) (SEMDEXA), a novel, viscous gel formulation of a widely used corticosteroid for epidural injections to treat lumbosacral radicular pain, or sciatica, and to commercialize ZTlido (lidocaine topical system) 1.8% for the treatment of post-herpetic neuralgia. RTX has completed a Phase IB trial for intractable pain associated with cancer and a Phase 1B trial in osteoarthritis patients. SEMDEXA is in a pivotal Phase 3 trial for the treatment of lumbosacral radicular pain, or sciatica. ZTlido was approved by the FDA on February 28, 2018.

For more information visit http://www.sorrentotherapeutics.com.

Forward-Looking Statements

This press release and any statements made for and during any presentation or meeting contain forward-looking statements related to Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc., under the safe harbor provisions of Section 21E of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those projected. Forward-looking statements include statements regarding Sorrentos pipeline and plans with respect to its preclinical and clinical COVID-19 programs, including the MPro inhibitors to which Sorrento has certain exclusive license option rights; the antiviral properties of these MPro inhibitors, including MPI8, and the potential advantage the MPro inhibitors offer against SARS-CoV-2, its variants of concern and other coronaviruses; Sorrentos plans to develop the MPro inhibitors to address COVID-19 and other respiratory viruses; and Sorrentos strategic plan to address COVID-19 with a combination of treatments and therapies, including small molecules and antibodies, cellular therapies and vaccines. Risks and uncertainties that could cause our actual results to differ materially and adversely from those expressed in our forward-looking statements, include, but are not limited to: risks related to Sorrento's technologies and prospects, including, but not limited to risks related to seeking regulatory approval for MPro inhibitors against SARS-CoV-2, its variants of concern and other respiratory viruses; clinical development risks, including risks in the progress, timing, cost, and results of clinical trials and product development programs; risk of difficulties or delays in obtaining regulatory approvals; risks that clinical study results may not meet any or all endpoints of a clinical study and that any data generated from such studies may not support a regulatory submission or approval; risks that prior test, study and trial results may not be replicated in future studies and trials; risks of manufacturing and supplying drug product; risks related to leveraging the expertise of its employees, subsidiaries, affiliates and partners to assist Sorrento in the execution of its therapeutic antibody product candidate strategies; risks related to the global impact of COVID-19; and other risks that are described in Sorrento's most recent periodic reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including Sorrento's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2020, and subsequent Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including the risk factors set forth in those filings. Investors are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date of this release and we undertake no obligation to update any forward-looking statement in this press release except as required by law.

Media and Investor Relations ContactAlexis Nahama, DVM (SVP Corporate Development)Email: mediarelations@sorrentotherapeutics.com

Sorrento and the Sorrento logo are registered trademarks of Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc.

G-MAB, DAR-T, SOFUSA, COVIGUARD, COVI-AMG, COVISHIELD, Gene-MAb, COVIDROPS, COVI-MSC, COVITRACK, COVITRACE and COVISTIX are trademarks of Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc.

SEMDEXA is a trademark of Semnur Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

ZTlido is a registered trademark owned by Scilex Pharmaceuticals Inc.

All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.

2021 Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Here is the original post:
Sorrento Therapeutics Announces Entry Into Option Agreement to Exclusively License MPRO Inhibitors Against SARS-CoV-2 and Variants of Concern,...

Strip away modernity. Unlearn everything you know about the complexity of your average day. The ordinary interaction, the workaday worries, the pinging of your phone, the relentless roll of the inbox. You are left with the human condition. Our most basic needs, as the American psychologist Abraham Maslow noted, are the physiological needs: food and water, sufficient rest, clothing, shelter, health and reproduction.

In Australia and much of the developed world, we often forget that food and water are central to the human story. Food is so plentiful, so present, it is not even secondary.

Yet in 2020, when we saw the shelves stripped empty in a Covid panic, how quickly the instinct to protect those basic needs kicked in. Those of us in developed countries were transported back through history, to the many moments of scarcity, as if living past lives or responding to genetic memories. In a flash, the basics became important. The impermanence of gathering food was underlined.

Although I am primarily a journalist, I have been living alongside food production for 25 years since I moved to a sheep and wheat farm. As I moved my political journalism away from insider reporting to outsider rural coverage, I was alerted to fractures in the farming system that are becoming clear after decades of economic reforms.

How food is grown and where it comes from are choices for every individual and country to make.

Think about how this currently happens in Australia. At its most basic, farmers use soil and water to grow crops and raise animals. In the act of growing, farmers must look after landscapes. Australian farmers manage up to 60% of the countrys land mass and account for up to 70% of its diverted fresh-water extractions. So we all have a stake in farmers doing their job well.

But it is not only that. Farmers are at the interface of the worlds most wicked problems.

Farming both contributes to and is endangered by the biggest existential threats of our time: climate change, water shortages, soil loss, energy production, natural disasters, zoonotic diseases, population displacement and geopolitical trade wars.

In the face of such pressure, there is a barrage of contradictory policies around food growing, and no Australian political party is doing serious thinking about how to knit together food, farming and environmental policies to continue feeding the population while mitigating climate change and biodiversity loss.

Here are some messages farmers receive from governments and consumers.

We want clean, green food to feed the world. We want scale because we want cheap food. We want family farmers. We want the mums and dads. We want big global capital. We want lots to export to help our balance of payments. We want resilience. We want farmers to stand on their own two feet. We want to pay no subsidies. We want farming to be like any other business. We want farmers to use the latest technology for productivity. We want them to look after the environment. We want farmers to look after native habitat for declining species. And now we want them to sequester carbon to turn around both their own emissions and some of the rest of the populations emissions. I think that just about covers it.

It is a lot to get your head around, so here are three things to ponder as we reimagine Australia in the pandemic world.

Firstly, the only way most farmers currently get a pay rise is to make cheap food cheaper. Australia is one of only eight countries where households spend less than 10% of their income on food.

Farmers are paid on yield. Pushed by governments under the deregulation agenda, farmers largely traded the market power of compulsory trading desks and cooperatives for greater freedom to manage their own affairs. This has left them on a productivity treadmill that requires farmers to grow more with less.

The rules of the economy, the policies laid down by our governments, are set on one goal only: farmer economicus maximising economic profit as a food producer. Those are the only signals food producers get right now, and a farmer needs to feed their family.

Secondly, expectations are rising that all land managers look after the environment.

Global food processors want food production that meets their Environment, Social and Governance requirements. A cohort of eaters want to know their food is grown without harming the environment. They want to know animal welfare practice is sound. Global governments need to meet their climate change commitments.

But the simple truth is the food price does not account for the environmental costs and, sometimes, the labour costs in the modern farming system. We have seen this labour shortage play out in the pandemic. Australia farmers are some of the least subsidised food growers in the world.

As a result of these pressures, global governments have starting paying farmers for environmental services to meet their commitments and ensure farmers have an adequate income source. This will require strong environmental accounting of natural systems to ensure farmers are making verifiable improvements.

By 2028, for example, the United Kingdom is phasing out the 1.6bn subsidy farmers receive every year for owning or renting land. Instead the funds will pay farmers to restore wild habitats, create new woodlands, boost soils and cut pesticide use.

This will change the economic signals away from production and towards restoration and regeneration of the landscape. Agriculture minister David Littleproud is working with the Australian National University on a biodiversity package, announced in this years budget, to verify environmental improvements in return for payments. This is a heartening policy development but we can only watch this space.

In Australia, Indigenous farmers, custodians and land managers need parity on this count too. Already some Indigenous managers are paid for cool burning and ranger programs. These could be expanded if we are to change the way we think about this as a revolution for land management.

Thirdly, the shift is away from small to mid sized family farms towards niche producers on one end and large agribusiness in the form of global companies or large family businesses. Big corporates can access cheaper finance and bulk buying outside the regions. This is causing the great hollowing out of farming and rural communities.

High-revenue farms now account for one fifth of the broadacre population but two thirds of land, income and output, according to the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences. In 2021, a Weekly Times investigation found the top three Australian landowners by value were the Canadian Public Sector Pension Investment Board, Macquarie Agriculture (as in the bank) and the New York based pension fund Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America.

A 2021 Guardian Australia investigation of pastoral-lease data found the person who held the most land was Western Australian mining magnate Gina Rinehart. She controls 9.2m hectares, or 1.2%, of Australias land mass, through three different corporate entities. Corporate interests are bullish and larger family farms are buying out the neighbours.

Here is the bottom line. In the face of tectonic shifts in economic, environmental and social systems, government policy to promote economically and environmentally diverse, robust food and farming systems remains contradictory at best. Silent at worst.

Meanwhile, our communities and landscapes warp and change. Single farm failures are often put down to useless management, lack of scale, bad seasons and bad luck. You were not nimble enough for the marketing demands. You were not big enough at 500 hectares. You were not fast enough to buy the temporary water. Those high jumps keep creeping up. You are not big enough at 5000 hectares. You were not nimble enough to do the future trades. You didnt have the nous to do the water trades. You dont have the technology to shave your production costs.

Right now, the water market is designed to favour high return products. Currently that is nuts. So do we say to whole food-growing industries, sorry, dairy farmers, you werent nimble enough. Milk doesnt earn enough. Sorry, wine grape growers, almonds make more money. Sorry, rice growers, we will buy from Vietnam (until they turn off the tap in a pandemic as they did in 2020). Eventually 90,000 farm businesses may drop down to 9000. Or even 900. Just as the supermarkets have settled into a duopoly over my lifetime. Thats how it works. We turn around one day and the landscape has changed.

The good news is that Australians have created a lot of innovative natural resource management programs, which have brought together formerly warring tribes like the green movement and the farmer groups. The bad news is that in the past decades, small-minded political parties have thrown out many policy programs because they were implemented by the opposite side of politics.

We have killed more clever policy institutes than Ive had hot breakfasts: the National Water Commission, Land and Water Australia and the National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility, to name a few. All were doing good work to try to synthesise and build the foundations for some connected food and farming policy solutions for managing our very tricky and ancient land mass.

We dont back good ideas for the long term and then we wonder why evidence-based policies dont work.

We are bright enough to reimagine an interconnected system that rewards economic diversity in farming that produces healthy food and landscapes. We just need to start connecting the dots.

See the original post here:
Farmers manage more than half of Australia. We all have a stake in them getting it right - The Guardian

Notre Dame Law Professor O. CarterSneadwas quoted last week in a major decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in a case upholding a Texas ban on a second-trimester abortion procedure. The procedure, officially named dilation and extraction,is referred to as live dismemberment in the challenged Texas statute.

The decision in the case, Whole Womans Health v. Ken Paxton, was issuedAugust 18.

Judge James C. Ho quoted Professor Snead in the concurring opinion.

Someday, scientists may look back on todays abortion debates as shocking and barbaric just as we look back in disbelief at those who ridiculed and ostracized proponents of handwashing and sterilizing surgical instruments to prevent disease and infection, Judge Ho wrote.

Indeed, many have that view today. According to CarterSnead, one of the nations leading scholars on public bioethics and an expert witness in this case, 132 countries out of 194 that I looked at ban abortion outright, at all gestational stages, with certain exceptions defined by law,while 178 countries generally ban abortion after a gestational age of 12 weeks. So 92 percent of all countries presumptively ban abortions at 12 weeks or less.

Texas does not ban abortion until 22 weeks, the judge concluded. So Texas law is not only valid under the Constitution and Supreme Court precedent its also more permissive than the overwhelming majority of laws around the world.

Snead, who also directs the University of Notre Dames de Nicola Center for Ethics and Culture,is one of the worlds leading experts on public bioethics the governance of science, medicine, and biotechnology in the name of ethical goods. His research explores issues relating to neuroethics, enhancement, human embryo research, assisted reproduction, abortion, and end-of-life decision-making.

In 2018, he and Notre Dame Law School graduate Laura Wolk 16 J.D. co-authored an article on this case for the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy titled, Irreconcilable Differences? Whole Womans Health, Gonzales, and Justice Kennedys Vision of American Abortion Jurisprudence.

Continue reading here:
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit quotes Professor O. Carter Snead in major decision | The Law School | University of Notre Dame - Notre...

By Ryan P. Smith Associate Professor of Urology, University of Virginia for The Conversation

In the U.S., nearly 1 in 8 couples struggles with infertility. Unfortunately, physicians like me who specialize in reproductive medicine are unable to determine the cause of male infertility around 30% to 50% of the time. There is almost nothing more disheartening than telling a couple I dont know or Theres nothing I can do to help.

Upon getting this news, couple after couple asks me questions that all follow a similar line of thinking. What about his work, his cellphone, our laptops, all these plastics? Do you think they could have contributed to this?

What my patients are really asking me is a big question in male reproductive health: Does environmental toxicity contribute to male infertility?

Infertility is defined as a couples inability to get pregnant for one year despite regular intercourse. When this is the case, doctors evaluate both partners to determine why.

For men, the cornerstone of the fertility evaluation is semen analysis, and there are a number of ways to assess sperm. Sperm count the total number of sperm a man produces and sperm concentration number of sperm per milliliter of semen are common measures, but they arent the best predictors of fertility. A more accurate measure looks at the total motile sperm count, which evaluates the fraction of sperm that are able to swim and move.

A wide range of factors from obesity to hormonal imbalances to genetic diseases can affect fertility. For many men, there are treatments that can help. But starting in the 1990s, researchers noticed a concerning trend. Even when controlling for many of the known risk factors, male fertility appeared to have been declining for decades.

In 1992, a study found a global 50% decline in sperm counts in men over the previous 60 years. Multiple studies over subsequent years confirmed that initial finding, including a 2017 paper showing a 50% to 60% decline in sperm concentration between 1973 and 2011 in men from around the world.

These studies, though important, focused on sperm concentration or total sperm count. So in 2019, a team of researchers decided to focus on the more powerful total motile sperm count. They found that the proportion of men with a normal total motile sperm count had declined by approximately 10% over the previous 16 years.

The science is consistent: Men today produce fewer sperm than in the past, and the sperm are less healthy. The question, then, is what could be causing this decline in fertility.

Scientists have known for years that, at least in animal models, environmental toxic exposure can alter hormonal balance and throw off reproduction. Researchers cant intentionally expose human patients to harmful compounds and measure outcomes, but we can try to assess associations.

As the downward trend in male fertility emerged, I and other researchers began looking more toward chemicals in the environment for answers. This approach doesnt allow us to definitively establish which chemicals are causing the male fertility decline, but the weight of the evidence is growing.

A lot of this research focuses on endocrine disrupters, molecules that mimic the bodys hormones and throw off the fragile hormonal balance of reproduction. These include substances like phthalates better known as plasticizers as well as pesticides, herbicides, heavy metals, toxic gases and other synthetic materials.

Plasticizers are found in most plastics like water bottles and food containers and exposure is associated with negative impacts on testosterone and semen health. Herbicides and pesticides abound in the food supply and some specifically those with synthetic organic compounds that include phosphorus are known to negatively affect fertility.

Air pollution surrounds cities, subjecting residents to particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and other compounds that likely contribute to abnormal sperm quality. Radiation exposure from laptops, cellphones and modems has also been associated with declining sperm counts, impaired sperm motility and abnormal sperm shape. Heavy metals such as cadmium, lead and arsenic are also present in food, water and cosmetics and are also known to harm sperm health.

Endocrine-disrupting compounds and the infertility problems they cause are taking a significant toll on human physical and emotional health. And treating these harms is costly.

A lot of chemicals are in use today, and tracking them all is incredibly difficult. More than 80,000 chemicals are registered in the U.S. and nearly 2,000 new chemicals are introduced each year. Many scientists believe that the safety testing for health and environmental risks is not strong enough and that the rapid development and introduction of new chemicals challenges the ability of organizations to test long-term risks to human health.

Current U.S. regulations follow the principle of innocent until proved guilty and are less comprehensive and restrictive than similar regulations in Europe, for example. The World Health Organization recently identified 800 compounds capable of disrupting hormones, only a small fraction of which have been tested.

A trade group, the American Chemistry Council, says on its website that manufacturers have the regulatory certainty they need to innovate, grow, create jobs and win in the global marketplace at the same time that public health and the environment benefit from strong risk-based protections.

But the reality of the current regulatory system in the U.S. is that chemicals are introduced with minimal testing and taken off the market only when harm is proved. And that can take decades.

Dr. Niels Skakkebaek, the lead researcher on one of the first manuscripts on decreasing sperm counts, called the male fertility decline a wake-up call to all of us. My patients have provided a wakeup call for me that increased public awareness and advocacy are important to protect global reproductive health now and in the future. Im not a toxicologist and cant identify the cause of the infertility trends Im seeing, but as physician, I am concerned that too much of the burden of proof is falling on the human body and people who become my patients.

See more here:
Male fertility is declining studies show that environmental toxins could be a reason - North Carolina Health News