Human Rights Watch Assailed by Founder

In an op-ed entitled "Rights Watchdog, Lost in the Mideast" in today's New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/20/opinion/20bernstein.html), Robert Bernstein, the founder of Human Rights Watch and the former CEO of Random House, assails Human Rights Watch for discrimination against Israel:

"As the founder of Human Rights Watch, its active chairman for 20 years and now founding chairman emeritus, I must do something that I never anticipated: I must publicly join the group’s critics. Human Rights Watch had as its original mission to pry open closed societies, advocate basic freedoms and support dissenters. But recently it has been issuing reports on the Israeli-Arab conflict that are helping those who wish to turn Israel into a pariah state."

I commend Mr. Bernstein for this courageous stand, but to what does he attribute the behavior of Human Rights Watch?

Is it because Human Rights Watch is following the lead of the Obama Administration, which, as observed by The Washington Post, only pressures Israel, while cuddling up to tyrannies?

Is it because it is easier for Human Rights Watch to work out of Israel, where freedom of speech is ensured?

Is it because an anti-Israel attitude brings funding?

Or is because anti-Semitism, which has reared its ugly head again during a global economic recession, is again in fashion?

Blacklisted by The New York Times and Unable to Respond to Roger Cohen

The New York Times today published an op-ed, "An Ordinary Israel", by Roger Cohen, in which he concludes:

"The Middle East has changed. So must Israel. 'Never again' is a necessary but altogether inadequate way of dealing with the modern world."

The New York Times is no longer accepting my online comments; however, I did send the following e-mail to a Times editor:

Dear ____________,

I see that Roger Cohen, writing from NY (I don't remember when he was last in Israel), has written an op-ed about Israel. Peculiar how, when Cohen opines about Iran, France, Germany or Turkey, he writes from that country, but that's not the case with Israel.

I would submit an online comment in response, but as you might know, following the rejection of a recent comment that I submitted, which, inter alia, highlighted Cohen's failure to write about the persecution of Iran's Baha'is, all of my comments have been "rejected" by The Times. I am no longer being "censored" by The Times; it would appear that I am now being "blacklisted", i.e. anything bearing my URL is automatically trashed no matter how innocuous.

I don't want to trouble you any further: this is not my newspaper, and I understand that there are those at The Times who were annoyed by my requests

- to deal with the rabid anti-Semitism that found its way into The Times' online comments,
- to examine issues of journalistic ethics concerning Cohen's "What Iran's Jews Say",
- to study the implications of the title of Cohen's "Obama in Netanyahu's Web",
- to report the persecution of Iran's Baha'is,
- to consider how a less than veiled threat to a former U.S. vice president contained in an online comment was permitted by a Times "moderator".

The promise of the Public Editor's Office to report back to me concerning issues of journalistic ethics vis-à-vis Cohen's "What Iran's Jews Say" was not honored. In addition, Public Editor Clark Hoyt in an e-mail to me dismissed the issue of anti-Semitic online comments by noting that ultimately, following my correspondence with you (Hoyt had not acted on the protests that I addressed to him), certain comments had been removed months after their publication.

Sure I've been a pest. But would you have preferred that I not alert you, for example, to the rabid anti-Semitism in New York Times online comments or the threat to the former vice president?

Cohen's op-ed of today's date is offensive. Why? The situation in Israel is indeed "exceptional". Let's ignore the potential Iranian nuclear threat and just look to Lebanon: Notwithstanding the UN resolution banning the rearmament of Hezbollah, this organization has been provided by Iran and Syria over the past three years with 40,000 short, medium and long-range missiles, all aimed at Israel. Will Iran ultimately give instructions to its Lebanese surrogate to pull the trigger? You know the answer.

Best,
Jeffrey

Monoclonal Antibodies (mAbs) for Dummies Like Myself

Although the pharmaceutical industry as a whole is suffering from depleted pipelines, patent expiries and stiff competition from manufacturers of generics, the market for monoclonal antibodies has expanded dramatically in recent years. Monoclonal antibody drugs, which primarily target cancer and autoimmune disorders, had total sales of nearly $32bn in 2008 and today amount to more than 30% of the global biologic drug market.

Compugen yesterday announced that it is providing Bayer Schering Pharma, one of the world's largest pharma companies, with an option for a worldwide exclusive license to monoclonal antibody and other therapeutics targeting a specific oncology target and its splice variants. Given that monoclonal antibody therapeutics comprise such a fast growing segment of the pharmaceutical industry and given their relatively high levels of success after entering human clinical trials, this sounds impressive, but what are monoclonal antibody therapeutics? How are they capable of making cancer cells more visible to our immune systems, blocking undesired growth signals, and in some instances delivering radiation and drugs to cancer cells?

We all know that antibodies are proteins found in blood and used by our immune systems to identify and neutralize foreign objects, such as bacteria and viruses, i.e. "antigens". Although most of the structure of these "Y"-shaped antibodies is similar, one of its tips is variable, allowing antibodies to bind to millions of different, extremely specific antigens. Recognition of an antigen by an antibody tags it for destruction by other components of the immune system.

Given that antibodies bind to antigens, why don't our antibodies attack our cancer cells? This is because our antibodies do not perceive our cancer cells as foreign. Imagine, however, the advantages if we could create antibodies that would bind only with cancer cells while causing limited collateral damage to healthy cells. This is in fact the conundrum with which scientists have successfully wrestled over the past decades, resulting in the creation of monoclonal antibodies and the award of no small number of Nobel Prizes.

What is the recipe for monoclonal antibodies? In a nutshell, a laboratory mouse is injected with the human antigen target, and the mouse, which identifies the human antigen as foreign, begins to produce antibodies targeting this antigen. Spleen cells from the mouse, producing the desired antibodies, are then removed and fused with tumor cells ("myelomas") that replicate endlessly. The result of this cell fusion, no small fete in and of itself, is called a "hybridoma" and is the factory for production of identical "monoclonal", i.e. coming from only one kind of cell, antibodies.

End of story? No. When injected into humans to bind to the desired antigen, mouse antibodies are perceived by the human immune system as foreign, thus giving rise to "HAMA" (human anti-mouse antibodies), which can quickly eliminate the desired therapeutic antibodies from our bodies and cause immune responses that damage our kidneys. In response, using genetic engineering wizardry, "murine" (mice or rat) components of the monoclonal antibody, other than the tip that binds to the target antigen, have been replaced with human components, creating longer lasting, better tolerated therapeutics: "chimeric" (65% human) and "humanized" (95% human) antibodies. In addition, transgenic technology has been used to provide mice with human antibody genes, creating "fully human" antibodies.

Where does Compugen fit into this picture? Compugen's expertise is not in genetic engineering, but rather in target discovery; without mAb targets, there can be no mAb therapeutics. Moreover, as succinctly observed in Compugen's press release concerning the deal with Bayer:

"Like the known cancer target, this protein molecule and its variants are all trans-membrane proteins. However, each of the Compugen molecules has a unique sequence at the extracellular domain of the protein that enables the development of monoclonal antibodies specific to each of the respective splice variants.

Therefore each splice variant could represent a novel target for monoclonal antibody therapy. A common feature of Compugen's discovery platforms, such as the mAb Targets Discovery Platform used in this discovery, is the ability to predict and select multiple potential product candidates for each indication of interest.

The availability of multiple candidates, in this case a number of different splice variants, should increase the probability of success for the overall program."

[As noted in a prior blog entry, I am a Compugen shareholder, this blog entry is not a recommendation to buy or sell Compugen shares, and in mid-September 2009 I began work as a part-time external consultant to Compugen. The opinions expressed herein are mine and not necessarily those of Compugen.]

An Obsequious New York Times Lauds Nobel Award to Obama

The New York Times, in an editorial entitled "The Peace Prize", lauds the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to Obama. The Times notes:

"There cannot have been unbridled joy in the White House early Friday. Mr. Obama’s aides had to expect a barrage of churlish reaction, and they got it. The left denounced the Nobel committee for giving the prize to a wartime president. The right proclaimed that Mr. Obama sold out the United States by engaging in diplomacy."

I am curious how The Times perceives itself. The Times is certainly not right wing, but do they really delude themselves into believing that their world view and "culture" are middle-of-the-road?

My online response to this editorial, which was censored, as were my prior unrelated online comments:

I am planning an epic, 1,000-page novel, intended to be a best seller on all continents, which will address poverty, education, war, famine, global warming, racism and universal health care. I started writing two weeks ago, and my agent is voicing optimism. Would someone care to submit my nomination to the committee for the Nobel Prize for literature?

The Times has a special relationship with Obama. Although The Times initially endorsed Hillary during the Democratic primaries, when the Obama candidacy became viable, it was patently obvious whom their editorial board and many of their op-ed writers were supporting. My online comments, critical of Obama, in response to idolatry op-eds, were not infrequently censored.

The Times, not surprisingly, was quick to come to Obama's defense when his foreign policy was criticized by The Washington Post, and shortly thereafter The Times was chosen by Obama as the vehicle for the publication of an op-ed written by him or, more likely, by someone on his behalf.

Similarly, it is not at all surprising how The Times editorial board has now sought to rationalize away the award of the Nobel Peace Prize.

There needs to be a "tension" between the press and the executive branch of a democracy, and newspapers should avoid being perceived as the "official organs" of political parties. Sure, The Times has its token conservative op-ed writers, but it nevertheless should examine the umbilical cord still extending to the Obama administration, notwithstanding the fact that Obama is already president for more than the ordinary gestation period of nine months. Meanwhile, praise of Obama's Nobel Prize served to cheapen whatever remains of our world and probably amounted to another step by this newspaper in its path to self-destruction.

Hillary to Run Against Obama in 2012, But Meanwhile "Out of Sight, Out of Mind"

It is commonly said, "Out of sight, out of mind." However, one also often hears "Absence makes the heart grown fonder." Which of these two contrary truisms best characterizes Obama's attitude toward Hillary? Clearly the former: Obama prefers to keep her "Out of sight, out of mind" vis-à-vis the general electorate.

While Obama wrestles this week with his generals' demands for higher troop levels in Afghanistan, Hillary is off on a whirlwind magical mystery tour, which, inter alia, includes a visit to Kazan, Russia, to discuss interfaith cooperation, and to watch a signing ceremony in Zurich, marking the normalization of relations between Turkey and Armenia following Armenian occupation of Nagorno-Karabakh some 16 years ago. What could possibly be more important? Certainly not U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan.

Will Hillary run against Obama in 2012 if she senses that he's vulnerable? Count on it. She won't forget this trip to Kazan anytime soon.

But will Obama be vulnerable in 2012? It's still early, but Americans are getting wise to him, and Axelrod knows it. Note the recent skit on Saturday Night Live.

Note also that although his approval ratings, after plummeting, have now stabilized, it was recently reported that among U.S. Jews, who were some of his staunchest supporters, his approval ratings have fallen dramatically (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1119449.html). Response: Blame Israeli incitement (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1119819.html). Obama is still busy doing what he does best, i.e. campaigning, rather than governing.

The Nobel Peace Prize after ten months of accomplishing nothing? The award's prestige has been immeasurably cheapened. However, I am very much in favor of nominating Obama for the "Best Actor" Oscar in 2010. He hasn't yet appeared in a movie? Why should that possibly matter given his innate talent and potential?

My bet: In 2012 the U.S. electorate, after being smacked in the face by reality, will be asked to chose between two additional conflicting truisms: "Turn the other cheek", or, "Slap me once, shame on you; slap me twice, shame on me."

Obama and the Demise of U.S. Foreign Policy

There are those starry-eyed admirers of Obama, e.g., Frank Rich, who would compare the current U.S. president with John Kennedy. Regrettably, thus far the more apt comparison is with Ryan Seacrest of American Idol fame.

In 1962 45-year-old John Kennedy faced down Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev without a posse of European leaders, and forced Khrushchev, shame-facedly, to remove the missiles from Cuba. Kennedy never once blinked.

Forty-seven years fast forward: 48-year-old Barack Obama gives Iran until September to curtail its nuclear weapons development program. September comes and goes, a secret Iranian nuclear development site is revealed in the mountains near the holy city of Qom, and Obama, formerly intent upon charming Ahmadinejad, declares with the consensus of friends from France and England, that Iran had best toe the line, or sanctions will soon follow. Yet another line has been drawn in the sand, or, as we would say as children, "Now I double dare you!"

Afghanistan: Faced with demands from his generals for additional soldiers, yet subject to the doubts of a war-weary American public, Obama chooses the middle ground and opts to maintain current U.S. troop levels. However, this is the one course of action that guarantees failure. You can gamble on a "surge-like operation", or, you can choose to cut your losses, but to maintain the status quo is to behave like a person who can never decide, to mix coffee and tea at the end of your meal.

Appeasement of enemies in the space of some nine months: Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, to name a few.

Antagonism of longstanding friends: Japan, South Korea, Honduras, Israel.

So which is it? "The Audacity of Hope" or, "The Mendacity of Grope"? Thus far we have witnessed the performance of a teleprompter orator, not a leader.

The New York Times: Further "Insensitivity" to Jews and Judaism

Earlier this year, I wrote a blog entry concerning Roger Cohen's May 28 New York Times op-ed, "Obama in Netanyahu's Web", in which I concluded:

"Finally, a word about the title of this op-ed, 'Obama in Netanyahu's Web', which will necessarily inflame anti-Semitism on the web. I didn't vote for Netanyahu, but he is not an ugly, venomous spider. Rather, he is ardent in his determination to prevent a second Holocaust, and although I do not share all his views, I share his existential concerns. Moreover, Netanyahu and his family have demonstrated dedication and courage of a kind beyond anything that the itinerant and fanciful Roger Cohen could ever hope to fathom."

I also wrote to various senior editors of The New York Times and explained, with pictures, that there is a long anti-Semitic history of depicting Jews as voracious spiders, e.g. a man-eating spider with a Star of David from the Nazi tabloid Der Sturmer.

In fact, The European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia issued a "working definition of antisemitism", which includes:

"Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism".

The New York Times ultimately agreed with me: This "was not a good headline", but it was too late to make changes.

Roger Cohen's op-ed, "The Miracle of Dullness", was published by The New York Times on September 23, 2009, during what Jews call "the days of awe" or "the ten days of repentance", the days between Rosh Hashana (New Years Day) and Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement), when Jews engage in introspection and ask for forgiveness from those they have wronged. In this op-ed about Germany, seemingly without any connection whatsoever to Israel, Cohen suddenly inserted the following language:

"The demon [italics added] of instability, German-prodded, moved to the Middle East, where another modern nation state, Israel, in turn upended the order of things. Perhaps after 74 years (1871-1945), we will see glimmerings of a new, more peaceful regional order there."

The period 1871-1945 obviously includes the Nazi era, and the thinly disguised comparison with the militaristic Germany, including Nazi Germany, is unmistakable.

The European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia's "working definition of antisemitism" also includes, inter alia:

"Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing [italics added], or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective", and

"Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis."

Even if Cohen's op-ed, "The Miracle of Dullness", avoided falling within the EUMC's "working definition of antisemitism", I nevertheless found it offensive and again complained to The Times' editors, but this time there was no answer. My online comment in response to Cohen's subsequent op-ed, "The U.S.-Iranian Triangle", was censored (see my prior blog entry), as was an innocuous online comment in response to a later David Brooks op-ed, and it seems that I have been blacklisted by The Times.

Is Roger Cohen to blame for this ongoing proliferation of hatred? No, this is what he thinks, and this is not about to change. Ultimately the management of The New York Times must take responsibility for what it publishes.

[Concerning the past posting of rabid, anti-Semitic, online comments in response to New York Times op-eds, notwithstanding review by so-called New York Times "moderators", see:
"Why Is Antisemitism Permitted in Online Comments "Moderated" by The Times? Open Letter No. 2 to Clark Hoyt, Public Editor of The New York Times",
http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2009/06/open-letter-no-2-to-clark-hoyt-public.html
and "Clark Hoyt Responds; Has The New York Times Filed for Moral Bankruptcy?",
http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2009/06/clark-hoyt-responds-has-new-york-times.html]