AIDS/LifeCycle's final ride: Thousands hit road in Bay Area, ending 3 decades of fundraising
Cyclists will travel 545 miles over seven days from the Cow Palace in Daly City to Santa Monica.
'We want to make HIV-AIDS a thing of the past,' said Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said Sunday before setting off for the first leg of the ride to Santa Cruz. 'I'm excited to suit up.'
Each day, riders bike anywhere from 43 to 112 miles. Each cyclist raised at least $3,500 from friends, family and the community to support HIV and AIDS programs and services overseen by the San Francisco AIDS Foundation and the Los Angeles LGBT Center.
'I can't think of a better way to honor those that we have lost and also to join the fight against HIV and AIDS,' said Brian Stewart, 32, a political strategist from Los Angeles readying for his inaugural ride. 'I'm really, really excited.'
At least 800 volunteers known as 'roadies' turned out to help direct riders, provide medical services to the injured, serve meals and drive cyclists' gear from stop to stop.
After the COVID shutdown in 2020, participation in the ride declined and the cost of fundraising rose, prompting organizers to end the annual event, which began in 1994. Over the years, the ride raised a total of more than $300 million.This year, the ride raised $17.2 million, the highest total after 2022.
'Now more than ever, these funds are critical so we can respond to the needs of our communities, particularly when funding for HIV, DEI and transgender communities are under attack,' said Tyler TerMeer, CEO of the San Francisco AIDS Foundation, who has participated as a cyclist and organizer in the ride for 17 years.
'It's bittersweet that it's the last ride,' said Laura Chung, 39, a nurse at Kaiser Hospital embarking on her second ride. 'But they'll create something new.'
Next year, a three-day cycling event will take riders from San Francisco to Sonoma and back. Then in 2027, the Big Gay 10K footrace will take place in San Francisco.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
17 minutes ago
- Axios
Arizona COVID test positivity tops 11% as new variant spreads
Arizona is among the 12 states seeing higher positivity rates for COVID-19 tests compared to the rest of the country, according to new data from the CDC. Why it matters: Positivity rates are popping off as the "stratus" variant surges throughout the country. Summer outbreaks of COVID aren't surprising, especially as many children head back to school. But this recent wave comes as Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. unilaterally changed federal COVID vaccine recommendations. Driving the news: The CDC updated its regional data for COVID-19 test positivity on Monday — accountin for the week ending Aug. 2. Zoom in: The states with the highest COVID test positivity are New Mexico (12%), Texas (12%), Oklahoma (12%) Arkansas (12%), Louisiana (12%), Nevada (11.3%), Arizona (11.3%), California (11.3%), Alaska (11.1%), Washington (11.1%), Oregon (11.1%) and Idaho (11.1%). Worth noting: The rest of the country's test positivity rate sits between 5% to 9.9%. The big picture: Overall, the CDC reports that the COVID-19 trend is "growing," with 45 states experiencing a case increase. No state experienced a decline in cases as of Aug. 5, per the CDC. Context: The rise in COVID-19 cases amid an uptick in cases of the XFG "stratus" variant.
Atlantic
2 hours ago
- Atlantic
COVID Revenge Is Supercharging the Anti-Vaccine Agenda
Four and a half years ago, fresh off the success of Operation Warp Speed, mRNA vaccines were widely considered—as President Donald Trump said in December 2020 —a 'medical miracle.' Last week, the United States government decidedly reversed that stance when Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. canceled nearly half a billion dollars' worth of grants and contracts for mRNA-vaccine research. With Kennedy leading HHS, this about-face is easy to parse as yet another anti-vaccine move. But the assault on mRNA is also proof of another kind of animus: the COVID-revenge campaign that top officials in this administration have been pursuing for months, attacking the policies, technologies, and people that defined the U.S.'s pandemic response. As the immediacy of the COVID crisis receded, public anger about the American response to it took deeper root—perhaps most prominently among some critics who are now Trump appointees. That acrimony has become an essential tool in Kennedy's efforts to undermine vaccines. 'It is leverage,' Dorit Reiss, a vaccine-law expert at UC Law San Francisco, told me. 'It is a way to justify doing things that he wouldn't be able to get away with otherwise.' COVID revenge has defined the second Trump administration's health policy from the beginning. Kennedy and his allies have ousted prominent HHS officials who played key roles in the development of COVID policy, as well as scientists at the National Institutes of Health, including close colleagues of Anthony Fauci, the former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (and, according to Trump, an idiot and a 'disaster'). In June, Kennedy dismissed every member of the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), which has helped shape COVID-vaccine recommendations, and handpicked replacements for them. HHS and ACIP are now stacked with COVID contrarians who have repeatedly criticized COVID policies and minimized the benefits of vaccines. Under pressure from Trump officials, the NIH has terminated funding for hundreds of COVID-related grants. The president and his appointees have espoused the highly disputed notion that COVID began as a leak from 'an unsafe lab in Wuhan, China'—and cited the NIH's funding of related research as a reason to restrict federal agencies' independent grant-awarding powers. This administration is rapidly rewriting the narrative of COVID vaccines as well. In an early executive order, Trump called for an end to COVID-19-vaccine mandates in schools, even though few remained; earlier this month, HHS rolled back a Biden-era policy that financially rewarded hospitals for reporting staff-vaccination rates, describing the policy as ' coercive.' The FDA has made it harder for manufacturers to bring new COVID shots to market, narrowed who can get the Novavax shot, and approved the Moderna COVID-19 vaccines for only a limited group of children, over the objections of agency experts. For its part, the CDC softened its COVID-shot guidance for pregnant people and children, after Kennedy—who has described the shots as 'the deadliest vaccine ever made'—tried to unilaterally remove it. Experts told me they fear that what access remains to the shots for children and adults could still be abolished; so could COVID-vaccine manufacturers' current protection from liability. (Andrew Nixon, an HHS spokesperson, said in an email that the department would not comment on potential regulatory changes.) The latest assault against mRNA vaccines, experts told me, is difficult to disentangle from the administration's pushback on COVID shots—which, because of the pandemic, the public now views as synonymous with the technology, Jennifer Nuzzo, the director of the Pandemic Center at Brown University School of Public Health, told me. Kennedy justified the mRNA cuts by suggesting—in contrast to a wealth of evidence—that the vaccines' risks outweigh their benefits, and that they 'fail to protect effectively against upper respiratory infections like COVID and flu.' And he insisted, without proof, that mRNA vaccines prolong pandemics. Meanwhile, NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya argued that the cancellations were driven by a lack of public trust in the technology itself. In May, the Trump administration also pulled more than $700 million in funds from Moderna that had initially been awarded to develop mRNA-based flu vaccines. The mRNA funding terminated so far came from HHS's Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority; multiple NIH officials told me that they anticipate that similar grant cuts will follow at their agency. (In an email, Kush Desai, a spokesperson for the White House, defended the administration's decision as a way to prioritize funding with 'the most untapped potential'; Nixon echoed that sentiment, casting the decision as 'a necessary pivot in how we steward public health innovations in vaccines.') COVID is a politically convenient entryway to broader anti-vaccine sentiment. COVID shots are among the U.S.'s most politicized vaccines, and many Republicans have, since the outbreak's early days, been skeptical of COVID-mitigation policies. Although most Americans remain supportive of vaccines on the whole, most Republicans—and many Democrats—say they're no longer keen on getting more COVID shots. 'People trust the COVID vaccines less,' Nuzzo told me, which makes it easy for the administration's vaccine opponents to use attacks on those vaccines as purchase for broader assaults. For all their COVID-centric hype, mRNA vaccines have long been under development for many unrelated diseases. And experts now worry that the blockades currently in place for certain types of mRNA vaccines could soon extend to other, similar technologies, including mRNA-based therapies in development for cancer and genetic disease, which might not make it through the approval process at Kennedy's FDA. (Nixon said HHS would continue to invest in mRNA research for cancer and other complex diseases.) Casting doubt on COVID shots makes other vaccines that have been vetted in the same way—and found to be safe and effective, based on high-quality data—look dubious. 'Once you establish that it's okay to override something for COVID,' Reiss told me, 'it's much easier to say, 'Well, now we're going to unrecommend MMR.'' (Kennedy's ACIP plans to review the entire childhood-immunization schedule and assess its cumulative effects.) Plenty of other avenues remain for Kennedy to play on COVID discontent—fear of the shots' side effects, distaste for mandates, declining trust in public health and medical experts —to pull back the government's support for vaccination. He has announced, for instance, his intention to reform the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, which helps protect manufacturers from lawsuits over illegitimate claims about a vaccine's health effects, and his plans to find 'ways to enlarge that program so that COVID-vaccine-injured people can be compensated.' Some of the experts I spoke with fear that the FDA's Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee—the agency's rough equivalent of ACIP—could be remade in Kennedy's vision. The administration has also been very willing to rescind federal funding from universities in order to forward its own ideas: Kennedy could, perhaps, threaten to withhold money from universities that require any vaccines for students. Kennedy has also insisted that 'we need to stop trusting the experts'—that Americans, for instance, shouldn't have been discouraged from doing their own research during the pandemic. He could use COVID as an excuse to make that maxim Americans' reality: Many public-health and infectious-disease-focused professional societies rely on at least some degree of federal funding, Nirav D. Shah, a former principal deputy director of the CDC, told me. Stripping those resources would be 'a way to cut their legs off'—or, at the very least, would further delegitimize those expert bodies in the public eye. Kennedy has already barred representatives from professional societies, including the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Infectious Diseases Society of America, from participating in ACIP subcommittees after those two societies and others collectively sued HHS over its shifts in COVID policy. The public fight between medicine and government is now accelerating the nation onto a path where advice diverges over not just COVID shots but vaccines generally. (When asked about how COVID resentment was guiding the administration's decisions, Desai said that the media had politicized science to push for pandemic-era mandates and that The Atlantic 'continues to fundamentally misunderstand how the Trump administration is reversing this COVID era politicization of HHS.') The coronavirus pandemic began during the first Trump presidency; now its legacy is being exploited by a second one. Had the pandemic never happened, Kennedy would likely still be attacking vaccines, maybe even from the same position of power he currently commands. But without the lightning rod of COVID, Kennedy's attacks would be less effective. Already, one clear consequence of the Trump administration's anti-COVID campaign is that it will leave the nation less knowledgeable about and less prepared against all infectious diseases, Gregory Poland, a vaccinologist and the president of Atria Research Institute, told me. That might be the Trump administration's ultimate act of revenge. No matter who is in charge when the U.S. meets its next crisis, those leaders may be forced into a corner carved out by Trump and Kennedy—one from which the country must fight disease without adequate vaccination, research, or public-health expertise. This current administration will have left the nation with few other options.
Politico
2 hours ago
- Politico
NIAID acting director's view of ‘risky research'
THE LAB Dr. Jeffery Taubenberger, acting director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, says conducting so-called gain-of-function research shouldn't be dismissed. He discussed the controversial topic with his boss, NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya, on the latter's 'Director's Desk' podcast this week. What is it? Gain-of-function involves genetically altering pathogens to make them deadlier or more transmissible to better study them. But the research is a lightning rod issue for President Donald Trump and many Republicans in Congress who believe the Covid-19 pandemic was caused by a lab leak stemming from gain-of-function research in Wuhan, China, where the virus first emerged. That thinking puts them at odds with most of the scientific community who believe the virus most likely spilled over from animals into humans. In May, Trump signed an executive order banning all 'present and all future' federal funding for gain-of-function research in countries like China,which Trump said has insufficient research oversight. He also ordered the National Institutes of Health to review and possibly halt experiments the administration believes could endanger Americans' lives. In Congress, Sen. Rand Paul's (R-Ky.) Risky Research Review Act, which hasn't yet been taken up by the full Senate, would create a panel to review funding for gain-of-function research. Not black and white: During the podcast, Bhattacharya asked Taubenberger how the institute should approach gain-of-function research. 'It's not a simple black-and-white issue,' replied Taubenberger, a senior investigator in virology who's a leading expert on the 1918 flu pandemic and sequenced the virus that caused it. He's also co-leading the effort to develop a universal flu vaccine, backed with $500 million from the Trump administration. 'Very reasonable, very well-informed people could fall on opposite sides of the line, wherever you draw the line,' he said. 'Having a wide variety of people with different levels of expertise — not just logic expertise, but safety, national security, all sorts of other questions — having them weigh in on this is really important.' Regardless of where people fall, gain-of-function work shouldn't be shut down, he said. 'Work on nasty bugs that have the potential to kill people, for which we want to develop better therapeutics, diagnostics, prognostics, treatments and preventatives, needs to happen. That's important for global health. It's important for U.S. health,' Taubenberger said. But that research has to be done very carefully, with oversight and should be evaluated on a risk-benefit basis, he warned. While the pandemic turbocharged the issue, the controversy over gain-of-function predates Covid-19. The government paused funding for the research roughly a decade ago, Taubenberger pointed out, while they put stronger oversight mechanisms in place. 'I favor this kind of work being done, where possible, in U.S. government labs, by U.S. government scientists, monitored by U.S. government safety officials and regulators — with openness and transparency.' What didn't come up in conversation: The implementation of Trump's executive order hasn't gone as smoothly as the podcast discussion might have suggested. A July post on the NIH's X account implied that staff at the NIAID had acted inappropriately by omitting certain grants while compiling a list of potentially dangerous gain-of-function research experiments in compliance with the order. Contacted by POLITICO at the time, an official at HHS described the behavior as 'malicious compliance' and said the administration wouldn't tolerate it. NIH Principal Deputy Director Matt Memoli, according to The Washington Post, overrode staff by classifying tuberculosis studies NIH reviewers deemed safe as potentially dangerous gain-of-function research. WELCOME TO FUTURE PULSE Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry and former Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.) described undergoing mental health treatment with the psychedelic drug ibogaine to the New York Times. Share any thoughts, news, tips and feedback with Ruth Reader at rreader@ or Erin Schumaker at eschumaker@ Want to share a tip securely? Message us on Signal: RuthReader.02 or ErinSchumaker.01. TECH MAZE Under Gov. Gavin Newsom, California has moved faster than other states to regulate artificial intelligence, including signing a bill last year barring health insurers in the state from using AI to deny claims. Now, a prominent AI company is urging the Democratic governor to consider a less rigid regulatory approach. In a letter to Newsom, obtained by our POLITICO colleagues at California Decoded, OpenAI suggests that California should consider AI companies that sign onto national and international AI agreements as compliant with state AI rules. The letter, dated Monday, from OpenAI's Chief Global Affairs Officer Chris Lehane, comes as Sacramento continues to debate key AI legislation, including Democratic state Sen. Scott Wiener's bill SB 53, which would require large AI developers to publish safety and security protocols on their websites. Lehane recommended that 'California take the lead in harmonizing state-based AI regulation with emerging global standards' when it comes to the technology, dubbing it the California Approach. World view: OpenAI and other developers have already signed, or plan to sign, onto the EU's AI code of practice and have committed to conducting national security-related assessments of their programs. Lehane said that 'we encourage the state to consider frontier model developers compliant with its state requirements when they sign onto a parallel regulatory framework like the [European Union's] CoP or enter into a safety-oriented agreement with a relevant US federal government agency.' Newsom spokesperson Tara Gallegos said, 'We have received the letter. We don't typically comment on pending legislation.' Worth noting: The EU code is a voluntary way for companies to comply with the bloc's AI Act and is nonbinding in the U.S., which has no equivalent. Commitments to work with federal regulators don't necessarily cover all the areas, like deepfakes or chatbots, where Sacramento wants to regulate AI. But the letter offers Newsom something of an off-ramp, after he vetoed Wiener's broader AI safety bill last year that would have required programs to complete prerelease safety testing. Last week, Newsom spoke with cautious positivity about Wiener's effort this year, saying it was in the spirit of an expert report on AI regulation he commissioned. But SB 53 — which would establish whistleblower protections for AI workers and require companies to publish their own internal safety testing — still faces opposition from the tech industry. Lehane's letter puts an industry-sponsored solution on the governor's desk. He framed the simplified California Approach as a way to give 'democratic AI' an edge in the race with Chinese-built programs by removing unnecessary regulation, a key priority for the Trump administration. 'Imagine how hard it would have been during the Space Race had California's aerospace and technology industries been encumbered by regulations that impeded rapid innovation,' Lehane wrote.
