"Too Big to Prosecute"

It looks like HSBC is at it again. In December 2012, the federal government decided against prosecuting HSBC Bank, the world’s second largest bank, against charges of money laundering for knownMexican cartel groups and terrorist groups including Al-Qaeda. Rather the bank was stuck with a $1.92 billion fine, approximately 5% of HSBC’s 2010-2011 profits (38 billion dollars), and an agreement from the United States Department of Justice to not prosecute the bank. The reasoning for this decision, the so called “Too Big to Prosecute” scandal, came from considerations of the bank’s massive power over the financial structure of the United States and United Kingdom. The following segment of a hearing before Senate Judiciary Committee between Eric Holder and Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) on February 27^th, 2013, should show the Department of Justice’s motivations quite clearly:

“Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa: In the case of bank prosecution. I'm concerned we have a mentality of 'too big to jail' in the financial sector, spreading from fraud cases to terrorist financing to money laundering cases. I would cite HSBC.

I think we are on a slippery slope and that's background for this question. I don't have recollection of DOJ prosecuting any high-profile financial criminal convictions in either companies or individuals.

(…)

Attorney General Eric Holder:

(…)

Just putting that aside for a minute though, the concern that you have raised is one that I, frankly, share. I'm not talking about HSBC here, that would be inappropriate. But I am concerned that the size of some of these institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them when we are hit with indications that if we do prosecute — if we do bring a criminal charge — it will have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps even the world economy. I think that is a function of the fact that some of these institutions have become too large.

Again, I'm not talking about HSBC, this is more of a general comment. I think it has an inhibiting influence, impact on our ability to bring resolutions that I think would be more appropriate. I think that's something that we — you all [Congress] — need to consider. The concern that you raised is actually one that I share.“ (Full text can be found here)

This is admittedly a tricky issue, with the effects of prosecuting such a massive institution possibly causing shockwaves and consequences in nations non-culpable for the actions of HSBC. Yet the precedent set by non-persecution and a minimal fine allows for the creation of a sort of “this is the cost of doing business” mindset. It can be pretty easily agreed that the action of the United States Justice Department had very little deterrent effect on the actions of HSBC, especially assuming the profit gained by acting in an illegal manner offset any possible slap on the wrist.

                It appears that HSBC, again, has been found to be providing service to those with criminal affiliations and allowing certain clients to conceal funds for tax purposes from several European as well as the American government. France, Belgium, Spain and the US have all appeared to launch investigations against the bank. If this issue is as extensive as the previous one, we should expect a greater response from the Justice Department during this particular scandal, though the precedent will still likely be the same, that if you’re big and important enough, you’re above the law. Though this news story is still in its infancy, we shouldn’t expect an outcome much different than the prosecution effort in 2012.

                Unfortunately, this both puts the United States in a difficult position and appears to force them to make a choice. Allowing large and integrated enough corporations to act in an illegal manners will most certainly ensure that they will. After all, often times the most profitable position often isn’t the legal one, and not grasping at an advantage can result in a competitor taking such an advantage for themselves. Yet prosecution can result in widespread systemic changes to the financial infrastructure of Western nations, and in an economic climate with rising stars like China and India, such a decision can be what leads to a loss of economic dominance in the West. I don’t pretend to know what the appropriate way to act in such a situation may be, but it seems to be a pretty safe bet if we don’t hold corporations liable for infractions of the law, these legal infractions will continue to occur where profitable. Most importantly, we have to ask what sort of message this send to large companies, after all, what sort of power does an enforcement agency have when it can no longer enforce?

Are antiviral cocktails increasing the virulence of HIV?

I came across an article published by ScienceDaily about a new, highly virulent recombinant HIV virus that seems to be able to go from initial infection to AIDS in a matter of only three years, as opposed to the average of ten (assuming no treatment). Although this isn't the first time an extra virulent HIV strain has been found (this strain leading to the development of AIDS in only five years) such a small window of time seems to produce serious issues with detection in infected individuals.
        A study published by Ndawinz et al. in 2001 seems to suggest an estimated mean infection to diagnosis time of 53 months for heterosexual males and 37 months for homosexual males in a sample of men in France. Although it is unlikely that such a study is entirely generalization to the populations of other developed countries, there's no reason to believe a significant variance in times from infection to diagnosis in these areas. As such, this strain seems to be able to cause significant increases in viral load before any sort of detection can occur, allowing uncontrolled spread before the infection can be treated.
The reasons for such a strain evolving is unclear, and it may simply be a random mutation that will be out of the headlines permanently in the next few weeks (as was the fate of the 'five year strain' above). It's hard to be sure, though it has been suggested that HIV may be getting more virulent throughout since its initial outbreak 30 years ago. The selective pressure that pushes for the increased virulence of HIV is a result of a plethora of factors, though the driving force is likely the widespread use of drug cocktails for treatment of infections in developed countries. Increases in viral load (concentration of HIV virus in blood) lead to increased probability of infection from a host to a sexual partner in any one sexual encounter. After treatment with a antiviral cocktail, viral load in infected individuals drops significantly, and as a result, so does infectivity, an incredibly unfavorable outcome for the virus.
Larger spikes in viral load over a shorter amount of time seem to counteract this effect if such a spike occurs before detection and administration of antiviral drugs. Such a significant spike in virulence naturally leads to more infections in less time, and as a side effect of the pronounced increase in virulence, more deaths.
The above speculation should not be taken as fact, as a study by Oxford University as well as one released by Nature seem to suggest there is a lot more to the story, with reduced virulence seen over time by the Oxford study as a result of antiviral drug cocktails.
The Nature study, on the other hand, seems to suggest a 'bottleneck' after each moment of person to person spread, where the virus must evolve to be better suited for the new hosts immune system leading to reduced overall fitness for the beginning stages of infection. It is also suggested by the study that less virulent infections may very well result in a higher spread of HIV virus, as a longer living host may have more opportunities to spread the virus. The relevant quote is found below:

" Increased transmission efficiency is associated with higher viral loads, which are highest during acute infection. However, the short time interval of acute infection provides limited opportunity for transmission. As the disease progresses and viral load increases, the efficiency of transmission will increase even though opportunities for transmission can remain constant. Consequently, more transmission events might result from prolonged, compared with rapid, disease progression ... even when accounting for the high transmission efficiencies during acute infection^149, 150. In this model, owing to the fitness bottlenecks at transmission and the subsequent loss in fitness caused by CTL escape^{111, 112, 113}, the circulating HIV-1 isolate will start to lose virulence. This loss in virulence would decrease pathogenesis, prolong the time to AIDS or even result in a non-symptomatic infection. The complete clearance of HIV-1 is unlikely because of the stable integration of the provirus into memory T cells with long half lives and possible re-activation of virus replication in these cells"

With widespread use of antiviral cocktails in more developed nations, it seems the benefit of the weaker, longer infection is strongly countered. The virus is forced to either develop resistance to the drug cocktail, or infect as many potential hosts as possible in the period pre-diagnosis. The suggestion that a longer term infection can lead to more opportunities for infection seems to be a difficult one to accept, especially when strains are beginning to emerge that can more strongly counter the early infection bottleneck.

So is HIV getting more virulent over time? It's a very difficult question to form a definitive opinion on, and lots of contradictory research exists on the topic. There seems to be pressures for increased virulence in areas with greater access to antiviral drugs, while countries with poor health infrastructure seem to favor a more mild virus with a longer progression. The virulence pattern of HIV will prove to be an important consideration in the future, and as the sixth largest killer of humans overall, it is a truly important consideration in the fight against human disease globally.


Above image from the following article: http://www.dddmag.com/news/2014/08/protein-family-can-inhibit-hiv-release

Perceptions of Violence

Thanks to our media, the perception of increasing violent crime seems to be shared by the majority of Americans, a view strongly at odds with the reality of both the national and global stage. An annual Gallup poll asking Americans if they viewed crime as increasing, decreasing or staying the same seems to indicate a rising perception of crime increasing from 2002 and on, despite the fact that violent victimization rates have dropped from 80 people per 100,000 in 1993 to 23 in 100,000 in 2013, a rate almost a quarter of its 2013 value. Interestingly enough, perceptions of crime increasing locally have dropped slightly since the previous polling year (2012) but have remained within the mean since 1972, pointing at non-local new sources skewing our opinions of violent crime within the past 15 years.

                This shouldn’t be particularly surprising to anyone, there exists few better ways to sell a headline than to make someone feel their individual safety or way of life is in peril. Ebola is an interesting example of this phenomena, bearing a host of symptoms like bleeding into the skin and gums, multiple organ failure and decreased blood clotting. Few things are as viscerally abhorrent as a death from such a horrific virus.  Yet lower respiratory infections, malaria and diarrheal diseases making up the largest chunk of microbial deaths in the African continent. You have to give some serious credit to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation for their development of the Omniproccessor , a machine that turns liquid waste into electricity and drinking water, and the tremendous effect to diminish malaria related deaths through the foundation. These massive killers, much more serious threats to impoverished citizens in Africa, have no bearing on the quality of our lives and no perceived risk of causing harm to the average citizen of the developed world. Malaria isn’t some boogeyman that causes uncontrolled bleeding and a violent, gory death, it’s an uncomfortable and tired demise.

This coupling of news with entertainment leads to a disconnect between how viewers see the world and how it actually is, with “sexier” topics taking the bulk of news coverage. News providers need to cover their expenses, and greater viewership means more ad revenue. This has the unfortunate consequence of shifting more ill-advised viewers to a view of the world that is much more violent, angry, and fitting of a dualistic good vs. evil motif than it actually is. The viewpoint is echoed by a Dr. Mark Warr, a sociologist at UT Austin:

“ “Many people don’t realize that while reported crime may appear to go up in a given year, that doesn’t mean real crime rates are on the rise,” Warr says. “Based on data from a variety of measurement tools, the overall trend is actually quite good. In fact, the homicide rate in the western world has actually been declining for more than 700 years.”

Yet when dramas such as “CSI,” “Criminal Minds” and “Law & Order” dominate popular television, and crime coverage often fills a quarter of newspapers, measured perspectives such as Warr’s are often lost in the clamor for lurid stories about America’s most wanted.

As a result, the messages about crime that people receive from the mass media are often out of sync with reality, Warr contends.

“People are bombarded with information about crime from the media, which makes them believe the world is a much more dangerous place than it really is,” Warr says. “This creates a climate of fear that can negatively affect the way we live, the way we go to work, the times we shop and the precautions we take for our families and children.” ”

The effects such views can have on Public Policy formation should be strongly considered by the public at large. The relative risk violent crime contributes to our everyday experience, or even our lives as a whole, is minimal. With so many other major causes of death like Diarrhoeal disease (death being preventable by simply hydrating affected individuals during the duration of their illness) and motor accidents still making the top ten list of killers globally, policy should be pushed much further in those directions if human mortality is really the goal driving policy.