1345: Peak Woke

And NYC/NYS IS a foreign country.

Because you are staying in NYS, you need to fill in the linked form. Share that you are following all requirements and ignore any comment about doctors or vaccination other than you are following your doctors personal advise for your condition. Last part stops people.

New York State Traveler Health Form (ny.gov)

Link to Article

Archived Version

Fri, 07 May 2021 12:27

The Facts:The CDC is and will be collecting samples from COVID tests of vaccinated individuals to try and determine if the virus can breakthrough the protection of the vaccine. In doing so the CDC has specified a cycle threshold for PCR tests.

Reflect On:Why a cycle threshold suddenly? Why not one prior to the rollout of vaccines? How many false positives have we seen as a result of no prior cycle threshold? Will PCR tests of the unvaccinated have this new cycle threshold?

Take a moment and breathe. Place your hand over your chest area, near your heart. Breathe slowly into the area for about a minute, focusing on a sense of ease entering your mind and body. Click here to learn why we suggest this.

The CDC is monitoring COVID-19 ''vaccine breakthrough'' cases at the moment. This means that those who are fully vaccinated with the COVID-19 vaccine can still become infected. According to the CDC, ''a small percentage of people who are fully vaccinated against COVID-19 will get sick and some may be hospitalized or die from COVID-19.''

Throughout this pandemic, the tests used to identify ''positive'' COVID-19 cases has been the reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test, which can detect the virus in nasal swabs (RT-PCR). The PCR test is not actually designed to identify active infectious disease, instead, it identifies genetic material, be it partial, alive, or even dead. PCR amplifies this material in samples to find traces of COVID-19.

--> Read: A rare mineral can remove harmful toxins & heavy metals with just 30 seconds a day. Click here to learn more.

The CDC is requiring that clinical specimens for sequencing should have an RT-PCR Ct value '‰¤28 when conducting tests for vaccinated individuals. ''Ct'' refers to cycle threshold.

According to Public Health Ontario,

The cycle threshold (Ct) value is the actual number of cycles it takes for the PCR test to detect the virus. It indicates an estimate of how much virus was likely in the sample to start with '' not the actual amount. If the virus is found in a low number of cycles (Ct value under 30), it means that the virus was easier to find in sample and that the sample started out with a large amount of the virus. Think about it like the zoom button on your computer, if you only have to zoom in a little (zoom at 110%), it means that item was big to start with. If you have to zoom a lot (zoom at 180%), it means that the item was small to start with.

Why This Is Important: It's been difficult to find what PCR Ct value tests have been using during this pandemic, and it's important because at a value at 35 or more for example, an individual is more likely to test ''positive'' when they are not infected and/or do not even have the ability to transmit. This is commonly known as a ''false positive.''

There are multiple studies showing that the number of ''cycles'' performed by PCR to amplify the genetic sample is directly correlated with infectiousness. The more cycles needed to get positivity from a sample, the less viral replication, or ''positivity'' for lack of a better word, the sample shows.

For example, an article published in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases found that among positive PCR samples with a cycle count over 35, only 3 percent of the samples showed viral replication. The cycle number is associated with the chances of infectiousness, yet this has never really been available to the patient nor the public. Most people don't even know about it. The study examined 3790 positive samples with known CT values to see whether they harbored viable virus, indicating the patients were likely infectious. La Scola and his colleagues found that 70% of samples with CT values of 25 or below could be cultured, compared with less than 3% of the cases with CT values above 35. Cultured basically refers to the ability of the sample to find the virus and determine an infection.

This could be interpreted as,

''if someone is tested by PCR as positive when a threshold of 35 cycles or higher is used (as is the case in most laboratories in Europe & the US), the probability that said person is actually infected is less than 3%, the probability that said result is a false positive is 97%.'' (source)

According to Stanford Medical Professor Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, PCR samples with a cycle count over 35 is a common lab occurrence. This means that if during this pandemic this was the case, the number of false positives could have been over 90 percent, meaning the vast majority of positive cases weren't really positive. It means the number of positive ''cases'' were not an accurate picture of how many people were actually infectious and capable of transmitting the virus. This was and still remains a concern, because ''cases'' all over the world are being used to set health policy.

Bhattacharya explains in his article,

Dr. Anthony Fauci himself told This Week in Virology in July, ''If you get a cycle threshold of 35 or more '... the chances of it being replication-competent are minuscule.'' Why then has our national testing standard never reflected this? PCR providers should work with other labs to perform a random viral culture on those who received positive results, to validate their tests in terms of being an indicator of infectiousness. Other states should emulate Florida in requiring laboratories to report cycle times to providers and to public health officials so they can provide better advice to patients and make more nuanced decisions about mandatory quarantine orders.

The World Health Organization (WHO) didn't properly address this issue, it seems, until nearly a year into the pandemic, when they put a notice on their website. They did however already make it clear that WHO guidance Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 states that careful interpretation of weak positive results is needed (1). The cycle threshold (Ct) needed to detect virus is inversely proportional to the patient's viral load. That being said, I still couldn't find what cycle threshold was being used in any part of the world, you would think this type of information wouldn't be so hard to find?

An article published in September of 2020 in Sciencemag also brings up this issue and explains it quite well:

Ever since the coronavirus pandemic began, battles have raged over testing: Which tests should be given, to whom, and how often? Now, epidemiologists and public health experts are opening a new debate. They say testing centers should report not just whether a person is positive, but also a number known as the cycle threshold (CT) value, which indicates how much virus an infected person harbors.

Advocates point to new research indicating that CT values could help doctors flag patients at high risk for serious disease. Recent findings also suggest the numbers could help officials determine who is infectious and should therefore be isolated and have their contacts tracked down. CT value is an imperfect measure, advocates concede. But whether to add it to test results ''is one of the most pressing questions out there,'' says Michael Mina, a physician and epidemiologist at Harvard University's T.H. Chan School of Public Health

Standard tests identify SARS-CoV-2 infections by isolating and amplifying viral RNA using a procedure known as the polymerase chain reaction (PCR), which relies on multiple cycles of amplification to produce a detectable amount of RNA. The CT value is the number of cycles necessary to spot the virus; PCR machines stop running at that point. If a positive signal isn't seen after 37 to 40 cycles, the test is negative. But samples that turn out positive can start out with vastly different amounts of virus, for which the CT value provides an inverse measure. A test that registers a positive result after 12 rounds, for a CT value of 12, starts out with more than 10 million times as much viral genetic material as a sample with a CT value of 35.

But the same sample can give different CT values on different testing machines, and different swabs from the same person can give different results. ''The CT value isn't an absolute scale,'' says Marta Gaglia, a virologist at Tufts University. That makes many clinicians wary, Mina says. ''Clinicians are cautious by nature,'' Mina says. ''They say, 'If we can't rely on it, it's not reliable.''' In an August letter in Clinical Infectious Diseases, members of the College of American Pathologists urged caution in interpreting CT values.

Nevertheless, Mina, Gaglia, and others argue that knowing whether CT values are high or low can be highly informative. ''Even with all the imperfections, knowing the viral load can be extremely powerful,'' Mina says.

Early studies showed that patients in the first days of infection have CT values below 30, and often below 20, indicating a high level of virus; as the body clears the coronavirus, CT values rise gradually. More recent studies have shown that a higher viral load can profoundly impact a person's contagiousness and reflect the severity of disease.

They are now specifying CT values for vaccinated individuals. It's nice to see that the CDC is specifying cycle threshold, as mentioned above, for vaccinated individuals. It simply makes the detection of ''positive'' cases much more accurate and, as explained above, the chances of a false positive far are less when doing so. But the concern is, the testing of vaccinated individuals with this cycle threshold is less likely to reveal false positives, yet prior to the rollout of the vaccine there is reason to believe that the cycle threshold was 35 or higher, as mentioned earlier in the article. Why all of a sudden change it for vaccinated individuals? Does this mean that those who are unvaccinated will still be tested at a cycle threshold that is more likely return a false positive? Does this mean that unvaccinated individuals are likely to test positive more so than vaccinated ones, not as a result of the test but rather the cycle threshold used?

It's interesting to think about how simple adjustments of the PCR test could either increase positive cases, or decrease them. This has been an issue for quite some time. For example, earlier on in the pandemic a Portuguese appeals court ruled against the Azores Regional Health Authority, declaring the quarantining of four individuals was unlawful. One of them tested positive for COVID using a PCR test, and the other three were deemed to be high risk due to exposure, and as a result, the regional health authority forced them to undergo isolation. The appeal court heard scientific arguments from several scientists and doctors who made the case for the lack of reliability of the PCR tests in detecting the COVID-19 virus and as a result the decision was overturned.

Here's study showing that recovered patients who test negative and are non-infectious can still come up positive for COVID-19 repeatedly in the following months. These are neither new cases nor infectious ones needing quarantine but could be incorrectly counted as such.

This concern was also raised in an article published in The Lancet medical journal titled ''Clarifying the evidence of SARS-CoC-2 antigen rapid tests in public health responses to COVID-19.''

In the Lancet article, the authors explain that most people infected with COVID are contagious for approximately one week, and that ''specimens are generally not found to contain culture-positive (potentially contagious) virus beyond day 9 after the onset of symptoms, with most transmission occurring before day 5.'' They go on to explain:

This timing fits with the observed patterns of virus transmission (usually 2 days before to 5 days after symptom onset), which led public health agencies to recommend a 10-day isolation period. The sort window of transmissibility contrasts with a median 22-33 days of PCR positivity (longer with severe infections and someone shorter among asymptomatic individuals). This suggests that 50-75% of the time an individual is PCR positive, they are likely to be post-infectious.

This means that 50-75 percent of the time, just because an individual is PCR positive does not mean they have the virus or can transmit, and this is for what seems to be someone who most likely had positive. This is not referring to false positives.

Once SARS-CoV-2 replication has been controlled by the immune system, RNA levels detectable by PCR on respiratory secretions fall to very low levels when individuals are much less likely to infect others. The remaining RNA copies can take weeks, or occasionally months, to clear, during which time PCR remains positive.

They explain:

However, for public health measures, another approach is needed. Testing to help slow the spread of SARS-CoV-2 asks not whether someone has RNA in their nose from earlier infection, but whether they are infectious today. It is a net loss to the health, social, and economic wellbeing of communities if post-infectious individuals test positive and isolate for 10 days. In our view, current PCR testing is therefore not the appropriate gold standard for evaluating a SARS-CoV-2 public health test.

An article published in the British Medical Journal explains:

It's also unclear to what extent people with no symptoms transmit SARS-CoV-2. The only test for live virus is viral culture. PCR and lateral flow tests do not distinguish live virus. No test of infection or infectiousness is currently available for routine use. As things stand, a person who tests positive with any kind of test may or may not have an active infection with live virus, and may or may not be infectious.

The relations between viral load, viral shedding, infection, infectiousness, and duration of infectiousness are not well understood. In a recent systematic review, no study was able to culture live virus from symptomatic participants after the ninth day of illness, despite persistently high viral loads in quantitative PCR diagnostic tests. However, cycle threshold (Ct) values from PCR tests are not direct measures of viral load and are subject to error.

Searching for people who are asymptomatic yet infectious is like searching for needles that appear and reappear transiently in haystacks, particularly when rates are falling. Mass testing risks the harmful diversion of scarce resources. A further concern is the use of inadequately evaluated tests as screening tools in healthy populations.

The UK's testing strategy needs to be reset in line with the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies' recommendation that ''Prioritizing rapid testing of symptomatic people is likely to have a greater impact on identifying positive cases and reducing transmission than frequent testing of asymptomatic people in an outbreak area.''

This doesn't mean the test isn't useful, but there are clearly concerns. I have emailed the CDC asking them if there was a specific cycle threshold that was being used during this pandemic, prior to the rollout of the vaccine. I also asked if they will be changing the recommended threshold for unvaccinated individuals being tested.

The below comes from an anonymous source, but clams 40-45 cycles are typically used in the UK. Again, as Bhattacharya says above, in the US it seems to be 35 and above.

Corroborating Information: The Deputy Medical Officer of Ontario, Canada, Dr. Barbara Yaffe stated earlier in the pandemic that COVID-19 testing may yield at least 50 percent false positives. This means that people who test positive for COVID may not actually have it.

In July, professor Carl Heneghan, director for the centre of evidence-based medicine at Oxford University and outspoken critic of the current UK response to the pandemic, wrote a piece titled ''How many Covid diagnoses are false positives?'' He has argued that the proportion of positive tests that are false in the UK could also be as high as 50%.

Former scientific advisor at Pfizer, Dr. Mike Yeadon, also one of the authors of the paper discussed at the beginning of this article, argued that the proportion of positive tests that are false may actually be as high as 90%.

As far back as 2007, Gina Kolata published an article in the New York times about how declaring virus pandemics based on PCR tests can end in a disaster. The article was titled Faith in Quick Test Leads to Epidemic That Wasn't. You can read that full story here if the previous link doesn't work.

An article written by Robert Hagen, MD for MedPage Today explains the issues with COVID testing as well, especially when it comes to results, false positives and symptomatic people compared to asymptomatic people. This article also goes in depth as to why false positives will be, and probably are very high. It's called, ''What's Wrong With Covid Case Counts?''

22 researchers put out a paper explaining why, according to them, it's quite clear that the PCR test is not effective in identifying COVID-19 cases. As a result we may be seeing a significant amount of false positives. This also made a lot of noise.

Elon Musk revealed he had completed four rounds of COVID-19 testing, tweeting that something ''bogus'' is going on because two of the tests came back false, and the other two came back positive.

Doing tests from several different labs, same time of day, administered by RN & am requesting N1 gene PCR cycle threshold. There is no official standard for PCR testing. Not sure people realize this. '' Musk (source)

On the other side of the coin,

According to Dr. Matthew Oughton, an infectious diseases specialist at the McGill University Health Centre and the Jewish General Hospital in Montreal:

''The rate of false positives with this particular test is quite low. In other words, if the test comes back saying positive, then believe it, it's a real positive.''

According to Dr. Robert H. Shmerling, Senior Faculty Editor at Harvard Health Publishing.

False negatives '' that is, a test that says you don't have the virus when you actually do have the virus '' may occur. The reported rate of false negatives is as low as 2% and as high as 37%. The false positive rate '' that is, how often the test says you have the virus when you actually do not '' should be close to zero. Most false-positive results are thought to be due to lab contamination or other problems with how the lab has performed the test, not limitations of the test itself

The list of these concerns and examples go on and on, yet it's something the everyday person often has no idea about as it's not brought up within the mainstream media or discussion. There are those who believe it's accurate, and there are those who don't and also evidence that goes both ways. This in of itself shows we need better testing tools to detect people who have the virus and those capable of spreading it.

The Takeaway: At the end of the day, these questions and concerns that have been brought up by many in the field have not really been appropriately addressed within mainstream discussion. Most people believe that PCR testing is sound and adequate in identifying people who are infected and also have the ability to transmit COVID, but this simply isn't true and it's very significant because ''cases'' are being used to set public health policy.

There's a chance that COVID may not be as infectious as the numbers indicate, and this does not mean that it's not serious and that people aren't at risk, it simply calls into question the measures that we've taken which have caused harm.

Discussing the harms of these measures is being labelled as nonsense within the mainstream. For example, anything that calls into question lockdowns as a means for helping to stop the transmission of the virus for is labelled as ''anti-lockdown.'' World renowned scientists have been censored and ridiculed and pushed into silence. PCR tests are the basis of initiatives like vaccine passports as well.

An example I often use is of Jonas F Ludvigsson, a paediatrician at –rebro University Hospital and professor of clinical epidemiology at the Karolinska Institute is quitting his work on covid-19 because of harassment from people who dislike what he discovered. He published data showing that no school children in Sweden died of COVID during the first wave despite no mask and lockdown measures. You can read more about that story here.

It's unfortunate that the mainstream can't have these conversations regarding information, opinion and evidence that contradicts the official narrative. This type of information always seems to be labelled as ''anti-something'', and as a result of mainstream media ridiculing something, a large portion of the citizenry does the same. There are discussions to be had that are simply not being had, and no time or attention is being paid to experts in the field providing a perspective that opposes what our government is telling us. Why?

As a result of mass censorship, the COVID pandemic has definitely served as a catalyst for more people to question what exactly is happening on our planet. Are things really as we are told? Does government and the wealthy ''1 percent'' really act in ways that best serve humanity, especially in a time of crisis? Are they interested in our well being as a number one priority, or something else? Can we have appropriate conversations with people who disagree with us? Can we get along regardless of what we believe is happening?

Dive Deeper Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!

Our new course is called 'Overcoming Bias & Improving Critical Thinking.' This 5 week course is instructed by Dr. Madhava Setty & Joe Martino

If you have been wanting to build your self awareness, improve your.critical thinking, become more heart centered and be more aware of bias, this is the perfect course!

Click here to check out a sneak peek and learn more.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sat, 08 May 2021 15:27

The last Olympic torch relay runner for the Osaka leg concludes the event in Suita, north of Osaka, western Japan, last month. Hiro Komae/AP hide caption

toggle caption Hiro Komae/AP The last Olympic torch relay runner for the Osaka leg concludes the event in Suita, north of Osaka, western Japan, last month.

Hiro Komae/AP Pfizer and its partner, Germany's BioNTech, announced Thursday that they have agreed to donate vaccines to competitors and staff at the Tokyo Games, set to be held this summer despite ongoing concerns about the COVID-19 pandemic.

In a statement, the pharmaceutical companies said that they had signed a memorandum of understanding with the International Olympic Committee outlining the delivery of initial vaccine doses "expected to begin at the end of May where possible with the aim to ensure participating delegations receive second doses ahead of arrivals in Tokyo."

In its own statement, the IOC said it would work with national Olympic committees to distribute the vaccines, but said many national governments were already vaccinating participants.

"It is expected that a significant proportion of Games participants will have been vaccinated before arriving in Japan," the IOC said.

The announcement comes amid persistent concerns about proceeding with the Summer Olympics and Paralympics '-- already delayed a year due to the coronavirus. On Wednesday, officials in Tokyo, where the games are to be held, asked the central government to extend a coronavirus state of emergency there until May 31. A decision on Tokyo and three other prefectures '-- Osaka, Hyogo and Kyoto '-- is expected as early as Friday.

Japan had hoped that imposing what had been advertised as a "short and powerful" emergency would tamp down a fourth wave of infections in time for the games, which are set to begin July 23.

Instead, a surge in new cases apparently driven by a highly infectious N501Y coronavirus variant has added to skepticism about holding the games. Osaka, Japan's third most populous city, has been especially hard hit, with hospitals overwhelmed by COVID-19 patients in recent days, according to Japan Times.

Just a week ago, on April 29, Japan recorded 7,914 new cases '-- its largest number of daily infections since the start of the pandemic.

Last month, organizers of the games said that competitors would be tested daily for coronavirus infection.

After weeks of hand-wringing as the scope and severity of the pandemic became increasingly clear, Japanese Olympics officials last year decided to postpone the 2020 Games until July 2021.

But now, a year later, many in Japan see the decision to go ahead as ill-advised. A poll taken by Japan's NHK broadcaster in January showed that roughly 80% of those surveyed thought the games should be canceled or postponed.

As a sign of that concern, the world's oldest woman according to Guinness World Records, 118-year-old Kane Tanaka, who had been scheduled to participate in the torch relay for the games '' suddenly backed out.

Tanaka was going to take part in a wheelchair pushed by relatives in the May 11 leg of the torch relay in Shime, Fukuoka Prefecture.

But her relatives deemed it too risky due to the continuing spread of the coronavirus. They also did not want to subject Tanaka to the subsequent two week quarantine in the elderly care facility where she lives, Mainichi newspaper reported.

"It's unfortunate, because I wanted people to feel hope in the sight of her cheerfully carrying the torch," Tanaka's great-granddaughter, 24-year-old Junko Tanaka, said.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sat, 08 May 2021 15:55

Amid the high-stakes fight against COVID-19, a company at the forefront of the vaccine effort is laying plans to hike prices after the crisis. A top Pfizer exec said the drugmaker aims to charge more after the "pandemic pricing environment," and an influential analyst says the company could be eying prices 3 to 4 times higher.

On an earnings call earlier this month, Chief Financial Officer Frank D'Amelio said that ''obviously,'' the company is ''going to get more on price'' after the ''pandemic pricing environment." He was speaking in response to Bank of America Merrill Lynch analyst Jason Zemansky, who asked the management team about how profit margins for the program could change over time.

In short, D'Amelio explained that Pfizer expects its COVID vaccine margins to improve. Under one pandemic supply deal, Pfizer is charging the U.S. $19.50 per dose, D'Amelio said, which is ''not a normal price like we typically get for a vaccine'--$150, $175 per dose. So, pandemic pricing.''

As a specific for-instance, a dose of Pfizer's pneumococcal vaccine Prevnar 13 costs more than $200 on the private market in the U.S., according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data.

Pfizer has said it expects $15 billion from its COVID-19 vaccine this year, but if the company charges higher prices after the pandemic, it could continue to reap significant sales from the product in the years to come, particularly if routine boosters are needed as variants arise.

RELATED: Pfizer, BioNTech's U.S. supply deal price tag leaves room for 'decent' profit on COVID-19 shot: analyst

Even as Pfizer uses ''pandemic pricing" during the crisis, the company is also paying for materials, labor, factory overhead, shipping, distribution costs and more to deliver doses, D'Amelio said. With all of its costs, "you come out with the high 20s in terms of that as a percentage of revenue," the CFO said.

Moving into the future, after the pandemic period, Pfizer is ''going to get more on price,'' and will increase output at its factories, driving production costs per unit lower, the CFO said. In all, D'Amelio said there's a ''significant opportunity for those margins to improve once we get beyond the pandemic environment that we're in.''

Bernstein analyst Ronny Gal picked up on the comments and highlighted a recent report in Germany's Sueddeutsche Zeitung in a Monday note to clients. The publication reports that Pfizer and BioNTech approached European officials seeking '‚¬54 per dose, or '‚¬27 billion for 500 million doses, last summer.

While officials negotiated the price down to '‚¬15.50 per dose, Gal suspects that all of the developments indicate a ''first hint" of Pfizer's thoughts on "post-epidemic pricing." The deal, in addition to other European supply pacts, was large enough to be "at least partially ... for post-pandemic use," Gal figured.

A Pfizer representative said in a statement these are "extraordinary times, and our pricing reflects that."

"During the pandemic, we priced our vaccine consistent with the urgent global health emergency we are facing to ensure widespread vaccination for all countries," he added. During government supply negotiations, the company considers volume and equitable distribution aims, he said, and has a "tiered pricing approach that enables poorer countries to pay less."

"Moving forward, we will continue to take a thoughtful approach to pricing, balancing a number of factors'--including the value of the vaccine based on the growing evidence base, and access, affordability, and sustainability considerations," he added.

RELATED: First-to-market Pfizer expects a whopping $15B from its COVID-19 shot in 2021

In initial deals with the U.S. government, Pfizer and BioNTech's vaccine costs $19.50 per dose, compared with $15 for Moderna's shot, $16 for Novavax's program, $10 for Johnson & Johnson's vaccine and $4 for AstraZeneca's. Pfizer didn't take any government development funds for its shot, while other players received various amounts of assistance, and Pfizer was the first to reach the market.

The drugmaker isn't alone in viewing vaccine pricing differently during the pandemic and afterward. Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca have each pledged to sell their vaccines on not-for-profit basis during the pandemic.

Editor's note: This story was updated with a statement from Pfizer.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sat, 08 May 2021 16:58

ROME (AP) '-- The CEOs of vaccine-makers Pfizer and Moderna joined cardinals, academics and the lead guitarist of Aerosmith in opening a unique Vatican conference on COVID-19, other global health threats and how science, solidarity and spirituality can address them.

The three-day online conference, which began Thursday and ends Saturday with a virtual audience with Pope Francis, was planned well before the pandemic erupted last year.

Organizers said the event has only taken on more relevance amid a growing appreciation of the need for global access to health care, new advances in vaccine technology and greater understanding of the mental health cost of loneliness.

Dr. Anthony Fauci, the immunologist who leads the U.S. pandemic response, opened the meeting by saying the pandemic had confirmed to him that faith and science are constantly evolving '-- and that scientists in particular must humbly admit they don't have all the answers all the time.

One answer the director of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases said he did have was that the key to overcoming current vaccine hesitancy is pairing the right medical message with the right messenger.

''You have someone who's a deeply religious person who will listen to their clergy. That's different than me with a suit going into an area telling people to do something,'' he said.

Fauci was referring to the religiously inspired resistance to taking COVID-19 vaccines that were indirectly developed using lines of cells derived from aborted fetuses. The Vatican has declared that all COVID-19 vaccines are not only morally licit, but that people have a moral responsibility to get the jabs to protect others.

The multidisciplinary conference was originally scheduled to take place at the Vatican in May 2020 but was postponed a year and eventually put online due to the pandemic.

The virtual format, however, has allowed for an even greater variety of participants.

A Harvard neuroscientist is leading a conversation about brain health and rock stars with Aerosmith guitarist Joe Perry. Soprano Rene Fleming is participating in a panel discussion on the role of music in treating cardiac patients. Supermodel Cindy Crawford has a slot to talk about ''beauty from the inside out,'' and Chelsea Clinton is teaming up with an Italian public health official to promote equal access to health care.

Pfizer chief executive Albert Bourla told the conference in recorded remarks that the race to produce a COVID-19 vaccine had created unprecedented examples of collaboration and efficiency. He recalled that Pfizer didn't have a final commercial agreement signed with its development partner, German firm BioNTech, until January - after Pfizer-BioNTech jabs were already going into arms.

Bourla recalled he and BioNTech's chief executive, Dr. Ugur Sahin, did a virtual handshake ''through the Zoom camera'' and got to work.

''They shared their intellectual property with us, we shared our intellectual property with them,'' he said. ''Agreements that will gather billions of dollars were just put on hold just to make sure that we are all focusing on making the vaccine happen.''

Moderna CEO Stephane Bancel, for his part, said the Trump administration's vaccine development drive, dubbed Operation Warp Speed, allowed Moderna to not only clear regulatory hurdles faster than usual but to take business risks it normally wouldn't have because it had government funding.

The fact that mRNA vaccines have now been approved for use by federal regulators will only spur more development in the new technology, Bancel said.

''Today, we know that we can get an mRNA vaccine authorized by the regulator. And in business, (the difference) between believing and knowing is a huge difference in your willingness to take the risk,'' he said.

The conference, which featured prominent U.S. journalists as moderators and academics in a variety of fields, also had a religious component. Rabbis, cardinals, imams and representatives of Christian denominations are discussing the role of religion and spirituality in health.

It's the fifth time the Vatican's culture ministry has teamed up with the Cura Foundation to mount a conference that aims to pair advances in science and technology with ideas about how to deliver them effectively, efficiently and at a lower cost.

''People are very focused on the pandemic. It's changed our lives in many, many ways. But there are also other areas of our health that are impacted,'' said Dr. Robin Smith, the Cura Foundation's founder and president.

The goal of the conference, she said, is to put aside political, religious and ideological differences and focus on improving health care around the globe.

''We really want to sort of check all that at the door and say, 'How can you make a difference? How can we help?'''

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sun, 09 May 2021 11:50

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sun, 09 May 2021 12:33

A firefighter administers the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine at a vaccination center near Paris on Monday. The European Union has signed a deal to buy as many as 1.8 billion doses. Bertrand Guay/AFP via Getty Images hide caption

toggle caption Bertrand Guay/AFP via Getty Images A firefighter administers the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine at a vaccination center near Paris on Monday. The European Union has signed a deal to buy as many as 1.8 billion doses.

Bertrand Guay/AFP via Getty Images The European Union and Pfizer-BioNTech have signed a deal for up to 1.8 billion doses of the COVID-19 vaccine. The bloc's biggest contract to date would cover its entire population, marking a significant ramp up in its fight against the coronavirus.

EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced the deal in a tweet, writing it is for a " for guaranteed 900 million doses (+900 million options)."

Happy to announce that @EU_Commission has just approved a contract for guaranteed 900 million doses (+900 million options) with @BioNTech_Group @Pfizer for 2021-2023.Other contracts and other vaccine technologies will follow.

'-- Ursula von der Leyen (@vonderleyen) May 8, 2021Von der Leyen says other contracts and vaccines are coming for the 27-member bloc with a population of around 450 million.

The enormous Pfizer-BioNTech contract for the two-dose shot would help cover future unknowns including whether a booster shot will be required and what will happen with circulating variants.

The agreement calls for vaccine production to happen within the EU. Delivery will likely extend into 2023.

Last month, the commission announced 250 million Pfizer-BioNTech doses would be delivered by June. The EU's executive arm approved use of the vaccine late last year after the European Medicines Agency, gave its authorization.

The EU is distributing vaccines from a half-dozen companies. Other vaccines remain in development. Some 160 million doses have been administered, with a quarter of the population already vaccinated.

But the virus is still spreading. France, Italy and Spain are currently reporting the most COVID-19 cases. In its bid to contain transmission, the EU is aiming to get 70% of adults vaccinated.

The Pfizer-BioNTech deal underscores confidence in the vaccine. For its part, the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine has had halting rollout in the EU, with delivery delays and warnings about rare blood clots occurring in some recipients.

In the U.S., approximately 170 million Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines have been delivered, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, with nearly 140 million shots administered. Three vaccines are authorized for emergency use and nearly 60% of the adult population has gotten at least one shot.

The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was the first approved in the U.S. in December when federal officials granted emergency use authorization.

Now the U.S.-based Pfizer and its German partner BioNTech are requesting full approval in the U.S. for people 16 and older, a process that involves more rigorous oversight, including providing follow-up data six months after vaccinations.

The vaccine maker is also seeking emergency use authorization in the U.S. to include children 12 to 15 years old.

Reporter Teri Schultz contributed to this report from Brussels.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sun, 09 May 2021 13:22

Participants in this summer's Tokyo Olympics and Paralympics will have access to donated doses of Pfizer Inc. and BioNTech SE's Covid-19 vaccines, the International Olympic Committee said Thursday, as the Games' organizers attempt to boost the prospects of a giant global event whose status remains uncertain.

The vaccines are approved for use in less than half the nations around the world, however, and some public health advocates believe they are coming too late to make a significant difference.

National Olympic and Paralympic Committees around the world would work with their local governments to coordinate local distribution of the vaccines to ''athletes, officials and Games stakeholders,'' under a memorandum of understanding with the drug companies announced by the IOC.

Vaccinations are a key puzzle piece in determining a safe approach to staging an Olympics as the pandemic continues. So far, the IOC has said it is encouraging''but not mandating''vaccinations for athletes, coaches and others involved in the event.

About 11,000 Olympic and 4,400 Paralympic athletes from more than 200 countries are expected to compete in Tokyo. The Olympics start July 23, the Paralympics on Aug. 24.

Thursday's surprise donation echoes an earlier move by the Chinese Olympic Committee to offer its vaccines to Games participants, the impact of which has been unclear.

The newest offer would have to be rolled out to dozens of countries around the world, each with different regulatory requirements, within weeks in order to take effect in time for the Games. The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine requires two doses, typically taken several weeks apart, before protection is conferred two weeks after the second dose. The Olympics are 11 weeks away.

Pfizer and BioNTech have delivered Covid-19 vaccine doses to 91 countries or territories around the world, according to a Pfizer spokeswoman. The company has supply agreements or is in talks with about three dozen more countries and supranational organizations for the supply of its COVID-19 vaccine, she said.

The announcement was greeted skeptically by Lawrence Gostin, the director of the World Health Organization's center on global health law.

''It's too little, too late,'' said Gostin, pointing to the need to have in place cold-chain storage for the vaccine and emergency use authorizations, as well as the time between doses and after for efficacy. ''It's a PR gesture and very little more. Its practical impact on the Games will be negligible.''

''It seemed to me that vaccination was always the best way to have a safe Olympics, so long as you could deal with the supply question,'' he continued. ''Too late for that now. It's remarkable to me that the (International) Olympic Committee didn't see this coming for many, many months, and they would wait this long to negotiate this with one manufacturer.''

The coronavirus pandemic has killed more than 3 million people globally and more-contagious variants circulating have created unprecedented caseloads in recent weeks in countries such as India.

A large majority of the Japanese public has said in opinion polls that it wants the Games to be postponed again, as they were a year ago, or canceled altogether. Less than 2% of the Japanese population has been vaccinated, in part due to the time it has taken to approve Covid-19 vaccines for use in the country. The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was the first to be approved by Japan, on Feb. 14.

Tokyo 2020 organizers have been issuing revised plans for how they aim to keep the Games safe for their participants. The plans revolve around requirements for social distancing, masking and ventilation that could prove nearly impossible to adhere to in a crowded environment in July.

Without a vaccine requirement, epidemiologists have said, the Games risk triggering an outbreak that then spreads among the Japanese population. Japan's top Covid adviser said in late April, just as Tokyo and other major urban areas in Japan were put under a new state of emergency, that it was time to discuss the Games' potential strain on the country's medical system.

Participants in the Olympics number far more than the 11,000 athletes. They include volunteers who number about 80,000 and assist with nearly every aspect of Games operations, media members and others. The IOC's announcement didn't address the Tokyo Olympics volunteers.

The London 2012 Olympics had about 300,000 credentialed people, according to Phil Sherwood, head of volunteering and workforce training for the event. Games participants come from more than 200 countries, raising questions about the potential impact on those countries when Tokyo participants return home.

At the IOC's request, some countries began vaccinating their athletes months ago. But in some countries that said they would move forward with the request, there have already been delays. And the notion of young and healthy athletes receiving vaccines when they are still unavailable to millions of vulnerable people around the world has spurred controversy.

The IOC said in its Thursday announcement that ''any additional doses delivered by Pfizer and BioNTech will not be taken out of existing programmes, but will be in addition to existing quotas and planned deliveries around the world.''

Write to Rachel Bachman at Rachel.Bachman@wsj.com and Louise Radnofsky at louise.radnofsky@wsj.com

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sun, 09 May 2021 13:53

I'm offering this slogan for proponents of ''human composting'' if and when legislation to legalize it is introduced in the Illinois General Assembly.

The state of Washington OK'd the practice of returning dead bodies to the soil in 2019. And, as a story in the Tribune reported earlier this week, the governor of Colorado has announced he will sign a bill permitting the practice that just passed his state's legislature with overwhelming bipartisan majorities.

Which state will be next? Oregon, where a human composting bill passed the House 44-3 on April 10? California, where a bill to allow it passed out of a legislative committee by a 19-0 vote on April 20? New York, where a similar bill has advanced to a third reading in the State Assembly? Delaware , where a bill was just introduced in the House on April 15?

Illinois? Well, no such proposal has yet been introduced in Springfield.

The concept at work here is that it's more environmentally friendly and, to some of us, more spiritually satisfying to allow a dead human body to decay and become a nourishing part of the earth that once nourished it than it is to pump that body full of chemicals and store it in a vault underground or incinerate it into useless ashes.

As I noted when I last touched on this topic in 2019, the process, more formally known as natural organic reduction, is based on a method already used for disposing of livestock. The body is placed in a reusable hexagonal steel container with wood chips, alfalfa and straw to accelerate decomposition. Heating the container to 131 degrees kills off any dangerous pathogens.

After about a month, the body and ingredients of the container are transformed into two wheelbarrows worth of odorless, nutrient-rich soil '-- ''unrecognizable visually, chemically or microbiologically as human remains'' according to a Washington State University pilot study '-- that, after two more weeks of drying, can be distributed in a garden bed, packed around the base of a tree or otherwise scattered on private property.

Washington's first commercial ''investments,'' as they're lyrically called, took place in December 2020 at Recompose, a company outside Seattle that has 10 containers, and Herland Forest, a ''natural burial cemetery'' in the southern part of the state that now has three containers.

Return Home, a similar facility also near Seattle, will have 75 reduction containers when it opens at the end of this month, according to founder and CEO Micah Truman.

Anthony Estrella, the services specialist at Recompose, said the company, which charges $5,500 for the service, ''is as busy as it can be'' and frequently receives inquiries from around the world from potential clients and their families who are intrigued by the idea.

You may find the idea distasteful. The Catholic Conference in Colorado does and lobbied against legalization, saying it violates the sanctity of the human body, and ''the dignity of the human person is the basis of a moral society.''

I'll stand with them the moment any lawmaker proposes mandatory human composting.

But this is about choice. The choice to see dignity and morality in rejoining the circle of life. And the choice to believe that there can be nothing more sanctified than living on to repay, if only at the microbial level, the planet that gave us so much.

And the choice is really not much different than the choice of a ''green burial'' in a biodegradable box or shroud currently allowed in the state. Such burials, which don't use embalming fluids and have a tiny carbon footprint, are available at a handful of cemeteries. But they don't allow you to end up in your own yard or on a forest floor.

So how about it, Illinois?

State Rep. Dan Brady of Bloomington, the deputy Republican leader in the House and a licensed funeral director and embalmer, told me he's open to the idea and respects the environmental concerns and wishes of those interested in natural organic reduction, but has ''hesitations and concerns'' about safety issues regarding the placement of the composted remains and the respectful treatment of the human body.

North Side Democratic Rep. Kelly Cassidy was among the handful of lawmakers who replied to my ''Hey, how about it?'' note Wednesday with an expression of some interest in advancing the idea. She added that given the press of business right now in the General Assembly, she could only offer to have ''an eye on next year.''

We're not going to be next to join this revolution in death, in other words. But let's not be last.

Get the week's best columns, reports, tips, referrals and tirades from columnist Eric Zorn in the Change of Subject newsletter. Sign up here.

Long time producer & propagator here. After hearing you and JCD talk about unvaccinated women

experiencing menstrual irregularities after being around vaccinated people. I don’t know if you’ve

heard anything about men, but I’ve seen several people claim that they’ve had headaches,

nosebleeds, and testicular pain after being around vaccinated people. My coworker was vaccinated

last Monday, and I worked with him all day Saturday, then two days later I experienced horrible

testicular pain, that I’ve never experienced before.

Seeing how Bill Gates is behind this vaccines push and is all about population control, it makes

sense that it would be attacking the reproductive parts of both men and women.

I share because I hope to shed light on this for men if anyone else is experiencing something

similar. I wish there was a database for this where other people could share their

experiences/possible symptoms.

I hope to find answers soon!

Thanks for all the work you do in sharing information and keeping those amygdala's small.

Love and light,

Brett

Howdy Gents,

As I am about to begin the last week of this high speed chase around the country, I thought it would be a good time to check in from the road.

It has continued to be wild how diverse the attitudes are in regards to masks, vaccines, Chauvin, employment, and the general direction we are, or should be, heading in as a country.

Masking goes like this; the major metropolitan areas are fully on board with the fear porn that the M5M has been pumping out, and the evil eye was plentiful in places like Chicago, Boise, Seattle, and Portland where I continued to refuse to wear a mask outside walking around. But in places like Missouri, Arkansas, Kansas, Wyoming, and the karaoke show I went to in Colorado Springs they definitely did not enforce muzzling, and lots of businesses did not even have a virtue signalling sign up on the door.

A few other observations I've made along the way:

- There are "help wanted" signs out at basically ALL restaurants, fast food or otherwise, and the management folks I have chatted with are worried about staffing especially in areas that are about to really open back up.

- There are plenty of locationized "vaccine" distribution locations in more rural areas with flags, signs, wind sock guys, and staff sitting around with nothing to do, because no one was lined up. I noticed this mostly in smaller towns that were likely sleeper/commuter communities like Pekin, IL and Vashon Island, WA.

And Finally....

- Traffic is getting uglier, gas prices have only risen since I got on the road no matter where I go, there are still lots of boarded up businesses and BLM "art" to see in most major cities I have visited, and most people I have talked to are willing to do whatever it takes to "get back to normal", but think what I am doing is pretty cool, and I have had more than a few jokingly ask if I have room in my car or can wait until their shift ends so they can join me.

Last leg will be in California starting tomorrow.

-Suni

Hey Guuuyyyysss,

Our glorious leader put most of western Oregon under lockdown again two weeks ago because of ’surging cases.’ Cases were indeed on the rise, but they’ve already dropped off, suggesting that they had already peaked by the time she locked us down.

Stats for our 450+ bed regional hospital:

ICU about 97% full (moderately busy)

10 of about 35 beds are rona patients, <30%

Hospital overall: 91%

Note: the above numbers reflect our real capacity. None of our overflow/surge areas are open currently.

Total number of COVID-19+ admitted = 1438

Total number of COVID-19+ recovered and discharged = 1266

Total number of COVID-19+ deaths (at Salem Hospital) = 132

Fatality for our service area: 1.5%

Fatality rate of those admitted to our hospital: 9.1%

Statewide fatality rate: 1.3% (this rate includes all the heart attacks and car accident deaths that incidentally had Rona)

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sat, 08 May 2021 11:41

The Hong Kong flu, also known as the 1968 flu pandemic, was a flu pandemic whose outbreak in 1968 and 1969 killed between one and four million people globally.[1][2][3][4][5] It is among the deadliest pandemics in history, and was caused by an H3N2 strain of the influenza A virus. The virus was descended from H2N2 (which caused the Asian flu pandemic in 1957''1958) through antigenic shift'--a genetic process in which genes from multiple subtypes are reassorted to form a new virus.[6][7][8]

History Edit Origin and outbreak in Hong Kong and China Edit The first recorded instance of the outbreak appeared on 13 July 1968 in British Hong Kong.[8][9][10][11] There is a very large possibility that the outbreak actually began in Mainland China before it spread to Hong Kong.[10][12]

The outbreak in Hong Kong, where the population density was greater than 6,000 people per square kilometre, reached its maximum intensity in two weeks.[10][11] The outbreak lasted around six weeks, affecting about 15% of the population (some 500,000 people infected), but the mortality rate was low and the clinical symptoms were mild.[10][11][13][14]

There were two waves of the flu in mainland China, one between July''September in 1968 and the other between June''December in 1970.[14] The reported data were very limited due to the Cultural Revolution, but retrospective analysis of flu activity between 1968''1992 shows that flu infection was the most serious in 1968, implying that most areas in China were affected at the time.[14]

Outbreaks in other areas Edit By the end of July 1968, extensive outbreaks were reported in Vietnam and Singapore.[11] Despite the lethality of the 1957 Asian Flu in China, little improvement had been made regarding the handling of such epidemics.[11] The Times was the first source to report the new possible pandemic.[11]

By September 1968, the flu had reached India, the Philippines, northern Australia, and Europe. The same month, the virus entered California and was carried by troops returning from the Vietnam War, but it did not become widespread in the United States until December 1968. It reached Japan, Africa, and South America by 1969.[15] At the time of the outbreak, the Hong Kong flu was also known as the "Mao flu" or "Mao Tse-tung flu".[16][17][18][19]

Worldwide deaths from the virus peaked in December 1968 and January 1969, when public health warnings[20] and virus descriptions[21] had been widely issued in the scientific and medical journals. In Berlin, the excessive number of deaths led to corpses being stored in subway tunnels, and in West Germany, garbage collectors had to bury the dead because of a lack of undertakers. In total, East and West Germany registered 60,000 estimated deaths. In some areas of France, half of the workforce was bedridden, and manufacturing suffered large disruptions because of absenteeism. The UK postal and rail services were also severely disrupted.[22]

Vaccine and aftermath Edit Four months into the Hong Kong flu pandemic, American microbiologist Maurice Hilleman and his team had created a vaccine and more than 9 million doses had been manufactured.[23][24] The same team also played a key role in developing a vaccine during the 1957-58 Asian flu pandemic.[24][25]

The H3N2 virus returned during the following 1969''70 flu season, which resulted in a second, deadlier wave of deaths in Europe, Japan, and Australia.[26] It remains in circulation today as a strain of seasonal flu.[2]

Clinical data Edit Flu symptoms typically lasted four to five days, but some cases persisted for up to two weeks.[15]

Virology Edit The

influenza viruses that caused the Hong Kong flu (magnified approximately 100,000 times)

The Hong Kong flu was the first known outbreak of the H3N2 strain, but there is serologic evidence of H3N1 infections in the late 19th century. The virus was isolated in Queen Mary Hospital.[27]

The H2N2 and H3N2 pandemic flu strains both contained genes from avian influenza viruses. The new subtypes arose in pigs coinfected with avian and human viruses and were soon transferred to humans. Swine were considered the original "intermediate host" for influenza because they supported reassortment of divergent subtypes. However, other hosts appear capable of similar coinfection (such as many poultry species), and direct transmission of avian viruses to humans is possible. H1N1, associated with the 1918 flu pandemic, may have been transmitted directly from birds to humans.[28]

The Hong Kong flu strain shared internal genes and the neuraminidase with the 1957 Asian flu (H2N2). Accumulated antibodies to the neuraminidase or internal proteins may have resulted in many fewer casualties than most other pandemics. However, cross-immunity within and between subtypes of influenza is poorly understood.[citation needed ]

The basic reproduction number of the flu in this period was estimated at 1.80.[29]

Mortality Edit The estimates of the total death toll due to Hong Kong flu (from its beginning in July 1968 until the outbreak faded during the winter of 1969''70[30]) vary:

The World Health Organization and Encyclopaedia Britannica estimated the number of deaths due to Hong Kong flu to be 1''4 million globally.[1][16]The United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimated that in total, the virus caused deaths of 1 million people worldwide.[31]However, the death rate from the Hong Kong flu was lower than most other 20th-century pandemics.[15] The World Health Organization estimated the case fatality rate of Hong Kong flu to be lower than 0.2%.[1] The disease was allowed to spread through the population without restrictions on economic activity, and a vaccine created by American microbiologist Maurice Hilleman and his team became available four months after it had started.[22][23][24] Fewer people died during this pandemic than in previous pandemics for several reasons:[31]

Some immunity against the N2 flu virus may have been retained in populations struck by the Asian Flu strains that had been circulating since 1957.The pandemic did not gain momentum until near the winter school holidays in the Northern Hemisphere, thus limiting the infection's spread.Improved medical care gave vital support to the very ill.The availability of antibiotics that were more effective against secondary bacterial infections.By region Edit For this pandemic, there were two geographically-distinct mortality patterns. In North America (the United States and Canada), the first pandemic season (1968/69) was more severe than the second (1969/70). In the "smoldering" pattern seen in Europe and Asia (United Kingdom, France, Japan, and Australia), the second pandemic season was two to five times more severe than the first.[26] The United States health authorities estimated that about 34,000[32][33] to 100,000[31] people died in the U.S; most excess deaths were in those 65 and older.[34]

See also Edit Influenza vaccineReferences Edit ^ a b c "Pandemic Influenza Risk Management: WHO Interim Guidance" (PDF) . World Health Organization. 2013. p. 19. Archived (PDF) from the original on 21 January 2021. ^ a b Rogers, Kara (25 February 2010). "1968 flu pandemic". Encyclopaedia Britannica. Open Publishing . Retrieved 18 March 2020 . ^ Paul, William E. (2008). Fundamental Immunology. p. 1273. ISBN 9780781765190. Archived from the original on 2 July 2014 . Retrieved 27 October 2016 . ^ "World health group issues alert Mexican president tries to isolate those with swine flu". Associated Press. 25 April 2009. Archived from the original on 27 April 2009 . Retrieved 26 April 2009 . ^ Mandel, Michael (26 April 2009). "No need to panic... yet Ontario officials are worried swine flu could be pandemic, killing thousands". Toronto Sun. Archived from the original on 27 April 2009 . Retrieved 26 April 2009 . ^ "History's deadliest pandemics, from ancient Rome to modern America". Washington Post . Retrieved 2 January 2021 . ^ "1968 Pandemic (H3N2 virus)". U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 22 January 2019 . Retrieved 2 January 2021 . ^ a b Jester, Barbara J.; Uyeki, Timothy M.; Jernigan, Daniel B. (May 2020). "Fifty Years of Influenza A(H3N2) Following the Pandemic of 1968". American Journal of Public Health. 110 (5): 669''676. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2019.305557. ISSN 0090-0036. PMC 7144439 . PMID 32267748. ^ "How 1968's deadly Hong Kong flu left more than one million dead". South China Morning Post. 13 July 2018 . Retrieved 2 January 2021 . ^ a b c d Chang, W. K. (1969). "National Influenza Experience in Hong Kong, 1968" (PDF) . Bulletin of the World Health Organization. WHO. 41 (3): 349''351. PMC 2427693 . PMID 5309438 . Retrieved 12 April 2020 . ^ a b c d e f "Hong Kong Flu (1968 Influenza Pandemic)". Sino Biological . Retrieved 2 January 2021 . ^ Cockburn, W. Charles (1969). "Origin and progress of the 1968-69 Hong Kong influenza epidemic". Bulletin of the World Health Organization. 41 (3''4''5): 343''348. PMC 2427756 . PMID 5309437. ^ "How 1968's deadly Hong Kong flu left more than one million dead". South China Morning Post. 13 July 2018 . Retrieved 2 January 2021 . ^ a b c Qin, Ying; et al. (2018). "History of influenza pandemics in China during the past century". Chinese Journal of Epidemiology (in Chinese). 39 (8): 1028''1031. doi:10.3760/cma.j.issn.0254-6450.2018.08.003. PMID 30180422. Archived from the original on 9 January 2021. ^ a b c Starling, Arthur (2006). Plague, SARS, and the Story of Medicine in Hong Kong. HK University Press. p. 55. ISBN 962-209-805-3. Archived from the original on 18 June 2016 . Retrieved 27 October 2016 . ^ a b Honigsbaum, Mark (13 June 2020). "Revisiting the 1957 and 1968 influenza pandemics". The Lancet. 395 (10240): 1824''1826. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31201-0 . ISSN 0140-6736. PMC 7247790 . PMID 32464113. ^ "200,000 in Rome Have Flu (Published 1968)". The New York Times. 3 November 1968. ISSN 0362-4331 . Retrieved 7 December 2020 . ^ "The crises of winters past". BBC . Retrieved 7 December 2020 . ^ "Desert Sun 28 May 1969 '-- California Digital Newspaper Collection". cdnc.ucr.edu . Retrieved 7 December 2020 . ^ Jones, F. Avery (1968), "Winter Epidemics", British Medical Journal, 1968 (4): 327, doi:10.1136/bmj.4.5626.327-c, PMC 1912285 ^ Coleman, Marion T.; Dowdle, Walter R.; Pereira, Helio G.; Schild, Geoffrey C.; Chang, W. K. (1968), "The Hong Kong/68 Influenza A2 Variant", The Lancet, 292 (7583): 1384''1386, doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(68)92683-4, PMID 4177941 ^ a b Pancevski, Bojan (24 April 2020). "Forgotten Pandemic Offers Contrast to Today's Coronavirus Lockdowns". Wall Street Journal. ^ a b "Vaccine for Hong Kong Influenza Pandemic". History of Vaccines . Retrieved 4 January 2021 . ^ a b c Tulchinsky, Theodore H. (2018). "Maurice Hilleman: Creator of Vaccines That Changed the World". Case Studies in Public Health: 443''470. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-804571-8.00003-2. ISBN 9780128045718. PMC 7150172 . ^ "Confronting a Pandemic, 1957". The Scientist Magazine® . Retrieved 4 January 2021 . ^ a b Viboud, C(C)cile; Grais, Rebecca F.; Lafont, Bernard A. P.; Miller, Mark A.; Simonsen, Lone (15 July 2005). "Multinational Impact of the 1968 Hong Kong Influenza Pandemic: Evidence for a Smoldering Pandemic". The Journal of Infectious Diseases. 192 (2): 233''248. doi:10.1086/431150. ISSN 0022-1899. PMID 15962218. ^ Peckham, Robert (November 2020). "Viral surveillance and the 1968 Hong Kong flu pandemic". Journal of Global History. 15 (3): 444''458. doi:10.1017/S1740022820000224 . ISSN 1740-0228. ^ Belshe, R. B. (2005). "The origins of pandemic in¬‚uenza '' lessons from the 1918 virus". New England Journal of Medicine. 353 (21): 2209''2211. doi:10.1056/NEJMp058281. PMID 16306515. Cited in Harder, Timm C.; Werner, Ortrud. Kamps, Bernd Sebastain; Hoffmann, Christian; Preiser, Wolfgang (eds.). "Influenza Report". Archived from the original on 10 May 2016. ^ Biggerstaff, M.; Cauchemez, S.; Reed, C.; et al. (2014). "Estimates of the reproduction number for seasonal, pandemic, and zoonotic influenza: a systematic review of the literature". BMC Infectious Diseases. 14 (480): 480. doi:10.1186/1471-2334-14-480 . PMC 4169819 . PMID 25186370. ^ Dutton, Gail (13 April 2020). "The 1968 Pandemic Strain (H3N2) Persists. Will COVID-19?". BioSpace . Retrieved 5 May 2020 . ^ a b c "1968 Pandemic (H3N2 virus)". Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Archived from the original on 30 January 2019 . Retrieved 22 August 2020 . ^ "Pandemics and Pandemic Threats since 1900". U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Archived from the original on 31 March 2009. ^ 1968 Hong Kong flu '' CDC ^ Shiel, William. "Medical Definition of Hong Kong flu". MedicineNet . Retrieved 22 May 2020 . External links Edit Influenza Research Database '' Database of influenza genomic sequences and related information.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sat, 08 May 2021 11:40

The 1957''1958 Asian flu pandemic was a global pandemic of influenza A virus subtype H2N2 that originated in Guizhou in southern China.[1][2][3] The number of deaths caused by the 1957''1958 pandemic is estimated between one and four million worldwide, making it one of the deadliest pandemics in history.[3][4] A decade later, a reassorted viral strain H3N2 further caused the Hong Kong flu pandemic (1968''1969).[5]

History Edit Origin and outbreak in China Edit The first cases were reported in Guizhou of southern China, in 1956[6][7] or in early 1957.[1][2][8][9] They were soon reported in the neighbouring province of Yunnan in late February or early March 1957.[9][10] By the middle of March, the flu had spread all over China.[9][11]

The People's Republic of China was not a member of the World Health Organization at the time (not until 1981[12]), and did not inform other countries about the outbreak.[11] The United States CDC, however, states that the flu was "first reported in Singapore in February 1957".[13]

In late 1957, a second wave of the flu took place in Northern China, especially in rural areas.[11] In the same year, as response to the epidemic, the Chinese government established the Chinese National Influenza Center (CNIC), which soon published a manual on influenza in 1958.[11][14]

Outbreak in other areas Edit 168 sick patients with Asian flu in a sport arena in

Lule¥, Sweden (1957).

On 17 April 1957, The Times reported that "an influenza epidemic has affected thousands of Hong Kong residents".[15] By the end of the month (or as early as February[13][16]), Singapore also experienced an outbreak of the new flu, which peaked in mid-May with 680 deaths, and Singapore was the first country to notify the World Health Organization about an extensive outbreak of the flu which "appeared to have been introduced from Hong Kong".[9][17] In Taiwan, 100,000 were affected by mid-May, and India suffered a million cases by June.[18] In late June, the pandemic reached the United Kingdom.[15]

By June 1957, it reached the United States, where it initially caused few infections.[19] Some of the first people affected were US Navy personnel at destroyers docked at Newport Naval Station and new military recruits elsewhere.[20] The first wave peaked in October and affected mainly children who recently returned to school after summer break. The second wave, in January and February 1958, was more pronounced among elderly people and so was more fatal.[19][21]

Vaccine and aftermath Edit The microbiologist Maurice Hilleman was alarmed by pictures of those affected by the virus in Hong Kong that were published in The New York Times. He obtained samples of the virus from a US Navy doctor in Japan. The Public Health Service released the virus cultures to vaccine manufacturers on 12 May 1957, and a vaccine entered trials at Fort Ord on 26 July and Lowry Air Force Base on 29 July.[20]

The number of deaths peaked the week ending 17 October, with 600 reported in England and Wales.[18] The vaccine was available in the same month in the United Kingdom.[15] Although it was initially available only in limited quantities,[21][15] its rapid deployment helped contain the pandemic.[19] Hilleman's vaccine is believed to have saved hundreds of thousands of lives.[22] Some predicted that the U.S. death toll would have reached 1 million without the vaccine that Hilleman called for.[23]

H2N2 influenza virus continued to be transmitted until 1968, when it transformed via antigenic shift into influenza A virus subtype H3N2, the cause of the 1968 influenza pandemic.[19][24]

Virology Edit The strain of virus that caused the Asian flu pandemic, influenza A virus subtype H2N2, was a recombination of avian influenza (probably from geese) and human influenza viruses.[6][19] As it was a novel strain of the virus, the population had minimal immunity.[6][15] The reproduction number for the virus was around 1.8 and approximately two-thirds of infected individuals were estimated to have experienced clinical symptoms.[25]

Mortality estimates Edit Excess mortality in Chile, 1953''1959. Flu seasons highlighted in gray. Note black spikes in the mortality rate.

The World Health Organization estimated the case fatality rate (CFR) of Asian flu to be lower than 0.2%.[3] However, one study found that the CFR was approximately 0.67%.[26] It could cause pneumonia by itself without the presence of secondary bacterial infection. It may have infected as many as or more people than the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic, but the vaccine, improved health care, and the invention of antibiotics to manage opportunistic bacterial infections contributed to a lower mortality rate.[6] It caused many infections in children, spread in schools, and led to many school closures. However, the virus was rarely fatal in children and was most deadly in pregnant women, the elderly, and those with pre-existing heart and lung disease.[6] Estimates of the number of deaths worldwide vary:

The World Health Organization and the UK government estimate the death toll to be between one and four million.[3][27][28]A paper published in The Journal of Infectious Diseases estimates 1.1 million.[6][19][29]The U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention estimates worldwide deaths as 1.1 million.[13]By country Edit According to US CDC, about 70,000 to 116,000 people died in the United States.[13][30]An estimated 33,000 deaths in the United Kingdom were attributed to the 1957''58 flu outbreak.[6][24][27][31] The disease was estimated to have a 3% rate of complications and 0.3% mortality in the United Kingdom.[15]In Germany, around 30,000 people died of the flu between September 1957 and April 1958.[32]According to the 2016 study in The Journal of Infectious Diseases, the highest excess mortality occurred in Latin America.[29]Economic effects Edit The Dow Jones Industrial Average lost 15% of its value in the second half of 1957, and the U.S. experienced a recession.[31] In the United Kingdom, the government paid out £10,000,000 in sickness benefit, and some factories and mines had to close.[15] Many schools had to close in Ireland, including seventeen in Dublin.[33]

References Edit ^ a b Pennington, T H (2006). "A slippery disease: a microbiologist's view". BMJ. 332 (7544): 789''790. doi:10.1136/bmj.332.7544.789. PMC 1420718 . PMID 16575087. ^ a b Tsui, Stephen KW (2012). "Some observations on the evolution and new improvement of Chinese guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of influenza". Journal of Thoracic Disease. 4 (1): 7''9. doi:10.3978/j.issn.2072-1439.2011.11.03. ISSN 2072-1439. PMC 3256544 . PMID 22295158. ^ a b c d "Pandemic Influenza Risk Management: WHO Interim Guidance" (PDF) . World Health Organization. 2013. p. 19. Archived (PDF) from the original on 21 January 2021. ^ "History's deadliest pandemics, from ancient Rome to modern America". Washington Post . Retrieved 2 January 2021 . ^ "1968 Pandemic (H3N2 virus) | Pandemic Influenza (Flu) | CDC". www.cdc.gov. 22 January 2019 . Retrieved 2 January 2021 . ^ a b c d e f g Clark, William R. (2008). Bracing for Armageddon?: The Science and Politics of Bioterrorism in America. Oxford University Press. p. 72. ISBN 978-0-19-045062-5. ^ Perret, Robert. "LibGuides: Pandemics: Asian Flu (1956-1958)". University of Idaho . Retrieved 2 January 2021 . ^ Peckham, Robert (2016). Epidemics in Modern Asia. Cambridge University Press. p. 276. ISBN 978-1-107-08468-1. ^ a b c d "SYMPOSIUM ON THE ASIAN INFLUENZA EPIDEMIC, 1957". Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine. 51. 16 May 1958. ^ Strahan, Lachlan M. (October 1994). "An oriental scourge: Australia and the Asian flu epidemic of 1956". Australian Historical Studies. 26 (103): 182''201. doi:10.1080/10314619408595959. ^ a b c d Qin, Ying; et al. (2018). "History of influenza pandemics in China during the past century". Chinese Journal of Epidemiology (in Chinese). 39 (8): 1028''1031. Archived from the original on 9 January 2021. ^ "About WHO in China". World Health Organization . Retrieved 9 January 2021 . ^ a b c d "1957-1958 Pandemic (H2N2 virus)". U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 22 January 2019 . Retrieved 2 January 2021 . ^ "国家流æŸä¸­åƒå‘展历史 (History of CNIC)". CNIC (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 21 July 2018 . Retrieved 9 January 2021 . ^ a b c d e f g Jackson, Claire (1 August 2009). "History lessons: the Asian Flu pandemic". British Journal of General Practice. 59 (565): 622''623. doi:10.3399/bjgp09X453882. PMC 2714797 . PMID 22751248. ^ "Asian Flu (1957 Influenza Pandemic)". Sino Biological . Retrieved 2 January 2021 . ^ Ho, Olivia (19 April 2020). "Three times that the world coughed, and Singapore caught the bug". Straits Times . Retrieved 2 May 2020 . ^ a b Honigsbaum, Mark (13 June 2020). "Revisiting the 1957 and 1968 influenza pandemics". The Lancet. 395 (10240): 1824''1826. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31201-0 . ISSN 0140-6736. PMID 32464113. ^ a b c d e f "1957 flu pandemic". Encyclopedia Britannica . Retrieved 4 April 2020 . ^ a b Zeldovich, Lina (7 April 2020). "How America Brought the 1957 Influenza Pandemic to a Halt". JSTOR Daily . Retrieved 8 April 2020 . ^ a b "Definition of Asian flu". MedicineNet . Retrieved 4 April 2020 . ^ "Confronting a Pandemic, 1957". The Scientist Magazine® . Retrieved 4 January 2021 . ^ "Asian Influenza Pandemic | History of Vaccines". www.historyofvaccines.org . Retrieved 7 February 2021 . ^ a b "Pandemic flu virus from 1957 mistakenly sent to labs". CIDRAP . Retrieved 4 April 2020 . ^ Vynnycky, E; Edmunds, WJ (February 2008). "Analyses of the 1957 (Asian) influenza pandemic in the United Kingdom and the impact of school closures". Epidemiology and Infection. 136 (2): 166''179. doi:10.1017/S0950268807008369. ISSN 0950-2688. PMC 2870798 . PMID 17445311. ^ Nickol, Michaela E.; Kindrachuk, Jason (6 February 2019). "A year of terror and a century of reflection: perspectives on the great influenza pandemic of 1918''1919". BMC Infectious Diseases. 19 (1): 117. doi:10.1186/s12879-019-3750-8. ISSN 1471-2334. PMC 6364422 . PMID 30727970. ^ a b "Coronavirus: action plan. A guide to what you can expect across the UK" (PDF) . gov.uk. 3 March 2020 . Retrieved 25 March 2020 . ^ "Overarching Government Strategy to Respond to Pandemic Influenza. Analysis of the Scientific Evidence Base" (PDF) . gov.uk. November 2007 . Retrieved 25 March 2020 . ^ a b Viboud, C(C)cile; Simonsen, Lone; Fuentes, Rodrigo; Flores, Jose; Miller, Mark A.; Chowell, Gerardo (1 March 2016). "Global Mortality Impact of the 1957''1959 Influenza Pandemic". The Journal of Infectious Diseases. Oxford University Press. 213 (5): 738''745. doi:10.1093/infdis/jiv534. PMC 4747626 . PMID 26908781. ^ "1957 Flu Pandemic | Pandemic Influenza Storybook | CDC". www.cdc.gov. 18 September 2018 . Retrieved 7 February 2021 . ^ a b Pinsker, Joe (28 February 2020). "How to Think About the Plummeting Stock Market". The Atlantic . Retrieved 4 April 2020 . Perhaps a better parallel is the flu pandemic of 1957 and '58, which originated in East Asia and killed at least 1 million people, including an estimated 116,000 in the U.S. In the second half of 1957, the Dow fell about 15 percent. "Other things happened over that time period" too, Wald notes, but "at least there was no world war." ^ Kutzner, Maximilian (19 May 2020). "Debatte zur Herkunft der Asiatischen Grippe 1957" [Debate on the origin of the Asian flu of 1957]. Deutschland Archiv [de] (in German). Federal Agency for Civic Education . Retrieved 7 August 2020 . ^ Mullally, Una. "An 'Asian flu' pandemic closed 17 Dublin schools in 1957". The Irish Times . Retrieved 8 April 2020 . Further reading Edit Chowell, Gerardo; Simonsen, Lone; Fuentes, Rodrigo; Flores, Jose; Miller, Mark A.; Viboud, C(C)cile (May 2017). "Severe mortality impact of the 1957 influenza pandemic in Chile". Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses. 11 (3): 230''239. doi:10.1111/irv.12439. PMC 5410718 . PMID 27883281. Cobos, April J.; Nelson, Clinton G.; Jehn, Megan; Viboud, C(C)cile; Chowell, Gerardo (2016). "Mortality and transmissibility patterns of the 1957 influenza pandemic in Maricopa County, Arizona". BMC Infectious Diseases. 16 (1): 405. doi:10.1186/s12879-016-1716-7. ISSN 1471-2334. PMC 4982429 . PMID 27516082.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sun, 09 May 2021 12:25

Guest Essay

May 7, 2021

Credit... Tomasz Lazar By Zeynep Tufekci

Dr. Tufekci is a contributing Opinion writer who has extensively examined the Covid-19 pandemic.

This article has been updated.

A few sentences have shaken a century of science.

A week ago, more than a year after the World Health Organization declared that we face a pandemic, a page on its website titled ''Coronavirus Disease (Covid-19): How Is It Transmitted?'' got a seemingly small update.

The agency's response to that question had been that ''current evidence suggests that the main way the virus spreads is by respiratory droplets'' '-- which are expelled from the mouth and quickly fall to the ground '-- ''among people who are in close contact with each other.''

The revised response still emphasizes transmission in close contact but now says it may be via aerosols '-- smaller respiratory particles that can float '-- as well as droplets. It also adds a reason the virus can also be transmitted ''in poorly ventilated and/or crowded indoor settings,'' saying this is because ''aerosols remain suspended in the air or travel farther than 1 meter.''

The change didn't get a lot of attention. There was no news conference, no big announcement.

Then, on Friday, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also updated its guidance on Covid-19, clearly saying that inhalation of these smaller particles is a key way the virus is transmitted, even at close range, and put it on top of its list of how the disease spreads.

There was no news conference by the C.D.C. either.

But these latest shifts challenge key infection control assumptions that go back a century, putting a lot of what went wrong last year in context. They may also signal one of the most important advancements in public health during this pandemic.

If the importance of aerosol transmission had been accepted early, we would have been told from the beginning that it was much safer outdoors, where these small particles disperse more easily, as long as you avoid close, prolonged contact with others. We would have tried to make sure indoor spaces were well ventilated, with air filtered as necessary. Instead of blanket rules on gatherings, we would have targeted conditions that can produce superspreading events: people in poorly ventilated indoor spaces, especially if engaged over time in activities that increase aerosol production, like shouting and singing. We would have started using masks more quickly, and we would have paid more attention to their fit, too. And we would have been less obsessed with cleaning surfaces.

Our mitigations would have been much more effective, sparing us a great deal of suffering and anxiety.

Since the pandemic is far from over, with countries like India facing devastating surges, we need to understand both why this took so long to come about and what it will mean.

* Initially, SARS-CoV-2 was seen as a disease spread by respiratory droplets, except in rare cases of aerosol transmission during medical procedures like intubation. Countertops, boxes and other possible fomites '-- contaminated surfaces '-- were seen as a threat because if we touched them after droplets fell on them, it was believed the virus could make its way to our hands, then our noses, eyes or mouths.

The implications of this were illustrated when I visited New York City in late April '-- my first trip there in more than a year.

A giant digital billboard greeted me at Times Square, with the message ''Protecting yourself and others from Covid-19. Guidance from the World Health Organization.''

First, ''Hygiene'' flashed, urging me to wash my hands, ''practice respiratory hygiene,'' avoid touching my face and wear a mask when necessary. Next, ''Social distancing'' told me to avoid close contact with people (illustrated by people separated by one meter), avoid shaking hands and stay home if unwell. Then ''Medical help'' advised me to follow local medical protocols.

I was stunned that the final instruction was ''Stay informed.''

That billboard neglected the clearest epidemiological pattern of this pandemic: The vast majority of transmission has been indoors, sometimes beyond a range of three or even six feet. The superspreading events that play a major role in driving the pandemic occur overwhelmingly, if not exclusively, indoors.

The billboard had not a word about ventilation, nothing about opening windows or moving activities outdoors, where transmission has been rare and usually only during prolonged and close contact. (Ireland recently reported 0.1 percent of Covid-19 cases were traced to outdoor transmission.)

Image Credit... Tomasz Lazar The omission is not surprising. Throughout the pandemic, the W.H.O. was slow to accept the key role that infectious particles small enough to float could be playing.

Mary-Louise McLaws, an epidemiologist at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, and a member of the W.H.O. committees that craft infection prevention and control guidance, wanted all this examined but knew the stakes made it harder to overcome the resistance. She told The Times last year, ''If we started revisiting airflow, we would have to be prepared to change a lot of what we do.'' She said it was a very good idea, but she added, ''It will cause an enormous shudder through the infection control society.''

This assumption that these larger droplets that can travel only a few feet are the main way the disease spreads is one of the key reasons the W.H.O. and the C.D.C. didn't recommend masks at first. Why bother if one can simply stay out of their range? After the C.D.C. recommended masks in April 2020, the W.H.O. shifted last June, but it first suggested ordinary people generally wear masks if physical distancing could not be maintained, and still said health care workers performing screenings in the community did not need to wear masks if they could stay that single meter away from patients. The W.H.O. last updated its mask guidance in December but continued to insist that mask use indoors was not necessary if people could remain separated by that mere meter '-- this time conceding that if ventilation might not be adequate, masks should be worn indoors, regardless of distancing.

In contrast, if the aerosols had been considered a major form of transmission, in addition to distancing and masks, advice would have centered on ventilation and airflow, as well as time spent indoors. Small particles can accumulate in enclosed spaces, since they can remain suspended in the air and travel along air currents. This means that indoors, three or even six feet, while helpful, is not completely protective, especially over time.

To see this misunderstanding in action, look at what's still happening throughout the world. In India, where hospitals have run out of supplemental oxygen and people are dying in the streets, money is being spent on fleets of drones to spray anti-coronavirus disinfectant in outdoor spaces. Parks, beaches and outdoor areas keep getting closed around the world. This year and last, organizers canceled outdoor events for the National Cherry Blossom Festival in Washington, D.C. Cambodian customs officials advised spraying disinfectant outside vehicles imported from India. The examples are many.

Meanwhile, many countries allowed their indoor workplaces to open but with inadequate aerosol protections. There was no attention to ventilation, installing air filters as necessary or even opening windows when possible, more to having people just distancing three or six feet, sometimes not requiring masks beyond that distance, or spending money on hard plastic barriers, which may be useless at best. (Just this week, President Biden visited a school where students were sitting behind plastic shields.)

This occurred throughout the world in the past year. The United States has been a bit better, but the C.D.C. did not really accept aerosol transmission until October, though still relegating it to a secondary role until its change on Friday, which put the risk infection from inhaling these tiny particles first on its list of means of transmission.

*

The scientific wrangling, resistance and controversy that prevented a change in guidance stem from a century of mistaken assumptions whose roots go back to the origins of germ theory of disease in the 19th century.

Until germ theory became established in the 19th century, many people believed that deadly diseases like cholera were caused by miasma '-- stinking fumes from organic or rotting material. It wasn't easy to persuade people that creatures so small that they could not be seen in a seemingly innocent glass of water could be claiming so many lives.

This was a high-stakes fight: Getting the transmission mechanisms of a disease wrong can lead to mitigations that not only are ineffective but also make things worse. During the 19th century, fearing miasma, Londoners worked hard to direct their stinky sewers into the nearby Thames River, essentially spreading cholera even more.

But clear evidence doesn't easily overturn tradition or overcome entrenched feelings and egos. John Snow, often credited as the first scientific epidemiologist, showed that a contaminated well was responsible for a 1854 London cholera epidemic by removing the suspected pump's handle and documenting how the cases plummeted afterward. Many other scientists and officials wouldn't believe him for 12 years, when the link to a water source showed up again and became harder to deny. (He died years earlier.)

Similarly, when the Hungarian physician Ignaz Semmelweis realized the importance of washing hands to protect patients, he lost his job and was widely condemned by disbelieving colleagues. He wasn't always the most tactful communicator, and his colleagues resented his brash implication that they were harming their patients (even though they were). These doctors continued to kill their patients through cross-contamination for decades, despite clear evidence showing how death rates had plummeted in the few wards where midwives and Dr. Semmelweis had succeeded in introducing routine hand hygiene. He ultimately died of an infected wound.

Disentangling causation is difficult, too, because of confusing correlations and conflations. Terrible smells frequently overlap with unsanitary conditions that can contribute to ill health, and in mid-19th-century London, death rates from cholera were higher in parts of the city with poor living conditions.

Along the way to modern public health shaped largely by the fight over germs, a theory of transmission promoted by the influential public health figure Charles Chapin took hold.

Dr. Chapin asserted in the early 1900s that respiratory diseases were most likely spread at close range by people touching bodily fluids or ejecting respiratory droplets, and did not allow for the possibility that such close-range infection could occur by inhaling small floating particles others emitted. He was also concerned that belief in airborne transmission, which he associated with miasma theories, would make people feel helpless and drop their guard against contact transmission. This was a mistake that would haunt infection control for the next century and more.

In modern medical parlance, respiratory transmission routes are divided between the larger droplets, associated with diseases that spread at close distance, and the smaller aerosols (sometimes also called droplet nuclei), associated with diseases like measles that we know can spread at long distance and are usually highly contagious. Indeed, studies showing that respiratory diseases spread more easily in proximity to infected people seemingly confirmed the role of droplets.

It was in this context in early 2020 that the W.H.O. and the C.D.C. asserted that SARS-CoV-2 was transmitted primarily via these heavier, short-range droplets, and provided guidance accordingly.

But from the beginning, the way the disease was spreading around the world did not fit this theory well. In February 2020, after an infected person was found to have boarded the cruise ship Diamond Princess, hundreds of people trapped on board for weeks were infected, including 567 of the 2,666 passengers, who were largely confined to their rooms and delivered food by masked personnel '-- hard to explain solely with droplet-driven transmission. (Hitoshi Oshitani, a Japanese virologist who played an important role in his country's response to the epidemic, said it was this ship outbreak that helped convince him this was airborne '-- and it's why Japan planned around airborne transmission assumptions from as early as February 2020.)

Then there were the many superspreader events around the world that defied droplet explanations. In March 2020 in Mount Vernon, Wash., 61 pandemic-aware people showed up to a choir practice and sang with some distance between them in a large space, were provided hand sanitizer and left the doors open, reducing the need for people to touch the handles. But 53 of them were confirmed or strongly suspected to have contracted Covid-19 anyway, and two died. Long-distance transmission was being documented as well: One study from China in April 2020, clearly documenting transmission from beyond one meter, had video evidence showing the initially infected person had not come very close to those he infected, and there were no common surfaces touched.

Epidemiological studies and examples kept pouring in, too, all of them showing that Covid-19 was spreading primarily indoors and clusters were concentrated in poorly ventilated spaces. And when outdoor transmission did occur, it was often when people were in prolonged close contact, talking or yelling, as with construction workers on the same site.

The disease was also greatly overdispersed, sometimes being not very contagious and other times dramatically so. Large-scale studies showed that more than 70 percent of infected people did not transmit to any other person, while as few as 5 percent may be responsible for 80 percent of transmissions through superspreading events. Despite databases documenting thousands of indoor superspreader incidents, I'm not aware of a single confirmed outdoor-only case of superspreading.

None of this could be explained easily if the disease were ''primarily transmitted between people through respiratory droplets and contact routes,'' as the W.H.O. had said, since those larger, heavier particles would behave the same indoors as outdoors, would be largely indifferent to ventilation and would not be conducive to so much superspreading.

Finally, it was clear from early on that people who weren't yet sick or coughing or sneezing '-- which produce a lot more droplets '-- were transmitting and that things correlated with aerosol emissions like talking, yelling and singing were associated with many of the outbreaks.

Amid the growing evidence, in July, hundreds of scientists signed an open letter urging the public health agencies, especially the W.H.O., to address airborne transmission of the coronavirus.

Image Credit... Tomasz Lazar That month, after the open letter, the W.H.O. updated its guidance to say that ''short-range aerosol transmission'' from infected people in poorly ventilated spaces over time ''cannot be ruled out'' but went on to say that ''the detailed investigations of these clusters suggest that droplet and fomite transmission could also explain human-to-human transmission within these clusters'' and that close contact could still be the reason, ''especially if hand hygiene was not performed and masks were not used when physical distancing was not maintained.''

Evidence kept accumulating. Transmission was documented in adjacent rooms in a quarantine hotel where people never interacted. Several hospital workers were proved to have been infected despite strict contact and droplet precautions. Viable virus was found in air samples from hospital rooms of Covid-19 patients who hadn't had aerosol-generating procedures and in an air sample from an infected person's car. The virus was found in exhaust vents in hospitals, and ferrets in cages connected only via shared air infected each other. And so on.

There were quibbles with each study: Was the sampled virus infective enough? (It is hard to catch the viruses from the air without destroying them.) Could some fomite connection have been missed? Still, it kept getting harder to deny the role of aerosols as a major factor.

Last October, the C.D.C. published updated guidance acknowledging airborne transmission, but as a secondary route under some circumstances, until it acknowledged airborne transmission as crucial on Friday. And the W.H.O. kept inching forward in its public statements, most recently a week ago.

* Linsey Marr, a professor of engineering at Virginia Tech who made important contributions to our understanding of airborne virus transmission before the pandemic, pointed to two key scientific errors '-- rooted in a lot of history '-- that explain the resistance, and also opened a fascinating sociological window into how science can get it wrong and why.

First, Dr. Marr said, the upper limit for particles to be able to float is actually 100 microns, not five microns, as generally thought. The incorrect five-micron claim may have come about because earlier scientists conflated the size at which respiratory particles could reach the lower respiratory tract (important for studying tuberculosis) with the size at which they remain suspended in the air.

Dr. Marr said that if you inhale a particle from the air, it's an aerosol. She agreed that droplet transmission by a larger respiratory particle is possible, if it lands on the eye, for example, but biomechanically, she said, nasal transmission faces obstacles, since nostrils point downward and the physics of particles that large makes it difficult for them to move up the nose. And in lab measurements, people emit far more of the easier-to-inhale aerosols than the droplets, she said, and even the smallest particles can be virus laden, sometimes more so than the larger ones, seemingly because of how and where they are produced in the respiratory tract.

Second, she said, proximity is conducive to transmission of aerosols as well because aerosols are more concentrated near the person emitting them. In a twist of history, modern scientists have been acting like those who equated stinky air with disease, by equating close contact, a measure of distance, only with the larger droplets, a mechanism of transmission, without examination.

Since aerosols also infect at close range, measures to prevent droplet transmission '-- masks and distancing '-- can help dampen transmission for airborne diseases as well. However, this oversight led medical people to circularly assume that if such measures worked at all, droplets must have played a big role in their transmission.

Other incorrect assumptions thrived. For example, in July, right after the letter by the hundreds of scientists challenging the droplet paradigm, Reuters reported that Dr. John Conly, who chairs a key W.H.O. infection prevention working group, said that there would be many more cases if the virus was airborne and asked, ''Would we not be seeing, like, literally billions of cases globally?'' He made similar claims last month. And he is not the only member of that group to assert this, a common assumption in the world of infection control well into 2021.

However, Dr. Marr pointed out, there are airborne diseases, like measles, that are highly contagious and others, like tuberculosis, that are not. Moreover, while SARS-CoV-2 is certainly not as infectious as measles on average, it can be highly infectious in the superspreading events driving the pandemic.

Many respiratory viruses carried by aerosols survive better in colder environments and lower relative humidity, Dr. Marr said, again fitting the pattern of outbreaks around the world, for example, in many meatpacking plants. Plus, some activities produce more aerosols '-- talking, yelling, singing, exercising '-- also fitting the pattern of outbreaks globally.

Why did it take so long to understand all this?

* One reason is that our institutions weren't necessarily set up to deal with what we faced. For example, the W.H.O.'s Infection Prevention and Control (I.P.C.) global unit primarily concentrates on health care facilities. Many of the experts they enlisted to form the Covid-19 I.P.C. Guidance Development Group were hospital-focused, and some of them specialized in antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections that can spread wildly in health care facilities when medical personnel fail to regularly wash their hands. So this focus made sense in a prepandemic world. Hospitals employ trained health care workers and are fairly controlled, well-defined settings, with different considerations from those of a pandemic across many environments in the real world. Further, in some countries like the United States, they tend to have extensive engineering controls to dampen infections, involving aggressive air-exchange standards, almost like being outdoors. This is the opposite of modern office and even residential buildings, which tend to be more sealed for energy efficiency. In such a medical environment, hand hygiene is a more important consideration, since ventilation is taken care of.

Another dynamic we've seen is something that is not unheard-of in the history of science: setting a higher standard of proof for theories that challenge conventional wisdom than for those that support it.

As part of its assessment of the virus's spread, the W.H.O. asked a group of scientists last fall to review the evidence on transmission of the coronavirus. When reviewing airborne transmission, the group focused mostly on studies of air samples, especially if live virus was captured from the air, which, as mentioned above, is extremely hard. By that criterion, airborne transmission of the measles virus, which is undisputed, would not be accepted because no one has cultivated that pathogen from room air. That's also true of tuberculosis. And while scientists, despite the difficulties, had managed to capture viable SARS-CoV-2 in three studies that I'm aware of, the review noted that the virus was detected only intermittently in general, disputed whether the captured live virus was infective enough and ultimately said it could not reach ''firm conclusions over airborne transmission.'' The lead author and another senior member of the research group previously said they believed transmission was driven by droplets.

The skepticism about airborne transmission is at odds with the acceptance of droplet transmission. Dr. Marr and Joseph Allen, the director of the Healthy Buildings program and an associate professor at Harvard's T.H. Chan School of Public Health, told me that droplet transmission has never been directly demonstrated. Since Dr. Chapin, close-distance transmission has been seen as proof of droplets unless disproved through much effort, as was finally done for tuberculosis.

Another key problem is that, understandably, we find it harder to walk things back. It is easier to keep adding exceptions and justifications to a belief than to admit that a challenger has a better explanation.

The ancients believed that all celestial objects revolved around the earth in circular orbits. When it became clear that the observed behavior of the celestial objects did not fit this assumption, those astronomers produced ever-more-complex charts by adding epicycles '-- intersecting arcs and circles '-- to fit the heavens to their beliefs.

In a contemporary example of this attitude, the initial public health report on the Mount Vernon choir case said that it may have been caused by people ''sitting close to one another, sharing snacks and stacking chairs at the end of the practice,'' even though almost 90 percent of the people there developed symptoms of Covid-19. Shelly Miller, an aerosol expert at the University of Colorado Boulder, was so struck by the incident that she initiated a study with a team of scientists, documenting that the space was less full than usual, allowing for increased distance, that nobody reported touching anyone else, that hand sanitizer was used and that only three people who had arrived early arranged the chairs. There was no spatial pattern to the transmission, implicating airflows, and there was nobody within nine feet in front of the first known case, who had mild symptoms.

Galileo is said to have murmured, ''And yet it moves,'' after he was forced to recant his theory that the earth moved around the sun. Scientists who studied bioaerosols could only say, ''And yet it floats.''

* So much of what we have done throughout the pandemic '-- the excessive hygiene theater and the failure to integrate ventilation and filters into our basic advice '-- has greatly hampered our response. Some of it, like the way we underused or even shut down outdoor space, isn't that different from the 19th-century Londoners who flushed the source of their foul air into the Thames and made the cholera epidemic worse.

Image Credit... Tomasz Lazar Righting this ship cannot be a quiet process '-- updating a web page here, saying the right thing there. The proclamations that we now know are wrong were so persistent and so loud for so long.

It's true that as the evidence piled on, there was genuine progress and improvement, especially as of late. Even before the change in language last week, for example, the W.H.O. published helpful guides on ventilation, first in July and updating it in March. Recently, though the organization's documents have lagged, more of its officials have started giving advice compatible with aerosol transmission, emphasizing things like close mask fit '-- which matters little for droplet transmission '-- and ventilation '-- which matters even less. All this is good, but nowhere near enough to change the regulations and policy bundles that had already been put in place around the world.

And the progress we've made might lead to an overhaul in our understanding of many other transmissible respiratory diseases that take a terrible toll around the world each year and could easily cause other pandemics.

So big proclamations require probably even bigger proclamations to correct, or the information void, unnecessary fears and misinformation will persist, damaging the W.H.O. now and in the future.

Scientists have responded. In just the past few weeks, there has been a flood of articles published about airborne transmission in leading medical journals. Dr. Marr and other scientists told me the situation was very difficult until recently, as the droplet dogma reigned. I co-wrote one of those papers, published in The Lancet last month, arguing that aerosols may be the predominant mode of transmission for SARS-CoV-2, a step farther.

I've seen our paper used in India to try to reason through aerosol transmission and the necessary mitigations. I've heard of people in India closing their windows after hearing that the virus is airborne, likely because they were not being told how to respond. Plus, there are important questions for what this means for higher-risk settings, like medical facilities.

The W.H.O. needs to address these fears and concerns, treating it as a matter of profound change, so other public health agencies and governments, as well as ordinary people, can better adjust.

The past year has revealed how crucial the agency is, despite being hampered by chronic underfunding, lack of independence and attempts to turn it into a political football by big powers. Like other public health organizations, many of its dedicated staff members work tirelessly under difficult conditions to safeguard health around the world. Maintaining its credibility is essential not just for the rest of this terrible pandemic but in the future.

It needs to begin a campaign proportional to the importance of all this, announcing, ''We've learned more, and here's what's changed, and here's how we can make sure everyone understands how important this is.'' That's what credible leadership looks like. Otherwise, if a web page is updated in the forest without the requisite fanfare, how will it matter?

Hi Adam,

This morning I experienced a crazy situation that I just have to share. I went to my local police station for a scheduled fingerprinting to obtain my LTC again in Massachusetts. When I arrived the sergeant and other officer began asking a series of questions.

1. In the past 14 days have you had any symptoms related to COVID-19?

2. In the past have you had any exposure to anyone who has had COVID-19?

3. HAVE YOU BEEN VACCINATED?

I paused, I answered, and then I asked, “Are you allowed to ask that question?”

At that point we got into a heated argument.

He told me to leave the station and reschedule.

I told him I pay taxes in this town and am not going to allow my department to bring on themselves crazy lawsuits. This is a major violation of rights. I’m afraid this insanity is everywhere. He actually made me leave and reschedule! I can not believe this shit.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sat, 08 May 2021 17:09

Digital drug delivery has reached a tipping point and it is not surprising, especially considering how much information is so readily accessible about other aspects of our lives. After all, I have a lot more real-time digital information about what's happening with my car and home than I do about my healthcare.

Fortunately, that's all starting to change, thanks to converging technologies and growing opportunities for digital drug delivery to transform healthcare. According to findings from Molex's just-released ''Digital Health and the Future of Pharma'' survey, 88% of pharmaceutical professionals polled rank digital drug delivery ''extremely'' or ''very important'' to their future plans.

It's encouraging to see this groundswell of interest among pharmaceutical companies seeking innovative solutions to deliver value faster, easier and more economically. Equally important is the quickening pace among drug companies to accelerate the adoption of digital devices. Of those surveyed, 34% already are marketing at least one or multiple therapies while 65% expect most of their drug-delivery options to be digitized within 10 years.

It Takes a Village

Digitizing drug delivery is considered one of the best ways to improve patient outcomes and reduce healthcare spending on treating chronic conditions. The New England Healthcare Initiative (NEHI) cites poor medication adherence as being responsible for $290 billion in ''otherwise avoidable medical spending'' in the U.S. each year. The NEHI also reports that of the 187 million Americans who take one or more prescription drugs, up to half do not take their medications as prescribed.

Improving patient outcomes while reducing wasteful healthcare spending requires careful coordination among patients, pharmaceutical companies, caregivers, insurers and regulators. What's easing collaboration among these constituents is a growing recognition of the value of digital health solutions to better coordinate care delivery and increase patient engagement, ultimately leading to better outcomes for all stakeholders.

For patients, digital drug delivery can dramatically improve both preventative care and the management of chronic conditions. Caregivers, meanwhile, now recognize they can offer digital solutions to meet patients where they are and deliver better real-time results. Insurers realize that high patient adherence yields improved outcomes, thereby reducing their liabilities. Meanwhile, healthcare regulators are figuring out how to support the increased flow of digital data without compromising patient privacy. A varied list of technology stakeholders also has joined efforts to address connectivity methods and costs while alleviating data privacy, usability and sustainability concerns associated with digital healthcare.

Over the past year, this extended community came together to combat COVID-19, reinforcing the value of digital technology to diagnose, treat and follow-up with patients remotely. In fact, 86% of the survey respondents agree the pandemic will have a long-term impact on patients preferring remote and self-care options where possible vs. traditional trips to clinics and hospitals.

There's no longer any debate about the power of digital technology to improve patient experiences and boost treatment efficacy. That's why it comes as no surprise that improvements in patient engagement, outcomes and digital health adoption are among the top factors driving investments in emerging digital drug delivery solutions.

Patients Come First

There also are no exceptions when it comes to underscoring the benefits of digital drug delivery to elevate patient care. Among those polled, the top-five areas with the most potential include:

Ability to personalize drug delivery to patients' needs and expectations (57%)Support more effective dosing schedules (55%)More accurate dosing (55%)Increased adherence to medication regimen (52%)Allow patients to take medications at home rather than at a clinic or hospital (48%)Customizing healthcare delivery to address an individual's condition, lifestyle and belief system is a complex undertaking not conducive to ''one size fits all'' thinking. Advancements in personalization will take time, but the opportunity to glean meaningful insights will be worth it. Just think how a drug's efficacy can be boosted, based on a host of variables, such as possible interactions with other medications, exercise and diet, sleep, or even a person's DNA.

In the not too distant future, devices will collect and correlate a variety of variables for improving the patient experience. It should be similar to how my car assimilates data about my driving habits and environmental conditions to boost the overall driving experience. And, while today I know a lot more about my car than my healthcare, digital solutions are poised to close the knowledge gap while fueling operational efficiencies and reduced costs.

So, it comes as no surprise that survey participants ranked opportunities to increase efficiency among the most compelling business benefits:

Reduce overall treatment costs through increased adherence (60%)Improve efficiency by targeting labor-intensive behavioral support where needed most (54%)Offer more efficient and scalable patient support (53%)Fuel data-driven improvements in R&D (50%)Bring new products to market faster (41%)Expand real-world evidence reimbursements (33%)While I am surprised these rankings weren't higher, I realize there are significant challenges in facilitating greater personalization and adherence. Topping the list of barriers is risk of data privacy, followed by the high cost of devices and connectivity, as well as concerns over patient access to the Internet and regulatory issues. This sentiment will likely continue into the near future, despite significant inroads in safeguarding patient information along with the substantial value of sharing collective health data safely and securely.

In addition to ongoing data privacy innovations, increased education is needed to allay fears that sharing data could result in increased insurance rates, being denied coverage or having personal health data shared with employers. As there are laws and a lot of advocacy focused on protecting people from potential abuses, I am more optimistic than most that the industry is making progress in reducing privacy risks.

What's Needed to Propel Growth

A cross-section of capabilities that promote adherence and personalization is needed to propel the digital drug delivery industry forward. These capabilities need to be agnostic to be deployed across a vast array of devices and treatments, while ensuring seamless, secure connectivity. Much of what's needed is beyond the realm of traditional pharmaceutical company expertise, which is why 65% of those polled cited the need for outside help to ensure safe and reliable production of devices.

Other areas where additional expertise in device design, development and manufacturing are needed include:

Networking and connectivity (58%)Data privacy and security (52%)User interface and customer experience (50%)Feedback loop to providers and caregivers (47%)Integration of sensing technology (42%)It's complicated for pharmaceutical companies to assemble all the pieces and parts needed to accommodate evolving digital drug delivery solutions. That's why companies like Molex and Phillips-Medisize are collaborating with our pharma customers as the industry advances to the next level. For decades, we have been focused on helping our pharmaceutical customers better understand and influence patient behavior in the real world.

Together, we continually look for ways to make drug delivery devices easier to use by infusing human-centered design principles throughout the entire device development process. Our innovation efforts involve a cross-functional team from varied disciplines, including industrial design, human factors, mechanical and electrical engineering, material science, supply chain management, software development and manufacturing as well as testing and quality.

It's a long list and a heavy lift to simplify the complexities of digital drug delivery to the point where diagnostic and treatment data on devices can be captured and then shared securely via WiFi or Bluetooth connectivity to smartphones, patient portals or the cloud.

To accomplish this requires technology enablers for collecting data on the devices while ensuring the utmost in uptime and reliability. It also demands strengths across the entire technology ecosystem, spanning battery and sensor technologies, electronics, antennas and every type of connectivity that potentially plays a role in realizing the future of digital drug delivery. The combination of Phillips-Medisize, Molex and our parent Koch Industries is unique and differentiated in the space because together we can address the entire digital drug delivery value chain.

The opportunity to transform an entire market segment while elevating patient care is why we're so excited to see that the future of pharma has arrived.

Paul Chaffin is President of Medical and Pharmaceutical Solutions at Molex. The portfolio includes Phillips-Medisize, an end-to-end provider of innovation, development and manufacturing services to the pharmaceutical diagnostics and medical device markets.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sun, 09 May 2021 13:41

American television producer and anti-vaccination activist

Del Matthew Bigtree, known professionally as Del Bigtree, is an American television and film producer as well as CEO of the anti-vaccination group Informed Consent Action Network. He produced the film Vaxxed: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe, based on the discredited[1][2][3] views of Andrew Wakefield and alleges an unsubstantiated connection between vaccines and autism.

Bigtree's appeal as a public speaker and a recent influx of funding has made Bigtree - who has no medical training - one of the most prominent voices in the anti-vaccination movement.[4][5]

During the COVID-19 pandemic, Bigtree propagated conspiracy theories about the origin of the virus, and urged his audience to ignore the advice of health authorities.[6][7][8][9][10]

Television producer [ edit ] Bigtree grew up in Boulder, Colorado and is the son of Jack Groverland, a minister at the Unity of Boulder Church. He attended the Vancouver Film School and eventually found employment in the television industry.[5][11]

He briefly worked on Dr. Phil and was credited as a field producer for five episodes. After a gap of two years, he served on the production team of the medical talk show The Doctors for which he produced 30 episodes over five years, although he has no medical training.[5][12]

It was while he was working on The Doctors that Bigtree learned of Andrew Wakefield's controversial opposition to the MMR vaccine and his later-discredited claims that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention hid proof of a link between vaccines and autism.[4] Wakefield was looking for help to produce a film based on his conspiracy theories. Bigtree decided that he could be the one to help and left the show to produce, write and appear in Wakefield's film.[12]

Anti-vaccination activism [ edit ] Bigtree produced the film Vaxxed: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe, based on the discredited[1][2][3] views of Andrew Wakefield on an alleged connection between vaccines and autism. The film debuted in 2016 and was widely panned by critics. The epidemiologist Ian Lipkin wrote that "as a documentary it misrepresents what science knows about autism, undermines public confidence in the safety and efficacy of vaccines, and attacks the integrity of legitimate scientists and public-health officials."[5][13]

However, the film, its promotional bus tour, and funding from the Selz Foundation[5] quickly established Bigtree as an important voice of a re-energized American anti-vaccination movement. He has since spoken at multiple anti-vaccine events in which he repeats false information about the risks of vaccines and alleges governments are engaged in a vast conspiracy to hide the truth.[5][14]:1 [15][16] His anti-vaccine advocacy has been described by medical professionals as fearmongering.[5][17][18]

When Bigtree got involved with Wakefield, several states, including California where Bigtree resided, had begun to consider legislation that would restrict the types of exemptions for which parents could apply to have their unvaccinated children attend schools. Bigtree strongly opposed such bills and has been criticized by the Anti-Defamation League and the Auschwitz-Birkenau Memorial and Museum for wearing a Star of David at an anti-vaccination event in an attempt to compare the treatment of those opposed to vaccination to the persecution of Jews.[19][20][21][22] Often in collaboration with Wakefield and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Bigtree still lobbies legislators to convince them to keep vaccination exemptions in place.[23]

Bigtree is the public face and the chief executive of the anti-vaccination group Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN), for which he received a salary of $232,000 in 2019. Under his leadership, ICAN promotes the conspiracy theory that government officials collude with the pharmaceutical industry to cover up grievous harms from vaccines. Bigtree hosts a regular stream webcast in which he frequently repeats anti-vaccination messages. The webcast is produced by ICAN and often features Kennedy. Before it was shut down in 2020, the YouTube broadcast of The Highwire attracted 174,000 subscribers.[5][16][24][25][26]

In New York State in 2019, Bigtree was a keynote speaker at several anti-vaccination events targeting the ultra-Orthodox Jewish community in Brooklyn and in Rockland County during a measles epidemic fueled by low vaccination rates.[5][18] Bigtree gave an anti-vaccine speech as headline speaker at a natural health product conference in Toronto in 2018, but a repeat performance was canceled in 2019 after The Globe and Mail started asking questions.[14]

COVID-19 pandemic [ edit ] Like other anti-vaccination leaders, Bigtree adapted several of the more popular anti-vaccination themes to the COVID-19 pandemic, promoting distrust in expertise, misrepresenting research results and encouraging the public to let the disease run its course.[27]

He used the Highwire webcast to propagate a number of conspiracy theories, such one postulating that the virus responsible had been made in a laboratory by the pharmaceutical industry. The weekly webcast quickly became a rallying point for anti-vaccination activists and conspiracy theorists early in the pandemic, according to Professor Dorit Reiss, who studies online COVID-19 disinformation.[28] Going against the advice of health authorities, he recommended to his viewers not to wear masks, to refuse the vaccine when it is developed and to make efforts to actually infect themselves with the virus,[6][7][8][9][10][29] favoring not so much herd immunity as natural selection, with weaker humans dying like the "sick get eaten by the wolves. That's how we've thrived." He accused Anthony Fauci of leading a cabal of conspirators of wanting to vaccinate the whole world population under a false pretence.[27]

In October, 2020, he speculated to an audience of anti-vaccination activists that the new COVID vaccines may cause diabetes, lupus and other autoimmune diseases, despite the lack of evidence to support those claims.[30]

Bigtree spoke at the January 6, 2021 pro-Trump rally preceding the riot at the Capitol. He took this opportunity to attack federal health authorities and to contest the results of the 2020 presidential election. Other anti-vaccination activists were also present at this "Stop the Steal" rally, such as Ty and Charlene Bollinger.[31]

In July 2020, YouTube closed his account and channel for violation of its community standards against pandemic misinformation, and Facebook removed selected videos from Bigtree's account. In August 2020, Bigtree announced that his videos were now distributed on Roku media players, despite the company's prohibition against content that is found to include "false, irrelevant or misleading information."[32][33] He also found a receptive audience on Rumble, a video-sharing platform that doesn't have misinformation policies.[28]

Filmography [ edit ] YearTitleDirectorWriterProducerNotes[34]2003PartnersYesNoNoVideo short2005Bitter SweetYesYesYesTV movie. Also appears as an actor.2007Sex and SensualityYesNoYesShort film2007-2008Dr. PhilYesNoNo5 episodes, field producer2010-2015The DoctorsNoNoYes30 episodes2016Vaxxed: From Cover-Up to CatastropheNoYesYesAnti-vaccination documentarySee also [ edit ] Herd immunityMisinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemicVaccine hesitancyScience MomsReferences [ edit ] ^ a b Deer, Brian. "General Medical Council, Fitness to Practise Panel Hearing, 28 January 2010, Andrew Wakefield, John Walker-Smith & Simon Murch" (PDF) . briandeer.com. Archived (PDF) from the original on 13 December 2010 . Retrieved 6 January 2011 . ^ a b The Editors Of The Lancet (February 2010). "Retraction '' Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children". The Lancet. 375 (9713): 445. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60175-4. PMID 20137807. S2CID 26364726. ^ a b Boseley, Sarah (2 February 2010). "Lancet retracts 'utterly false' MMR paper". The Guardian. London . Retrieved 14 January 2015 . ^ a b Kucinich, Jackie (2019-04-12). "How TV's 'The Doctors' Spawned the King of the Anti-Vaxxers". The Daily Beast . Retrieved 2020-04-21 . ^ a b c d e f g h i Sun, Lena H. (June 19, 2019). "Meet the New York couple donating millions to the anti-vax movement". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on July 4, 2019 . Retrieved June 19, 2019 . ^ a b Merlan, Anna (2020-02-28). "Anti-Vaxxers Are Terrified the Government Will 'Enforce' a Vaccine for Coronavirus". Vice. Archived from the original on 2020-02-28 . Retrieved 2020-02-28 . ^ a b Gorski, David (22 June 2020). "Antivaccine leader Del Bigtree on COVID-19: "Let's catch this cold!" Why antivaxxers and coronavirus conspiracy theorists are often one in the same". Science-based Medicine. Archived from the original on 25 June 2020 . Retrieved 25 June 2020 . ^ a b Mooney, Taylor (14 April 2020). "Anti-vaxxers spread fear about future coronavirus vaccine". CBS News. Archived from the original on 25 June 2020 . Retrieved 25 June 2020 . ^ a b Henley, John (21 April 2020). "Coronavirus causing some anti-vaxxers to waver, experts say". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 25 June 2020 . Retrieved 25 June 2020 . ^ a b Law, Tara (18 May 2020). "There Isn't a COVID-19 Vaccine Yet. But Some Are Already Skeptical About It". Time Magazine. Archived from the original on 25 June 2020 . Retrieved 25 June 2020 . ^ "Vaxxed: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe". KGNU News. August 18, 2016 . Retrieved July 2, 2019 . ^ a b Coleman, Patrick A. (April 30, 2019). "Where Del Bigtree's Anti-Vaccine Conspiracy Theories Come From". Fatherly. Archived from the original on June 21, 2019 . Retrieved June 21, 2019 . ^ Lipkin, W. Ian (2016-04-03). "Anti-Vaccination Lunacy Won't Stop". Wall Street Journal. ISSN 0099-9660 . Retrieved 2019-02-08 . ^ a b Weeks, Carly (February 7, 2019). "Toronto health conference cancels appearance by anti-vaccine activist Del Bigtree". The Globe and Mail. Archived from the original on June 21, 2019 . Retrieved June 21, 2019 . ^ Merlan, Maria (June 20, 2019). "Everything I Learned While Getting Kicked out of America's Biggest Anti-Vaccine Conference". Jezebel. Archived from the original on June 21, 2019 . Retrieved June 21, 2019 . ^ a b "The Anti-Vaxx Industry" (PDF) . Center for Countering Digital Hate. Center for Countering Digital Hate. 2020. Archived (PDF) from the original on 21 December 2020 . Retrieved 3 January 2021 . ^ Gorski, David (May 6, 2019). "Deception by omission: Del Bigtree's ICAN calls the studies licensing MMR into question". Science-based Medicine. Archived from the original on June 21, 2019 . Retrieved June 21, 2019 . ^ a b Mole, Beth (June 6, 2019). "Measles cases hit 1,001 as anti-vaxxers hold another rally of disinformation". Ars technica. Archived from the original on July 4, 2019 . Retrieved June 27, 2019 . ^ "Anti-vaccine activists are using a Holocaust-era yellow Star of David to promote their cause". Jewish Telegraphic Agency. April 5, 2019 . Retrieved June 28, 2019 . ^ Mills Rodrigo, Chris (April 8, 2019). "ADL criticizes 'anti-vaxxers' for adopting Star of David badge". The Hill . Retrieved June 28, 2019 . ^ Dolsten, Josefin (April 6, 2019). "US anti-vaxxers use Holocaust-era yellow stars to promote their agenda". The Times of Israel . Retrieved June 28, 2019 . ^ Sun, Lena H. (April 1, 2019). "US measles cases surge to second-highest level in nearly two decades". Denton Record-Chronicle . Retrieved June 28, 2019 . ^ Allen, Arthur (May 27, 2019). "How the anti-vaccine movement crept into the GOP mainstream". Politico. Archived from the original on June 29, 2019 . Retrieved June 28, 2019 . ^ Bigtree, Del. "Resources". The HighWire. Archived from the original on June 21, 2019 . Retrieved June 21, 2019 . ^ Zadrozny, Brandy; Nadi, Aliza (2019-09-24). "How anti-vaxxers target grieving moms and turn them into crusaders". NBC News . Retrieved 2019-09-24 . ^ "Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax". Pro Publica . Retrieved 4 January 2021 . ^ a b Smith, Tara C.; Rubinstein Reiss, Dorit (7 November 2020). "Digging the rabbit hole, COVID-19 edition: anti-vaccine themes and the discourse around COVID-19". Microbes and Infection. 22 (10): 608''610. doi:10.1016/j.micinf.2020.11.001. PMC 7648494 . Archived from the original on 2 February 2021 '' via Elsevier Public Health Emergency Collection. ^ a b Mak, Aaron (18 March 2021). "Where Anti-Vaccine Propaganda Went When YouTube Banned It". Slate . Retrieved 29 March 2021 . ^ Gorski, David (2020-02-10). "No, James Lyons-Weiler did not "break the coronavirus code " ". Science-Based Medicine. Archived from the original on 2020-02-28 . Retrieved 2020-02-28 . ^ "The Anti-Vaxx Playbook" (PDF) . Center for Countering Digital Hate. Center for Countering Digital Hate. 2020. Archived (PDF) from the original on 30 December 2020 . Retrieved 3 January 2021 . ^ Devine, Kurt; Griffin, Drew (5 February 2021). "Leaders of the anti-vaccine movement used 'Stop the Steal' crusade to advance their own conspiracy theories". CNN. Archived from the original on 7 February 2021 . Retrieved 8 February 2021 . ^ Johnson, Timothy (30 July 2020). "YouTube terminates anti-vaccine figure Del Bigtree's account after he pushed dangerous coronavirus and vaccine misinformation". Media Matters for America . Retrieved 30 July 2020 . ^ Johnson, Timothy (1 September 2020). "Anti-vaccine figure partners with Roku after YouTube banned him for sharing dangerous coronavirus misinformation". Media Matters for America. Archived from the original on 2 September 2020 . Retrieved 2 September 2020 . ^ "Del Matthew Bigtree". Internet Movie Database. Archived from the original on June 21, 2019 . Retrieved June 21, 2019 .

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sat, 08 May 2021 15:04

H er bid for the White House was engulfed by a tidal wave of fabricated news and false conspiracy theories. Now Hillary Clinton is calling for a ''global reckoning'' with disinformation that includes reining in the power of big tech.

The former secretary of state and first lady warns that the breakdown of a shared truth, and the divisiveness that surely follows, poses a danger to democracy at a moment when China is selling the conceit that autocracy works.

Clinton speaks to the Guardian via Zoom from her home in Chappaqua, New York, in an interview to mark the newspaper's bicentenary this month. ''I think the Guardian has been a great exemplar of press freedom for 200 years,'' she says.

The 73-year-old wife of former US president Bill Clinton has more reason than most to be a student of media trends, from historic newspapers to the latest digital platforms.

In the 2016 election, Clinton was the first woman to be nominated by a major political party. The mainstream media was later criticized for creating a false equivalence between her career missteps and those of rival Donald Trump, who had suspicious contacts with Russia and faced multiple allegations of sexual assault.

In addition, Moscow helped fuel a social media disinformation campaign that targeted likely Democratic voters and was most infamously expressed in the ''Pizzagate'' conspiracy theory, which made the preposterous claim that Clinton ran a child sex trafficking ring at a Washington pizza restaurant.

Five years on, Trump has come and gone from the White House and America now has a female vice-president in Kamala Harris. But the dangerous lies have continued to thrive online, notably in the QAnon conspiracy movement, leading all the way to the deadly insurrection at the US Capitol on 6 January. Far-right Republicans have become openly anti-democratic, endorsing Trump's falsehoods and seeking to suppress voters of color.

The traditional the-truth-is-somewhere-in-the-middle approach will no longer do, Clinton argues.

''They've got to rid themselves of both-sidesism,'' she says. ''It is not the same to say something critical of somebody on the other side of the aisle and to instigate an attack on the Capitol and to vote against certifying the election. Those are not comparable, and it goes back to the problem of the press actually coming to grips with how out of bounds and dangerous the new political philosophy on the right happens to be.''

The press cannot be expected to restore a common baseline of truth on its own, however.

''The technology platforms are so much more powerful than any organ of the so-called mainstream press, and I do think that there has to be not just an American reckoning but a global reckoning with the disinformation, with the monopolistic power and control, with the lack of accountability that the platforms currently enjoy,'' Clinton said.

She added: ''In particular Facebook, which has the worst track record for enabling mistruths, misinformation, extremism, conspiracy, for goodness' sake, even genocide in Myanmar against the Rohingya. So governments are going to have to decide right now that the platforms have to be held to some kind of standard, and it's tricky.''

A report commissioned by Facebook found in 2018 that the company failed to stop its platform being used to ''foment division and incite offline violence'' in Myanmar. And a recent Guardian investigation found that the company was painfully slow to heed warnings about political leaders who used it to deceive the public or harass opponents. Facebook has almost 2.8bn global monthly active users and its revenue in the fourth quarter of last year was $28bn.

There are signs that Joe Biden, the US Congress and the Federal Trade Commission intend to take a tougher line on big tech, but Clinton acknowledged: ''It's not easily done. They're incredibly powerful. But I don't see any alternative if we're going to try to deal with the very real dangers that disinformation and the divisiveness it breeds pose to our democracies.''

Trump took swipes at internet companies, but concentrated most of his fire on CNN, the New York Times and other mainstream media. He notoriously gorged on press attention while also demonizing them as ''the enemy of the people''. Clinton, who as secretary of state travelled the world promoting freedom of the press, was appalled.

''Once an American president said that the press was the enemy of the people, that gave permission to all kinds of autocrats to make the same claim,'' she said. ''I don't know any American president who's ever thought he got fair press; they always believe that they are not understood, or they're being held to impossible standards or whatever their complaints might be.

''But we never had a president who essentially aligned himself with authoritarian thinking and acting the way we did with our former president.

The fact is that certain media really became mouthpieces for Trump's view of reality''It did do damage inside our own country, because it fed paranoia, conspiracy theories, partisan differences in our own political system that led many people to claim that the press was the enemy of the people, or at least the enemy of what they believed in.''

Trump found willing accomplices for his narrative in the media itself, notably Rupert Murdoch's Fox News. Clinton observed: ''The fact is that certain media really became mouthpieces for Trump's view of reality and fed the kind of disbelief and very negative view about anything that 'the mainstream press' had to say.

''On the other hand, the mainstream press had a very hard time coming to grips with the mendacity and the danger posed by Trump and his enablers and followers.

''It was very difficult. I understand the challenge that they faced. I think they were too slow in coming around to understanding that this was not an ordinary difference of opinion, this was not a different kind of leader in degree. This was a wholesale jettisoning of what we had come to understand as being appropriate boundaries for our leaders to operate within.''

The threat to democracy from these alternative realities is under particular scrutiny as China, a fast-rising power, promotes an alternative model to the world. Biden has suggested more than once that future generations will analyze this era and judge whether autocracy or democracy was more successful. Clinton agrees that the president has identified the defining issue of our time.

Democracies must demonstrate they produce results for citizens and stay united, she said. ''There's no doubt that the Chinese are basically making the opposite case that democracy is messy, things take too long, people are in and out of office, there's no continuity, you can't have the kind of fixed goals that can be moved forward in a socially cohesive way and therefore choose us. We are facing that struggle.''

Clinton's commitment to democracy includes the ''foundational'' relationship between the US and UK. She expressed opposition to Brexit, which was passed by referendum less than five months before her election defeat, and still worries about its consequences.

''I'm concerned about decision making on behalf of the west because, as complicated as these relationships are and as sometimes distressing the bureaucracy can be, it's really important, especially talking about democracy versus autocracy, that democracies stick together. So the separation of the UK from Europe, I hope, doesn't lead to a weakening of the commitment to democracy and the strength of standing up against both internal and external threats,'' she said.

Clinton is also alarmed by the uncertainty created by Brexit for the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland '' an issue in which she has a personal investment.

''I've been disturbed at the recent violence and, as someone who was very committed to assisting my husband and George Mitchell and working with the British government and the Irish government for the Good Friday peace agreement, I would hate to see Brexit undermine that: it would be a tragedy of historic proportions,'' she said.

It would be hard to work out what a UK-US bilateral trade agreement might look like until the border issue is resolved, she added, because one of the benefits that followed the Good Friday agreement was the promotion of direct investment from the US into Northern Ireland.

Clinton's memories of Britain include seeing the musical Evita in London's West End and staying overnight at Buckingham Palace when accompanying the Obamas. Speaking of the royal family, she extended condolences to the Queen for the death of Prince Philip but, in the wake of the Oprah Winfrey interview, declined to take sides on Megxit.

''I wish them all well. I know them and I can understand the challenges that any family faces in today's world, and obviously I wish them the very best,'' she said.

She was not America's top diplomat for nothing.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Fri, 07 May 2021 20:16

FUMING parents allegedly blasted John Swinney over porn, anal sex and transgender ID lessons in schools.

The education secretary was confronted over the content of a new curriculum for Scots kids at a public meeting in Perth.

2

Mr Swinney was allegedly confrontedThe Times reports angry parents hit out at the a new relationship, sexual health and parenthood curriculum.

And Mr Swinney was blasted at a recent meeting organised by the National Parent Forum of Scotland.

One dad said: ''Right from the beginning of primary school they are teaching that sex is assigned at birth and gender is a subjective factor.

"I think that is a very dangerous and confusing message for young people.

"Masturbation is positively promoted in schools.''

The parent allegedly offered graphic description of what he claimed was being taught to kids.

NPFS chair Joanna Murphy then reminded him that the session was being streamed online.

Parents' fury as kids as young as SIX get compulsory sex education lessons on 'self-stimulation' and touching themselvesThe dad replied: "If this not suitable to talk about among a group of adults how can it possibly be suitable to talk about in schools?"

The curriculum features links to video content directing older pupils to erogenous zones in the anus.

And one lesson plan explains that in some cultures male masturbation is seen as ''a waste of semen, which is supposed to be about creating life'', according to The Times.

Transgender life is introduced between P5 and P7.

2

Parents hit out at lessons about porn (archive pic) Credit: AlamyOne lesson plan encourages kids to be ''whatever kind of girl or boy they want to be, free from stereotypes and gender-biased expectations''.

Mr Swinney said: ''A lot of care has been taken to ensure that the contents of the material are truly age appropriate.

"That has involved extensive dialogue with a number of organisations whose confidence I have wanted to make sure are in place around these materials

''It is promoting nothing.

"It is equipping young people with a knowledge and an understanding of what they can make their judgments about as responsible citizens.

''It simply deals with the world as it is and makes sure that young people will be equipped to handle that. I understand that there will be parental opinion that will not like this, and that should be a source of dialogue with schools to resolve that issue.

''I repeat my commendation for the materials . . . I don't think we should allow our young people to be able, without context, to see things and experience things in our society that we have not properly equipped them for.''

A Scottish government spokesperson said: ''It is for education authorities and schools to decide which resources they use in supporting their teaching.

WORRYINGM8 in Glasgow LOCKED DOWN as cops race to deal with 'concern for person'

SICKO CAGEDScots beast who tried to fake his own death guilty of catalogue of sex abuse

BLAZE TRAGEDYMurder probe launched after Paisley man dies in horror house fire

COP DRAMATeenage boy rushed to hospital after attack at Glasgow train station

GETAWAYChilling moment hitman flees scene with shotgun after murdering Bradley Welsh

COUNT DELAYScots Labour hopeful in wheelchair faced 45-minute wait to get into vote count

"This resource does not promote sexual activity or pornography.

"It provides teachers with factual resources and about sexual and reproductive health, in a non-judgmental manner.

''We work closely with a range of representative bodies, including parent groups and religious organisations, to ensure that all views are heard in the development of education policy.''

Sex offender treatment programme raised reoffending risk as pervs 'became aroused by graphic details of each other's crimes' We pay for your stories and videos! Do you have a story or video for The Scottish Sun? Email us at scoop@thesun.co.uk or call 0141 420 5300

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sat, 08 May 2021 00:38

Courtesy of Miller Mobley

Popular on Variety

As a young girl, ''The View'' co-host and Emmy Award-winning legal journalist Sunny Hostin would use a hairbrush as a mic and mimic Barbara Walters and Diane Sawyer in the mirror. She didn't have many broadcast idols she could emulate '-- in those times, there weren't many women of color headlining news shows.

Now, with the launch of her latest venture, Roots & Wings Productions, Hostin will be able to spotlight characters neglected by Hollywood. The global, multi-platform media company will develop and create content for film and television, highlighting important social justice issues and meaningful, inclusive stories.

''I want to make sure that someone watches and knows that seeing an Afro Latina journalist on screen is a possibility,'' Hostin told Variety.

In tandem with the company's debut, Hostin has announced Roots & Wings' first project: a drama series based on her new novel, ''Summer on the Bluffs,'' created in partnership with ABC Signature and Octavia Spencer's Orit Entertainment banner. ''I'm humbled to have the backing of a company like Disney,'' Hostin said. ''We're going to create really intentional premium and diverse content together that centers on women and people of color, as well as people in the LGBTQ+ community '-- stories that I think will be fresh and that you haven't seen before.''

Hostin teamed with Spencer after reaching out to the ''Hidden Figures'' actress following a panel she moderated in New York City for one of Spencer's shows, Apple TV Plus' ''Truth Be Told.'' Hostin had a rough edit of the book in her bag and handed it to Spencer after the panel, unsure of what would come out of that bold decision. Spencer ended up calling her right after her flight back home, saying that she couldn't stop reading the book and saw a future in collaborating. ''I actually couldn't believe that the Octavia Spencer thought that what I wrote was special enough and authentic enough to produce and work on together,'' Hostin recalled.

Per the logline, ''Summer on the Bluffs'' will follow three twentysomething women in their quest to secure the inheritance rights to their beloved godmother's house on the beautiful beaches of Oak Bluffs on Martha's Vineyard.

Moreover, last fall, Hostin announced the development of another drama series. Titled ''The Counsel,'' the show is inspired by her life and career as a federal prosecutor. Ridley Scott and his banner, Scott Free, and Universal Television at Fox are producing. The series follows four thirty-something women of color who are leaders in their respective fields of journalism, law, politics and public relations. They must rely on their lifelong friendship to overcome a scandal that threatens to unravel everything they've achieved. Regina Jansen, an associate producer attached to the project, will join Roots & Wings.

''People don't think of criminal trial lawyers as storytellers because we're seeking justice on behalf of victims. But we're telling stories to juries and, as a legal journalist, there may be some intersection with social justice. So telling those types of stories comes quite naturally to me, and it's something that I've wanted to do for a really long time. I've sketched books out and created worlds and characters, and there just was a point where I had to get behind the camera,'' Hostin explained.

Roots & Wings has also hired Ranard Caldwell as its head of development to work with Hostin and existing partners to develop original programming, and films and series adapted from Hostin's IP, and to uplift marginalized and underrepresented voices and talent. Most recently, he worked in development at STX Entertainment and at Martin Chase Productions supporting Debra Martin Chase (''The Cheetah Girls,'' ''The Princess Diaries'') and her overall deal at NBCUniversal.

''Sunny is one of America's most trusted voices with fantastic creative taste and a gutsy instinct regarding what resonates with viewers,'' Caldwell said in a statement. ''I'm excited to help her grow Roots & Wings Productions while developing impactful stories that are authentic, timely and compelling.'' Caldwell was also accepted into Lena Waithe and Essence Magazine's Hillman Grad Mentorship Lab, a fellowship program to enhance ingenuity in generating narratives, and professional development to polish and broaden creative skills.

''As a federal prosecutor, I sought justice by telling the stories of victims. As a legal journalist, I report the stories of headlines around the country. As an author, I've told my story as well as created stories centering on people of color,'' Hostin added. ''I am now so incredibly honored to also actualize stories behind the camera. It's thrilling to be able to showcase creators of color and to bring their inspiring stories to life and to uplift a new wave of representation on screen.''

Here, Hostin tells Variety the production company's origin story, the impetus powering Roots & Wings and how excited she is about its potential.

What's the story behind the name and the branding of Roots & Wings?

I was on a call with these really powerful women '-- the president of the Minnesota Lynx; the president of Alpha Kappa Alpha, which I am a member of; the president of Jack and Jill; and other Black Greek letter organizations. We were all networking and Johnnetta B. Cole, the past president of Spelman College, talked about roots and wings. She was talking about the fact that, as women that have been in this business and in different industries for a long time, we are rooted, but at this point, what we need to make sure is to bring other people along. We're now in a position to be at the table, but we need to bring these younger people along and provide them with what they need to become established and give them the wings to become stronger and better. And I just kept on thinking, '' Roots and wings, that's something I believe in!'' I wrote it down on a Post-it and put it on my computer. And so, when this opportunity came up, the first thing I said was, '' Can somebody please look up and see if Roots & Wings Productions is already taken?'' And it wasn't.

What would it have meant to you growing up to see more women or young girls like yourself on screen?

When I talked to my parents about my aspirations for broadcast journalism, my mother basically told me that I should become a lawyer or a doctor because no one looked like me on television (this was pre-Oprah). Had there been, I would have become a journalist first, but I went to law school instead. Had there been anyone that looked like me, I would have been in this business for a lot longer and I would have been able to open up doors for more people. That's just my truth. I know how important representation is, and there isn't really a day that goes by that someone does not reach out to me regarding similar concerns either '-- as a viewer or as someone in the industry. It's just unbelievable. And then I think back to the time when I didn't see me on air, and I think with this production company, we'll be able to make that possible.

How hands-on will you be with the series '' Summer on the Bluffs'' ?

Since I wrote the book, I'm very involved. I am in the business together now with Octavia Spencer, and we're looking to make this world as authentic as we can when we put it on screen. What was really important to me writing this book was that, for so long, when I have traveled to cover social justice issues, I have had to read case files, and all you get is death and destruction, doom and gloom. I just sometimes want to read about Black joy! I want escapism. I would go into airport bookstores, and would actually look at the covers of books, looking for Black protagonists on the cover and I never found them. Toni Morrison says that if there's a book that you want to read and you can't find it, then you need to write it. I've taken that seriously. I started writing and creating this world based on the fact that there were only a couple of places that Black folks were allowed to buy beachfront property '-- Oak Bluffs, Highland Point and Sag Harbor, to name a few. I put the proposal together for '' Summer on the Bluffs,'' and brought it to HarperCollins on a Wednesday. By Friday they said they wanted to do three books together. I think it was because they realized that there's a thirst for historical fiction centered on people of color, and that's what Octavia thought about it as well. What I love about the book is that the characters are real as far as I'm concerned, because while they're fictional, they're based on reality in a sense. I wanted to make sure that they were multi-dimensional and authentic. Even though it is fiction and even though it is a beach read, it shines a light on the issues that Black folks have to deal with all the time and our lived experience as Afro-Latinos. We had to deal with colorism, sexism, infertility, betrayal, death and loss '-- I explored all of that. There's something for everyone in this book.

Why do you think that Roots & Wings is an important addition to the Hollywood landscape?

I am very hopeful as to where the industry is headed in terms of diversity and inclusion. I mean, if you look at just the Oscars, you have this incredible celebration of talent, and of the work. I think that there's this incredible thirst for more diverse content. We're seeing more and more projects being greenlit, and the case for it being good for business has been proven. People point to things like Marvel's '' Black Panther,'' and yeah, I agree that was unbelievably successful, but then I point to other things like HBO's '' Insecure,'' and to different genres like musical theater ('' Hamilton'' ). Diverse casts are really speaking to what our country really is, and people want to go out and see this content. I think our production company is going to tap into that and give people what they want. I've seen it happening, and it's just so wonderful to turn on the television and see diverse content being developed. I've always been more of a reader than a TV watcher, but since the pandemic, I stream. We sort of look for something every night, and there's so much to choose from: '' Godfather of Harlem'' with Forest Whitaker, '' One Night in Miami,'' I could go on and on. I'm happy to be able to lend my vision and my voice to what I think is going to be a growing trend.

Roots & Wings and Hostin are repped by WME, Schreck Rose Dapello Adams Berlin & Dunham LLP and Jonesworks.

A version of this story will appear in this week's issue of Variety.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sat, 08 May 2021 00:44

Asunci"n Cummings Hostin[1] (; born October 20, 1968), known professionally as Sunny Hostin, is an American lawyer, journalist, and television host. Hostin is co-host on ABC's morning talk show The View as well as the Senior Legal Correspondent and Analyst for ABC News. She is also the host and executive producer of Investigation Discovery's true crime series Truth About Murder with Sunny Hostin.

Early life Edit Hostin was born on October 20, 1968 in New York City to a Puerto Rican mother, Rosa Beza, and an African American father, William Cummings.[2][3] Hostin was raised in The Bronx, New York City, attended the all-girls Dominican Academy, and is bilingual in English and Spanish.[3][4] She received her Bachelor of Arts in English and Rhetoric[5] from Binghamton University and her Juris Doctor from Notre Dame Law School.[6]

Career Edit Hostin began her career as a law clerk to retired Chief Judge of the Maryland Court of Appeals Robert M. Bell and later became a trial attorney in the U.S. Department of Justice's Antitrust Division.[7] Hostin left the Antitrust Division to become a federal prosecutor, specializing in child sex crimes.[8] Hostin was awarded a Special Achievement Award for her successful prosecution of sex offenders.[9] Hostin was also a Managing Director of Business Intelligence and Investigations at Kroll, the world's leading risk-consulting company, where she led groups of investigators all over the world to investigate and uncover fraud.[10]

She began her television career as a commentator for Court TV and was then offered a spot on the Fox News program The O'Reilly Factor,[4] where she appeared on the show's "Is It Legal?" segments, regularly debating with Bill O'Reilly and Megyn Kelly.[citation needed ] CNN President Jon Klein signed her to the network in September 2007 as the legal analyst for its flagship morning show American Morning. In 2014, Hostin began frequently appearing as a guest contributor on the ABC daytime talk show The View.[11] In 2015, Hostin participated in a TEDx Talk titled A Possibility Model that details the effects of an early trauma.[12] In March 2016, it was announced that Hostin was joining ABC News as Senior Legal Correspondent and analyst.[13] She became a permanent co-host of The View beginning the show's twentieth season in September 2016.[14] In 2017, Hostin made a cameo appearance as herself in the comedy film Girls Trip.[15]

In 2019, Hostin hosted and executive produced the six-episode documentary series Truth About Murder With Sunny Hostin on Investigation Discovery, on which she travels to various parts of the US to explore the stories behind some of the nation's most notorious homicides.[16][17] She also hosted a podcast titled Have You Seen This Man?, produced by ABC.[18][19] Hostin released I Am These Truths, a memoir, in 2020.[20] The following year, she released a novel, titled Summer on the Bluffs.[21] The book will be adapted into a television series.[22] Hostin is also set to executive produce The Counsel, a drama television series inspired by her life and career.[23]

Personal life Edit Hostin is a member of Alpha Kappa Alpha sorority.[24] She is married to orthopedic surgeon Emmanuel Hostin.[25] They have two children, Gabriel and Paloma.[26] The family resides in Purchase, New York.[25]

Awards and nominations Edit See also Edit New Yorkers in journalismNuyoricanPuerto Ricans in New York CityReferences Edit ^ The View (May 24, 2016). "Paula Faris Says Kris Jenner Has An "Ulterior Motive" In Plan To Change Name Back To "Kardashian " " . Retrieved October 27, 2016 '' via YouTube. ^ "Celebrity birthdays for the week of Oct. 20-26". The Associated Press. October 14, 2019 . Retrieved March 8, 2020 . ^ a b Pulia, Shalayne (September 21, 2018). "The View's Sunny Hostin Wants You to Start Believing Women". InStyle . Retrieved March 8, 2020 . ^ a b Yarnell, Laurie (September 24, 2018). "The View's Sunny Hostin Talks Life On and Off the Camera". Westchester Magazine . Retrieved March 8, 2020 . ^ "Sunny Hostin '90 and Following Your Dreams". Binghamton University . Retrieved April 12, 2018 . ^ McKeegan, Colleen Leahey (May 20, 2019). "Sunny Hostin Shares the Shocking Reason She Ended Up On TV". Marie Claire. ^ Yarnell, Laurie. "The View's Sunny Hostin Talks Life On and Off the Camera". Westchester Magazine . Retrieved November 25, 2019 . ^ Real, Evan (October 18, 2019). "Sunny Hostin on Taking a Different Approach to True Crime With 'Truth About Murder ' ". The Hollywood Reporter. ^ "Sunny Hostin of ABC News and "The View " ". April 11, 2016 . Retrieved August 16, 2017 . ^ "About Sunny". ^ Fung, Katherine (July 28, 2014). "Whoopi Goldberg Goes On A Righteous Rant About Weed". HuffPost . Retrieved August 16, 2017 . ^ "TEDxBinghamtonUniversity | TED". ^ "Sunny Hostin Joins ABC News as Senior Legal Correspondent & Analyst". ABC News. February 24, 2016 . Retrieved August 16, 2017 . ^ " ' The View' Co-Hosts, Co-Executive Producer Talk Staffing Rumors, Lessons Learned" . Retrieved August 16, 2017 . ^ " ' Girls Trip' Crosses $100 Million at Domestic Box Office". Variety. August 18, 2017. ^ "Truth About Murder with Sunny Hostin | Watch Full Episodes & More!". Investigation Discovery . Retrieved December 17, 2019 . ^ "Sunny Hostin Will Host 'The Whole Truth' on Investigation Discovery (EXCLUSIVE)". Variety. April 9, 2019. ^ Minutaglio, Rose (October 23, 2019). "A New ABC Podcast is Trying to Find Escaped Murderer Lester Eubanks". Elle. ^ Mosk, Matthew; Hosenball, Alex; Galli, Cindy; Jung, Jinsol; Liu, Suzie (November 20, 2019). " ' Have You Seen This Man': 'Gone too soon ' ". ABC News. ^ Perez, Lexy (September 22, 2020). "Sunny Hostin on "Taking a Risk" in New Memoir to Champion People of Color". The Hollywood Reporter . Retrieved September 22, 2020 . ^ Mizoguchi, Karen (May 4, 2021). "Sunny Hostin's Summer on the Bluffs a 'Love Letter to Black, Latina Women ' ". People . Retrieved May 5, 2021 . ^ Zorrilla, M"nica Marie (May 4, 2021). " ' The View' Co-Host Sunny Hostin Launches Inclusive Production Company Focused on Social Justice (EXCLUSIVE)". Variety . Retrieved May 5, 2021 . ^ Petski, Denise (October 28, 2020). "Fox Nabs 'The Counsel' Drama From Sunny Hostin & Scott Free With Penalty". Deadline Hollywood . Retrieved November 1, 2020 . ^ Christian, Tanya A. (January 21, 2020). "Sunny Hostin Turned Childhood Trauma Into Triumph". Essence . Retrieved September 21, 2020 . ^ a b Calderone, Ana (April 11, 2018). "The View's Sunny Hostin Gives a Tour of Her Historic Mansion Previously Owned by the Lehman Family". People . Retrieved September 21, 2020 . ^ Henderson, Cydney (June 21, 2019). " ' View' co-host Sunny Hostin slams Bethenny Frankel for accusing her of 'taking some drugs ' ". USA Today . Retrieved September 21, 2020 . ^ Evans, Greg (March 22, 2017). "2017 Daytime Emmy Nominations: CBS Leads Networks With 70 Noms, 'Young & Restless' Tops With 25" . Retrieved March 24, 2017 . ^ Montgomery, Daniel (March 21, 2018). "2018 Daytime Emmy nominations: Full list of nominees for 45th Annual Daytime Emmy Awards" . Retrieved March 22, 2018 . ^ "THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF TELEVISION ARTS & SCIENCES ANNOUNCES NOMINATIONS FOR THE 46th ANNUAL DAYTIME EMMY® AWARDS" (PDF) . March 20, 2019 . Retrieved March 25, 2019 . ^ Nordyke, Kimberly; Howard, Annie (May 21, 2020). "Daytime Emmy Awards: 'General Hospital' Tops Nominations". The Hollywood Reporter . Retrieved May 22, 2020 . External links Edit Sunny Hostin at IMDbAppearances on C-SPAN

I’m far from an expert on appellate or criminal law, but, judging from his post-trial briefing, Chauvin is probably considering the following bases. He’ll need to wait until his sentence is imposed as that is when a judgment against him would be final.

· Confrontation Clause: The federal constitution grants defendants the right to “confront” the witnesses against them. This usually means the opportunity to cross-examine in open court those upon whose testimony the state relied in forming its case. Here, Judge Cahill did not allow testimony from Floyd’s drug dealer, who said he’d invoke the Fifth Amendment if called to the stand. Chauvin could argue the jury was entitled to have him invoke in their presence, as it’d color their credibility determinations, especially as to issues of causation. The defense took the position that drugs played a large role in Floyd’s death.

· Jury sequestration: The defense wanted the jury locked away from the moment they were empaneled. The judge denied that request and relied on his instructions to the jury that they were to avoid all media and outside discussion of the case. The law generally presumes that jurors obey instructions.

· Jury bias: An alternate juror stated in interviews that she was afraid of rioting in the verdict’s aftermath. Another juror who actually participated in deliberations attended a BLM rally in Washington, DC at which Floyd’s family members spoke. It seems he didn’t disclose that during jury selection.

· Juror intimidation: The pig’s head, protests at the prosecutor’s house, and Rep. Waters’s statements. It seems like this will be dictated by the outcome on the jury sequestration issue, as it’d be hard to square the idea that the jury wasn’t consuming news or discussing the case outside the court, but it also heard about these threats to or from public officials and trial participants.

· Late disclosures of evidence to the defense: The government has a constitutional duty to disclose all exculpatory evidence to the defense. During the trial itself, the state continued to hand over new materials to the defense, which limited its ability to use them effectively.

· Closing arguments: The state referred to the defense’s closing arguments as “stories,” which could have colored the jury’s view on something besides the evidence.

· Venue: The defense argued for holding trial outside the Twin Cities area given pretrial publicity. Obviously, Cahill denied that request.

· Sentencing: The defense might say a departure from Minnesota’s sentencing guidelines is not properly justified by the trial court, or is so extreme as to violate the guarantee against cruel and usual punishment.

It’s important to remember that appellate courts don’t really offer a “do over.” They’re meant primarily to correct errors at the trial-court level, so they’re not going to revisit a jury’s factual findings unless, in an extreme example, there was just no evidence to support a finding. (The classic case is a jury finding that a traffic light was green when every witness, regardless of side, said it was red.) This means that an appellate court is unlikely to find that, in reality, Chauvin didn’t put his knee on Floyd, or something like that.

Another important and overarching point with respect to any grounds for appeal is the standard of review that an appellate court will use. As one of my favorite judges says, more than 90% of a trial judge’s decisions are effectively unreviewable, and he’s right. Rulings on things like the admission of evidence, including objections, are reviewed for abuse of discretion, which means that the trial judge’s ruling will stand unless he flipped a coin or took a poll of those in the court—it’s a very high standard to overturn those sorts of decisions. Other grounds, however, are reviewed under different standards. Whether the judge applied the right law, for example, is reviewed de novo, meaning an appellate court gives no deference to the trial judge’s decision. Also, appellate review is almost always limited to the record at the trial court. It’s not the place to introduce new evidence or make arguments that weren’t made or preserved earlier. Finally, the harmless error doctrine means that even if the trial court made a mistake, it doesn’t warrant a new trial or reversal if a defendant’s “substantive” rights weren’t affected or the outcome would have been the same even without the error.

As I’m sure you could tell from this, no one has much certainty how this case will resolve ultimately. For better or worse, the law is not a precise endeavor no matter how much lawyers try to make it so. Personally, I think the appellate courts will affirm in all respects. That’s how the vast majority of proceedings go. It’s always been the case that the best way to win an appeal is to be the respondent, i.e., the party that won below.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sat, 08 May 2021 16:45

Amid the disturbing rise in attacks on Asian Americans since March 2020 is a troubling category of these assaults: Black people are also attacking Asian Americans.

White people are the main perpetrators of anti-Asian racism. But in February 2021, a Black person pushed an elderly Asian man to the ground in San Francisco; the man later died from his injuries. In another video, from New York City on March 29, 2021, a Black person pushes and beats an Asian American woman on the sidewalk in front of a doorway while onlookers observe the attack, then close their door on the woman without intervening or providing aid.

As the current president of the Association for Asian American Studies and as an ethnic studies and critical race studies professor who specializes in Asian American culture, I wanted to address the climate of anti-Asian racism I was seeing at the start of the pandemic. So in April 2020, I created a PowerPoint slide deck about anti-Asian racism that my employer, the University of Colorado Boulder, turned into a website. That led to approximately 50 interviews, workshops, talks and panel presentations that I've done on anti-Asian racism, specifically in the time of COVID-19.

The point I've made through all of those experiences is that anti-Asian racism has the same source as anti-Black racism: white supremacy. So when a Black person attacks an Asian person, the encounter is fueled perhaps by racism, but very specifically by white supremacy. White supremacy does not require a white person to perpetuate it.

It's not just white peopleWhite supremacy is an ideology, a pattern of values and beliefs that are ingrained in nearly every system and institution in the U.S. It is a belief that to be white is to be human and invested with inalienable universal rights and that to be not-white means you are less than human '' a disposable object for others to abuse and misuse.

The dehumanization of Asian people by U.S. society is driven by white supremacy and not by any Black person who may or may not hate Asians.

During the pandemic, ''yellow peril'' rhetoric that blamed China for COVID-19 led to a 150% rise in anti-Asian harassment incidents reported to police in 2020. In particular, East Asian Americans or anyone who appeared to be of East Asian heritage or descent became targets for the misplaced anger of people blaming Chinese people or those they thought looked Chinese, even if they were of other ethnic backgrounds, like Japanese, Taiwanese, Korean, Burmese, Thai or Filipino.

A fear of diseaseWhite supremacy as the root of racism can be seen in the Latino man in Texas stabbing a Burmese family in March 2020, claiming he did so because they were Chinese and bringing the coronavirus into the U.S. Though the suspect may have mental health problems, his belief that this family posed a threat is driven by the white supremacist ideas of Chinese people being to blame for COVID-19.

This same rhetoric of blaming anyone perceived to be Chinese for COVID-19 and attacking them has been found in countless reports of harassment, including one by a Vietnamese American woman who was spat at by a white man as she tried to enter a grocery store in March 2021. Four days later, video footage showed a 76-year-old Chinese woman who was punched in the face by a 39-year-old white man, on the same day that a white man killed eight people, including six Asian women, in Atlanta.

[Get the best of The Conversation, every weekend. Sign up for our weekly newsletter.]

Stories of individual harassment and violence perpetrated against Asian Americans by white assailants don't always get the same attention as the viral videos of Black aggression toward Asians.

But underlying all these incidents is white supremacy, just as white supremacy is responsible for Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin kneeling on George Floyd's neck for over eight minutes: White supremacy made Floyd into a Black male threat rather than a human being.

Understanding the depth and reach of this ideology of racism can be challenging, but doing so brings each person, and the nation as a whole, closer to addressing systemic inequity. It's not Black people whom Asian Americans need to fear. It's white supremacy.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sun, 09 May 2021 14:04

It's not good, but then that's the point.Photo: Brian Kahn When I turned 21, I was living in New Mexico. My first legally purchased beer was Fat Tire, at the time only available west of the Mississippi. As someone raised in Massachusetts and in an era before the explosion of craft breweries, it was the peak of novelty at the time.

I've held fond memories of Fat Tire to this day, even now that I can buy it at my local bodega in New York. It's a great sipper for a summer day; gripping a cold bottle can instantly make the light layer of sweat on the back of your neck dissipate and the crisp hit to the palette can wash away a day's worries. And in our world, washing away worries, even if only for as long as it takes to split a six-pack with friends is a precious, sweet relief. As a climate reporter, I'll take the few and far between simple comforts that I can get.

So it pains me to say that New Belgium, the brewery behind Fat Tire, has taken that all away for me. Their new beer is an anxiety-inducing, foul-tasting nightmare by design. Called Torched Earth, it's a taste of beer from the future... if humanity doesn't get its act together. Frankly, it's a future that, while surely worth living, isn't exactly what most of us would enjoy.

Climate communication often centers around what we can see: Collapsing ice, walls of flames, and yes, even starving polar bears have all played a role in defining the dangerous present and downright apocalyptic future humanity faces if fossil fuel interests continue to define our fate. Torched Earth, though, invokes smell and taste (in addition to sight) to convey what could lie ahead.

Brewers took the basics of beer'--grain, water, yeast'--and put them through the gauntlet of climate change. The beer was launched on Earth Day to raise awareness that many companies lack concrete climate goals, let alone roadmaps for how to get there'--and get people to pressure brands to get it together if we want to avoid a terrible future. (New Belgium has a pretty detailed plan that includes reducing its emissions and has made Fat Tire carbon neutral via offsets, which have a long and complicated history but that's for another time.)

G/O Media may get a commission

Instead of malted barley, Torched Earth is made with more drought-tolerant grains like buckwheat and millet. Astringent dandelions are tossed in for added flavor. And smoked malt is used to mimic the effect of wildfire-smoked water.

''Unfortunately, I could've actually used wildfire water,'' Cody Reif, the R&D brewer at New Belgium, said in an email. ''The Poudre River supplies water to our city and runs less than a quarter-mile from the brewery and is filled with black water right now from the forest fires that devastated Northern Colorado last fall. This isn't even the first time we've had our water supply threatened in the last 10 years.''

Armed with knowing what we were about to get into, my wife, a friend who is a homebrewer, and I settled in for a tasting session. (My friend asked me to note he was wearing a beanie on a perfect spring day as proof of his homebrewing cred. Please take this review seriously is what I'm trying to say.) The resulting beer can be politely described as funky and more artfully described as a turducken of ass flavors. The three of us immediately agreed to not repeat this experience again.

Among the tasting notes I jotted down for the three of us were ''dirty,'' ''almost oily'' (fitting!), ''smells like a sour, tastes like Sweet Tarts but there's some smoke on it for sure,'' and ''everyone is shaking their head.'' The beer even looked muddy compared to a traditional nice, filtered ale. My beanie-clad homebrew friend summed it up like this: ''On a nice day like this, an ale makes you feel refreshed. Not this.'' (More headshaking followed.)

Cheers to the end being near.Photo: Brian KahnTo wash the taste of climate change out of our mouths, we followed it up with the original Fat Tire, which was crystal clear and sharp in comparison. It brought back those happy memories of turning 21 and sitting in the waning sunlight of the high desert and feeling like the entire world was opening up before me.

Torched Earth is the polar opposite of all that, a reminder that if we continue on the current path of letting a few corporations lie and recklessly pollute the atmosphere in the name of profit, the window to a better life will be closed a bit tighter. The simple pleasures we all live for will be harder to come by. The relaxation we all crave will be replaced by hardship.

Of course, in the future where Torched Earth is the flagship beer of a major brewery, we'll have a lot bigger problems to worry about. And it's not that New Belgium isn't aware of that; Reif said that the climate crisis is ''obviously a really serious topic but the thought exercise [of creating Torched Earth] was an interesting challenge'' from a brewer's standpoint.

''The process of making it opened my eyes, and I'm absolutely positive we didn't capture all the potential risks,'' he added.

But all too often those bigger problems'-- the collapse of the Antarctic , the rise of violence and famine , the sixth mass extinction '--can seem impossible to grasp onto. But while you can't hold the heat death of 1 million species in your hands, you can grip a can of Torched Earth. And to be able to hold that piece of the bad future now is enough to make you want to ball your other hand into a fist and fight for everything else we stand to lose.

Cheers to ending the hegemony of Big Oil.Photo: Brian Kahn

Link to Article

Archived Version

Fri, 07 May 2021 12:41

The White House this week proposed to strip drug companies of their vaccine patents, an act hailed by adulators as ''moral leadership.'' It's better seen as the encapsulation of the Biden presidency'--a case study in fictional narratives, executive overreach, recklessness, and kowtowing to the left.

The biopharmaceutical industry in under a year accomplished a modern miracle'--designing a breakthrough vaccine to counter Covid-19; engineering a ground-up production process; and climbing a logistical Everest. It was a triumph of innovation, investment and capitalism, a moment that deserves to be celebrated.

Instead, the Biden administration supports a proposal in the World Trade Organization that would ''waive'' the intellectual-property rights of the companies that accomplished this feat, giving away their technology to every drugmaker in the world. Put another way, Mr. Biden is freely handing American invention to China'--the country that routinely steals it, and whose Wuhan lab might have been the source of the virus.

The move is in keeping with the administration's refusal to acknowledge the history of the vaccine achievement. Team Biden continues its willful disregard of Operation Warp Speed, in part because it is too petty to give credit to any person, company or initiative connected to the Trump administration.

It has instead pushed the claim that the Biden administration alone deserves credit for the vaccine rollout. This rewriting of reality is becoming routine. The administration declares there is no ''crisis'' at the border, as illegal crossings surge. It says Georgia's election-law update is ''Jim Crow,'' although the state provides more voting opportunities than others. It redefines entitlement spending as ''infrastructure.'' The press only encourages these fictions, making it easier for the administration to ignore biotech's lead role in beating the pandemic and to hand over its work to the world.

The move is also in keeping with the administration's attitude that Congress exists solely to rubber-stamp its spending proposals. Congress has spent decades wrangling over the contours of patent protections, producing bipartisan legislation from the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 and the Hatch-Waxman Act of 1984 to the Leahy-Smith Act of 2011. Mr. Biden proposes to disregard all these laws with the wave of an executive memo to the WTO'--much as he has already been governing by dubious executive orders on immigration, mask mandates, pipeline cancellations, and healthcare. Mr. Biden will use Congress when reconciliation makes it convenient. But what Congress won't give him, he will decree unilaterally.

The patent decision is also in line with the Biden administration's willingness to take wild steps with little thought or care about the damaging consequences. No doubt it is glorying in the praise from the World Health Organization. But the precedent of willy-nilly canceling patents will prove cataclysmic for drug innovation and health. Moderna spent 10 years developing its mRNA technology, and only this week turned its first profit. Next pandemic, Moderna and other companies won't bother. The same is true of cancer drugs, Parkinson's therapies, even new antibiotics. Don't believe it? ''Let's do insulin next,'' tweeted an exultant Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in response to the patent news, along with a graph showing the plunge in vaccine makers' stock prices.

Add this to an extraordinary list of unknowns and unintended consequences imposed in only three short months. What will the Biden administration's expansion of ObamaCare (part of its Covid ''relief'' law) do to healthcare prices? Do they know? What is the fallout of shoveling some $200 billion at schools that aren't educating kids? The February spending bill extended enhanced federal unemployment benefits to September, which means restaurants can't get employees to come back to work. So this week the Biden administration touted its new Restaurant Revitalization Fund'--a government fix to the government's blunder.

Mostly, the patent decision showcases who is in charge. It isn't Mr. Biden. Progressives have been calling for patent waivers since last year, and Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and AOC amped up the pressure on Mr. Biden in the past month. These voices won out'--again'--over those in the administration who noted that waiving patent protections isn't the answer. Even the administration's Covid guru, Anthony Fauci, this week told the Financial Times that the patent release will likely get bogged down in lawsuits, and ''there are other ways to ramp up vaccine production around the world.''

In a debate with Mr. Trump last year, Mr. Biden testily asserted that he is ''the Democratic Party right now''; what he says goes. But name one progressive demand he hasn't rolled over for. This is a Sanders presidency by another name.

The patent decision is only the latest example, and surely not the last. It's going to be a long, and destructive, few years.

Write to kim@wsj.com.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Fri, 07 May 2021 12:56

Austin, TX , 14 hours ago '-- The Texas House of Representatives gave preliminary approval to a bill aimed at preventing cities from cutting their police department budgets on Thursday. House Bill (HB) 1900 would allow the state to reprimand cities that are deemed to have ''defunded'' their police departments. The bill comes after, over the interim, the City of Austin cut and redirected $150 million from its police department budget.

Included in the budget cut were three cadet classes at a time when the Austin Police Department already had over 100 vacancies. Since then, that total has risen to 116.

Only applying to cities with 250,000 or more in population, the legislation would freeze a municipality's property taxes the fiscal year following the budget cut. Other punishments include triggering an automatic de-annexation election for parts of the municipality in question that were annexed in the last 30 years; prohibit new annexation for 10 years; and trigger funding for state law enforcement to fill the gap.

An amendment striking the population floor presented by Rep. Eddie Rodriguez (D-Austin) was rejected by the House. Another, by Rep. Jarvis Johnson (D-Houston), would have excluded cuts to civilian positions within police departments from counting toward the ''defunding'' judgment.

In laying out the bill, Rep. Craig Goldman (R-Fort Worth) said, ''This is about public safety. This is about being pro-police. This makes sure that in the State of Texas, cities will not 'defund the police.'''

Rep. Carl Sherman (D-DeSoto) decried the bill as ''legislative overreach'' and exclaimed, ''I miss the 80s when Republicans believed in 'local control.'''

The legislation is one of Governor Greg Abbott's priorities this session and was part of a marathon State Affairs Committee hearing back in March. Abbott has criticized , early and often, Austin city leadership for its move last summer.

When announcing this as a priority back in January, Abbott said, ''Defunding the police is reckless and endangers the lives of people in communities across the entire state.''

''Cities that defund the police make it physically impossible for citizens to live safely. Now we must make it fiscally impossible for cities to defund police.''

Since the pandemic began, cities across the country have experienced substantial violent crime increases, including multiple Texas cities. After a triple homicide last month, Austin's 2021 murder rate is 53 percent above the same period in 2020.

The House voted in favor of the bill 91 to 55 and must pass that chamber once more before moving across the rotunda to the Senate.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sun, 09 May 2021 13:28

SACRAMENTO, Calif. '-- California's population fell by more than 182,000 last year, the first yearly loss ever recorded for the nation's most populous state, a growth streak that dated to its founding in 1850 on the heels of a gold rush that prompted a flood of people to seek their fortune in the West.

The figures released Friday followed last week's announcement from the U.S. Census Bureau that California would lose a congressional seat for the first time because it grew more slowly than other states over the past decade. Still, California's population of just under 39.5 million and soon-to-be 52-member congressional delegation remain by far the largest.

California's population has surged and slowed in the decades since its founding, with notable increases following World War II and the tech boom of the 1980s and '90s that put Silicon Valley on the map.

In recent years, more people have left California for other states than have moved there, a trend Republicans say is a result of the state's high taxes and progressive politics. The average sale price of a single-family home in California hit a record $758,990 in March, a 23.9% increase from a year ago.

''The numbers don't lie. People are leaving our state because it's not affordable to live here,'' tweeted Kevin Faulconer, the former mayor of San Diego and one of the Republican candidates hoping to unseat Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom in this year's expected recall election.

But the Newsom administration says California's population decline is an outlier, blaming it on the coronavirus pandemic that turned everything upside down in 2020.

California has been steadily losing people to other states for years. From 2010 to 2020, about 6.1 million people left for other states and only 4.9 million arrived from other parts of the country, according to an analysis of census data by the Public Policy Institute of California.

But the influx of international immigrants and births outpacing deaths have always been enough to overcome that loss. That changed in 2020.

In a normal year, California might have between 140,000 and 150,000 people move in from other countries. In 2020, it was just 29,000 people '-- a direct impact, state officials say, of the Trump administration halting new visas for much of the year.

Global lockdowns because of the coronavirus prompted a 29% decline in international students coming to California, or about 53,000 people.

Births continued their steady decline, mirroring a national trend. But deaths soared as the coronavirus killed 51,000 people in California last year, accounting for a 19% increase of the state's death rate compared to the previous three-year average.

''If it were not for the pandemic last year, we might be having a very different conversation today,'' said Walter Schwarm, California's chief demographer.

The deaths were more pronounced in the state's most populated cities, including Los Angeles, which saw a 27% increase over its three-year average. Overall, Los Angeles lost nearly 52,000 people, the third straight year of decline that has put its population at just over 3.9 million.

The state's four most populated cities '-- LA, San Diego, San Jose and San Francisco '-- lost a combined 88,000 people in 2020. Meanwhile, major inland cities including Sacramento, Fresno and Bakersfield added population, evidence of people fleeing high-priced coastal cities for cheaper living.

''As the pandemic recedes and with changes in federal immigration policy, we expect to return to more normal immigration trends into California from other countries,'' said H.D. Palmer, spokesman for the Department of Finance. ''All of which means that by the time we do this same projection 12 months from now, we expect that 2021 will show a return to a slightly positive growth rate.''

Population estimates released last week by the U.S. Census Bureau showed paltry growth in California. But those numbers showed California's population as of April 2020. The numbers the state released Friday reflect California's population as of January 2021.

The state's population estimate comes from a number of sources, including birth and death counts, the number of new driver's licenses and address changes, school enrollments and federal tax returns.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sat, 08 May 2021 10:34

YouTube TV has been removed from Roku's channel store, after Roku and YouTube TV parent Google failed to come to a distribution agreement amid accusations that the tech giant made anti-competitive demands.

Why it matters: These spats happen regularly between Pay-TV providers and linear TV networks. But in the digital era, this is one of the rare times in which consumers will have a major streaming network removed from their platform's channel store due to a breakdown in negotiations.

Details: The channel will still be available for existing YouTube TV customers, but new users that wish to download the app from Roku's channel store will no longer have the ability to do so.

Roku is keeping the app available to existing users so that customers don't get caught up in the messy negotiations.Earlier this week, Roku notified customers that YouTube TV may be forced off its platform if it couldn't come to an agreement with Google over a distribution deal. Notably, the dispute between Google and Roku is not over financial terms.

Roku said Google made demands that included requests for preferential treatment of its YouTube TV and YouTube apps.Specifically, the platform cited four demands from Google that it thought were anticompetitive, including Google's request for Roku to manipulate consumer search results and grant access to data not available to other companies. Roku also alleged that Google has tried to leverage the power of its YouTube app to force Roku to accept hardware requirements that would increase consumer costs and act in a discriminatory way against Roku. Be smart: Roku and Google compete on a number of fronts, including smart TV hardware devices, smart TV operating systems and smart TV content, as Axios has previously noted,

The carriage agreement between the two companies expired Friday morning.Moving forward, new YouTube TV subscriptions will not be available in Roku's channel store until an agreement is reached.What they're saying: "We are disappointed that Google has allowed our agreement for the distribution of YouTube TV to expire," Roku said in a press statement. "Roku has not asked for one dollar of additional financial consideration from Google to renew YouTube TV."

In response to Roku's initial allegations a few days ago, a YouTube TV spokesperson said, "Unfortunately, Roku often engages in these types of tactics in their negotiations. We're disappointed that they chose to make baseless claims while we continue our ongoing negotiations."What's next: Roku says it remains committed to reaching a good-faith agreement with Google.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sat, 08 May 2021 15:03

The New York Attorney General's office said in a Thursday report that a campaign funded by the broadband industry submitted millions of fake comments supporting the 2017 repeal of net neutrality.

The report (pdf), headlined ''How U.S. Companies & Partisans Hack Democracy to Undermine Your Voice,'' concluded that nearly 18 million of the more than 22 million comments that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) received during its 2017 rulemaking process were fake.

''This type of fraud has significant consequences for our democracy,'' the report notes. ''Federal and state agencies rely on public comments to set standards that govern many aspects of our lives, from public health to consumer protection to the environment, and, in this case, the rules that govern how we share and consume content over the internet.''

The report found that a broadband industry group, called Broadband for America, spent some $4.2 million on a campaign that involved hiring companies known as lead generators that ended up yielding over 8.5 million of the fake comments.

The objective of the campaign was to make it appear as though there was ''widespread grassroots support'' for the net neutrality repeal, according to the report.

Broadband for America includes major internet providers like AT&T, Comcast, and Charter.

While the report criticized the industry group for ignoring red flags and called its behavior ''troubling,'' the report did not find that the broadband companies had ''direct knowledge of fraud'' and so they were not found to have broken the law.

The industry group did not immediately respond to a request for comment from The Epoch Times.

The principle of net neutrality requires Internet Service Providers (ISP) to treat all internet traffic equally, preventing them from treating their own services or customers more favorably.

Critics have argued that net neutrality would slow down the internet, make it more difficult to block spam, require the hiring of more government bureaucrats, and discourage investment in high-speed internet. Proponents argue that repealing net neutrality makes it easier for ISPs to abuse their gatekeeper roles in ways that harm consumers and threaten public safety.

Some experts have framed the issue as that of who ultimately controls the internet, saying net neutrality makes it possible for the government to be in charge, rather than the free market.

In 2017, the FCC decided to repeal the Obama-era net neutrality rules by means of what it referred to as the ''Restoring Internet Freedom Order,'' which went into effect in 2018, was then challenged in court, but was ultimately upheld.

The process leading up to the FCC's decision was preceded by a public comment period, with the New York Attorney General's investigation finding that the process was dogged by fraud.

The FCC's acting chairwoman, Jessica Rosenworcel, said in a prepared statement to media outlets that ''widespread problems with the record'' of the 2017 proceedings was ''troubling'' and the agency has work to do in order to improve the commenting process.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sat, 08 May 2021 17:28

It's not often that events in our sphere of technology hackers have ramifications for an entire country or even a continent, but there's a piece of news from the Netherlands (Dutch language, machine translation) that has the potential to do just that.

Enschede is an unremarkable but pleasant city in the east of the country, probably best known to international Hackaday readers as the home of the UTwente webSDR and for British readers as being the first major motorway junction we pass in the Netherlands when returning home from events in Germany. Not the type of place you'd expect to rock a continent, but the news concerns the city's municipality. They've been caught tracking their citizens using WiFi, and since this contravenes Dutch privacy law they've been fined '‚¬600,000 (about $723,000) by the Netherlands data protection authorities.

The full story of how this came to pass comes from Dave Borghuis (Dutch language, machine translation) of the TkkrLab hackerspace, who first brought the issue to the attention of the municipality in 2017. On his website he has a complete timeline (Dutch, machine translation), and in the article he delves into some of the mechanics of WiFi tracking. He's at pains to make the point that the objective was always only to cause the WiFi tracking to end, and that the fine comes only as a result of the municipality's continued intransigence even after being alerted multiple times to their being on the wrong side of privacy law. The city's response (Dutch, machine translation) is a masterpiece of the PR writer's art which boils down to their stating that they were only using it to count the density of people across the city.

The events in Enschede are already having a knock-on effect in the rest of the Netherlands as other municipalities race to ensure compliance and turn off any offending trackers, but perhaps more importantly they have the potential to reverberate throughout the entire European Union as well.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sat, 08 May 2021 22:55

The Colonial Pipeline, which provides nearly 40 percent of the South's gasoline, has shut down after Hurricane Harvey forced the closure of refineries and some of the pipeline's own facilities.

The company chose to shut down a one of its two lines, which supplies fuel to the Yellowhammer State among others, due to the storm's effect on facilities west of Lake Charles, La.

''Once Colonial is able to ensure that its facilities are safe to operate and refiners in Lake Charles and points east have the ability to move product to Colonial, our system will resume operations,'' the company said in a news release.

The news immediately sent gasoline prices across the country so a two-year high, Reuters reported Wednesday night. The average for a gallon of regular gasoline rose from roughly $2.35 a week ago to $2.45, AAA reported.

[Photo Credit: Colonial Pipeline]The pipeline transports more than 3 million barrels of diesel, gasoline and jet fuel each day from the Houston area to the New York harbor and includes more than 5,500 miles of pipeline, most of which is underground.

It last closed in September 2016 after a leak and gas spill in Helena, Ala. leading to days of empty gas station pumps and higher prices in Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee and across the Carolinas.

The company said it estimates it will be able to return to full service Sunday,

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sat, 08 May 2021 22:52

(Adds government and industry group statements)

By Stephanie Kelly and Christopher Bing

NEW YORK, May 8 (Reuters) - Top U.S. fuel pipeline operator Colonial Pipeline has shut its entire network, the source of nearly half of the U.S. East Coast's fuel supply, after a cyber attack that the company said was caused by ransomware.

The incident is one of the most disruptive digital ransom operations ever reported and has drawn attention to how critical U.S. energy infrastructure is vulnerable to hackers. The shutdown has raised fears of a price spike at gasoline pumps ahead of peak summer driving season if it persists.

Colonial transports 2.5 million barrels per day of gasoline, diesel, jet fuel and other refined products through 5,500 miles (8,850 km) of pipelines linking refiners on the Gulf Coast to the eastern and southern United States.

Colonial said it shut down systems to contain the threat after learning of the attack on Friday. That action also temporarily halted operations and affected some of its IT systems, the company said.

While the U.S. government investigation is in early stages, one former official and two industry sources said the hackers are likely a professional cybercriminal group. The former official said investigators are looking at a group dubbed "DarkSide," known for deploying ransomware and extorting victims while avoiding targets in post-Soviet states.

Colonial said the incident involved the use of ransomware, a type of malware designed to lock down systems by encrypting data and demanding payment to regain access.

Colonial has engaged a cybersecurity firm to launch an investigation and contacted law enforcement and federal agencies, it said.

Cybersecurity company FireEye has been brought in to respond to the attack, the cybersecurity industry sources said. FireEye declined to comment.

U.S. government bodies said they were aware of the situation. The Department of Energy said it was monitoring potential impacts to the nation's energy supply, while both the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency and the Transportation Security Administration told Reuters they were working on the situation.

"We are engaged with the company and our interagency partners regarding the situation. This underscores the threat that ransomware poses to organizations regardless of size or sector," said Eric Goldstein, executive assistant director of the cybersecurity division at CISA.

Colonial did not give further details or say how long its pipelines would be shut. The privately held, Georgia-based company is owned by CDPQ Colonial Partners L.P., IFM (US) Colonial Pipeline 2 LLC, KKR-Keats Pipeline Investors L.P., Koch Capital Investments Company LLC and Shell Midstream Operating LLC.

"Cybersecurity vulnerabilities have become a systemic issue," said Algirde Pipikaite, cyber strategy lead at the World Economic Forum's Centre for Cybersecurity.

"Unless cybersecurity measures are embedded in a technology's development phase, we are likely to see more frequent attacks on industrial systems like oil and gas pipelines or water treatment plants," Pipikaite added.

After the shutdown was first reported on Friday, gasoline futures on the New York Mercantile Exchange gained 0.6% while diesel futures rose 1.1%, both outpacing gains in crude oil. Gulf Coast cash prices for gasoline and diesel edged lower on prospects that supplies could accumulate in the region.

"As every day goes by, it becomes a greater and greater impact on Gulf Coast oil refining," said Andrew Lipow, president of consultancy Lipow Oil Associates. "Refiners would have to react by reducing crude processing because they've lost part of the distribution system."

If the system is shut for four or five days, the market could see sporadic outages at fuel terminals that depend on the pipeline for deliveries, he said.

Gulf Coast prices could weaken further, while prices in New York Harbor could rise, one market participant said - gains that could portend increases at the Northeast pumps.

"This is a big deal, and if manual overrides or backups aren't available, the mitigation of this incident may take more time than we'd like," said Chris Bronk, an associate professor of computer information systems at the University of Houston and a former senior advisor to the U.S. State Department.

The American Petroleum Institute, a top oil industry trade group, and the American Automobile Association both said they were monitoring the situation.

Oil company Exxon Mobil Corp said its Gulf Coast plants were operating normally, and a Royal Dutch Shell PLC spokesman declined to comment. Phillips 66, which operates refineries on the Gulf Coast, said it was monitoring developments.

Ben Sasse, a Republican senator from Nebraska and a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, said the cyberattack was a warning of things to come.

"This is a play that will be run again, and we're not adequately prepared," he said, adding lawmakers should pass an infrastructure plan that hardens sectors against these attacks.

Colonial had previously shut down its gasoline and distillate lines during Hurricane Harvey, which hit the Gulf Coast in 2017. That contributed to tight supplies and gasoline price rises in the United States after the hurricane forced many Gulf refineries to shut down.

East Coast gasoline cash prices rose to the highest since 2012 during Hurricane Harvey and have not gone higher since, while diesel prices rose to a more than two-year high, Refinitiv Eikon data showed.

(Reporting by Stephanie Kelly and Christopher Bing; Additional reporting by Raphael Satter, Gary McWilliams, Laura Sanicola and Devika Krishna Kumar; Editing by Simon Webb, Richard Valdmanis, Alistair Bell, Daniel Wallis and David Gregorio)

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sun, 09 May 2021 12:49

Google: "We've turned on 2FA. Deal with it." '-- Non-tech-savvy users always use the defaults, and the default will soon be 2FA. Ron Amadeo - May 7, 2021 4:35 pm UTC

Enabling two-factor authentication (2FA) on a Google account requires someone who is proactive about account security. Users have to log in, dig through the settings, and tick the right boxes. Of the billions of Google accounts out there, the uptake on 2FA is probably not that high, and Google is tired of it.

Yesterday, for "World Password Day," Google announced a very bold move for account security. "Soon," the company says, it will start "automatically enrolling" users in 2FA, provided their accounts are appropriately configured. Google doesn't go into detail about what "appropriately configured" means, but it sounds like anyone who can have 2FA enabled will have 2FA enabled soon. Google's preferred 2FA method is the "Google Prompt," a notification Google pushes to your phone when you're attempting to sign in. Rather than requiring you to type in a clunky code, the Google Prompt provides a simple "yes/no" check, making 2FA easier than ever.

On Android, Google Prompt is a full-screen pop-up built into every device as part of Google Play Services, so that's easy. On iOS, Google Prompt requests for your account can be received by the Google Search app, the Gmail app, or the dedicated Google Smart Lock app. It sounds like everyone meeting these requirements will soon be enrolled in 2FA.

Most users stick with the default settings, and soon, the default setting for 2FA will be automatic enrollment. Non-tech-savvy users are the most likely to have not enabled 2FA on their accounts, so hopefully, they'll still be able to figure out how to log in when the process suddenly changes. Google could also potentially lock someone out of an account if the company automatically enrolls a user in 2FA and the user's device setup can't actually support it. Hopefully, the first attempt includes some kind of wiggle room or consent.

Subject: Sadiq Khan back in again :( - Independents were suppressed by being forced to pay for pre-election leafleting bc of covid

Hi AC

Predictably he is back in again :(

They changed the rules so that nobody could leaflet. That was dodgy.

And then while he was an existing mayor he spent millions of pounds of public money promoting himself

best you you and the keeper

sara

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/london-mayor-candidate-brian-rose-may-local-elections-2021-covid-canvassing-b920345.html

https://www.guardian-series.co.uk/news/18149842.sadiq-khan-spends-26-city-hall-pr-johnson/

https://www.cityam.com/sadiq-khan-has-increased-press-office-spending-by-26-per-cent-in-four-years/

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8107572/sadiq-khan-publicity-addiction-leo-mckinstry-opinion/

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sat, 08 May 2021 14:18

For months, we've heard the rumor that ex-President Trump was starting a social network. It's up now. It's called ''From the Desk of Donald J. Trump.'' As a social network, it sucks. But as a functional equivalent to Trump's former Twitter account, it's likely to succeed.

How Trump's new megaphone worksHere's are the rules for ''From the Desk of Donald J. Trump.''

Only Trump can post.A visitor can ''like'' a post or share it to Twitter or Facebook. A post that's shared appears as a very short snippet and a link on Twitter, or just a link on Facebook.Every post has a URL, which you can see by clicking on it.A post can include text, graphics, or video. So far, no post has included a link outside of Trump's site; it's not clear if that would be possible. There's no visible mechanism for name-checking Twitter users, either.To state the obvious, this is not a social network. Comparing it to a social network is like comparing a handcart to a Telsa Roadster. It's missing the crucial element: people.

Social networks have visible members. This has only one.Social networks allow people to respond to content. This doesn't.Social networks surface popular posts based on member interaction. This doesn't. (It doesn't even show how many likes something gets.)Articles have described ''From the Desk of Donald J. Trump'' as a blog. That's too generous. Proper blogs allow comments. Trump's site doesn't. It's not a blog, it's a series of bleats.

Rachel Happe, CEO of the Community Roundtable, is fond of saying ''Control is for amateurs.'' Social networks, like all communities, cannot thrive under strict control. And this one is under about as strict control as you can get.

''From the Desk of Donald J Trump'' will serve Trump's purpose well Trump used Twitter as a megaphone. It allowed him to instantly translate his thoughts, provocations, insults, and endorsements into a space where everyone could see them. He reached 88 million followers. Unlike other politicians who use Twitter to interact skillfully with voters, antagonists, and allies, Trump's Twitter account mostly ignored other users. While he name-checked events and people, there was never any attempt at dialogue.

He clearly needed that megaphone. He lost it when Twitter suspended him. Now he has duplicated it, free from the constraints and rules on a platform like Twitter.

While Trump will never get to 88 million followers on his own platform, it will serve many of the same purposes. He will be instantly out there with comments on everything that's happening. His followers will instantly be able to spread those ideas by retweeting his text or sharing it on Facebook. He has reinserted himself in the dialogue.

Trump had also used Twitter to intimidate people who threatened to cross him or weaken his stranglehold on the Republican party. He's using ''From the Desk'' to the same ends. He's used it to threaten Liz Cheney and Mitt Romney already.

His allies will be able to share and respond to his ideas on this site, while his enemies will be able to challenge and ridicule them. But there will be discussion and controversy, which is what Trump thrives on.

Twitter and Facebook will find ''From the Desk'' creates challengesTwitter has already suspended an account called DJTDesk that was retweeting the posts on ''From the Desk of Donald J. Trump.'' It cited its ''ban evasion policy.''

We'll now see a cat and mouse game between Trump followers and social media platforms.

If there are two Twitter users who retweet every other Trump post '-- creating, between them, a full feed '-- will Twitter ban them?

If a Twitter user posts every Trump tweet as well as hundreds of other tweets, will Twitter ban that user? (That description fit many Twitter users in the days before Trump was kicked off the platform.)

Will Twitter block all links to Trump posts, or only the ones that promote violence and hate speech? If it ends up banning links to Trump's site, will users find other ways to post that content?

It's a big mess. And Trump will enjoy every minute of it.

Trump's megaphone is legal. The problem is not the megaphone, it is the messages.Trump is going to accomplish many of his communications goals with this site.

He's back online.

The same first Amendment that allows Twitter to kick Trump off allows him to create his own site.

If you have a problem with this, then the solution is to create communication that wins over more people and marginalizes Trump's viewpoint.

That's the only way to win the messaging war.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sat, 08 May 2021 17:32

The election was finally over. It was now March 1801 and the dust was settling over the gloom of the new Federal City along the Potomac River. Only the fourth presidential election in United States history, the Election of 1800 proved to be a new low in the young nation's political tug-of-war for power. Whereas George Washington received unanimous votes each time, the election of 1796 had been the first true competition for seats in the federal government. John Adams, then vice president, received the most votes and won the presidency. At the time, the system was designed to allow the runner up the position of vice president. One did not have to be of the same political party or even on the same ticket to be pitted with each other upon victory. Former Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson won the second most votes, earning him the spot of vice president beneath his longtime political friend, Mr. Adams. However, their once strong friendship that grew from a firm partnership in seeing the Declaration of Independence ratified had recently shown signs of fracture. Throughout the Adams administration, Jefferson undermined his friend whom he increasingly became disillusioned with over policy choices. By the Election of 1800, a severe rift had formed between the two of them. And the election's results would break them apart for more than a decade thereafter. Bitterness and regret filled memories. It was not always this way.

Portrait of Thomas Jefferson by Rembrandt Peale in 1800.

A contemporary once asked Thomas Jefferson what he saw in John Adams. The two men could not have been more different. Jefferson, tall and handsome, of the Virginia gentry and a purveyor in the small government-yeoman-American-utopia, was nothing like John Adams of Massachusetts. Though they both practiced law, Adams was the far superior accomplished legal mind. He had successfully defended the British soldiers on trial for the Boston Massacre. He was also short, stout, and spoke his mind to a fault. He could be cantankerous and wore his thoughts on his sleeve; unlike Jefferson who had developed an astute political eye for deception by never truly revealing what he thought on a subject. At any rate, Jefferson welcomed Adams' force of nature towards independence at the Continental Congress. Differing styles be damned, what mattered most were those voices advocating for complete separation from Great Britain. In June 1776, Adams and Jefferson were among the Committee of Five to help draft what would become the Declaration of Independence. Though in later years the two differed on who said what, it's likely true that most assumed Adams would be the one to write the document. Realizing his place within the halls of Congress, the delegate instead approached Jefferson and asked him to write it. Citing how unpopular he was in Congress, and how much he admired Jefferson's writing abilities, Adams persuaded the Virginian to the task. It's also likely Adams saw the strategic importance of the document being penned by a Virginian; much like Adams nominating George Washington to command the Continental forces was a stroke of putting a Virginian at the head of the situation, Adams again likely saw the importance in a Virginian, then the most powerful and influential colony in North America, to lead the new resolution. In later years, Adams claimed Jefferson had not written the document by himself, but used the suggestions of the committee, including those of Benjamin Franklin, to craft its careful wording. Jefferson maintained it was solely his work, with input from the others, based on the Enlightenment concepts of John Locke, that inspired it. Either way, Adams rose from his chair on July 1, 1776, in Philadelphia, and during a thunderstorm argued in favor of passing the new declaration. Three days later, after further revisions, the Declaration of Independence became a reality. A mutual respect and friendship was born between the two founders.

During the war, Adams spent much of the time overseas as a diplomat. First, he served in the French Court alongside Franklin, but the two men grew to hate each other's political styles. Franklin had played the game for decades while Adams, bold and direct in his conversation, offended many of the French intermediaries. He was then dispatched to Holland and throughout Europe to petition the several governments for loans to help finance the American Cause. Meanwhile, Jefferson served as Governor of Virginia for a time. He was nearly captured at his home Monticello by British forces under Banastre Tarleton in 1781. Some criticized him for fleeing under duress. In 1782, Adams shifted back to the lead American diplomatic circles and helped negotiate the Treaty of Paris that ended the war. After peace had been established, Jefferson was dispatched to Paris as a minister of the United States. It was during these years that perhaps served as the critical period of growth and inflection between the two men.

Jefferson had lost his wife Martha in 1782 and the grief that followed nearly crippled him. Joining both John and Abigail Adams in France in 1785 was seen by many as a way for him to overcome his despair, and the experience certainly helped him in many ways. Letters reveal a close bond formed between the Adams and Jefferson, who was accompanied by his young daughter Patsy (and later his other daughter Polly, along with James and Sally Hemings) while there. The two families were inseparable before Adams was dispatched to London. Jefferson remained in France until 1789 as the French Revolution was beginning. Seeing similarities with the American Revolution, Jefferson secretly helped early revolutionaries such as the Marquis de Lafayette pen the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. He returned to the United States in September 1789 when he received word that President Washington had selected him for the new cabinet position of Secretary of State. He would be serving once again alongside his friend, John Adams, who had been nominated as Vice President.

Portrait of John Adams by Gilbert Stuart.

Much had changed in the American political landscape. Since both men had served overseas for the better part of the last decade, they each missed out on participating in key events. Neither was present at the critical Philadelphia Convention in 1787 that saw the creation of the Constitution. From a distance, Adams became a staunch defender of its critical points of creating a strong central government. Likewise, Jefferson saw this as a threat to the autonomy of the individual states. Jefferson and his emerging political disciple James Madison grew wary of the support for the Federalist Party's policies that were being spearheaded by Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton. It would be these disagreements that would set in motion the eventual political turmoil that culminated in the election of 1800.

As vice president, Adams mainly oversaw deliberations in the Senate and was not active in the cabinet's more important decision making, something he grew to resent. Meanwhile, President Washington maintained an air of neutrality among the emerging political factions taking shape across the country. The Federalist Party had been advocates for ratifying the Constitution and with its victory emerged as the dominant force on the national scene. To counter them remained the faction known as the Antifederalists, those who retained suspicion of a powerful centralized government. To them, the Federalists were northern merchants who were too closely aligned with British interests. The worst charges labeled supporters of their agenda as monarchists. Even Washington himself, a supporter of the Federalist agenda, would have his credibility assaulted by the opposing partisan newspapers throughout his presidency. The Antifederalists tended to be wealthy landowners or planters from the South who held the agrarian mindset that the United States should be less centralized on the national level. Jefferson came to embody the opposition platform better than anyone.

Deals had been struck in 1790 and 1791 to establish Hamilton's monetary system. The United States would assume the leftover war debts from the individual states to establish credit on the national level. It would also charter a national bank. In return, the southern states would get the national capital when it was completed in 1800. Until then, Philadelphia would serve as the temporary capital. Though distrusting of Hamilton's plan, Jefferson, like other southern politicians including Washington, saw the value in the South having the capital. It would balance the regional tensions that still existed. For some, it would also guarantee a lopsided advantage to southern interests.

By 1793, Jefferson had grown disillusioned with the partisan politics of Philadelphia and tendered his resignation, claiming he would happily retire to the farming life at Monticello. In actuality, the retirement was very short. By 1795, Jefferson was engaged behind the scenes in partisan battle over the foreign policy crisis. As the French Revolution devoured itself in Paris, Great Britain was harassing American shipping in the Atlantic. Envoys were sent by the Washington administration but nothing was working. Worse, French diplomats in the United States were instigating the fragile tensions among the American citizenry. Americans were divided on the European hostilities. Many wanted peace, while many more sympathized with the French revolutionaries, seeing a clear similarity to the American Revolution just as Jefferson had in 1789. The Federalists openly took the side of Great Britain and denounced the French radicals which angered the Democratic-Republican faction, the successor of the Antifederalists. The Republicans saw themselves as inherently supportive of the French, America's first foreign ally. At times, war seemed inevitable between the United States and either of or both, European countries.

In 1795, the Jay Treaty prevented war, but it also angered both sides were declaring neutrality in the situation. Washington stood by this position, costing him some of his political clout among supporters. The following year, the first president announced he would not seek reelection. The election of 1796 was the first American election that saw two organized political parties wrestle for the ballot box. John Adams emerged as president with Thomas Jefferson as runner up, making him vice president. At the time, the Constitution stipulated voting to count ballots of candidates regardless of political affiliation. This would change after the election of 1800 showed the chaos that could happen with such an arrangement.

British political cartoon depicting the XYZ Affair. Published in May 1798, the cartoon depicts Frenchmen plundering "America," depicted as a female woman.

President Adams looked forward to working with his old friend. As vice president, Jefferson would be his most trusted advisor. The president saw this as a chance to mend the fences between the two political factions and solve many of the lingering problems of the decade, including among themselves. Their friendship had waned in the years since Paris. In 1791, Jefferson had called Adams a 'heretic' behind his back for his defense of a strong executive. The remark struck Adams and the two drifted away from each other, especially after Jefferson retired. However, following the election results, Jefferson attempted to soothe the waters and assured Adams their political differences would not obstruct the administration's competency. Jefferson trusted Adams to a fault, but he did not trust the men in Adams' administration. Much to the vice president's anxieties, the Adams administration retained three of Washington's advisors and cabinet secretaries: James McHenry, Timothy Pickering, and Oliver Wolcott. Though Adams was a Federalist, these Federalist men were not loyal to him. They had been loyal to Washington and remained loyal to Alexander Hamilton, now out of government himself, but pulling the strings from behind the scenes. Hamilton detested Adams, saw himself as the heir apparent to Washington, and instructed his men to undermine the president wherever they could. In return, Hamilton would be the one stealthy directing policy decisions from the shadows. Jefferson saw the scheme right away and warned Adams, but the president dismissed him as paranoid.

Perhaps the two biggest policies of the Adams administration were the XYZ Affair and the Alien and Sedition Acts. The first exposed a political bribe demanded by the French before they would receive American diplomats. When the bribe reached Adams, it was decided to make it public in order to damage those opposing peace negotiations, including Republicans who were still very much pro-France. At the height of the Quasi-War Crisis, Hamilton was coordinating a build up of a new provisional army. As inspector general, he set about raising a standing force that could oppose any invasion. Adams supported strengthening the US Navy but increasingly grew suspicious of Hamilton's true motives, at one point privately referring to him as 'Caesar.' Meanwhile, tensions between American partisans boiled over. In 1798, rival Congressional members attacked one another on the floor of Congress with a cane and fire tongs. High or Ultra-Federalists sought to declare war against France in the summer of 1798. With Hamilton distracted building the armed forces, his control over these radicals weakened. As the XYZ Affair was exposed, patriotism rallied behind President Adams. However, it was with this support that the radical elements in the Federalist Party overplayed their hand.

Despite the reservations of Hamilton, the radical factions of the party pressed to pass the Alien and Sedition Acts, which allowed for the federal government to deport any immigrant who was a 'threat to the peace or to the government. Matching that were the Sedition Acts that stipulated any individual criticizing the government, including the president, could be arrested. This undoubtedly was directed at the partisan press who were attacking the Federalist agenda. Adams signed the legislation and later poorly defended his reservations with doing so. The immediate consequences were apparent to all Republicans, including vice president Thomas Jefferson. The political divide between the two men, and their parties, had now reached a critical impasse.

Portrait of Alexander Hamilton by John Trumbull.

Jefferson responded by ghostwriting the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions. These pamphlets argued that states had the authority of nullifying any federal law that they felt was unconstitutional. It quickly caught fire with partisans and Americans distraught with how the Federalist Party came to increasingly symbolize a hierarchy within the American political class. As this groundswell was occurring, Adams sought to send another peace envoy to France in 1799. The president remained committed to Washington's policy of neutrality. Knowing that his cabinet secretaries and the radical Federalists would oppose his move, he announced the departure in February. Immediately, the Federalist press turned against him. Adams postponed the envoy's departure until initial accommodations could be made to gain bipartisan support. This provided some radicals with the perfect opportunity to delay the envoy indefinitely. Throughout the summer, Adams watched from his Massachusetts home as his secretaries devised a plan to keep the envoy stalled from departing. Eventually, Adams returned to Philadelphia where he met with Hamilton face-to-face. The meeting did not go well. Adams railed against him for undermining his presidency and dismissed him. He also fired the leftover cabinet secretaries, severing himself from Hamilton's influence once and for all. The French envoy finally departed in November, a full eight months from its announcement. Its delay would prove costly in the election of 1800.

Hamilton did not waste time to respond to his treatment from the president. Published in Federalist newspapers, his Letter'....concerning the Conduct and Character of John Adams, became a salacious account of partisan infighting that threatened to rupture any cohesive agenda within the party. Hamilton did not come off well from its publication. It politically weakened him among the party as even Federalists called his charges negligent and egotistical. At the same time as Hamilton sought to discredit Adams, the divide within the party's apparatus had hampered its ability to rally support among political candidates. Republican gains in the midterm elections of 1798 were showing signs of a growing movement, but the Federalist leadership remained confident their decade-long hold on the reigns of the government would last. What they failed to appreciate was how successful Jefferson and his allies had been in stoking fears of Federalist-backed government initiatives. The Alien and Sedition Acts were regularly used in the pro-Republican newspapers to rile up voters who were already skeptical of the national government. The Republicans also seized on the growing consent of the many American citizens who were not part of the political process. For the first time, lowering the standard to vote in elections became a topical issue. The Republicans, branding themselves as the party of the yeoman and advocates of smaller, disorganized power, came to support a more democratic electorate. Even champions of the Constitutional Convention like James Madison, who greatly feared rampant democracy, were now Republican supporters of expanding voting rights to virtually all white male citizens, regardless of property ownership and community status. They also championed the separation of church and state, the freedom of the press, and proclaimed to be the true stalwarts of the American Revolution's legacy.

The campaign and election of 1800 are rightfully remembered as being both bitter and divisive. Perhaps no other election, save for the elections of 1824 or 1828, conjured up more partisanship than the one between Adams and Jefferson. The partisan newspapers ran attack ads daily. Adams was called all things, including a hermaphrodite. Jefferson was labeled an atheist and a dangerous man. Both lead candidates remained largely detached from the political rancor, though Jefferson certainly played a greater role in directing editors what to print.

As president, Adams was campaigning for reelection. At times, he privately confessed his yearning for retirement, but he also remained a political fighter who could not see himself bowing out, particularly to forces he vehemently opposed. To rally party unity, the Federalists chose South Carolina's Charles C. Pinckney as his running mate. The Republicans nominated Jefferson and New York's Aaron Burr as his vice president nominee. Because of the way the Constitution was written, the delegates in the electoral college could cast two votes each. It could mean the party's two candidates could be divided if one came in second in the overall tallies, such as Jefferson becoming vice president under Adams and a rival political party. This had caused problems in the previous election, and would largely define the current election's outcome.

Portrait of Aaron Burr by John Vanderlyn in 1802.

Election day was December 3, 1800. By this point, the contest had already produced several results. One such result showed that neither political party was above the standard of playing fair. In Georgia, Virginia, and New York, rival factions switched voting district regulations in favor of the majority. Balloting had been underway for weeks, and the clear result showed that Adams was coming up short in key areas that had previously been Federalist strongholds. Indeed, the incumbent worried he would receive fewer votes than his running mate Pinckney. In the end, Adams would receive 65 votes to Pinckney's 64. However, both Jefferson and Burr received 73 each, creating a tie for the presidency. Burr had been a controversial pick from the outset. Though a generation younger than Jefferson and not his equal in politics, the younger candidate was equally ambitious. Too ambitious for some, including rival Alexander Hamilton. When the Republican ticket was assembled, Burr made it clear he would run behind Jefferson, as it was widely accepted that Jefferson was the literal face of the party. Burr even indicated this to the future president. However, as the election resulted in a tie between the two men, Burr suddenly indicated to some that he intended to fight for the presidency, reversing everything he had promised up until that point.

The following weeks provided the necessary actions to see a victor emerge from the stalemate. And the person who cast the fate of the election was none other than Alexander Hamilton. We would assume Hamilton would do everything in his power to deface and eliminate Jefferson, his longtime political enemy. But Hamilton felt Burr was actually the greater political threat. Though he differed immensely with Jefferson ideologically, he also knew Jefferson to be temperate towards government power. Burr, on the other hand, was viewed as dangerously ambitious and could not be trusted with the reigns of the federal government. Hamilton secretly put together his terms for rallying Federalist support to Jefferson: the next administration could not undo the financial and bank system; it could not remove Federalist appointees and it had to preserve the US Navy, among other things. Hamilton had his scheme while other prominent Federalists disagreed and still viewed Jefferson as their ultimate target to defeat. Yet the same pitch was made to Burr who rejected such an agreement.

Starting on February 11, 1801, thirty-five votes were conducted in the House of Representatives over the next five days to choose a victor. All remained deadlocked in a tie. As the partisan infighting occurred, real threats of insurrection broke out across the country. Many factions aligned with the Republicans threatened to act if the election was stolen from Jefferson. Recall, this was shaping up to be the first real transfer of political power at the national level; the Federalists had held the presidency since 1789. Rumors circulated of a government coup d'etat and even a plan to assassinate Jefferson if he tried to take the presidency without consent. Finally, a compromise was broached with Delaware's James Bayard, a Federalist, and Maryland and Vermont, two states that remained deadlocked. If Bayard abstained from voting, it would lower the state threshold needed to break the tie. As this was being debated, Jefferson came to the decision to accept the terms of Hamilton's scheme. Though never admitting it, his administration would not challenge a single stipulation put forth by his longtime political rival. The Federalist plan was now set. On February 17, during the thirty-sixth vote in the House of Representatives, Delaware abstained and did not cast a vote. The Federalist delegates of Maryland, South Carolina, and Vermont also did not vote, allowing for Jefferson to now claim a clear majority of the delegates that offset those that were no longer being counted. Thomas Jefferson had officially become the president-elect of the United States.

On March 4, 1801, President Jefferson walked the dirty streets of the new capital of Washington City to the steps of the incomplete Capitol building. In the halls of the Senate, the new president, visibly nervous and not a strong speaker, promised to mend the bitterness of the last few years by declaring, ''We are all republicans, we are all federalists.'' Adams did not attend the inauguration. Having accepted defeat in the early winter and largely remaining unseen for the remainder of his term, the former president slipped away by carriage in the early hours of Inauguration Day. His last great act as president was nominating John Marshall to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Marshall, a vocal Federalist who despised Jefferson, nonetheless was the individual who swore in the third president.

President Jefferson liked to reflect upon his election victory as the ''Revolution of 1800,'' believing that his '-- and the Republican - victory had upheld the principles of the American Revolution, beating off the illegitimate forces that sought to destroy it. In truth, it's hard to see the election as a true revolution. The Federalist Party continued to lose its grip on national affairs and would completely dismantle as a functioning unit after the War of 1812. Jefferson owed his victory as much to the bad policies of the Adams administration as he did to the way the Constitution favored the southern states. Removing the three-fifths clause of counting enslaved persons as a fraction of a person, thus increasing the south's population and a number of delegates in the House of Representatives to Jefferson surely would have tipped the election to Adams had that not been law. Also, Adams' delayed peace envoy to France returned far too late in the year 1800 to persuade voters that his policy of neutrality had indeed been successful. Had it departed when Adams initially planned, it perhaps would have returned in time to show his administration's success in keeping the United States out of a European war. Lastly, though Adams lost the election, he actually favored better than down-ballot candidates in the Federalist Party. It appears voters trusted him personally over that of many within the party's numerous congressional races. After all of Hamilton and Jefferson's attacks, Americans generally had a favorable opinion of the now one-term president. Nevertheless, Adams would remain bitter of his defeat for years to come.

The United States Capitol in Washington, D.C. Since 1800, Washington, D.C. has been the permanent seat of the United States Government. Martin Falbisoner

The former president spent years writing a reply to Hamilton's Letter, though it was published posthumously after Hamilton's fateful duel with Vice President Aaron Burr in 1804. Hamilton had never politically recovered from the election. For his part, Burr was largely marginalized in Jefferson's administration and was replaced in the election of 1804 with George Clinton, Governor of New York. His career would take dramatic turns in the coming years as he sought personal fame and wealth at the expense of the United States in the Mississippi territory.

Adams and Jefferson remained at odds in the first decade of the nineteenth century. The retired elder statesman worked his farm in Peacefield and wrote his memoirs while Jefferson ran the country, expanding it to great success with the Louisiana Purchase in 1803. But the two had ceased communicating. It would take several prompts from friends to bridge the gulf between the two. Adams struck first with a letter in 1812, triggering a correspondence that lasted for the better part of the next fourteen years. As history accurately records, the two founding fathers died on July 4, 1826, fifty years to the day of American Independence. It seemed to many then, as it does now, that fate had played a hand in signaling their respected ends on that day of all days.

What can be said of Adams and Jefferson is the two men symbolized many aspects of the Founding generation, and of its several conflicting ideals. These ideals often played on each other, sometimes suggesting different means of achieving certified goals. But neither men remained committed to more than seeing to it that the young nation they helped found would succeed. It was that shared vision that bound to two for their entire adult lives. Even in heated disagreement, there remained a curious respect and affection for one another. The years of build-up that culminated in their rival campaigns signified a testing of two branches of political thought: one of strong central government and one of a weak, indifferent central government. Indeed, those very divisions loom long over the American character into today. But the election's true success story is seeing the peaceful transfer of power among rival political factions. Perhaps this revolution better stated the importance of American leadership and republicanism. In this sense, Jefferson was right.

Despite the Election of 1800's pivotal outcome, what it shows us is how American politics would shape the country in the decades moving forward. Sectional tensions that were not settled, and perhaps irreparably enshrined, would come to challenge the country's very existence and identity in the nineteenth century. Many of the founders, including Adams and Jefferson, worried about these divisions. But they had cast their lot with those who favored national unity above all else. The election showed that some aspects of their vision were imperfect. It also showed how American politics would operate hereafter.

Further Reading

The Jeffersonian Republicans; The Formation of Party Organization, 1789-1801 By: Noble E. Cunningham Jr. Adams vs. Jefferson: The Tumultuous Election of 1800 By: John FerlingThomas Jefferson: The Art of Power By: Jon MeachamNew Jersey's Jeffersonian Republicans, The Genesis of an Early Party Machine, 1789 - 1817 By: Carl E. PrinceThe XYZ Affair By: William Stinchcombe

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sat, 08 May 2021 17:34

Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.

There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.

CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.

We are no longer allowing posts or threads that deny the existence of Covid-19. Members have lost loved ones to this virus and are grieving. As a Christian site, we do not need to add to the pain of the loss by allowing posts that deny the existence of the virus that killed their loved one. Future post denying the Covid-19 existence, calling it a hoax, will be addressed via the warning system.

It seems from a quick scan of readings including the Bible, Adam was a hermaphrodite. What do you think?Ozymandius said:

Highly ironic comming from someone who belives in talking donkeys and magical, 2000 year old carpenters. Why should it be any more crazy to suggest adam was a hermaphrodite or whatever, considering he didnt exist, at least not in a literal sense?

Click to expand...

Because I actually have a SOURCE for my beliefs! That's why. There is no source that even remotely suggests that Adam was a hermaphrodite. The idea is taken out of thin air and is totally ridiculous. But I think the OP knows this. SackLunch said:

Because I actually have a SOURCE for my beliefs! That's why. There is no source that even remotely suggests that Adam was a hermaphrodite. The idea is taken out of thin air and is totally ridiculous.

But I think the OP knows this.

Click to expand...

All the other people to ever believe in any god that ever existed had a source for their beliefs. You are no different. Hydra009bel esprit +334 AtheistSingleUS-Democrat Kris_J said:

It seems from a quick scan of readings including the Bible, Adam was a hermaphrodite. What do you think?

Click to expand...

Umm...I'd hate to be bothersome, but would you mind explaining how you came to this conclusion and what parts of the Bible you scanned?Hydra009 said:

Umm...I'd hate to be bothersome, but would you mind explaining how you came to this conclusion and what parts of the Bible you scanned?

Click to expand...

Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply,...Kris_J said:

Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply,...

Click to expand...

Always thought "image" was supposed to mean "spiritual image". Or do you think God is a bipedal primate? Hydra009bel esprit +334 AtheistSingleUS-Democrat Kris_J said:

Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply,...This is before God created "Eve" - so how were the Adam(s) to multiply?

Click to expand...

You know about the whole "adam" and "adamah" pun, right? A hebrew scholar could do a much better job, but here's the jist:ADAM - &#1488;&#1491;&#1501;ADAMAH (ground) - &#1488;&#1491;&#1501;&#1492;[Bible]Genesis 2:7[/Bible]It can also be read: And the LORD God formed ADAM out of the ADAMAH. Get the dual meaning?---Anyway, the point is a lot is lost in the translation, and looking at a word used both as mankind in general and a single individual in a poetic fashion for a biological description misses the point of the passage.And just to be clear, you're aware of the whole Documentary Hypothesis thing and the Priestly Source of the multiple occurances of "be fruitful and mutilply" in Genesis?Kris_J said:

Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply,...

Click to expand...

I don't think this conclusion is necessary. As an allegorical "history" intended to impart morals and to counter polytheistic religions prevailant in the culture, Genesis isn't intended to be either a literal account, nor was it intended to portray a literal timeline.I don't think this conclusion is necessary. As an allegorical "history" intended to impart morals and to counter polytheistic religions prevailant in the culture, Genesis isn't intended to be either a literal account, nor was it intended to portray a literal timeline.

Click to expand...

Either way, if Adam was a hermaphrodite, that would have serious implications. I mean, I could never look at myself in the mirror again! RoboMastodon said:

Always thought "image" was supposed to mean "spiritual image". Or do you think God is a bipedal primate?

Click to expand...

What if it can be found that the Bible implies that Adam was a hermaphrodite - & if scientific evidence shows that the earliest primates were hermaphrodites?Apparently Greek mythology speaks of first humans (hermaphrodite) being split into male & female by Zeus.SackLunch said:

Because I actually have a SOURCE for my beliefs! That's why. There is no source that even remotely suggests that Adam was a hermaphrodite. The idea is taken out of thin air and is totally ridiculous.

But I think the OP knows this.

Click to expand...

Why is it ridiculous? Do you believe that in the literal Creation, all animals, plants & humans were only either male or female?Kris_J, it would be very surprising (and likely damaging to the theory of evolution) if early primates acquired the trait of normally being hermaphrodites well after the time and cladistic catagorization where distinct sexual differentiation was acquired and then for every currently living primate to have lost it.madarab said:

Kris_J, it would be very surprising (and likely damaging to the theory of evolution) if early primates acquired the trait of normally being hermaphrodites well after the time and cladistic catagorization where distinct sexual differentiation was acquired and then for every currently living primate to have lost it.

Click to expand...

Hermaphrodites still exist today in both humans & primates, though not very common. Other animal species however can be hermaphrodites, & some are hermaphrodites/one gender at one stage in life & evolve to another gender later in life.Mistermystery said:

Thread delivers.

Click to expand...

Thanks .... But I wonder if this topic is merely uninteresting or too scary to consider...It's hillarious, that's what it is.Kris_J said:

Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply,...

Click to expand...

I can see that. But I think Gen. 2:23 is a much stronger argument:"This one shall be called Woman for out of Man this one was taken."It is interesting as well, that everywhere else in the chapter the individual created in Gen. 2:7 is called 'adam', a generic term for 'human'. But the word translated as "Man" in vs. 23 is 'ish' which refers specifically to human who is male as 'ishah' (Woman) refers to a human who is female.Are we dealing with the Hebrew equivalent of the Greek story of the creation of humanity, which also suggests the first humans were hermaphrodites until they were divided by the gods into male and female halves?Mistermystery said:

It's hillarious, that's what it is.

Click to expand...

Its in support of theistic evolution - Does it put your atheistic evolution view in danger since you haven't given any proper response?Kris_J said:

Thanks .... But I wonder if this topic is merely uninteresting or too scary to consider...

Click to expand...

or just pretty dumb

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sat, 08 May 2021 16:01

China is moving behind-the-scenes toward establishing a major naval port on the west coast of Africa that would host Chinese submarines and aircraft carriers capable of projecting Beijing's military power directly into the Atlantic, a top U.S. military official warned on Thursday.

The top commander for U.S. military operations in Africa said Chinese officials have been approaching countries stretching from Mauritania to south of Namibia in search of where to position the naval facility.

''They're looking for a place where they can rearm and repair warships. That becomes militarily useful in conflict,'' U.S. Gen. Stephen Townsend said in an interview with The Associated Press.

Gen. Townsend, who heads the Pentagon's Africa Command, added that China's military is already close to establishing such a facility in Djibouti, which is situated more than 2,000 miles away in the Horn of Africa on the Indian Ocean side of the continent.

''Now they're casting their gaze to the Atlantic coast and wanting to get such a base there,'' the general said in the interview.

The comments caused a stir among China watchers in Washington, some of whom said the American public should awaken to a reality the Pentagon has been quietly warning about for the past several years: Authoritarian communist government-run China is emerging as a global military power.

''It's just a matter of time before you have regular surface and subsurface Chinese naval vessels in the Atlantic,'' Bradley Bowman, who heads the Center on Military and Political Power at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told The Washington Times on Thursday.

''Americans need to know that's coming and the question is what do we do between now and then to get ready,'' Mr. Bowman said, adding that Gen. Townsend's warning should give U.S. policymakers pause as they debate defense spending priorities in the Biden era.

Thursday's warning came roughly two weeks after the general sought to draw the attention of U.S. lawmakers to Beijing's expanding activities in Africa.

China's ''activities in Africa are outpacing those of the United States and our allies as they seek resources and markets to feed economic growth in China and leverage economic tools to increase their global reach and influence,'' Gen. Townsend testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee April 22.

In prepared remarks, he noted that Beijing has pledged to deliver some $60 billion in infrastructure and development loans to an array of African countries in recent years.

He also said the goal of Chinese military operations in Djibouti are to create a ''platform to project power across the continent and its waters.''

Beijing built its first overseas naval base years ago in Djibouti and has been steadily increasing the base's capacity. Gen. Townsend told The Associated Press that 2,000 military personnel positioned at the base. ''They have arms and munitions for sure. They have armored combat vehicles,'' he said. ''We think they will soon be basing helicopters there to potentially include attack helicopters.''

The Djibouti operation is located only about 6 miles from the American Camp Lemonnier in the Horn of Africa, a U.S. Navy-led installation, which is home to roughly 3,400 U.S. Defense Department personnel.

''Beijing seeks to open additional bases, tying their commercial seaport investments in East, West and Southern Africa closely with involvement by Chinese military forces in order to further their geo-strategic interests,'' Gen. Townsend told lawmakers.

His testimony and Thursday's interview come against a backdrop in which U.S. military officials are increasingly shifting the Pentagon's strategic focus from the counterterrorism wars of the last two decades to threats from great power adversaries like China and Russia.

The Biden administration views China's rapidly expanding economic influence and military might as America's primary long-term security challenge. Among President Biden's initial foreign policy moves has been a scramble to solidify U.S.-Japan-Australia-India ''Quad'' cooperation aimed at countering China '-- building on former President Trump's push for the four major democracies to align against the communist government in Beijing.

U.S. military commanders around the globe caution that Beijing is aggressively asserting economic influence over countries in Africa, South America and the Middle East, and is pursuing bases and footholds there. Beijing has already spent years building up bases in the disputed waters of the South China Sea and has been sending submarines and warships to far-flung China-financed ports in Sri Lanka and Pakistan.

In addition to those activities, officials have sought to underscore Beijing's focus on Africa. ''The Chinese are outmaneuvering the U.S. in select countries in Africa,'' Gen. Townsend told The Associated Press. ''Port projects, economic endeavors, infrastructure and their agreements and contracts will lead to greater access in the future. They are hedging their bets and making big bets on Africa.''

Beijing was believed to be working toward establishing a Navy base in Tanzania on Africa's eastern coast. But Gen. Townsend said it appears there's been no decision on that yet, emphasizing that he's more concerned with Africa's Atlantic coastline.

''The Atlantic coast concerns me greatly,'' he told The Associated Press, pointing to the relatively shorter distance from Africa's west coast to the U.S. In nautical miles, a base on Africa's northern Atlantic coast could be substantially closer to the U.S. than military facilities in China are to America's western coast.

Other U.S. officials have said Beijing is also eyeing locations for a port in the Gulf of Guinea in northwest Africa.

A 2020 Pentagon report said Beijing has likely considered adding military facilities to support its naval, air and ground forces in Angola, along the continent's southwest. The report maintained the large amount of oil and liquefied natural gas imported to China from Africa and the Middle East has prioritized Beijing's focus on those regions.

An analysis published last week by the United States Institute of Peace said Africa has ''not escaped [the] growing great power rivalry'' between Washington and Beijing. ''Countering China was the lodestar of the Trump administration's Africa policy,'' the analysis said. ''While the Biden administration may be looking for general areas of cooperation with Beijing, its Africa policy will certainly reflect its overarching aim of challenging China.''

But the analysis also suggested Beijing's interests are more economic and diplomatic than security oriented. ''China invests heavily in Africa because it sees a continent of abundant natural resources, including strategic minerals, and a growing, youthful population that offers significant commercial opportunities,'' it said. '' In 2020, African countries accounted for seven of the world's 10 fastest-growing economies. There are 54 African countries represented at the United Nations, which often vote as a block, making Africa an important force in multilateral diplomacy. China's foreign policy seeks to legitimize the Chinese Communist Party at home by winning accolades and showing its clout worldwide, including in Africa.''

Mr. Bowman, meanwhile, told The Times on Thursday that U.S. policymakers would be wise view Beijing's economic investments anywhere in the world as precursors to Chinese military developments to follow over the years to come.

''When we see China's economic projects in the Middle East or Africa or even in Europe for that matter, we have to assume that there is either now or will be a military component to that activity in the future,'' he said, claiming Beijing is engaging in ''debt-trap diplomacy.''

Others have argued the goal is to lure poorer nations into accepting infrastructure loans they cannot possibly pay back and then to forgive the loans in exchange for those country's natural resources or for Chinese military access to strategically located ports and bases.

Chinese officials sharply reject such characterizations. But Mr. Bowman claimed that what Beijing is engaged in Africa and other corners of the world has begun to ''look a lot like neocolonial and neoimperialist resource extraction.''

While U.S. critics often claim America engages in similar activities through direct foreign aid, World Bank and International Monetary Fund lending, Mr. Bowman said there is a stark difference.

''Beijing is not interested in creating independent and prosperous trading partners and co-equals. They are interested in creating dependents from whom they can extract resources and coerce national security advantages,'' he said. ''This is different from the U.S. approach to the world. I'm not saying America has a perfect history, but generally speaking, the United States wants stable and independent trading partners who control their own territory and don't let it be used by terrorists to attack us.''

Sign up for Daily NewslettersCopyright (C) 2021 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sat, 08 May 2021 16:03

Australia's relationship with China appears to be locked in a downward spiral due to seemingly irreconcilable differences. Moreover, discussions about a hot war between the countries are also brewing, despite solemn calls to avoid potentially inflammatory language.

The prospect of a direct military confrontation between Australia and China remains slim, most observers agree. Growing tensions and occasional diplomatic spats notwithstanding, Beijing remains Australia's largest two-way trading partner'--worth A$251 billion ($194 billion), according to the latest figures from the Australian government.

In terms of conventional strength, nuclear-capable China outnumbers most militaries in the world. Its most recent defense budget of 1.36 trillion yuan ($210 billion) is six times that of Australia's A$42.7 billion ($33 billion), as reported by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute.

Yet Prime Minister Scott Morrison joins President Joe Biden and other world leaders in continuing to emphasize the importance of security in the Indo-Pacific region. The posture, signaled by his country's participation in the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, has drawn criticism from Beijing.

The Australian government's differences with China are many. Canberra banned Huawei from its 5G networks in 2018 and last year called for an independent inquiry into the origins of COVID-19. Beijing retaliated by placing anti-dumping duties and other trade restrictions on a number of Australian products.

This week, China suspended the China-Australia Strategic Economic Dialogue'--a diplomatic mechanism for trade talks'--and accused Australia of "disrupt[ing] the normal exchanges and cooperation" between the two countries, following its decision to cancel two Belt and Road Initiative agreements signed with the state of Victoria.

Australia's efforts to hold China to account for abuses of freedoms and human rights in Hong Kong and Xinjiang have also been dismissed as attempts at foreign interference.

None of this suggests conflict outside the arenas of diplomacy and ideology, but recent comments by senior officials within Morrison's cabinet have raised eyebrows in both the English- and Chinese-speaking worlds.

On Anzac Day on April 25, Australia's day of remembrance, Australian Defense Minister Peter Dutton warned that war with China over Taiwan should not be discounted. In his own address, the country's home affairs secretary, Mike Pezzullo, said "free nations" in the Indo-Pacific were again hearing the "drums of war."

This week, Australian media outlets carried leaked details of a private briefing by Major-General Adam Findlay, who in 2020 said conflict with China was a "high likelihood."

The Anzac Day remarks drew criticism from Australia's opposition Labor party. China's foreign ministry accused Morrison's government of trying to "stir up confrontation and hype up war threats."

However, the language appeared to echo similar comments made to Congress in March by U.S. Navy admirals Philip Davidson and John Aquilino'--now former and serving head of U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, respectively. Both officials warned that China was accelerating its ambition of seizing democratic Taiwan'--perhaps even within the decade.

Seasoned policy analysts in Washington have described the view as misleading, as well as failing to fully take into account the Chinese government's means and motivations. When it comes to Australia, however, some commentary suggests its involvement in a conflict of any kind may still relate to Taiwan, which China considers part of its territory and has vowed to "reunify"'--if necessary by force.

Taiwan's Foreign Minister Joseph Wu has made a number of appearances on Australian media, expounding on the military and economic coercion Taipei faces from its cross-strait neighbor. He has also spelled out, in no uncertain terms, the ultimate purpose of China's military build-up near Taiwan.

He told the Australian Financial Review that, in spite of warming relations between Taipei and Canberra, there was no expectation for Australia to provide assistance beyond much-needed moral support.

Australia's role in the Indo-Pacific's hottest flashpointOn Thursday, Morrison accidentally endorsed China's "one country, two systems" formula when discussing support for Taiwan. Australia has its own "one China" policy, which acknowledges but does not recognize or affirm Beijing's position that Taiwan is a Chinese province.

The same carefully crafted language exists in the U.S. one China policy, which differs in significant ways from Beijing's one China principle. The ambiguity has allowed Australia (and the U.S.) to maintain an unofficial relationship with Taipei while having formal diplomatic ties with Beijing.

However, neither Australia nor the U.S. have policies that touch on defense obligations in the event of a Chinese attack on Taiwan. The Taiwan Relations Act allows the U.S. to sell defensive arms to the island, but the legislation does not specify an obligation to provide military assistance during a war.

Publicly, the U.S. has remained intentionally ambiguous over the question of whether it will come to Taiwan's defense. Proponents find many benefits to this position, among which is unpredictability.

For the U.S. to intervene in a Taiwan Strait contingency, most scholars agree it would have to conclude that a democratic or de facto independent Taiwan is essential to its national interests, including perhaps its credibility among other Asian allies.

Japan, the U.S. treaty ally most at threat in a future where Taiwan is occupied by Chinese forces, is likely to assist. As a member of the ANZUS security treaty between Australia, New Zealand and the U.S., Canberra could have the conditions to assist a U.S.-led defense of the island.

Crucially, however, researchers in the field see the threat of a conventional conflict between China and Taiwan as being far from imminent. The more pressing threat, they say, is China's "gray-zone warfare," which includes measures that are both economic and psychological, aimed at denting the population's confidence and coercing Taiwan into discussing its future on Beijing's terms.

Australian Defence Force troops disembark an Australian Air Force plane at Avalon Airport on September 11, 2020, in Avalon, Australia. Darrian Traynor/Getty Images

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sat, 08 May 2021 17:27

The National Institutes of Health's refusal to make public documents related to research the agency is funding on pandemic viruses is ''grossly irresponsible,'' said Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of Center for Food Safety which filed the lawsuit.

The Defender is experiencing censorship on many social channels. Be sure to stay in touch with the news that matters by subscribing to our top news of the day. It's free.

Last week, Center for Food Safety filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the National Institutes of Health (NIH), an agency with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Center for Food Safety is suing the agency over its failure to release government documents related to the approval and issuance of NIH contracts and grants that fund research projects involving controversial gain of function/gain of threat studies with dangerous, so-called ''enhanced potential pandemic pathogens.''

''The NIH's refusal to make public the research it is funding to enhance the transmissibility, infectiousness and lethality of potential pandemic viruses is grossly irresponsible,'' said Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of Center for Food Safety. ''We are litigating to get that information because transparency and public knowledge about these highly hazardous experiments could be an important step in avoiding the next pandemic.''

An enhanced, ''laboratory-generated'' potential pandemic pathogen results from the enhancement of a potential pandemic pathogen's transmissibility or virulence in humans. Gain of function/gain of threat studies, or research that improves the ability of a pathogen to cause disease, is a subset of life sciences research that most commonly involves the creation or use of enhanced potential pandemic pathogens.

Center for Food Safety's lawsuit focuses on the agency's withholding of records concerning NIH's funding of proposed research that could create, transfer, or use enhanced potential pandemic pathogens for which additional review under HHS' Framework for Guiding Funding Decisions about Proposed Research Involving Enhanced Potential Pandemic Pathogens (HHS P3CO Framework) is required.

''FOIA requires NIH to release records promptly. Unfortunately, the agency has failed to comply with FOIA's statutory deadlines with respect to our request,'' said Victoria Yundt, staff attorney at Center for Food Safety. ''Consequently, NIH has unlawfully deprived the public of its statutory right to obtain records containing crucial information about government approval and funding of new and continued gain of function/gain of threat studies that consist of creating, transferring or using enhanced potential pandemic pathogens in U.S. laboratories, which '-- if released from a laboratory accident '-- could result in catastrophic consequences to the human environment.''

Without the requested records, Center for Food Safety cannot determine how many gain of function/gain of threat projects have been funded by the NIH, nor how many of these projects have undergone the proper review or comply with other federal laws and regulations.

NIH's unlawful withholding of public records undermines FOIA's basic purpose of government transparency. Center for Food Safety has a history of suing the federal government to compel agencies to be compliant with FOIA. Center for Food Safety's FOIA program is committed to upholding the principles embodied in FOIA, such as maintaining an open and transparent government.

Originally published by Center for Food Safety.

Subscribe to The Defender - It's Free!Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children's Health Defense. CHD is planning many strategies, including legal, in an effort to defend the health of our children and obtain justice for those already injured. Your support is essential to CHD's successful mission.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sat, 08 May 2021 19:23

Chinese scientists have been preparing for a Third World War fought with biological and genetic weapons including coronavirus for the last six years, according to a document obtained by US investigators.

The bombshell paper, accessed by the US State Department, insists they will be 'the core weapon for victory' in such a conflict, even outlining the perfect conditions to release a bioweapon, and documenting the impact it would have on 'the enemy's medical system'.

This latest evidence that Beijing considered the military potential of SARS coronaviruses from as early as 2015 has also raised fresh fears over the cause of Covid-19, with some officials still believing the virus could have escaped from a Chinese lab.

The dossier by People's Liberation Army scientists and health officials, details of which were reported in The Australian, examined the manipulation of diseases to make weapons 'in a way never seen before'.

Senior government figures say it 'raises major concerns' over the intentions of those close to Chinese President Xi Jinping amid growing fears about the country's lack of regulation over its activity in laboratories.

Chinese scientists have been preparing for a Third World War fought with biological and genetic weapons including coronavirus for the last six years

This latest evidence that Beijing considered the military potential of SARS coronaviruses from as early as 2015 has also raised fresh fears over the cause of Covid-19, with some officials still believing the virus could have escaped from a Chinese lab

Did coronavirus originate in Chinese government laboratory? The Wuhan Institute of Virology has been collecting numerous coronaviruses from bats ever since the SARS outbreak in 2002.

They have also published papers describing how these bat viruses have interacted with human cells.

US Embassy staff visited the lab in 2018 and 'had grave safety concerns' over the protocols which were being observed at the facility.

The lab is just eight miles from the Huanan wet market which is where the first cluster of infections erupted in Wuhan.

The market is just a few hundred yards from another lab called the Wuhan Centers for Disease Prevention and Control (WHCDC).

The WHCDC kept disease-ridden animals in its labs, including some 605 bats.

Those who support the theory argue that Covid-19 could have leaked from either or both of these facilities and spread to the wet market.

Most argue that this would have been a virus they were studying rather than one which was engineered.

Last year a bombshell paper from the Beijing-sponsored South China University of Technology recounted how bats once attacked a researcher at the WHCDC and 'blood of bat was on his skin.'

The report says: 'Genome sequences from patients were 96% or 89% identical to the Bat CoV ZC45 coronavirus originally found in Rhinolophus affinis (intermediate horseshoe bat).'

It describes how the only native bats are found around 600 miles away from the Wuhan seafood market and that the probability of bats flying from Yunnan and Zhejiang provinces was minimal.

In addition there is little to suggest the local populace eat the bats as evidenced by testimonies of 31 residents and 28 visitors.

Instead the authors point to research being carried out within 300 yards at the WHCDC.

One of the researchers at the WHCDC described quarantining himself for two weeks after a bat's blood got on his skin, according to the report. That same man also quarantined himself after a bat urinated on him.

And he also mentions discovering a live tick from a bat - parasites known for their ability to pass infections through a host animal's blood.

'The WHCDC was also adjacent to the Union Hospital (Figure 1, bottom) where the first group of doctors were infected during this epidemic.' The report says.

'It is plausible that the virus leaked around and some of them contaminated the initial patients in this epidemic, though solid proofs are needed in future study.'

The authors of the document insist that a third world war 'will be biological', unlike the first two wars which were described as chemical and nuclear respectively.

Referencing research which suggested the two atomic bombs dropped on Japan forced them to surrender, and bringing about the end of WWII, they claim bioweapons will be 'the core weapon for victory' in a third world war.

The document also outlines the ideal conditions to release a bioweapon and cause maximum damage.

The scientists say such attacks should not be carried out in the middle of a clear day, as intense sunlight can damage the pathogens, while rain or snow can affect the aerosol particles.

Instead, it should be released at night, or at dawn, dusk, or under cloudy weather, with 'a stable wind direction...so that the aerosol can float into the target area'.

Meanwhile, the research also notes that such an attack would result in a surge of patients requiring hospital treatment, which then 'could cause the enemy's medical system to collapse'.

Other concerns include China's 'Gain of Function' research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology - near where the first Covid outbreak was discovered - at which virologists are creating new viruses said to be more transmissible and more lethal.

MP Tom Tugendhat, chairman of the foreign affairs committee, said: 'This document raises major concerns about the ambitions of some of those who advise the top party leadership. Even under the tightest controls these weapons are dangerous.'

Chemical weapons expert Hamish de Bretton-Gordon said: 'China has thwarted all attempts to regulate and police its laboratories where such experimentation may have taken place.'

The revelation from the book What Really Happened in Wuhan was reported yesterday.

The document, New Species of Man-Made Viruses as Genetic Bioweapons, says: 'Following developments in other scientific fields, there have been major advances in the delivery of biological agents.

'For example, the new-found ability to freeze-dry micro-organisms has made it possible to store biological agents and aerosolise them during attacks.'

It has 18 authors who were working at 'high-risk' labs, analysts say.

Australian Strategic Policy ­Institute executive director Peter Jennings also raised concerns over China's biological research into coronaviruses potentially being weaponised in future.

'There is no clear distinction for research capability because whether it's used offensively or defensively is not a decision these scientists would take,' he said.

'If you are building skills ostensibly to protect your military from a biological attack, you're at the same time giving your military a capacity to use these weapons ­offensively. You can't separate the two.'

Intelligence agencies suspect Covid-19 may be the result of an inadvertent Wuhan lab leak. But as yet there is no evidence to suggest it was intentionally released.

Only this week, Brazil President Jair Bolsonaro appeared to strongly criticise China by accusing it of creating Covid to spark a chemical 'warfare.'

The comments were made during a press conference on Wednesday as the hardline leader sought to further distance himself from the growing attacks over his domestic handling of a pandemic that has produced the second-highest death toll in the world.

'It's a new virus. Nobody knows whether it was born in a laboratory or because a human ate some animal they shouldn't have,' Bolsonaro said.

'But it is there. The military knows what chemical, bacteriological and radiological warfare. Are we not facing a new war? Which country has grown its GDP the most? I will not tell you.'

While Bolsonaro did not name China in his speech, data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development showed that China was the only G20 member whose GDP showed a growth during the pandemic in 2020, expanding by 2.3%.

The dossier by People's Liberation Army scientists and health officials examined the manipulation of diseases to make weapons 'in a way never seen before'

Brazil's hardline President appears to claim China created Covid to spark a 'chemical war' Only this week, Brazil President Jair Bolsonaro appeared to strongly criticise China by accusing it of creating Covid to spark a chemical 'warfare.'

The comments were made during a press conference on Wednesday as the hardline leader sought to further distance himself from the growing attacks over his domestic handling of a pandemic that has produced the second-highest death toll in the world.

'It's a new virus. Nobody knows whether it was born in a laboratory or because a human ate some animal they shouldn't have,' Bolsonaro said.

'But it is there. The military knows what chemical, bacteriological and radiological warfare. Are we not facing a new war? Which country has grown its GDP the most? I will not tell you.'

While Bolsonaro did not name China in his speech, data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development showed that China was the only G20 member whose GDP showed a growth during the pandemic in 2020, expanding by 2.3%.

And the World Health Organization chief said as recently as March that all theories on the origins of Covid-19 remained open after reading the WHO-China study '' despite the claim the report dismissed the notion that the virus escaped from a lab as 'extremely unlikely'.

Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said all of the hypotheses are 'on the table' and require further investigation after reading the report from the international experts' mission to Wuhan.

But his comments came just hours after it emerged the report dismissed the lab leak theory and said the transmission of the virus from bats to humans through another animal is the most likely scenario.

The report's release was repeatedly delayed, raising questions about whether the Chinese side was trying to skew the conclusions to prevent blame for the pandemic falling on China.

Critics including ex-President Trump have accused the WHO of parroting Chinese propaganda on the virus since the outbreak was first announced to the world.

The comments by Dr Tedros came after New York Republican Representative Lee Zeldin slammed China for 'covering up to the world the pandemic's origins', while the WHO 'has played along time and time again'.

Meanwhile, Dr Anthony Fauci, President Biden's chief medical adviser, revealed he has 'concerns' over the WHO's controversial fact-finding mission.

Repeated delays in the report's release raised questions about whether the Chinese side was trying to skew its conclusions.

'We've got real concerns about the methodology and the process that went into that report, including the fact that the government in Beijing apparently helped to write it,' U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said in a recent CNN interview.

China rejected that criticism and accused the US of 'exerting political pressure' on the fact-finding mission experts.

'The US has been speaking out on the report. By doing this, isn't the U.S. trying to exert political pressure on the members of the WHO expert group?' asked Foreign Ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian.

Worrying new clues about the origins of Covid: How scientists at Wuhan lab helped Chinese army in secret project to find animal viruses, writes IAN BIRRELL

Scientists studying bat diseases at China's maximum-security laboratory in Wuhan were engaged in a massive project to investigate animal viruses alongside leading military officials '' despite their denials of any such links.

Documents obtained by The Mail on Sunday reveal that a nationwide scheme, directed by a leading state body, was launched nine years ago to discover new viruses and detect the 'dark matter' of biology involved in spreading diseases.

One leading Chinese scientist, who published the first genetic sequence of the Covid-19 virus in January last year, found 143 new diseases in the first three years of the project alone.

The fact that such a virus-detection project is led by both civilian and military scientists appears to confirm incendiary claims from the United States alleging collaboration between the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) and the country's 2.1 million-strong armed forces.

The scheme's five team leaders include Shi Zhengli, the WIV virologist nicknamed 'Bat Woman' for her trips to find samples in caves, and Cao Wuchun, a senior army officer and government adviser on bioterrorism.

Prof Shi denied the US allegations last month, saying: 'I don't know of any military work at the WIV. That info is incorrect.'

QUESTIONS: Colonel Cao Wuchun, a WIV adviser, and, right, Major General Chen Wei, China's top biodefence expert

Yet Colonel Cao is listed on project reports as a researcher from the Academy of Military Medical Sciences of the People's Liberation Army, works closely with other military scientists and is director of the Military Biosafety Expert Committee.

Cao, an epidemiologist who studied at Cambridge University, even sits on the Wuhan Institute of Virology's advisory board. He was second-in-command of the military team sent into the city under Major General Chen Wei, the country's top biodefence expert, to respond to the new virus and develop a vaccine.

The US State Department also raised concerns over risky 'gain of function' experiments to manipulate coronaviruses at the Wuhan lab and suggested researchers fell sick with Covid-like symptoms weeks before the outbreak emerged more widely in the Chinese city.

Last month, Britain, the US and 12 other countries criticised Beijing for refusing to share key data and samples after a joint World Health Organisation and Chinese study into the pandemic's origins dismissed a lab leak as 'extremely unlikely'.

Filippa Lentzos, a biosecurity expert at King's College London, said the latest disclosures fitted 'the pattern of inconsistencies' coming from Beijing.

'They are still not being transparent with us,' she said. 'We have no hard data on the pandemic origins, whether it was a natural spill-over from animals or some kind of accidental research-related leak, yet we're unable to get straight answers and that simply does not inspire confidence.'

The documents obtained by The Mail on Sunday detail a major project called 'the discovery of animal-delivered pathogens carried by wild animals', which set out to find organisms that could infect humans and investigate their evolution.

It was launched in 2012 and funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The project was led by Xu Jianguo, who boasted at a conference in 2019 that 'a giant network of infectious disease prevention and control is taking shape'.

The professor also headed the first expert group investigating Covid's emergence in Wuhan. He denied human transmission initially, despite evidence from hospitals, then insisted in mid-January 'this epidemic is limited and will end if there are no new cases next week'.

One review of his virus-hunting project admitted 'a large number of new viruses have been discovered, causing great concern in the international virology community'.

It added that if pathogens spread to humans and livestock, they could cause new infectious diseases 'posing a great threat to human health and life safety and may cause major economic losses, even affect social stability'.

An update in 2018 said that the scientific teams '' who published many of their findings in international journals '' had found four new pathogens and ten new bacteria while 'more than 1,640 new viruses were discovered using metagenomics technology'. Such research is based on extraction of genetic material from samples such as those collected by Prof Shi from bat faeces and blood in the cave networks of southern China.

Such extensive sampling led to Prof Shi's rapid revelation last year of RaTG13, the closest known relative to the new strain of coronavirus that causes Covid.

It was stored at the Wuhan lab, the biggest repository of bat coronaviruses in Asia.

Pictured: Wuhan Institute of Virology in Wuhan, in China's central Hubei province, during a visit by members of the World Health Organization (WHO) team investigating the origins of the COVID-19 coronavirus

It later emerged she changed its name from another virus identified in a previous paper, thus obscuring its link to three miners who died from a strange respiratory disease they caught clearing bat droppings.

Prof Shi also admitted that eight more unidentified SARS viruses had been collected in the mine. The institute took its database of virus samples offline in September 2019, just a few weeks before Covid cases exploded in Wuhan.

A comment was made on social media after Colonel Cao published a paper on a fatal tick bite, saying he and Prof Shi 'can always find a virus that has never been found in humans', adding: 'I suspect this is another so-called 'scientific research' made in the laboratory.'

In recent years, China's military has ramped up its hiring of scientists after President Xi Jinping said this was a key element in the nation's march for global supremacy.

Lianchao Han, a dissident who used to work for the Chinese government, said Cao's involvement raised suspicions that military researchers who are experts in coronaviruses might also be involved in bio-defence operations.

'Many have been working with Western research institutes for years to steal our know-hows but China still refuses to share critical information a year after the pandemic has killed over three million.'

David Asher, an expert on biological, chemical and nuclear proliferation, who led State Department inquiries into the origins of Covid-19, said: 'The Chinese have made it clear they see biotechnology as a big part of the future of hybrid warfare. The big question is whether their work in these fields is offensive or defensive.'

The great cover-up of China: Beijing punished Covid whistleblower, claimed it came from US and 'lied about death figures' China has lied and covered up key information during virtually every stage of its coronavirus response - from the initial outbreak to the number of cases and deaths, and is still not telling the truth, observers, experts and politicians have warned.

Beijing initially tried to cover up the virus by punishing medics who discovered it, denying it could spread person-to-person and delaying a lockdown of affected regions - meaning early opportunities to control the spread were lost.

Then, once the virus began spreading, the Communist Party began censoring public information about it and spread disinformation overseas - including suggesting that US troops could have been the initial carriers.

Even now, prominent politicians have warned that infection and death totals being reported by the regime are likely to be wrong - with locals in the epicenter of Wuhan suggesting the true tolls could be ten times higher.

Initial outbreak

Doctors in China, including Li Wenliang, began reporting the existence of a new type of respiratory infection that was similar to SARS in early December last year.

But rather than publicise the reports and warn the public, Chinese police hauled Wenliang and eight of his colleagues who had been posting about the virus online in for questioning.

Wenliang, who would later die from the virus, was forced to sign a document admitting the information he published was false.

While China has been widely-praised for a draconian lockdown that helped slow the spread of the virus, evidence suggests that the country could have acted much quicker to prevent the spread.

Dr Li Wenliang, one of the first Chinese medics to report the existence of the new coronavirus, was forced by police to confess to spreading false data. He later died from the virus

Samples analysed as early as December 26 suggested a new type of SARS was circulating, the Washington Post reported, but Wuhan was not locked down until January 22 - almost a month later.

Wuhan's mayor also admitted an error that allowed 5million people to travel out of the city before the lockdown came into place without being checked for the virus, potentially helping it to spread.

Chinese authorities have also been reluctant to had over information on the country's 'patient zero' - or the first person known to have contracted the virus.

While Beijing claims the first infection took place on December 8, researchers have traced the virus back to at least December 1 and anecdotal evidence suggests it was spreading in November.

A lack of information about the first patient has meant scientists are still unclear how the disease made the leap from animals into humans.

Theories include that it could have been carried by a bat or pangolin that was sold at a market in Wuhan and then eaten by someone, but this has not been confirmed.

Early reports

Chinese authorities initially reported that the virus could not spread person-to-person, despite evidence that it was spreading rapidly through the city of Wuhan including doctors being infected by patients.

This was used as justification for keeping the city of Wuhan operating as normal through a major CCP conference that was held between January 11 and 17, with authorities claiming zero new cases in this period.

China did not confirm human-to-human transmission of the virus until late January, when large parts of Hubei province including Wuhan were put into lockdown.

Despite reporting the existence of a 'novel type of pneumonia' to the World Health Organisation on December 31, Wuhan's largest newspaper also made no mention of the virus until the week of January 20.

That meant people in the city were not taking precautions such as social distancing to stop it spreading.

It also meant that people had begun travelling for the Lunar New Year holiday, which was due to start on January 24 and sees millions of people visit relatives, spreading the virus further.

Furthermore, China delayed reports suggesting that some 14 per cent of patients who initially tested negative for the virus or who appeared to have recovered tested positive a second time, only confirming such cases in February.

That further hampered efforts at early containment of the virus in places such as Japan, where patients who tested negative on board the Diamond Princess cruise ship were allowed to leave - only to test positive later.

Authorities in Beijing were also slow to report the deaths of two doctors from the virus, including one who was killed on January 25 but whose death was not reported by state media until a month later.

The market was shut on January 1 after dozens of workers there had contracted the disease

Origin of the virus

Despite early admissions that the virus began in the city of Wuhan, China later back-tracked - even going so far as to suggest American troops had brought the infection over after visiting the province.

Lijian Zhao, a prominent official within the Chinese Foreign Ministry, tweeted out the claim on March 12 while providing no evidence to substantiate it.

'When did patient zero begin in US? How many people are infected? What are the names of the hospitals,' he wrote.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian accused American military members of bringing the coronavirus to Wuhan

Referencing a military athletics tournament in Wuhan in October, which US troops attended, he wrote: 'It might be US army who brought the epidemic to Wuhan.

'Be transparent! Make public your data! US owe us an explanation!'

In fact, America's 'patient zero' was a man who travelled from China to Washington State on January 15. The case was confirmed by the CDC six days later.

Chinese has also tried to push the theory that the virus originated in Italy, the country with the most deaths, by distorting a quote from an Italian doctor who suggested the country's first cases could have occurred much earlier than thought.

Zhao spread the theory in a tweet, while providing no evidence to back it up

Giuseppe Remuzzi said he is investigating strange cases of pneumonia as far back as December and November, months before the virus was known to have spread.

Chinese state media widely reported his comments while also suggesting that the virus could have originated in Italy.

In fact, Remuzzi says, there can be no doubt it started in Wuhan - but may have spread out of the province and across the world earlier than thought.

Infection total

China has reported a total of some 82,000 infections from coronavirus, claiming a domestic infection rate of zero for several days in a row recently - even as it eased lockdown restrictions in placed like Hubei.

But, by the country's own admission, the virus is likely still spreading - via people who have few or no symptoms.

Beijing-based outlet Caixin reported that 'a couple to over 10 cases of covert infections of the virus are being detected' in China every day, despite not showing up in official data.

Meanwhile foreign governments have heaped scorn on China's infection reporting cannot be trusted.

Marco Rubio, a prominent Republican senator and former presidential candidate from the US, tweeted that 'we have NO IDEA how many cases China really has' after the US infection total passed Beijing's official figure.

'Without any doubt it's significantly more than what they admit to,' he added.

Meanwhile the UK government has also cast doubt on China's reporting, with Conservative minister and former Prime Ministerial candidate Michael Gove claiming the Communist Party could not be trusted.

'Some of the reporting from China was not clear about the scale, the nature, the infectiousness of this [virus],' he told the BBC.

Meanwhile sources told the Mail that China's true infection total could be anything up to 40 times as high as reports had suggested.

Marco Rubio, a prominent Republican senator, has said that China's figures cannot be trusted and a far higher than has been reported

Death total

Doubt has also been cast on China's reported death toll from the virus, which currently stands at around 3,300.

Locals in epicenter city Wuhan have been keeping an eye on funeral homes since lockdown restrictions were partly lifted, claiming they have been 'working around the clock' to dispose of bodies.

China has reported 3,300 deaths from the virus, but social media users in Wuhan have suggested the toll could be in excess of 42,000

Social media posts estimate that 3,500 urns are being handed out by crematoriums each day, while Caixin reports that one funeral home in the city placed an order for 5,000 urns.

Locals believe that efforts to dispose of the bodies began March 23 and city authorities have said the process will end on or around April 5.

That would mean roughly 42,000 urns handed out in that time frame, ten times the reported figure.

Chinese aid packages

As it brought its own coronavirus epidemic under control and as the disease spread across the rest of the world, China attempted to paint itself as a helpful neighbour by sending aid and supplies to countries most in need - such as Italy.

In fact, while the Chinese Red Cross supplied some free equipment to the Italians, the country purchased a large amount of what it received.

Meanwhile officials in Spain said that a batch of coronavirus testing kits bought from China had just 30 per cent reliability - unlike the 80 per cent they were promised.

China has said it is willing to help supply the world with much needed aid and supplies, but has been accused of hoarding protective equipment and selling test kits that don't work

China is also the world's largest manufacturer of disposable masks of the kind being worn to slow the spread of the virus by people while out in public.

But as the disease began gathering speed in the country in January, China began limiting exports of the masks while also buying up supplies from other countries, the New York Times reported.

As well as halting virtually all exports of masks, China also bought up some 56million masks and respirators from overseas while fears of a pandemic were still far off.

Despite reports from US mask manufacturers of factories in Shanghai being effectively nationalised, China denies it has any such policy in place and has said it is 'willing to strengthen international cooperation' on the issue.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sun, 09 May 2021 13:27

Scientists in the Chinese military discussed weaponizing SARS coronaviruses in a document obtained by the United States Government where they discussed their ideas about using biological weapons to win a third world war.

''The document, written by People's Liberation Army scientists and senior Chinese public health officials in 2015, was obtained by the US State Department as it conducted an investigation into the origins of COVID-19,'' The Weekend Australian reported exclusively. ''The paper describes SARS ­coronaviruses as heralding a 'new era of genetic weapons' and says they can be 'artificially manipulated into an emerging human ­disease virus, then weaponized and unleashed in a way never seen before.'''

The report was careful to caution that no information has been made public suggesting that the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic was the result of an intentional act. Many officials have urged investigations into the Wuhan Institute of Virology to determine if that lab, which is China's only Biosafety Level-4 lab (BSL-4), had any role in the origin of the pandemic. BSL-4 is a designation for facilities that are designed to handle pathogens so contagious and dangerous that ''infections caused by these microbes are frequently fatal and without treatment or vaccines,'' according to the CDC.

The report states that chairmen of the British and Australian foreign affairs and intelligence committees, Tom ­Tugendhat and James Paterson, were alarmed by the document, and indicated that it raised serious concerns over the transparency coming out of communist China about the origins of the pandemic. The document is titled, ''The Unnatural Origin of SARS and New Species of Man-Made Viruses as Genetic Bioweapons.''

The Australian reports:

Some of China's senior public health and military figures are ­listed among the 18 authors of the document, including the former deputy director of China's Bureau of Epidemic Prevention, Li Feng. Ten of the authors are scientists and weapons experts affiliated with the Air Force Medical ­University in Xi'an, ranked ''very high-risk'' for its level of defense research, including its work on medical and psychological sciences, according to the Australian Strategic Policy Institute's ­Defense Universities Tracker.

The Air Force Medical University, also known as the Fourth Medical University, was placed under the command of the PLA under President Xi Jinping's military reforms in 2017. The editor-in-chief of the paper, Xu Dezhong, reported to the top leadership of the Chinese Military Commission and Ministry of Health during the SARS epidemic of 2003, briefing them 24 times and preparing three reports, according to his online ­biography.

He also held the position of professor and doctoral supervisor in the Air Force Medical University's Military Epidemiology ­Department. Other authors include Zhang Jiangxia and Zhao Ningning, who both served as experiment scientists in the same department.

The Australian verified the authenticity of the paper through digital forensics expert Robert Pottinger, who has worked for three of the five governments, including the U.S., represented in Five Eyes, an intelligence alliance comprised of the U.S., Australia, Canada, the U.K., and New Zealand.

A significant area of concern surrounding the bioweapons research involves what is known as ''Gain of Function'' research where scientists create and alter viruses to make them more contagious and lethal.

''There is no clear distinction for research capability because whether it's used offensively or defensively is not a decision these scientists would take,'' Australian Strategic Policy ­Institute Executive Director Peter Jennings said. ''If you are building skills ostensibly to protect your military from a biological attack, you're at the same time giving your military a capacity to use these weapons ­offensively. You can't separate the two.''

The document highlights how biological warfare ''could cause the enemy's medical system to collapse,'' among other things.

Continue reading the report here.

The Daily Wire is one of America's fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news, opinion, and entertainment. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a member .

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sat, 08 May 2021 15:33

BILL and Melinda Gates' divorce was "not friendly" and the split has been a "long time coming", sources have claimed.

Melinda reportedly rented a $132,000-a-night Caribbean private island for her family earlier this year during the "acrimonious" split from Microsoft co-founder Bill.

9

Sources have claimed Bill and Melinda Gates' divorce was 'not friendly' Credit: Getty 9

Bill and Melinda Gates with their children Jennifer, Rory and Phoebe Credit: Instagram/Melinda Gates 9

Melinda reportedly fled to Calivigny Island in Grenada with her three children during the split Credit: Instagram/Jennifer GatesThe philanthropist fled to Calivigny Island in Grenada with her three children to escape media scrutiny, sources told TMZ.

The split was branded "unfriendly" as Melinda headed to the island while lawyers were frantically trying to finalize a settlement.

All family members, except Bill, were reportedly invited to the 80-acre Caribbean hideaway.

Insiders claim Bill was not invited as "there was a considerable amount of acrimony associated with the split".

"So here's the takeaway," TMZ claimed. "First, we're told this was not a friendly split.

"We're told Melinda and most of the family were furious at Bill for various things they claim he had done. Second'... it's clear this divorce has been a long time in the making."

Calivigny is considered to be one of the most exclusive private islands in the world.

9

Insiders claim 'there was a considerable amount of acrimony associated with the split' 9

The couple are going to continue with their charity work at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation Credit: Getty 9

Melinda and Bill speak during 'One World: Together At Home' presented by Global Citizen in 2020 Credit: GettyThe island's Beach House residence offers 10 luxury suites and the master bedroom has its own jacuzzi room.

The Overhang House boasts stunning views of both the Atlantic Ocean and the Caribbean Sea, while there are three beach cottages located just minutes away from crystal blue waters.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has been approached for comment.

It comes a day after tech mogul Bill Gates gifted $1.8billion in stock after the couple decided to call it quits on Monday.

One of Gates's holding companies, Cascade Investment, which has positions in various sectors like energy and hospitality, transferred almost $2billion worth of securities to Melinda, Bloomberg Wealth reported.

Bill expressed how a "great deal of thought and a lot of work" was invested to save their marriage, and after his wife admitted that marital life was "really hard".

9

Melinda and Bill at The Robin Hood Foundation's 2018 benefit in New York City Credit: Getty 9

The couple married on January 1, 1994 in Hawaii Credit: Getty 9

Tech mogul Bill has become a leading figure in the fight against Covid-19 Credit: ReutersMelinda filed papers in court confirming that the marriage was "irretrievably broken".

However, the couple are going to continue with their charity work at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

"We continue to share a belief in that mission and will continue our work at the foundation, but we no longer believe we can grow together as a couple in this next phase of our lives," Bill said.

"We ask for space and privacy for our family as we begin to navigate this new life."

Melinda tweeted an identical statement to her Twitter account.

'STILL LEARNING'The couple's daughter, Jennifer, commented on the divorce in an Instagram story shortly after her parents went public.

The eldest daughter said: "I'm still learning how to best support my own process and emotions as well as my family members at this time and am grateful for the space to do so.

"I won't personally comment further on anything around the separation, but please know that your kind words and support mean the world to me."

Melinda joined Microsoft in 1987 and met Bill at a business dinner in New York City.

After a year of dating, it was reported that Bill had to make a pros and cons list about getting married.

Live Blog

MYSTERY DEEPENSBarry Morphew 'spotted with mystery woman' 2 months before 'murder' arrest

Breaking

PIPE DOWNCyberattack forces shutdown of major US energy pipeline in 'sophisticated' hit

SMACK BACKLASHMom of girl spanked with paddle wants principal's teaching license removed

'PREDATORY'Moment sex attacker lures teen into car as he pretended to be taxi driver

MORE THE MERRIERFamily-of-4 to get $8,200 in stimulus cash as more checks arrive this week

BATTLE ROYALEHarry & Wills have been 'arguing for past 18 months', says Tom Bradby

The couple eventually married on January 1, 1994 in Hawaii.

Tech mogul Bill, who has become a leading figure in the fight against Covid-19, was the richest man in the world until Amazon's Jeff Bezos knocked him off his perch in 2017.

Melinda's net worth is around $70billion, according to Spears.

Melinda Gates admits her and Bill Gates 'agree to disagree in private' in 2017 interview

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sat, 08 May 2021 15:42

People please rebellion is warranted across this nation.

Spawn of Hilary won't endorse this message.

You know what else is 95% effective against Covid-19? It's called your Immune System! Wait, this just in! It's Now 99.98% effective against the virus! WOW!

I had it and now what? Compell me into a shot against my will my body. What is good for me is for you to leave me alone. Stop the fear and control mechanism.

Vote Up -1 Vote Down Reply

There are lies, damn lies and statistics '' Oscar Wilde

Nobody can accurately attribute that quotation to any one person. Some people cite Benjamin Disraeli, but from this link you'll see that many people throughout the long span of history recognized deceptive statistics, and made similar statements:

https://www.york.ac.uk/depts/maths/histstat/lies.htm

Per EUA Data:99.95% of vaccinated didn't get Covid; .05% did get it;99.07% of unvaccinated didn't get Covid .93% did.get it;- the difference is statistically insignificant: For 100 volunteers in vaxxed and unvaxxed group, a fraction of one person in each group got it'...!

In a recent scientific study of Russian Roulette survivors, not a single one showed any negative effects from the experience.

Statistically, then, we can say that Russian Roulette is completely safe. Probably.

Translation:

You pay $125,000 for an new M class BMW.The dealer gives you a used 1982 Honda civic with no engine with a glove compartment full of blue masks made in China.

Fauci obviously knows this. That's why he says keep wearing your mask. He just won't say that the vaccines are worthless.

''There are three types of lies, there are Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics.'' '' Samuel Clemmons

Vote Up 22 Vote Down Reply

Nobody can accurately attribute that quotation to any one person. Some people cite Benjamin Disraeli, but from this link you'll see that many people throughout the long span of history recognized deceptive statistics, and made similar statements:

https://www.york.ac.uk/depts/maths/histstat/lies.htm

It's a strange and unprecedented thing for me to find myself agreeing with Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

Figures never lie, but liars can figure

I thought about sending that article to my congressman and senators but they are all democrats so their party would not let them pass on the truth.

Might open their ðŸ‘.ðŸGod Bless🇺🇸

This is an old #'s trick to exaggerate results. For example, if the absolute # changes from 0.1 to 0.2, they would say that's a 100% increase. The very same trick Buffet used to say his secretary paid more taxes than he does by conflating tax rates with absolute tax $. Of course Buffet pays a lower rate, he hires an accountant team to ensure he pays as little taxes as possible.

Well to be fair he invests strategically to leverage federal corporate tax abatements. Of course, he and the others pay payroll taxes, sales taxes, etc. and employ tens of thousands that pay their own federal taxes.

It's Marxist unintellectualism and /or pot philosophy to state the rich do not pay taxes.

It's ignorant and false.

The better analogy is the over 50% of Americans who do not pay any federal taxes!

Earned income is the worst tax. Investment income is more favorable (for now 🁠)

If a person has been vaccinated why would they care if I'm not vaccinated. There are only 2 logical answers. The vaccine doesn't really work. Or they get a cheap thrill making people comply with their demands.

Vote Up 28 Vote Down Reply

''Pfizer told the FDA that eight (of approximately 22,000) volunteers in its vaccine group developed a PCR-confirmed case of COVID-19, versus 162 of 22,000 volunteers in the placebo group. Moderna reported a similar spread '-- five out of 15,000 in the vaccine group versus 90 out of 15,000 in the placebo group.''

Looking at Pfizer. 162 '' 8 means 154 people supposedly didn't get the virus due to the vaccine. So 22,000 people got the vaccine to keep 154 people from getting the virus. And with no indication of the severity of the illness in the placebo group.

Monerna. 15,000 people got the vaccine to keep 85 people from getting covid. And no indications of the severity of illness they were saved from.

Yesterday I had egg salad made by my daughter. Today I am still COVID-19 free.My daughter's egg salad is 100% effective in preventing COVID-19.

Vote Up 41 Vote Down Reply

Nice,'... pass the sandwich.

I like that chart there for the ''Chance of Surviving Covid-19 by Age and Sex'''...but can we get an updated one shown? That one is from June 2020. I'd like to see updated numbers. Then again, we have too many people counted that died ''with'' Covid, instead of directly ''from'' Covid.

And how do the Trans people figure into these numbers when they only account for male and female? Must be racist science!

The definitive resource for this is ''Faucian Bargain'' by Steve Deace.Faucian Bargain: The Most Powerful and Dangerous Bureaucrat in American History Paperback '' March 26, 2021by Steve Deace (Author), Todd Erzen (Author)4.8 out of 5 stars 2,196 ratings

With 4 factors, you can dra an elephant. With five, you can wiggle it's trunk.

It is so easy to mislead/lie with statistics. Graphs are the worst!

Here is an EXCELLENT video explaining the difference.

Vote Up 11 Vote Down Reply

Yes, that video was excellent. Thanks for posting it.

Absolutely magnificent!!!!

Ha! That book was elective reading material in university stats class, ages ago. One of the most useful pieces of knowledge to have in the memory banks for critical thinking. Of course, the donkey chasms use it as an instruction manual.

My college physics professor explained the way statistics work with the example, ''If you stand with one foot in a bucket of hot coals and the other foot in a bucket of ice, on the average you'll be comfortable.''

Vote Up 12 Vote Down Reply

Similarly, three guys went hunting. The first guy shot and missed the elk (4 feet behind him). The next guy shot and missed (4 feet in front of the elk). Immediately, the statistician yelled, ''We got him!''

The way things are going, I expect the Government will give up trying to force the vaccines on us late next year. Once the masses figure out that the shot, which has significant risks, doesn't prevent you from getting or transmitting the virus (hence masks still required for the vaccinated) and that the Government wants them to retake the vaccine every year, most people will take a pass, including those who were previously vaccinated.

Figures don't lie, liars figure

''There are 3 types of lies Lies, damned lies and statistics.'' Samuel Clemens. This was also on the frontispiece of most of the economic statistics books from my long ago university days

&f=1&nofb=1

I still have a copy of that, it's a good read!

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sun, 09 May 2021 12:41

Art of Information : The EconomistThe time span between the two covers is exactly 33 years, 3 months, 3 weeks, and 3 days. https://t.co/nRubAnZX5s

Sat May 08 12:33:14 +0000 2021

🌱Livestradamus 🥕#BitcoinðŸŸ(C) : @artofinfo @adamcurry

Sun May 09 12:34:15 +0000 2021

Zito Talavera (Omnidirectional) : @artofinfo @Neloangelo314

Sun May 09 12:10:58 +0000 2021

Journey of the Soul : @artofinfo Freemasons at work again.

Sun May 09 12:04:17 +0000 2021

Unincorporated Self-Governance : @artofinfo #holyhexes @mediamonarchy

Sun May 09 11:47:49 +0000 2021

Used To Be Left But Now I'm Right : @artofinfo 👠https://t.co/6jnnZJYiU5

Sun May 09 11:24:28 +0000 2021

Pete : @artofinfo Buy decentralised #crypto #Bitcoin

Sun May 09 11:10:28 +0000 2021

Celal Bey : @artofinfo @altugozturk @AlppIsik @bit_gossip @uzmancoin

Sun May 09 09:35:20 +0000 2021

Anon-infinite money supply 🖨¸ðŸ'µ : @artofinfo @saxurn

Sun May 09 09:25:42 +0000 2021

The L : @artofinfo ðŸ²ðŸ²ðŸ²

Sun May 09 08:19:05 +0000 2021

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sun, 09 May 2021 13:59

Kids and Vaccines: One of the top health agencies in the U.S. is expected to authorize Pfizer's Covid-19 vaccine for younger teenagers. Dr. John Torres shares the details. President Biden spoke to Congress last week, but why? We'll explain. Class Act: We introduce you to an inspiring teacher from New Jersey who is going the extra mile for her students. Plus, It's a girl! A baby camel makes her debut at a European zoo. May 6, 2021

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sun, 09 May 2021 12:50

"Real Time" host Bill Maher closed his show Friday night by complaining that the Democrats have become a "no fun" party in comparison to the Republicans.

"Once upon the time, the right were the ones offended by everything," Maher said. "They were the party of speech codes and blacklists and moral panics and demanding some TV show had to go.

"Well, now that's us. We're the fun-suckers now. We suck the fun out of everything: Halloween, the Oscars, childhood, Twitter, comedy. It's like woke kids on campus decided to be all the worst parts of a Southern Baptist."

He continued: "If Democrats had always policed morality as hard as they do now, they'd be down a lot of heroes. No FDR, JFK, RFK, LBJ, Clinton, Martin Luther King.

"Democrats are now the party that can't tell the difference between Anthony Weiner and Al Franken."

BILL MAHER NOW ADMITS RUSSIAGATE WAS 'REPORTED ERRONEOUSLY' AFTER YEARS OF PUSHING TRUMP COLLUSION NARRATIVE

"We need to restore the natural order of things," Maher told viewers at another point. "I don't want to live in a world where liberals are the uptight ones and conservatives do drugs and get laid.

"I don't want to live in a world where liberals are the uptight ones and conservatives do drugs and get laid."

'-- Bill Maher

He also complained that former U.S. Rep. Katie Hill of California, once a rising star among liberals, was forced out of Congress for being in a "throuple" and having nudes photos leaked with her holding a bong, saying "that was too much for our puritanical Democratic Party."

"We're the throuple people! The bong people, the tantric sex gurus, not f---in' Matt Gaetz! Us!" Maher shouted. "We did f---ing in the mud and bra burning and 'Turn On, Tune In, and Drop Out.' They're the party who can't bake wedding cakes for gay people! It's time to switch back because, frankly, you're not good at being us and being you sucks."

Earlier in the monologue, Maher had pointed to recent stories about Republicans appearing to be a wild bunch.

He spoke about U.S. Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., and cited a report that alleged the congressman had used drugs "like cocaine and ecstasy."

"Wild hotel suite parties? That's our thing," Maher reacted. "Democrats are the party of free love and fun and forgetting where you parked your car. Republicans cannot be the conservative, stick-up-your-ass party and then take our drugs and f--- our women.

Bill Maher sees U.S. Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., as the face of a more free-wheeling Republican Party. (HBO/Stefani Reynolds/CNP/ABACAPRESS.COM)

"JFK used to have nude pool parties in the White House. Now the politician who comes closest to carrying on that legacy is Matt Gaetz? No," Maher told viewers.

"JFK used to have nude pool parties in the White House. Now the politician who comes closest to carrying on that legacy is Matt Gaetz? No."

'-- Bill Maher

The HBO star then listed several other high-profile Republicans linked to drug and sex scandals, including former House Speaker John Boehner, who famously entered the marijuana business, the reported polyamorous relationships of U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., the sex scandals that removed Jerry Falwell Jr. from Liberty University, and former President Trump's alleged extramarital affair with Stormy Daniels.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

"What happened?!?" Maher exclaimed. "You can always count on Republicans to be the fuddy-duddies, the wet blankets, the bores. They were the Moral Majority, 'The Book of Virtues.' Nixon -- NIXON! -- started the 'war on drugs' and [Nancy Reagan] never stopped spinning her catchphrase about it. ... Her husband had a commission to root out pornography.

"If it was fun, Republicans were against it. They got apoplectic over Bill Clinton getting a b------."

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sun, 09 May 2021 12:35

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sun, 09 May 2021 12:34

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sun, 09 May 2021 12:26

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sun, 09 May 2021 12:23

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sat, 08 May 2021 23:27

Ezra Levant 🍁 : A heavily-armed SWAT team just took down a Christian pastor heading home from church. Police say he's charged with'... https://t.co/d4xDiLKiQf

Sat May 08 23:21:52 +0000 2021

Charles J Johnson : @ezralevant @Cernovich @JesseKellyDC They got him 🤬

Sat May 08 23:27:46 +0000 2021

Susan : @ezralevant Nazi Scum. God will be with him. We will pray for him. '''¸ðŸðŸ>>

Sat May 08 23:27:37 +0000 2021

InsideTheInside : @ezralevant @Harrison_of_TX Canada is just doing what China does. China has more control over different world cou'... https://t.co/qzwvMvN6V5

Sat May 08 23:27:13 +0000 2021

KoKo B. Ware : @ezralevant @RebelNewsOnline Bahahahahahaha this is GOLD. These ''pastors'' are narcissistic horrible human beings an'... https://t.co/338faLPnE4

Sat May 08 23:27:05 +0000 2021

thesevenronin : @ezralevant @Cernovich This is so wrong.

Sat May 08 23:25:59 +0000 2021

Bob🂠: @ezralevant @RebelNewsOnline What in the Dietrich Bonhoeffer is going on in Canada?

Sat May 08 23:24:48 +0000 2021

Andrew Johnston : @ezralevant Acab.Say it with me, Ezra.

Sat May 08 23:22:47 +0000 2021

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sat, 08 May 2021 16:58

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sat, 08 May 2021 16:54

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sat, 08 May 2021 16:16

Explaining Gab's Business Model

Last Thursday at 10:09 AM

1.84k views

I am a Christian, a husband, a father, a patriotic American, and the CEO of @gab. Now faith is...

Recommended Episodes12:20

43 views &squf; 5 days ago

15:36

à¸à¸§à¸²à¸à¸à¸£à¸´à¸‡à¹à¸à¸µà¹à¸à¸§à¸à¸±à¸šà¹à¸£à¸·à¸­ Titanic

52 views &squf; 4 days ago

03:24

CMS HIGHLIGHT | Is It Dickinson Or Is It Memorex?

50 views &squf; 6 days ago

00:36

Unplug the Banana's From Your Ears (Yuri B)

81 views &squf; 5 days ago

23:13

Red Reveals | Marvel Champions | Rocket Raccoon

2 views &squf; 4 hours ago

03:39

March 20th NYC The Man In The Plastic Bubble Covid-19 Coronavirus Masks Lockdowns Curfews Quarantine

27 views &squf; 2 days ago

06:40

Radical Trans Doctor In Charge of 500 Orphans Turning Trans

39 views &squf; 4 days ago

02:07

Biden's teleprompter: you got it.

144 views &squf; 2 days ago

02:02

Time traveling comedian from January 8, 2019

71 views &squf; 20 hours ago

01:46

84 views &squf; 4 days ago

You must have a Gab account and be logged in to comment.

Thank You Andrew! I just Upgraded to Pro. May God continue to Bless You, Your Family & Everyone at GAB! 🐸🐸

Read more...

Gab builds Freedom Of Speech Software. Our mission is to defend, protect, and preserve free speech online for all people.

Donate Bitcoin: 3DjemruRRvunHTHxNJbwoRCzCFWagw6vo2Modal title

Modal body text goes here.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sat, 08 May 2021 15:47

One of the biggest fights against the coronavirus right now is vaccine hesitancy. The latest CDC data about vaccinations shows a little more than 32% of the U.S. population is fully vaccinated -- far from the 70% health experts say is the minimum threshold for herd immunity.

For several weeks, the target of much of the misinformation online seems to be centered around pregnancy and fertility.

In one post, an influencer claims women are "experiencing severe side effects from people around them having received this jab," or that a vaccinated person can "shed" virus particles, specifically affecting unvaccinated women's periods or pregnancy.

We have found no scientific document or source that says it is possible to shed virus particles from anyone vaccinated with one of the mRNA vaccines or the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

Additionally, as we reported on Fact Check Friday in February, the World Health Orgnization said "the vaccines we give cannot cause infertility."

The findings of a CDC study published in February also showed many more women (79%) experiencing side effects from the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, but "no unusual or unexpected reporting patterns were detected."

In April, the New England Journal of Medicine reported preliminary findings of vaccine safety in people who are pregnant and said its study "did not show obvious safety signals among pregnant persons who received mRNA Covid-19 vaccines."

The overwhelming consensus from doctors and other health leaders is that the vaccines are safe and effective at holding off the most serious cases of COVID-19, and that if you have questions or concerns, to talk to your doctor.

You can send in your ideas for Fact Check Friday to adrian.whitsett@wcpo.com.

Copyright 2021 Scripps Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Sign up for the Rebound Newsletter and receive up to date information.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sat, 08 May 2021 12:55

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sat, 08 May 2021 12:30

A new episode of "Tucker Carlson Today" cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough discusses why more than a year into the pandemic, doctor's still don't have an official treatment protocol for coronavirus and tells host Tucker Carlson who he thinks shouldn't get the vaccine.

During the interview, McCullough says "something has gone off the rails in the world" with treating COVID-19, asserting he has no agenda but is "deeply concerned" about the science, medical literature and the irregular response to the virus that kept populations "in fear, in isolation and despair."

McCullough then questioned why the FDA and big drug companies "strictly excluded" from clinical trials those who were suspected to be COVID recovered, those with antibodies, pregnant women, and women of childbearing potential who couldn't assure contraception, noting that is a "huge group of exclusions, that's a giant part of the healthcare workforce."

"So if they weren't eligible for the randomized trials, and the FDA and the sponsors thought maybe there was a problem with safety, or they had no chance of benefit, and only a small chance of these safety events exclude them. Why would they electively go into an investigational program now?"

McCullough then turned his attention to why so little attention has been given to COVID treatments and to the "enormous amount of fear" the virus created saying for the first time in America doctors and nurses were confronted with a disease that they themselves could contract and die from, "that fear drove everything."

Discussing vaccine safety, McCullough told Carlson he is not recommending pregnant women get the vaccine.

"We have no information on safety and we have no information on efficacy. It violates a simple medical practice principle, we don't use things where we don't have a signal of benefit or acceptable safety. We don't do it."

To watch more of Dr. Peter McCullough's interview on "Tucker Carlson Today," sign up for Fox Nation.

New episodes of "Tucker Carlson Today" are available every Monday, Wednesday and Friday exclusively on Fox Nation. Join Fox Nation today to watch Tucker's full interview with Scott Yenor and other great episodes.

Fox Nation programs are viewable on-demand and from your mobile device app, but only for Fox Nation subscribers. Go to Fox Nation to start a free trial and watch the extensive library from your favorite Fox News personalities.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sat, 08 May 2021 10:38

Irish Patriot : 🗣ðŸ'YOU HAVE GOT TO SEE THIS ðŸ‘👇 https://t.co/8NWNVXWPil

Fri May 07 10:19:04 +0000 2021

FabTantrum999 : @RedpillEire @garethicke

Sat May 08 10:16:51 +0000 2021

FabTantrum999 : @RedpillEire @DownloaderBot

Sat May 08 10:16:31 +0000 2021

James : @RedpillEire @Rankbrexiteer41 I assume she has never had a small item delivered from Amazon.Wait until she sees the size of the box?

Sat May 08 10:15:07 +0000 2021

Dennis the Underrated : @RedpillEire Okay, but there's a QR on there.Cute pharmacist, btw.

Sat May 08 10:03:13 +0000 2021

Engendro Misogino de Folladolid : @RedpillEire @PaulNeirynck

Sat May 08 09:59:49 +0000 2021

J.J H : @RedpillEire ðŸ‚ðŸ‚ðŸ‚

Sat May 08 09:51:43 +0000 2021

Michele B : @RedpillEire Scan the QR code.

Sat May 08 09:40:54 +0000 2021

Tara '¸ Freedom Keeper : @RedpillEire @1984cov It's blank because that's info from clinical trials, which are still ongoing currently

Sat May 08 09:28:43 +0000 2021

ChrIsBSV : @RedpillEire The vax was so rushed, it would of taken longer to create & print the leaflet

Sat May 08 09:18:09 +0000 2021

Link to Article

Archived Version

Fri, 07 May 2021 22:39

NowThis : 'Grow the f*ck up and get the vaccine' '-- These health care workers shared their honest thoughts about anti-vaxxers'... https://t.co/GVdR1gn0MO

Thu May 06 10:03:00 +0000 2021

Stoke365 : @nowthisnews I am vaccinated and I believe people should get vaccinated, but this doesn't help. This is just downri'... https://t.co/fSYSzxLZuc

Fri May 07 22:39:30 +0000 2021

George potato : @nowthisnews 🂠look. All my derplomers

Fri May 07 22:38:58 +0000 2021

VisibleSpectra : @nowthisnews This will only further the divide and grow even more anti vax.

Fri May 07 22:38:32 +0000 2021

surfer_rosa : @nowthisnews Pls stick to making Tik-Tok vids... https://t.co/y97LZJvqad

Fri May 07 22:38:28 +0000 2021

Pani Dubito : @nowthisnews Dis-gust-ing! Anyone talking like that about patients and their decisions should quit being health worker right away

Fri May 07 22:38:20 +0000 2021

Plebbles : @nowthisnews All this does is make me not want to get it just out of spite

Fri May 07 22:38:14 +0000 2021

Bozo with the Glizzy : @nowthisnews Just off looks and voices I can tell you the brain dead sheeple are Dems.. wanna ask anyone with a different view

Fri May 07 22:37:25 +0000 2021

Someone Else : @nowthisnews I was on the fence about it but I'm definitely not getting it now. 🖕

Fri May 07 22:36:28 +0000 2021

The Soldering Iron of Justice : @nowthisnews Browbeating attempts don't make you credible. And you're behind a screen. Pull that shit face to face.

Fri May 07 22:36:20 +0000 2021

Gnome C : @nowthisnews Terrible tactic @jimmykimmel you're embarASSing.

Fri May 07 22:35:53 +0000 2021

Link to Article

Archived Version

Fri, 07 May 2021 13:22

Squawk on the StreetEbay president and CEO Jamie Iannone joins "Squawk on the Street" to discuss the company's Q1 results as well as advertising success and category growth.

08:23

Mon, May 3 2021 11:22 AM EDT

Link to Article

Archived Version

Thu, 06 May 2021 21:36

Link to Article

Archived Version

Thu, 06 May 2021 21:08