Boeing vs Airbus
I Hate Being Right in [Market-Ticker]
Thu, 04 Apr 2019 21:35
Damn....
Recognizing a problem with the automatic trim, the pilots followed emergency procedures and turned off the system. Instead, the pilots tried to use the backup manual trim wheel to adjust the trim, but the airplane was traveling too fast and the manual trim wheel would have been physically impossible to operate.
Less than two minutes later, Ethiopian Airlines flight 302 crashed, killing 157 passengers and flight crews.
The only available emergency procedure requires turning off the electrical trim motors which means you have just the manual crank wheels on the pedestal left. But, what is being reported here is that aerodynamic loads can make those wheels impossible to turn and it's also physically impossible to pull the yoke back with the trim jammed against you.
There is no software fix that resolves this. A runaway can happen for multiple reasons and there has to be a way for that event to be recoverable even if the trim is driven all the way to the stop before you realize it and yank the power or if it happens everyone on board dies .
Commercial aircraft are not allowed to have non-redundant critical fault paths such as this where the only available procedure in the event of a malfunction leaves you unable to control the airplane. Such an aircraft is not supposed to be able to be certified for commercial transport.
It took years of proof of reliability through hundreds of thousands of flight hours for manufacturers to get certification for two-engine, extended over-the-ocean flights, known as "ETOPS", which some people (myself included) have called only somewhat in jest "Engines Turn Or Passengers Swim." Critical flight control systems are supposed to be present in triplicate so that even if you lose (for example) both generators (one in each engine) you have one more "thing" available to you, either a RAT (ram-air turbine) or APU you can use to generate power.
The DC-10 that crashed in Sioux City had three hydraulic systems to provide primary flight control authority; the third engine in the tail suffered an uncontained failure (it "exploded") and the resulting pieces punctured lines that were part of all three hydraulic systems. It was the combination of two extremely unlikely events (the uncontained engine failure and then that all three hydraulic systems would be severed) that led to the incident. The pilots on board were unbelievably skilled and more than a little lucky in that they were able to somewhat control the crash-landing that followed and as a result there were plenty of survivors. Nonetheless that exposed the fact that it was possible for a triple hydraulic rupture to occur and the retrofit that came from that incident was the installation of "hydraulic fuses" that would prevent the loss of hydraulic pressure in all three systems even if lines on all three were severed in the same immediate vicinity.
Fixing the software does not resolve the base issue and thus, ultimately, the cause of both crashes. Irrespective of why if you are forced to shut off the electric trim motors there has to be a means available to regain both trim and primary flight control authority or everyone on board is dead .
There are two trim motor switches (presumably two separate motors and thus two electrical circuits) but if both are commanded to do the same wrong thing then you only have one system, not two. The requirement for triplicate control authority was never met by this design and in fact there were never even two independent systems because the mechanical backup is non-functional under some flight conditions!
No software mitigation can address this; the lack of a functional backup under some parts of the flight envelope and current trim position is a physical design issue and the lack of two completely independent electrical trim systems is a further design ****-up that should have never been able to be certified in the first place.
The provision of a manual (physical) backup is sufficient provided (1) there really are two completely independent electrical systems and (2) the manual backup is usable and capable of restoring control authority under any set of flight conditions and aircraft configuration -- but in this sort of failure situation it is not usable due to the aerodynamic loads on the stabilizer. Therefore in the situation where the trim has been driven outside of the normal range by a malfunction you can't shut off the system's capability to screw you further by yanking the power to the trim motors because if you do there's no way to restore control authority. You also can't yank power to only one motor because the computer provides drive signals to both !
Effectively, what this story asserts, is that there is no backup system available in the event of a runaway trim drive signal irrespective of the cause and that is the root issue. The crew followed the published procedures for a runaway trim, correctly diagnosing what was going on (although not why; in that situation the "why" doesn't matter.)
That didn't matter because the so-called backup was inoperative as it wasn't physically possible to manually crank the trim back and as a result everyone on board died anyway.
AGAIN: ASSUMING THE CNN REPORT IS ACCURATE THE ROOT CAUSE OF AT LEAST THE SECOND CRASH CANNOT BE FIXED IN SOFTWARE. THAT AERODYNAMIC LOADS PROHIBIT MANUAL TRIM OPERATION IN SOME AIRCRAFT CONFIGURATIONS AND PARTS OF THE FLIGHT ENVELOPE EITHER WAS KNOWN BY BOEING OR DAMN WELL SHOULD HAVE BEEN BEFORE THE PLANE WAS EVER CERTIFIED IN THE FIRST PLACE.
A MINIMUM FIX WOULD BE FOR THE COMPUTER TO ONLY DRIVE ONE OF THE TWO ELECTRICAL PATHS (WITH THE OTHER ALLOWED TO "FREEWHEEL" WHEN NOT DRIVEN) SO IF IT GOES INSANE YOU CAN SHUT IT OFF WHILE STILL HAVING ELECTRICAL AUTHORITY AND THE MANUAL SYSTEM HAS TO BE REDESIGNED TO BE PHYSICALLY OPERATIONAL UNDER ALL FLIGHT CONDITIONS. NOTHING LESS MEETS THE TRIPLICATE REQUIREMENT -- IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE IN SOFTWARE.
PERIOD.
Update: Here's the report -- it backs up the above, and CNN's reporting.
AGAIN: FROM THE REPORT THERE IS NO FUNCTIONAL REDUNDANCY ON THE 737MAX TRIM SYSTEM, AND THAT IS NOT A SOFTWARE PROBLEM NOR CAN IT BE FIXED WITH A SOFTWARE PATCH. REDESIGN OF THE ELECTRICAL INTERFACE SO AUTOMATION CAN ONLY DRIVE ONE OF THE TRIM MOTORS IS REQUIRED AND THE MECHANICAL BACKUP MUST BE RE-ENGINEERED SO THAT MECHANICAL OVERRIDE IS POSSIBLE ANYWHERE IN THE FLIGHT ENVELOPE. THIS PLANE MUST NOT RETURN TO SERVICE UNTIL BOTH CHANGES ARE MADE AND THOSE WHO FRAUDULENTLY CLAIMED REDUNDANCY EXISTED MUST GO TO PRISON AND FACE MANSLAUGHTER CHARGES.
Boeing defends 'fundamental safety' of 737 MAX after crash report
Fri, 05 Apr 2019 03:17
1 / 3
Investigators say the crew of the crashed Ethiopian Airlines plane repeatedly followed procedures recommended by Boeing, but were unable to regain control of the jet (AFP Photo/Michael TEWELDE)
Washington (AFP) - Embattled US aviation giant Boeing on Thursday insisted on the "fundamental safety" of its 737 MAX aircraft but pledged to take all necessary steps to ensure the jets' airworthiness.
The statements came hours after Ethiopian officials said pilots of a doomed plane had crashed last month after following the company's recommendations, leaving 157 people dead.
The preliminary findings released Thursday by transportation authorities in Addis Ababa put the American aircraft giant under even greater pressure to restore public trust, with nearly 350 people dead in crashes involving its formerly top-selling 737 MAX aircraft in less than five months amid mounting signs the company's onboard anti-stall systems were fault.
"We remain confident in the fundamental safety of the 737 MAX," CEO Dennis Muilenburg said in a statement, adding that impending software fixes would make the aircraft "among the safest airplanes ever to fly."
Muilenburg also acknowledged, however, that an "erroneous activation" of Boeing's so-called Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System had occurred. The system is designed to prevent stalls but may have forced the Ethiopian and Indonesian jets into the ground.
In an earlier statement, the head of the company's commercial aircraft division had said Boeing was ready to perform "any and all additional steps" to enhance the safety of the 737 MAX.
A report by Ethiopian investigators on Thursday said the crew of the Ethiopian Airlines plane that crashed last month, killing 157 people, repeatedly followed procedures recommended by Boeing, but were unable to regain control of the jet.
The initial probe appears to confirm concerns about MCAS, with data echoing that from the crash of the Indonesian Lion Air 737 MAX 8 flight in October last year which killed 189 people.
Ethiopian authorities' full report has not been publicly released, but according to a draft copy seen by AFP, shortly after take-off a sensor recording the level of the plane began transmitting faulty data, prompting the autopilot system to point the nose downwards.
"The crew performed all the procedures repeatedly provided by the manufacturer, but was not able to control the aircraft," said Ethiopian Transport Minister Dagmawit Moges, unveiling results of the preliminary probe into the crash.
- 'Not survivable' -
The report recommends "the aircraft flight control system shall be reviewed by the manufacturer," Dagmawit said.
"Aviation authorities shall verify that the review of the aircraft flight control system has been adequately addressed by the manufacturer before the release of the aircraft for operations," she added.
Boeing now says it plans to release a software fix to the anti-stall system used aboard the 737 MAX aircraft in the coming weeks.
US regulators this week demanded further improvements to a proposed fix before it could be submitted for review and announced a review of the certification of the automated flight control system on the 737 MAX.
The Ethiopian Airlines flight was headed to Nairobi on a clear morning on March 10 when so-called Angle of Attack sensors on either side of the nose of the plane began sending conflicting information to the auto pilot system shortly after take-off.
According to report AFP saw, the nose of the plane pointed down four times without pilot input.
The autopilot was switched off at some point and the captain called out "pull up" three times to his first officer as the pair battled to gain control.
Three minutes after takeoff and three minutes before the crash, the captain asked the first officer to try the manual trim system, which changes the level of the plane. He replied that it was not working.
They asked to turn back, but it was too late. The plane pitched down at a 40-degree angle, smashing into a field outside Addis Ababa at about 500 knots (920 kilometers/575 miles per hour).
Both engines were buried at a depth of 10 meters (32 feet), in a crater 28 meters wide and 40 meters long, with fragments of debris found within a radius of about 300 meters.
"This accident was not survivable," said the report.
Citizens from over 30 countries were on board.
Shortly after the Lion Air crash last year, Boeing issued a bulletin reminding operators of emergency guidelines to override the anti-stall system, amid indications it had received erroneous information from Angle of Attack sensors during that disaster.
burs-dg/ia
Why Boeing's emergency directions may have failed to save 737 MAX | The Seattle Times
Sun, 07 Apr 2019 12:44
The pilots of the Ethiopian Airlines 737 MAX that crashed last month appear to have followed the emergency procedure laid out by both Boeing and the Federal Aviation Administration '-- cutting off the suspect flight-control system '-- but could not regain control and avert the plunge that killed all 157 on board.
Press reports citing people briefed on the crash investigation's preliminary findings said the pilots hit the system-cutoff switches as Boeing had instructed after October's Lion Air MAX crash, but couldn't get the plane's nose back up. They then turned the system back on before the plane nose-dived into the ground.
While the new software fix Boeing has proposed will likely prevent this situation recurring, if the preliminary investigation confirms that the Ethiopian pilots did cut off the automatic flight-control system, this is still a nightmarish outcome for Boeing and the FAA.
It would suggest the emergency procedure laid out by Boeing and passed along by the FAA after the Lion Air crash is wholly inadequate and failed the Ethiopian flight crew.
A local expert, former Boeing flight-control engineer Peter Lemme, recently explained how the emergency procedure could fail disastrously. His scenario is backed up by extracts from a 1982 Boeing 737-200 Pilot Training Manual posted to an online pilot forum a month ago by an Australian pilot.
That old 737 pilot manual lays out a scenario where a much more elaborate pilot response is required than the one that Boeing outlined in November and has reiterated ever since. The explanation in that manual from nearly 40 years ago is no longer detailed in the current flight manual.
Just a week after the Oct. 29 Lion Air crash, Boeing sent out an urgent bulletin to all 737 MAX operators across the world, cautioning them that a sensor failure could cause a new MAX flight-control system to automatically swivel upward the horizontal tail '-- also called the stabilizer '-- and push the jet's nose down.
Boeing's bulletin laid out a seemingly simple response: Hit a pair of cutoff switches to turn off the electrical motor that moves the stabilizer, disabling the automatic system '-- known as the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System, or MCAS. Then swivel the tail down manually by turning a large stabilizer trim wheel, next to the pilot's seat, that connects mechanically to the tail via cables.
Boeing has publicly contended for five months that this simple procedure was all that was needed to save the airplane if MCAS was inadvertently activated.
In a November television interview on the Fox Business Network, Boeing Chief Executive Dennis Muilenburg, when asked if information had been withheld from pilots, cited this procedure as ''part of the training manual'' and said Boeing's bulletin to airlines ''pointed to that existing flight procedure.''
Vice president Mike Sinnett repeatedly described the procedure as a ''memory item,'' meaning a routine that pilots may need to do quickly without consulting a manual and so must commit to memory.
But Lemme said the Ethiopian pilots most likely were unable to carry out that last instruction in the Boeing emergency procedure '-- because they simply couldn't physically move that wheel against the heavy forces acting on the tail.
''The forces on the tail could have been too great,'' Lemme said. ''They couldn't turn the manual trim wheel.''
The stabilizer in the Ethiopian jet could have been in an extreme position with two separate forces acting on it:
MCAS had swiveled the stabilizer upward by turning a large mechanical screw inside the tail called the jackscrew. This is pushing the jet's nose down.But the pilot had pulled his control column far back in an attempt to counter, which would flip up a separate movable surface called the elevator on the trailing edge of the tail.The elevator and stabilizer normally work together to minimize the loads on the jackscrew. But in certain conditions, the elevator and stabilizer loads combine to present high forces on the jackscrew and make it very difficult to turn manually.
As the jet's airspeed increases '-- and with nose down it will accelerate '-- these forces grow even stronger.
In this scenario, the air flow pushing downward against the elevator would have created an equal and opposite load on the jackscrew, a force tending to hold the stabilizer in its upward displacement. This heavy force would resist the pilot's manual effort to swivel the stabilizer back down.
This analysis suggests the stabilizer trim wheel at the Ethiopian captain's right hand could have been difficult to budge. As a result, the pilots would have struggled to get the nose up and the plane to climb.
If after much physical exertion failed, the pilots gave up their manual strategy and switched the electric trim system back on '-- as indicated in the preliminary reports on the Ethiopian flight '-- MCAS would have begun pushing the nose down again.
Boeing on Wednesday issued a statement following the first account, published Tuesday night by The Wall Street Journal, that the Ethiopian pilots had followed the recommended procedures.
''We urge caution against speculating and drawing conclusions on the findings prior to the release of the flight data and the preliminary report,'' Boeing said.
However, a separate analysis done by Bjorn Fehrm, a former jet-fighter pilot and an aeronautical engineer who is now an analyst with Leeham.net, replicates Lemme's conclusion that excessive forces on the stabilizer trim wheel led the pilots to lose control.
Fehrm collaborated with a Swedish pilot for a major European airline to do a simulator test that recreated the possible conditions in the Ethiopian cockpit.
A chilling video of how that simulator test played out was posted to YouTube and showed exactly the scenario envisaged in the analysis, elevating it from plausible theory to demonstrated possibility.
The Swedish pilot is a 737 flight instructor and training captain who hosts a popular YouTube channel called Mentour Pilot, where he communicates the intricate details of flying an airliner. To protect his employment, his name and the name of his airline are not revealed, but he is very clearly an expert 737 pilot.
In the test, the two European pilots in the 737 simulator set up a situation reflecting what happens when the pre-software fix MCAS is activated: They moved the stabilizer to push the nose down. They set the indicators to show disagreement over the air speed and followed normal procedures to address that, which increases airspeed.
They then followed the instructions Boeing recommended and, as airspeed increases, the forces on the control column and on the stabilizer wheel become increasingly strong.
After just a few minutes, with the plane still nose down, the Swedish 737 training pilot is exerting all his might to hold the control column, locking his upper arms around it. Meanwhile, on his right, the first officer tries vainly to turn the stabilizer wheel, barely able to budge it by the end.
If this had been a real flight, these two very competent 737 pilots would have been all but lost.
The Swedish pilot says at the start of the video that he's posting it both as a cautionary safety alert but also to undercut the narrative among some pilots, especially Americans, that the Indonesian and Ethiopian flight crews must have been incompetent and couldn't ''just fly the airplane.''
Early Wednesday, the Swedish pilot removed the video after a colleague advised that he do so, given that all the facts are not yet in from the ongoing investigation of the crash of Flight 302.
More detailed instructions that conceivably could have saved the Ethiopian plane are provided in the 1982 pilot manual for the old 737. As described in the extract posted by the Australian pilot, they require the pilot to do something counterintuitive: to let go of the control column for a brief moment.
As Lemme explains, this ''will make the nose drop a bit,'' but it will relax the force on the elevator and on the jackscrew, allowing the pilot to crank the stabilizer trim wheel. The instructions in the old manual say that the pilot should repeatedly do this: Release the control column and crank the stabilizer wheel, release and crank, release and crank, until the stabilizer is swiveled back to where it should be.
The 1982 manual refers to this as ''the 'roller coaster' technique'' to trim the airplane, which means to get it back on the required flight path with no force pushing it away from that path.
''If nose-up trim is required, raise the nose well above the horizon with elevator control. Then slowly relax the control column pressure and manually trim nose-up. Allow the nose to drop below the horizon while trimming (manually). Repeat this sequence until the airplane is trim,'' the manual states.
The Australian pilot also posted an extract from Boeing's ''Airliner'' magazine published in May 1961, describing a similar technique as applied to Boeing's first jet, the 707.
Clearly this unusual circumstance of having to move the stabilizer manually while maintaining a high stick force on the control column demands significant piloting skill.
''We learned all about these maneuvers in the 1950-60s,'' the pilot wrote on the online forum. ''Yet, for some inexplicable reason, Boeing manuals have since deleted what was then '-- and still is '-- vital handling information for flight crews.''
Aviation safety consultant John Cox, chief executive of Safety Operating Systems and formerly the top safety official for the Air Line Pilots Association, said that's because in the later 737 models that followed the -200, what was called a ''runaway stabilizer'' ceased to be a problem.
Cox said he was trained on the ''roller coaster' technique'' back in the 1980s to deal with that possibility, but that ''since the 737-300, the product got so reliable you didn't have that failure,'' said Cox.
However, he added, the introduction of MCAS in the 737 MAX creates a condition similar to a runaway stabilizer, so the potential for the manual stabilizer wheel to seize up at high airspeed has returned.
Cox said the failure of both Boeing and the FAA to warn pilots of this possibility will be ''a big issue'' as the Ethiopian crash is evaluated.
''I don't think Boeing realized the complexity of the failure,'' he said.
The procedure Boeing recommended to airlines after the Lion Air crash, which was repeated in an airworthiness directive issued by the FAA, includes a line near the bottom that ''higher control forces may be needed to overcome any stabilizer nose-down'' position. The instructions add that the pilots can use the electric system to neutralize the forces on the control column before hitting the cut-out switches.
But there's no indication whatever in the wording that this is essential, and that heavy forces could render the manual stabilizer wheel almost immovable if the control column is not relaxed.
It's possible the Ethiopian pilots, hyper alert after the Lion Air accident to the possibility that MCAS had activated, jumped straight to the end of the procedure checklist and hit the cut-off switches before attempting even to counter the nose-down movement with the thumb switches on the control column.
That would have subjected them almost immediately to the high tail forces that could have made recovery impossible.
The good news for Boeing is that the proposed software fix announced for MCAS should prevent the failure that led to this scenario in the cockpit.
''I think the MAX will be safe with the improved MCAS,'' said Fehrm of Leeham.net.
On Wednesday, CEO Muilenburg joined Boeing test pilots aboard a 737 MAX 7 flight out of Boeing Field for a demonstration of the MCAS software fix and a test of various failure conditions. ''The software update worked as designed,'' Boeing said.
The bad news for Boeing is twofold, according to Fehrm. First, the original MCAS design was badly flawed and appears to be the principal cause of the Lion Air crash. Second, the procedure Boeing offered after that accident to keep planes safe now appears to have been woefully inadequate and may have doomed the Ethiopian Airlines jet.
On Wednesday the FAA , facing worldwide skepticism of its oversight, announced that it is establishing a team including foreign regulators to conduct a ''comprehensive review of the certification of the automated flight control system on the Boeing 737 MAX aircraft.''
The Joint Authorities Technical Review, chaired by former NTSB Chairman Chris Hart and including experts from the FAA, NASA, and international aviation authorities, will evaluate all aspects of MCAS, including its design and pilots' interaction with the system.
The preliminary investigation report into the Ethiopian crash is expected early Thursday and should offer definitive detail on what happened in the cockpit.
Correction: An earlier version of the this story reported incorrectly that the Swedish pilot removed his video from YouTube at the insistence of his airline. This information was provided by Leeham.net, which collaborated with the pilot on the video. The following day Leeham.net corrected that: It was a colleague who advised the pilot to do so until more facts about the crash are made public.
Vaccines
UPS partnering with drug giants to inject you with vaccines in your own home'... pilot project a blueprint for nationwide vaccine mandates at gunpoint '' DC Clothesline
Sat, 06 Apr 2019 10:41
(Natural News) Just when you thought corporate America couldn't get more insane when it comes to medical tyranny, UPS has announced a pilot project to deliver vaccines to your home, then have you injected by ''health care professionals'' without you ever having to leave your living room. Merck, makers of the risky vaccine Gardasil, is reportedly partnering with UPS to carry out this door-to-door vaccine initiative.
''The world's largest package delivery firm is preparing to test a U.S. service that dispatches nurses to vaccinate adults in their homes,'' Reuters is now reporting. Reuters explains how the project will work:
Workers in UPS' 1.7 million-square-foot healthcare complex at Worldport will package and ship the vaccine to one of the more 4,700 franchised U.S. UPS stores. A home health nurse contracted by UPS' clinical trial logistics unit known as Marken will collect the insulated package, transport it the ''last mile'' to the patient's home and administer the vaccine, which will target a viral illness in adults.
Note that they don't dare ship the vaccine directly to your home, because they don't want individuals having access to vaccine vials without a ''home health nurse'' present to inject you with it. Vaccine vials might be dangerous, the thinking goes. They're only ''safe'' after they're injected into your body, at which point all health risks magically vanish.
The partner for this, Merck, has a long history of engaging in nefarious behavior, including bribing doctors, price fixing its drugs and pressuring state and federal lawmakers to enshrine its unethical profit model into law. Reuters explains why Merck is the perfect partner for UPS, since they both only care about money:
Merck, a major UPS healthcare customer, has a portfolio of vaccines for viral illnesses ranging from shingles and hepatitis B to the flu. Spokeswoman Pamela Eisele said the company is considering the project as it looks for new ways to increase access to its medicines and vaccines and boost adult vaccine rates.
UPS logistics company uses human guinea pigs to test ''experimental drugs''The logistics company behind all this is called ''Marken.'' And as Reuters reports, Marken is already involved in medical experiments on human subjects. ''Pharmaceutical companies already pay Marken to give vaccines to patients testing their experimental drugs,'' reports Reuters:
Cathy Morrow Roberson, who founded consulting firm Logistics Trends & Insights after working for more than a decade as an analyst at Atlanta-based UPS, said the vaccine project taps the assets and expertise the company has acquired since getting into healthcare in the early 2000s. ''They're reaping the benefits of all the acquisitions and investments they've made,'' she said.
And there you have it: It's all about the profits. If vaccines and pharmaceuticals are where the money's at, UPS is going to follow the money, throwing corporate ethics aside. If this trend continues, it won't be long before UPS trucks offer ''mobile chemotherapy services'' to inject everybody with what will surely be called ''preventive chemotherapy,'' even if you don't have cancer.
There's big money in vaccine mandates, since you'd be forcing everybody to buy a product essentially at gunpoint. ''[T]he average cost of a shingles shot was $208.72 at a doctor's office and $168.50 at a pharmacy,'' reports Reuters. Now, if they could only mandate all these vaccines by declaring medical martial law all across the country, the pharmaceutical giants would have guaranteed trillions in revenues every year (and UPS could take a piece of that pie by profiting from the logistics of delivering and injecting all the toxic vaccines that people don't need). (Read MedicalExtremism.com for more reporting on extreme, radical medicine administered at gunpoint.)
UPS to enter the business of medical violence against children and seniors'... anything to boost corporate profitsVaccines, of course, harm and kill children every year across the United States and around the world. This irrefutable fact is openly admitted by the federal government itself, which publishes quarterly vaccine injury and death statistics via Health and Human Services: VAERS.HHS.gov. (You can download the Excel spreadsheet there and see some of the numbers for yourself.)
The entire corporate-controlled media, of course, pretends that vaccines never harm anyone. They don't report a single case of vaccine injury, and they work to systematically ban all vaccine awareness information across social media, search engines, news media and even entertainment programming. As we have previously reported, the CDC actually has a propaganda fund that it uses to pay screenwriters to embed pro-vaccine messages into Netflix programs, sitcoms, standup comedian routines and Hollywood movies.
With this move to deliver and inject vaccines in the homes of its customers, UPS is declaring that grabbing a piece of the ''home health services'' market is more important than operating with ethics. The idea of UPS wanting to inject everyone with vaccines to make an extra buck will not only frighten many customers; it will motivate them to avoid having anything shipped to their homes via UPS.
UPS drivers, who are now seen as relatively friendly, helpful professionals, will soon be viewed as vaccine predators as the company pushes them to start interfacing with home residents by asking questions such as, ''Have you had your flu shot yet?''
UPS will become part of the nationwide medical police state, complete with ride-along ''vaccine enforcers''In the bigger picture view, by rolling out this pilot program, UPS is actually building a vaccine mandate medical police state infrastructure where UPS drivers will act as medical fascist spies, reporting to Merck (and the CDC, of course) on customers who refuse vaccine shots. UPS drivers will be the snitches for the medical police state, and as more states follow the horrifying example of California pushing vaccine mandates (SB 277) to deny children the right to public education unless they are injected with every toxic substance mandated by the state, UPS will quickly morph into the delivery-and-injection enforcement arm of the medical police state.
No doubt this will eventually result in ride-along ''vaccine enforcers'' (i.e. medical police) who spy on UPS deliver customers and demand, ''Show me your vaccine papers!'' or face imminent arrest. Recently in Chandler, Arizona, a SWAT team staged an armed assault on a family to medically kidnap children who were unvaccinated and had a mild fever. This is what the medical police state looks like, and this is exactly what UPS is signing up for.
Here's what the vaccine police / SWAT team in Chandler looked like as they kicked in the front door and kidnapped children while terrorizing a mother at gunpoint:
Medical martial law / vaccine police state declared in Rockland County, New YorkIf you doubt that this is happening, you're wildly uninformed. Rockland County, New York has already announced medical martial law and threatening six months in prison for any person under the age of 18 who steps foot on a public sidewalk, attends a public school, enters a church or a mall without first being vaccinated, even if they have already acquired strong natural immunity by overcoming the measles without a vaccine.
The Rockland County medical martial law rollout was a test scenario to see if the public would accept a ''show me your vaccine papers'' medical police state without protesting. Because the sheeple went right along with it, the program will shortly be expanded to more counties and states.
UPS will be right there, ready to surveil its own customers, ready to inject them with vaccines and happily raking in profits from the pharmaceutical industry. This makes UPS the front-lines militant wing of Big Pharma, and it puts UPS drivers in the position of pushing toxic substances that even the U.S. government openly admits maim and kill children and adults every year in the United States.
Is this really the business UPS wants to be in? The business of maiming and killing people for profit? Delivering psychiatric drugs to children? Pushing chemotherapy (chemical weapons) in living rooms? Dishing out statin drugs, diabetes drugs and blood pressure drugs that kill 100,000 Americans a year?
Make no mistake: If UPS pursues this line of business, Natural News and the entire independent media will call for a nationwide boycott of UPS, and our tens of millions of readers will demand all shipments be delivered via Fedex or USPS rather than invite a vaccine snitch UPS driver onto their front porch.
Partnering with Big Pharma is partnering with the ''death business.'' If that's how UPS wants to make money in the future, it will find itself having no future at all. People want UPS to deliver packages and that's it. They don't want UPS pushing vaccines, medication, chemotherapy and whatever else they'll come up with next.
Learn more at Vaccines.news
COMMUNITY LINKS: Visit Our Sister Site for Articles Not Seen Here | Browse our Store for Conservative Gifts & Apparel | Join Our Free Speech Social Media Network
monthly-stats-april-2019.pdf
Sat, 06 Apr 2019 10:49
Data & Statistics The United States has the safest, most effective vaccine supply in history. In the majority of cases, vaccines cause no side effects, however they can occur, as with any medication '--but most are mild. Very rarely, people experience more serious side effects, like allergic reactions. In those instances, the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) allows individuals to file a petition for compensation. What does it mean to be awarded compensation? Being awarded compensation for a petition does not necessarily mean that the vaccine caused the alleged injury. In fact: ' Approximately 70 percent of all compensation awarded by the VICP comes as result of a negotiated settlement between the parties in which HHS has not concluded, based upon review of t he evidence, that the alleged vaccine(s) caused the alleged injury. ' Attorneys are eligible for reasonable attorneys' fees, whether or not the petitioner is awarded compensation by the Court, if certain minimal requirements are met. In those circumstances, attorneys are paid by the VICP directly. By statute, attorneys may not charge any other fee, including a contingency fee, for his or her services in representing a petitioner in the VICP. What reasons might a petition result in a negotiated settlement? ' Consideration of prior U.S. Court of Federal Claims decisions, both parties decide to minimize risk of loss through settlement ' A desire to minimize the time and expense of litigating a case ' The desire to resolve a petition quickly How many petition s have been awarded compensation? According to the CDC, from 2006 to 201 7 over 3.4 billion doses of covered vaccines were distributed in the U.S. For petitions filed in this time period , 6, 253 petition s were adjudicated by the Court , and of those 4,291 were compensated. This means for every 1 million doses of vaccine that were distributed, 1 individual was compensated. Since 1988, over 20, 522 petition s have been filed with the VICP. Over that 30-year time period, 1 7,772 petition s have been adjudicated, with 6, 465 of th ose determined to be compensable, while 11,307 were dismissed. Total compensation paid over the life of the program is approximately $ 4.1 billion. This information reflects the current thinking of the United States Department of Health and Human Services on the topics addressed. This information is not legal advice and does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind the Department or the public. The ultimate decision about the scope of the statutes authorizing the VICP is within the authority of the United States Court of Federal Claims , which is responsible for resolving petitions for compensation under the VICP.
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program Monthly Statistics Report Updated 4/01/2019 Page 2 VICP Adjudication Categories , by Alleged Vaccine For Petition s Filed Since the Inclusion of Influenza as an Eligible Vaccine for Filings 01/0 1/2006 through 12/31/2017 Name of Vaccine Listed First in a Petition (other vaccines may be alleged or basis for compensation) Number of Doses Distributed in the U.S., 01/01/2006 through 12/31/2017 (Source: CDC) Compensable Concession Compensable Court Decision Compensable Settlement Compensable Total Dismissed/Non -Compensable Total Grand Total DT 794,777 1 0 5 6 4 10 DTaP 101,073,594 19 22 104 145 116 261 DTaP-Hep B-IPV 68,764,777 5 7 28 40 53 93 DTaP-HIB 1,135,474 0 1 2 3 2 5 DTaP-IPV 24,237,580 0 0 3 3 3 6 DTap-IPV-HIB 62,397,611 3 4 9 16 29 45 DTP 0 1 1 3 5 2 7 DTP-HIB 0 1 0 2 3 1 4 Hep A-Hep B 15,826,685 2 0 15 17 4 21 Hep B-HIB 4,787,457 1 1 2 4 1 5 Hepatitis A (Hep A) 176,194,118 8 7 42 57 32 89 Hepatitis B (Hep B) 185,428,393 9 11 64 84 76 160 HIB 119,947,400 3 1 8 12 10 22 HPV 111,677,552 14 14 106 134 175 309 Influenza 1,518,400,000 627 147 2,155 2,929 491 3,420 IPV 72,962,512 0 0 4 4 3 7 Measles 135,660 0 0 1 1 0 1 Meningococcal 94,113,218 1 5 39 45 10 55
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program Monthly Statistics Report Updated 4/01/2019 Page 3 Name of Vaccine Listed First in a Petition (other vaccines may be alleged or basis for compensation) Number of Doses Distributed in the U.S., 01/01/2006 through 12/31/2017 (Source: CDC) Compensable Concession Compensable Court Decision Compensable Settlement Compensable Total Dismissed/Non -Compensable Total Grand Total MMR 101,501,714 23 14 83 120 124 244 MMR-Varicella 24,798,297 9 0 13 22 15 37 Mumps 110,749 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nonqualified 0 0 0 3 3 36 39 OPV 0 1 0 0 1 5 6 Pneumococcal Conjugate 228,588,846 19 3 29 51 33 84 Rotavirus 107,678,219 17 4 20 41 13 54 Rubella 422,548 0 1 1 2 0 2 Td 65,170,306 10 7 61 78 25 103 Tdap 248,258,803 88 17 257 362 72 434 Tetanus 3,836,052 10 1 41 52 20 72 Unspecified 0 1 1 4 6 589 595 Varicella 116,063,014 8 7 30 45 18 63 Grand Total 3,454,269,356 881 276 3,134 4,291 1,962 6,253 Notes on the Adjudication Categories Table The date range of 01/01/2006 through 12/31/2017 was selected to reflect petitions filed since the inclusion of influenza vaccine in July 2005. Influenza vaccine now is named in the majority of all VICP petitions. In addition to the first vaccine alleged by a petitioner, which is the vaccine listed in this table, a VICP petition may allege other vaccines, which may form the basis of compensation. Vaccine doses are self -reported distribution data provided by US -licensed vaccine manufacturers. The data provide an estimate of the annual national distribution and do not represent vaccine administration. In order to maintain confidentiality of an indiv idual manufacturer or brand, the data are presented in an aggregate format by vaccine type. Flu doses are derived from CDC's FluFinder tracking system, which includes data provided to CDC by US -licensed influenza vaccine manufacturers as well as their firs t line distributors. ''Unspecified'' means insufficient information was submitted to make an initial determination. The conceded ''unspecified'' petition was for multiple unidentified vaccines that caused abscess formation at the vaccination site(s), and the '' unspecified'' settlements were for multiple vaccines later identified in the Special Masters' decisions
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program Monthly Statistics Report Updated 4/01/2019 Page 4 Definitions Compensable '' The injured person who filed a petition was paid money by the VICP. Compensation can be achieved through a concession by the U .S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), a decision on the merits of the petition by a special master or a judge of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (Court), or a settlement between the parties. ' Concession : HHS concludes that a petition should be compensated based on a thorough review and analysis of the evidence, including medical records and the scientific and medical literature. The HHS review concludes that the petitioner is entitled to compensation, including a determination either that it is more likely than not that the vaccine caused the injury or the evidence supports fulfillment of the criteria of the Vaccine Injury Table. The Court also determines that the petition should be compensated. ' Court Decision : A special master or the court, within the United States Court of Federal Claims , issues a legal decision after weighing the evidence presented by both sides. HHS abides by the ultimate Court decision even if it maintains its position that the petitioner was not entitled to compensation (e.g., that the injury was not caused by the vaccine). For injury petitions, compensable court decisions are based in part on one of the following determinations by the court: 1. The evidence is legally sufficient to show that the vaccine more likely than not caused (or significantly aggravated) the injury; or 2. The injury is listed on, and meets all of the requirements of, the Vaccine Injury Table, and HHS has not proven that a factor unrelated to the vaccine more likely than not caused or significantly aggravated the injury. An injury listed on the Table and meeting all Table requirements is given the legal presumption of causation. It should be noted that conditions are placed on the Table for both scientific and policy reasons . ' Settlement: The petition is resolved via a negotiated settlement between the parties. This settlement is not an admission by the United States or the Secretary of Health and Human Services that the vaccine caused the petitioner's alleged injuries, and, in settled cases, the Court does not determine that the vaccine caused the injury. A settlement therefore cannot be characterized as a decision by HHS or by the Court that the vaccine caused an injury. Petition s may be resolved by settlement for many reasons, including consideration of prior court decisions; a recognition by both parties that there is a risk of loss in proceeding to a decision by the Court making the certainty of settlement more desirable; a desire by both par ties to minimize the time and ex pense associated with litigating a case to conclusion; and a desire by both parties to resolve a case quickly and efficiently . ' Non -compensable/Dismissed : The injured person who filed a petition was ultimately not paid money. Non-compensable Court decisions include the following: 1. The Court determines that the person who filed the petition did not demonstrate that the injury was caused (or significantly aggravated) by a covered vaccine or meet the requirements of the Table (for injuries listed on the Table). 2. The petition was dismissed for not meeting other statutory requirements (such as not meeting the filing deadline, not receiving a covered vaccine, and not meeting the statute's severity requirement). 3. The injured person voluntarily withdrew his or her petit ion.
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program Monthly Statistics Report Updated 4/01/2019 Page 5 Petitions Filed, Compensated and Dismissed, by Alleged Vaccine , Since the Beginning of VICP, 10/01/1988 through 4/01/ 2019 1 Nonqualified petitions are those filed for vaccines not covered under the VICP. 2 Unspecified petitions are those submitted with insufficient information to make a determination. Vaccines Filed Injury Filed Death Filed Grand Total Compensated Dismissed DTaP-IPV 11 0 11 3 3 DT 69 9 78 26 52 DTP 3,286 696 3,982 1,273 2,709 DTP-HIB 20 8 28 7 21 DTaP 454 82 536 225 252 DTaP-Hep B-IPV 85 37 122 41 52 DTaP-HIB 11 1 12 7 4 DTaP-IPV-HIB 43 21 64 14 29 Td 206 3 209 123 75 Tdap 690 6 696 352 72 Tetanus 137 2 139 75 47 Hepatitis A (Hep A) 104 7 111 55 31 Hepatitis B (Hep B) 694 60 754 274 419 Hep A-Hep B 32 0 32 16 5 Hep B-HIB 8 0 8 5 3 HIB 44 3 47 17 20 HPV 388 15 403 130 165 Influenza 5,023 167 5,190 2,869 466 IPV 268 14 282 8 269 OPV 282 28 310 158 152 Measles 143 19 162 55 107 Meningococcal 73 2 75 43 8 MMR 974 61 1,035 402 584 MMR-Varicella 50 2 52 20 13 MR 15 0 15 6 9 Mumps 10 0 10 1 9 Pertussis 4 3 7 2 5 Pneumococcal Conjugate 187 15 202 53 50 Rotavirus 94 5 99 59 23 Rubella 190 4 194 71 123 Varicella 103 9 112 63 30 Nonqualified1 101 9 110 3 101 Unspecified2 5,426 9 5,435 9 5,399 Grand Total 19,225 1,297 20,522 6,465 11,307
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program Monthly Statistics Report Updated 4/01/2019 Page 6 Petitions Filed Fiscal Year Total FY 1988 24 FY 1989 148 FY 1990 1,492 FY 1991 2,718 FY 1992 189 FY 1993 140 FY 1994 107 FY 1995 180 FY 1996 84 FY 1997 104 FY 1998 120 FY 1999 411 FY 2000 164 FY 2001 215 FY 2002 958 FY 2003 2,592 FY 2004 1,214 FY 2005 735 FY 2006 325 FY 2007 410 FY 2008 417 FY 2009 397 FY 2010 448 FY 2011 386 FY 2012 401 FY 2013 504 FY 2014 633 FY 2015 803 FY 2016 1,120 FY 2017 1,243 FY 2018 1,238 FY 2019 602 Total 20,522
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program Monthly Statistics Report Updated 4/01/2019 Page 7 Adjudications Generally, petitions are not adjudicated in the same fiscal year as filed. On average, it takes 2 to 3 years to adjudicate a petition after it is fil ed.Fiscal Year Compensable Dismissed Total FY 1989 9 12 21 FY 1990 100 33 133 FY 1991 141 447 588 FY 1992 166 487 653 FY 1993 125 588 713 FY 1994 162 446 608 FY 1995 160 575 735 FY 1996 162 408 570 FY 1997 189 198 387 FY 1998 144 181 325 FY 1999 98 139 237 FY 2000 125 104 229 FY 2001 86 88 174 FY 2002 104 104 208 FY 2003 56 100 156 FY 2004 62 247 309 FY 2005 60 229 289 FY 2006 69 193 262 FY 2007 82 136 218 FY 2008 147 151 298 FY 2009 134 257 391 FY 2010 180 329 509 FY 2011 266 1,740 2,006 FY 2012 265 2,533 2,798 FY 2013 369 649 1,018 FY 2014 371 192 563 FY 2015 517 137 654 FY 2016 697 179 876 FY 2017 696 185 881 FY 2018 538 189 727 FY 2019 185 51 236 Total 6,465 11,307 17,772
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program Monthly Statistics Report Updated 4/01/2019 Page 8 Awards Paid Fiscal Year Number of Compensated Awards Petitioners' Award Amount Attorneys' Fees/Costs Payments Number of Payments to Attorneys (Dismissed Cases) Attorneys' Fees/Costs Payments (Dismissed Cases) Number of Payments to Interim Attorneys' Interim Attorneys' Fees/Costs Payments Total Outlays FY 1989 6 $1,317,654.78 $54,107.14 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 $1,371,761.92 FY 1990 88 $53,252,510.46 $1,379,005.79 4 $57,699.48 0 $0.00 $54,689,215.73 FY 1991 114 $95,980,493.16 $2,364,758.91 30 $496,809.21 0 $0.00 $98,842,061.28 FY 1992 130 $94,538,071.30 $3,001,927.97 118 $1,212,677.14 0 $0.00 $98,752,676.41 FY 1993 162 $119,693,267.87 $3,262,453.06 272 $2,447,273.05 0 $0.00 $125,402,993.98 FY 1994 158 $98,151,900.08 $3,571,179.67 335 $3,166,527.38 0 $0.00 $104,889,607.13 FY 1995 169 $104,085,265.72 $3,652,770.57 221 $2,276,136.32 0 $0.00 $110,014,172.61 FY 1996 163 $100,425,325.22 $3,096,231.96 216 $2,364,122.71 0 $0.00 $105,885,679.89 FY 1997 179 $113,620,171.68 $3,898,284.77 142 $1,879,418.14 0 $0.00 $119,397,874.59 FY 1998 165 $127,546,009.19 $4,002,278.55 121 $1,936,065.50 0 $0.00 $133,484,353.24 FY 1999 96 $95,917,680.51 $2,799,910.85 117 $2,306,957.40 0 $0.00 $101,024,548.76 FY 2000 136 $125,945,195.64 $4,112,369.02 80 $1,724,451.08 0 $0.00 $131,782,015.74 FY 2001 97 $105,878,632.57 $3,373,865.88 57 $2,066,224.67 0 $0.00 $111,318,723.12 FY 2002 80 $59,799,604.39 $2,653,598.89 50 $656,244.79 0 $0.00 $63,109,448.07 FY 2003 65 $82,816,240.07 $3,147,755.12 69 $1,545,654.87 0 $0.00 $87,509,650.06 FY 2004 57 $61,933,764.20 $3,079,328.55 69 $1,198,615.96 0 $0.00 $66,211,708.71 FY 2005 64 $55,065,797.01 $2,694,664.03 71 $1,790,587.29 0 $0.00 $59,551,048.33 FY 2006 68 $48,746,162.74 $2,441,199.02 54 $1,353,632.61 0 $0.00 $52,540,994.37 FY 2007 82 $91,449,433.89 $4,034,154.37 61 $1,692,020.25 0 $0.00 $97,175,608.51 FY 2008 141 $75,716,552.06 $5,191,770.83 74 $2,531,394.20 2 $117,265.31 $83,556,982.40 FY 2009 131 $74,142,490.58 $5,404,711.98 36 $1,557,139.53 28 $4,241,362.55 $85,345,704.64 FY 2010 173 $179,387,341.30 $5,961,744.40 59 $1,933,550.09 22 $1,978,803.88 $189,261,439.67 FY 2011 251 $216,319,428.47 $9,572,042.87 403 $5,589,417.19 28 $2,001,770.91 $233,482,659.44 FY 2012 249 $163,491,998.82 $9,241,427.33 1,020 $8,649,676.56 37 $5,420,257.99 $186,803,360.70 FY 2013 375 $254,666,326.70 $13,543,099.70 704 $7,012,615.42 50 $1,454,851.74 $276,676,893.56 FY 2014 365 $202,084,196.12 $12,161,422.64 508 $6,824,566.68 38 $2,493,460.73 $223,563,646.17 FY 2015 508 $204,137,880.22 $14,445,776.29 118 $3,546,785.14 50 $3,089,497.68 $225,219,939.33 FY 2016 689 $230,140,251.20 $16,225,881.12 99 $2,741,830.10 59 $3,502,709.91 $252,610,672.33
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program Monthly Statistics Report Updated 4/01/2019 Page 9 Fiscal Year Number of Compensated Awards Petitioners' Award Amount Attorneys' Fees/Costs Payments Number of Payments to Attorneys (Dismissed Cases) Attorneys' Fees/Costs Payments (Dismissed Cases) Number of Payments to Interim Attorneys' Interim Attorneys' Fees/Costs Payments Total Outlays FY 2017 706 $252,245,932.78 $22,045,785.00 131 $4,441,724.32 52 $3,363,464.24 $282,096,906.34 FY 2018 522 $199,658,492.49 $16,658,440.14 111 $5,091,269.45 58 $5,220,096.78 $226,628,298.86 FY 2019 276 $119,344,851.56 $8,091,796.70 41 $1,985,117.67 30 $2,064,009.07 $131,485,775.00 Total 6,465 $3,807,498,922.78 $195,163,743.12 5,391 $82,076,204.20 454 $34,947,550.79 $4,119,686,42.89 NOTE: Some previous fiscal year data has been updated as a result of the receipt and entry of data from documents issued by the Court and system updates which included petitioners' costs reimbursements in outlay totals, "Compensated" are petitions that have been paid as a result of a settlement between parties or a decision made by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (Court). The # of awards is the number of petitioner awards paid, including the attorneys' fees/costs payments, if made during a fiscal year. However, petitioners' awards and attorneys' fees/costs are not necessarily paid in the same fiscal year as when the petitions/ petitions are determined compensable. "Dismissed" includes the # of payments to attorneys and the total amount of payments for attorneys' fees/costs per fiscal year. The VICP will pay attorneys' fees/costs related to the petition , whether or not the petition/ petition is awarded compensation by the Court, if certain minimal requirements are met. "Total Outlays" are the total amount of funds expended for compensation and attorneys' fees/costs from the Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund by fiscal year. Since influenza vaccines (vaccines administered to large numbers of adults each year) were added to the VICP in 2005, many ad ult petition s related to that vaccine have been filed, thus changing the proportion of children to adults receiving compensation.
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program | Official web site of the U.S. Health Resources & Services Administration
Sat, 06 Apr 2019 10:48
Vaccines save lives by preventing disease.
Most people who get vaccines have no serious problems. Vaccines, like any medicines, can cause side effects, but most are very rare and very mild. Some health problems that follow vaccinations are not caused by vaccines.
In very rare cases, a vaccine can cause a serious problem, such as a severe allergic reaction. In these instances, the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) may provide financial compensation to individuals who file a petition and are found to have been injured by a VICP-covered vaccine. Even in cases in which such a finding is not made, petitioners may receive compensation through a settlement.
How does the VICP work?The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is a no-fault alternative to the traditional legal system for resolving vaccine injury petitions.
It was created in the 1980s, after lawsuits against vaccine companies and health care providers threatened to cause vaccine shortages and reduce U.S. vaccination rates, which could have caused a resurgence of vaccine preventable diseases.
Any individual, of any age, who received a covered vaccine and believes he or she was injured as a result, can file a petition. Parents, legal guardians and legal representatives can file on behalf of children, disabled adults, and individuals who are deceased.
What is the process?An individual files a petition with the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services medical staff reviews the petition, determines if it meets the medical criteria for compensation and makes a preliminary recommendation.The U.S. Department of Justice develops a report that includes the medical recommendation and legal analysis and submits it to the Court.The report is presented to a court-appointed special master, who decides whether the petitioner should be compensated, often after holding a hearing in which both parties can present evidence. If compensation is awarded, the special master determines the amount and type of compensation.The Court orders the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to award compensation. Even if the petition is dismissed, if certain requirements are met, the Court may order the Department to pay attorneys' fees and costs. The special master's decision may be appealed and petitioners who reject the decision of the court (or withdraw their petitions within certain timelines) may file a claim in civil court against the vaccine company and/or the health care provider who administered the vaccine.
DisclaimerThe content of this website reflects the current thinking of the United States Department of Health and Human Services on the topics addressed and does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind the Department or the public. The ultimate decision about the scope of the statutes authorizing the VICP is within the authority of the United States Court of Federal Claims, which is responsible for resolving petitions for compensation under the VICP.
If you have additional questions, call: 1-800-338-2382.
VAERS - Download Data File
Sat, 06 Apr 2019 10:46
Please note that VAERS staff follow-up on all serious and other selected adverse event reports to obtain additional medical, laboratory, and/or autopsy records to help understand the concern raised. However, in general coding terms in VAERS do not change based on the information received during the follow-up process. VAERS data should be used with caution as numbers and conditions do not reflect data collected during follow-up. Note that the inclusion of events in VAERS data does not imply causality.
For more information, please call the VAERS Information Line toll-free at (800) 822-7967 or e-mail to info@vaers.org.
A Vaccine for Depression? - Nautilus - Pocket
Sun, 07 Apr 2019 12:50
Ketamine's remarkable effect bolsters a new theory of mental illness.
O ne sunny day this fall, I caught a glimpse of the new psychiatry. At a mental hospital near Yale University, a depressed patient was being injected with ketamine. For 40 minutes, the drug flowed into her arm, bound for cells in her brain. If it acts as expected, ketamine will become the first drug to quickly stop suicidal drive, with the potential to save many lives. Other studies of ketamine are evaluating its effect as a vaccination against depression and post-traumatic stress. Between them, the goal is nothing less than to redefine our understanding of mental illness itself.
Depression is the most common mental illness in the United States, affecting 30 percent of Americans at some point in their lives. But despite half a century of research, ubiquitous advertising, and blockbuster sales, antidepressant drugs just don't work very well. They treat depression as if it were caused by a chemical imbalance: Pump in more of one key ingredient, or sop up another, and you will have fixed the problem.
But the correspondence between these chemicals (like serotonin) and depression is relatively weak. An emerging competitive theory, inspired in part by ketamine's effectiveness, has it that psychiatric disease is less about chemical imbalance than structural changes in the brain'--and that a main cause of these changes is psychological stress. ''I really do think stress is to mental illness as cigarettes are to heart disease,'' says Gerard Sanacora, the psychiatry professor running the ketamine trial at Yale.
The theory describes stress grinding down individual neurons gradually, as storms do roof shingles. This, in turn, changes the nature of their connections to one another and the structure of the brain. Ketamine, along with some similar molecules, acts to strengthen the neuron against that damage, affecting not just the chemistry of the brain but also its structure.
Mental hospitals don't usually see patients until they break: a brain shaped by vulnerable genes, wrecked by the stress of loss or trauma. This isn't how it works with other sicknesses: heart disease, cancer, AIDS. Detected early, these conditions can often be managed. Crises averted.
If Sanacora and like-minded researchers are right, we may be on the cusp of a sea change that allows for a similar approach to mental health. The new approaches may prevent mental illness before it hits, by delivering a vaccination for the mind.
T he need for progress could hardly be more urgent: Of all illnesses, neuropsychiatric diseases are estimated to put the heaviest burden on society. Nearly half of Americans are affected by some sort of mental disorder at some point in life. Suicides, 90 percent of them among the mentally ill, take 40,000 Americans every year'--more than murder or car crashes. Since 2005, the suicide rate among U.S. war veterans has nearly doubled; in the first half of 2012, more service members died by suicide than in combat. Few medical failures are more flagrant than psychiatry's impotence to save these people.
At the same time, treatment can be woefully ineffective. Less than a third of depression patients respond to a drug within 14 weeks, according to the 2006 STAR*D trial, the largest clinical test of antidepressants. After six months and multiple drugs, only half of patients recovered. Thirty-three percent don't respond to any drug at all. When the pills do work, they are slow'--a deadly risk, given that people with mood disorders kill themselves more often than anyone else.
Our treatments work so poorly in part because we don't really understand what they do. Serotonin, the most common target for current antidepressants, is a neurotransmitter, a chemical that carries messages in the brain. But it was first found, in 1935, in the gut. Serotonin's name comes from blood serum, where Cleveland Clinic scientists discovered it in 1948, noting that the chemical helps with clotting.
When Betty Twarog, a 25-year-old Ph.D. student at Harvard, later found serotonin in neurons, she wasn't taken seriously. At that time, brain signals were thought to be purely electrical impulses that leapt between cells. Twarog called this old idea ''sheer intellectual idiocy,'' as Gary Greenberg reports in his book Manufacturing Depression . Working at the Cleveland Clinic in 1953, she found serotonin in the brains of rats, dogs, and monkeys.
K: One obstacle to the therapeutic use of ketamine is its reputation as a recreational drug. Photo by: Wikipedia
Twarog didn't know yet what serotonin was doing there, but a clue came soon from D.W. Woolley, a biochemist at Rockefeller University, in New York. In 1954 Woolley pointed out in a paper that lysergic acid diethylamide, or LSD, is chemically similar to serotonin and is processed similarly in the brain. Since LSD ''calls forth in man mental disturbances resembling those of schizophrenia,'' he wrote, another drug affecting serotonin might be used to treat schizophrenia. Twarog's original paper would take years to percolate through the male-dominated field, but her work and Woolley's would become accepted as evidence of how important chemicals like serotonin could be to brain signaling. The discovery was a breakthrough for neuroscience'--but it also birthed a misleading, long-lived belief about mental illness. ''The thesis of this paper,'' Woolley wrote, ''is that ... serotonin has an important role to play in mental processes and that the suppression of its action results in a mental disorder. In other words, it is the lack of serotonin which is the cause of the disorder.''
Around the same time, other researchers stumbled on the first antidepressants, iproniazid and imipramine. Intended to treat tuberculosis and schizophrenia, respectively, these drugs also happened to make some patients ''inappropriately happy.'' Researchers found that the drugs elevated levels of serotonin, along with related neurotransmitters.1 This began a huge search to find chemically similar drugs that worked better as antidepressants.
Drug companies often say mood disorder is caused by a ''chemical imbalance.'' But the evidence for this story is slim.
Iproniazid was the first of a class of medicines that block an enzyme from breaking down serotonin, as well as dopamine and norepinephrine, two other neurotransmitters. The chief downside of these drugs, called monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs), is that they require a strict diet: no aged cheeses, wine, beer, or cured meats. Combined with these foods, the drugs can cause deadly spikes in blood pressure, a hassle that often inclines patients to ditch them. (The novelist David Foster Wallace took an MAOI for decades; in part to escape the food restrictions, he got off the drug months before his suicide.) On the other hand, tricyclic antidepressants, like imipramine, work by blocking the re-absorption of serotonin and norepinephrine. The cost is a host of side effects, from dry mouth to weight gain to erectile dysfunction and loss of libido.
The next generation of drugs focused on fine-tuning the same mechanisms, and had somewhat improved side effects. A new class of drugs known as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, or SSRIs, arrived in the '80s, bringing huge commercial successes like Prozac, Zoloft, and Paxil. Since SSRIs are more specifically focused on serotonin, they were heralded as cleaner options; but they are not much more effective at lifting mood than the older drugs. We often take for granted the diabetes analogy for depression: If you are depressed, it is because you need serotonin, just as a diabetic person needs insulin. Drug companies often say that mood disorder is caused by a ''chemical imbalance'' in serotonin or a signal like it. One ad for Zoloft, the blockbuster antidepressant, featured a sad white circle crawling cutely beneath a gray cloud; the voice-over boasted that depression may be ''related to an imbalance of natural chemicals in the brain. Zoloft works to correct this imbalance.''
But the evidence for this story is slim. Prozac raises serotonin levels within hours yet doesn't change mood for weeks. When scientists deplete serotonin in healthy people, it does not make them sad. And when doctors measure serotonin levels in the cerebrospinal fluid of depressed people, they do not find a consistent deficiency; one 2008 study even found increased levels of serotonin in depressed people's brains. The drug tianeptine, discovered in the late '80s, decreases serotonin levels yet relieves depression. And studies have shown that people falling in love show lower, not higher, levels of serotonin.
Serotonin is clearly not just a feel-good chemical. If a serotonin-based drug like Zoloft makes you happier, it works in some other, indirect way. As psychiatrist Ronald Pies, editor of Psychiatric Times, put it in 2011, ''The 'chemical imbalance' notion was always a kind of urban legend'--never a theory seriously propounded by well-informed psychiatrists.''
Meanwhile, as serotonin falls far short of explaining depression, a more likely candidate is emerging.
S tress in moderation is not harmful, but motivating. Cortisol, a stress hormone, cycles daily; synchronizing with sunlight, it helps arouse us for the day. In health, the hormone spikes when we need to pay attention: a test, a job interview, a date. Studies on rodents and humans confirm that brief, mild increases in stress are good for the brain, particularly for memory. During these spikes, neurons are born and expand in the hippocampus, the seahorse-shaped finger of tissue responsible for forming new memories and understanding three-dimensional space, and rodents learn better. The student who gets stressed while studying is more alert and remembers more than the one who feels no urgency'--up to a point. The problem comes when stress is either too intense at one moment, as in a rape or violent attack, or too sustained, as in long-term poverty, neglect, or abuse.
ACCENTUATING THE NEGATIVE '...: Under prolonged stress, neurons in the amygdala, the brain's fear center, expand like overgrown shrubbery and become hyperactive. Photo by: Image from ''Nature Reviews Neuroscience''*
Stress changes brain architecture differently, depending on how long it lasts. After chronic stress, like childhood trauma, the effect of hormones on brain cells inverts: Neurons in the hippocampus and the prefrontal cortex, which is responsible for mood and impulse control, start to shrink, while those in the amygdala, the almond-shaped seat of fear and anxiety, expand like overgrown shrubbery. But people are differently vulnerable, depending on genes and on prior life experience. ''If you take two people and subject them to the same stressful event, for one of them it will be harmful and for the other, no,'' says Maurizio Popoli, a professor of pharmacology at the University of Milan. ''It is because they perceive the stress differently.''
'... AND ELIMINATING THE POSITIVE: In the prefrontal cortex and hippocampus, regions responsible for memory, attention, and self-control, chronic stress shrinks the branches of neurons. Photo by: Image from ''Nature Reviews Neuroscience''*
Stress hormones' most important effect is to flood parts of the brain with glutamate, the brain's ''go'' signal. Used by 80 percent of neurons in the cortex, this key neurotransmitter drives mental processes from memory to mood. Glutamate triggers neurons to generate sudden bursts of electricity that release more glutamate, which can in turn trigger electrical bursts in nearby neurons.
This cellular signaling is called excitation and is fundamental to how information is processed in the brain. Like sexual excitability, it ebbs and flows; a ''refractory period'' follows each neural firing, or spike, during which the neuron cannot be excited. Other neurotransmitters, like serotonin, are called ''modulatory,'' because they change the sensitivity of neurons that secrete glutamate (among others). Less than 1 percent of neurons in the cortex signal with these modulators. As Popoli puts it, these modulators are ''very important for fine-tuning the machine. But the machine itself is an excitatory machine,'' driven by glutamate.
Glutamate moves like a ship between neurons. The sea it sails is called the synapse, the shore it departs from is the presynaptic neuron, and the destination, on the synapse's far side, is the postsynaptic neuron. Another component, called a glial cell, works to remove glutamate ships from the synapse and recycle them. The glutamate system is affected at each of these points by stress hormones: They push the first neuron to send more ships, interfere with the glial cell's recycling, and block the docks on the distant shore. All of these changes increase the number of glutamate ships left in the synapse, flooding the cell with aberrant signals. Indeed, depressed people's brains, or at least animal models of depression, show all three of these problems, leading to long-lasting excesses of glutamate in key portions of the brain.
This superabundance of glutamate makes a neuron fire sooner than it should and triggers a cascade of signals inside the cell, damaging its structure. Glutamate binds to the neuron and allows in a flood of positively charged particles, including calcium, which are vital to making a neuron fire. But in excess, calcium activates enzymes that break down the neuron. Each neuron has tree-like branches, called dendrites, which are used to communicate with other neurons. When overdosed in glutamate, this canopy of branches shrinks, like a plant doused with herbicide. First the ''twigs,'' called spines, disappear. After prolonged stress, whole branches recede.
This harmful process, called excitotoxicity, is thought to be involved in bipolar disorder, depression, epilepsy, and neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer's, Huntington's, and Parkinson's. In depressed brains, many areas are shrunken and underactive, including part of the prefrontal cortex and the hippocampus. The brain changes that cause mood disorders, Sanacora and his colleagues believe, come in part from chronic stress overexciting neurons with glutamate.
Ketamine works faster than any other drug, and for up to 65 percent of patients who don't respond to existing treatments.
We usually think of our brains' adaptability as a good thing. Just as neurons grow during development, the wiring in the adult brain can change. After strokes or other brain injuries, neural signals re-route themselves around damage, allowing even very old people to re-learn lost skills. Psychotherapy and meditation can change patterns of brain activity in ways that persist after treatment. 2
But the neuroplasticity hypothesis of mental disorder highlights the drawback of such neural liberalism: The human brain's flexibility allows regeneration, but also renders it vulnerable to being altered by stress. Subjected to the trauma of war, a bad breakup, or a bout of homelessness, a person with a genetic predisposition may find his mind stuck in a loop of chronic fear or depression.
The mood drugs in wide use now focus on modulatory neurotransmitters like serotonin. Ketamine, however, works directly on glutamate signaling. If ketamine is tapping into the root of the problem, this might explain why it works faster, better, and more often than more popular antidepressants.
Not everybody accepts the idea that glutamate and stress are central to depression. Some experts see the effects of stress as downstream effects, not the root cause of mood disorder. ''The mechanism of action of a good treatment does not have to be the inverse of a disease mechanism,'' says Eric Nestler, an expert on addiction and depression at Mt. Sinai Hospital. Serotonin drugs and ketamine may affect depression indirectly, without a serotonin or glutamate abnormality at the root of depression. Nestler also points out that depression probably includes a diversity of subtypes, without any single cause. He treats depression not as a unified disease, but a constellation of symptoms, each with discrete neural roots.
Even so, we do know that ketamine works faster than any other drug, and for up to 65 percent of patients who don't respond to existing treatments.
I f ketamine turns out to be a psychiatric savior, it will be one with a surprising history. Since 1962 it has been a go-to anesthetic for children in emergency rooms, because it kills pain, muffles consciousness, and rarely causes breathing or heart problems. Children given ketamine enter ''a trance like state of sensory isolation'' free of pain, memory, and awareness, as one review put it. Emergency room doctors rely on ketamine to make sure kids have no awareness or memory of, say, the trauma of having a shattered arm set back into place.
On the other hand, ketamine is a well-known recreational drug with potential for abuse. The dissociative trip caused by a moderate dose of ketamine has made it popular in clubs and raves since the 1970s, especially in Asian cities like Hong Kong. Its sedative effect made ''special K'' a date-rape drug. Doctors, patients, and the government agencies that fund research are often suspicious of a drug known to cause hallucinations, as they have been of psychedelics like psilocybin and ecstasy, despite their potential for treating depression or anxiety. Each tends to show fast results after a single dose, like ketamine.
In 1999, the same year ketamine was declared a controlled substance in the United States, Yale researchers happened upon its antidepressant power. A team co-led by Dennis Charney, now dean of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mt. Sinai, in Manhattan, and John Krystal, now chair of the department of psychiatry at Yale, used ketamine to study glutamate: Since ketamine was known to block glutamate receptors, it might show what role the excitatory neurotransmitter plays in the depressed brain. To their surprise, they found that the drug made patients feel better, often within hours. A single dose, much smaller than what's used for anesthesia, tended to last for weeks.
Since 1999, a dozen studies have replicated the results, often on patients who failed to respond to other drugs. Ketamine also works for bipolar people in depressive phases, without triggering mania, as classic antidepressants sometimes do. The majority of depressed people studied have responded to ketamine. For patients who are often suicidal, this fast response can be lifesaving. Some 50 doctors in the U.S. now offer ketamine infusions for depression.
The first evidence in humans that ketamine might work to prevent mood disorder came from the battlefield.
Many leaders in the field see the emergence of ketamine, and future fast antidepressants based on glutamate, as a great leap forward for the field. ''In my mind,'' Sanacora told NPR recently, ''it is the most exciting development in mood-disorder treatment in the last 50 years.''
Ketamine and the old antidepressants both result in fuller neural ''trees,'' but by different routes, at different speeds. Prozac and other serotonin-based drugs take four to six weeks to kick in. A landmark 2003 Science study by Columbia University's Ren(C) Hen and Ronald Duman, now at Yale, found that serotonin-based antidepressants only work if they spur birth of new neurons in the hippocampus.3 These new neurons take four to six weeks to mature, roughly the same amount of time that conventional antidepressants take to lift a depressed person's spirits. A 2010 paper argued that SSRIs like Prozac may work by dampening glutamate release in response to stress. So even old-school antidepressants, when they work, may act on the glutamate system.
Ketamine, on the other hand, seems to act directly on mature neurons, fertilizing them to grow branches more robustly, or protecting them against damage. Ketamine's key effect is to block glutamate receptors of one type. This causes less calcium to flow into the neuron, reducing the risk of the neuron shrinking or self-destructing.
Today ketamine is offered by psychiatrists and anesthesiologists, at prices ranging from $300 to $1,000 per dose, for people who are morbidly depressed or have chronic pain. Insurance doesn't usually cover the cost of an infusion, because even though it is FDA approved as an anesthetic, it has not been approved as an antidepressant. Each new use of a drug requires multiphase clinical trials for FDA approval, usually funded by pharmaceutical companies, which have little incentive to invest in a drug they can't monetize. Ketamine got its original patent in 1966, and that expired long ago. So even if drug companies steered ketamine through the expensive approval process as an antidepressant, doctors could still prescribe the cheap, generic versions already available for anesthesia instead of pricier, patented versions intended for depression. This is an old story. Lithium carbonate, which also acts on glutamate receptors, is still one of the most reliable drugs for treating bipolar disorder. But lithium, which is an element, can't be patented. So, despite their effectiveness, these generic pills do not attract many corporate dollars.
O ne tough truth about mood disorder is that not all forms may ever be curable. Brain-imaging studies have shown structural differences between the white matter in healthy versus bipolar brains. Differences in personality and sleep patterns also persist in bipolar people, even between manic or depressed episodes. The structural changes likely have genetic roots, and once they arise, are difficult or impossible to reverse.
Nevertheless, if a drug prevents a mood disorder from manifesting, it might prevent harmful anatomical changes from ever taking place. Just as a vaccine triggers the body to arm itself against a particular virus, a drug like ketamine, given before the crisis that triggers a breakdown, might protect the brain against the effects of stress. Like a vaccine, the drug might only need to be given once for lasting resilience.
The first evidence in humans that ketamine might work to prevent mood disorder, not just treat it, came from the battlefield. U.S. soldiers injured in Iraq were treated with various anesthetics, including ketamine. Since ketamine can cause hallucinations, surgeons worried that it might make trauma worse: Scary combat-related hallucinations could put soldiers at higher risk of mental illness.
But they found the opposite. Out of 25,000 service members wounded in Iraq between 2002 and 2007, the data showed, veterans treated with ketamine for burns had lower rates of post-traumatic stress disorder. Among civilians and soldiers hospitalized for burns, as many as 45 percent end up with PTSD. But soldiers treated with ketamine on the battlefield got PTSD about half as often'--even though they had more severe burns requiring more surgeries and longer hospital stays.
Mental hospitals don't usually see patients until they break: This isn't how it works with other sicknesses.
Rebecca Brachman, a neuroscientist and recent doctoral graduate from Columbia University, and her supervisor, Christine Denny, tried giving ketamine to mice and then exposing them to stressors.4 The researchers tested several types of stress, including one in which subject mice are ''bullied'' by more aggressive mice for two weeks. After this daily hazing, mice ordinarily develop the rodent equivalent of PTSD and depression: freezing in a new space, refusing to interact with other mice, and not moving in a forced swim test. But the mice ''vaccinated'' before the bullying fared far better: They didn't act depressed afterward. Brachman and Denny found that the protection from a single dose lasted for weeks, even though ketamine only stays in the body for a few hours. Though they haven't tested it yet, it is possible that, like a vaccine, this protection could last for much longer. Their rodent research suggests ketamine may work even better as a prophylactic than as an antidepressant.
Denny says that we may eventually routinely use ketamine to prevent PTSD in combat veterans, rape victims, or survivors of car crashes or mass shootings. Ketamine seems to be most strongly protective in mice when given before stressful events, Brachman says. Since we can't predict most traumatic life events, this would limit the drug's utility. But if injected after a trauma yet before the psychological damage sets in'--as with the burned soldiers'--ketamine may still be protective. Denny is investigating this possibility now.
And in some situations, violent shock is predictable. ''You don't know when an earthquake will happen,'' Brachman says, ''but we do know when we're about to send U.N. workers into an area devastated by a disaster.'' When people know they are going into an acutely traumatic situation, she imagines, a preventive drug given ahead of time might protect their brains from the long-lasting effects of stress. Think of earthquake aid workers, fire fighters, or rescue workers in Syria, dragging mangled people from rubble.
The idea that a single injection could prevent mood disorders is a radical departure from current psychiatric thinking. But there are some precedents: Talk therapy and mindfulness meditation have long focused on building resilience to stress. Bipolar patients take ''neuroprotective'' drugs like lithium not to treat current symptoms, but as a protection against future breakdowns, for instance.
Not everyone is confident that ketamine is a safe bet, to be sure. Ketamine's long-term safety is not known, says Nestler. No lasting ill effects are seen in anesthesia patients, who take much larger doses, but they haven't received routine treatments, the way it is administered as an antidepressant.
Plus, ketamine's reputation as a street drug is tough to shake. Many doctors consider the hallucinogenic an unacceptable risk for patients, who they fear may develop a taste for the high. Yale's Sanacora points out that patients in his trial, who are screened for drug or alcohol abuse, often find the trip feeling unpleasant or disturbing. The psychedelic experience is surreal, he points out, not the mellowing pleasure of a drug like alcohol, Xanax, or heroin. Extreme ketamine trips, referred to as falling in a ''K-hole,'' are often compared to near-death or unsettling out-of-body experiences; they hardly sound like fun to most people.
But since the antidepressant dose is far lower than the one taken to get high, many patients don't even notice. Drug companies are also competing to develop a less trippy alternative. Johnson & Johnson is testing a nasal spray form of esketamine, a version of ketamine with less psychoactive impact. A company called Naurex has finished phase II trials of Rapastinel, an injected drug that partially blocks the same glutamate receptors as ketamine, but is not psychedelic.
The ketamine pioneers emphasize that their prevention research is the beginning of a new road, raising hopes, rather than offering an immediate cure. Brachman and Denny stress that ketamine may not be the drug that ultimately makes it into widespread use; like the anti-tubercular drugs in the 1950s that spawned the antidepressant era, it is the first to trail-blaze this new class of psychiatric prophylactics. ''What this work shows us is that we can intervene beforehand and create some sort of self-reinforcing stress resilience,'' Brachman says. ''We didn't know that before; that's what's important. Everything else'--should we use it, how should we use it'--that all comes later.''
Taylor Beck is a journalist based in Brooklyn. Before writing, he worked in brain imaging labs studying memory, aging, and dreams.
References
1. Maxwell, R.A. & Eckhardt, S.B. Drug Discovery Humana Press, New York, NY (1990).
2. Kennedy, S.H., et al. Differences in brain glucose metabolism between responders to CBT and venlafaxine in a 16-week randomized controlled trial. American Journal of Psychiatry 164, 778-788 (2007).
3. Vogel, G. Depression drugs' powers may rest on new neurons. Science 301, 757 (2003).
4. Brachman, R.A., et al. Ketamine as a prophylactic against stress-induced depressive-like behavior. Biological Psychiatry (2015). Retrieved from DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2015.04.022
*Images reprinted from Popoli, M., Yan, Z., McEwen, B., & Sanacora, G. The stressed synapse: the impact of stress and glucocorticoids on glutamate transmission. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 13, 22-37 (2011).
Mysterious Drug-Resistant Germ Deemed An "Urgent Threat" Is Quietly Sweeping The Globe | Zero Hedge
Sun, 07 Apr 2019 14:10
Thanks to the overprescription of antimicrobial drugs and use of antifungicides in crop production, a relatively new germ that preys on people with weakened immune systems is rapidly spreading across the globe, according to the New York Times.
A projection of the C. auris fungus on a microscope slide.CreditMelissa Golden for The New York TimesThe infection - a fungus known as Candida auris, kills almost half of all patients who contract it within 90 days, according to the CDC - as it's impervious to most major antifungal medications. First described in 2009 after a 70-year-old Japanese woman showed up at a Tokyo hospital with C. auris in her ear canal, the aggressive yeast infection has spread across Asia and Europe - arriving in the US by 2016.
The earliest known case in the United States involved a woman who arrived at a New York hospital on May 6, 2013, seeking care for respiratory failure. She was 61 and from the United Arab Emirates, and she died a week later, after testing positive for the fungus. At the time, the hospital hadn't thought much of it, but three years later, it sent the case to the C.D.C. after reading the agency's June 2016 advisory. -NYT
"It is a creature from the black lagoon," said the CDC's Dr. Tom Chiller, who heads the fungal branch. "It bubbled up and now it is everywhere."
In the last five years alone, it it has swept through a hospital in Spain, hit a neonatal unit in Venezuela, spread throughout India, Pakistan and South Africa, and forced a prestigious British medical center to close its ICU for nearly two weeks.
By the end of June 2016, a scientific paper reported ''an ongoing outbreak of 50 C. auris cases'' at Royal Brompton, and the hospital took an extraordinary step: It shut down its I.C.U. for 11 days, moving intensive care patients to another floor, again with no announcement.
Days later the hospital finally acknowledged to a newspaper that it had a problem. A headline in The Daily Telegraph warned, ''Intensive Care Unit Closed After Deadly New Superbug Emerges in the U.K.'' (Later research said there were eventually 72 total cases, though some patients were only carriers and were not infected by the fungus.) -NYT
After C. auris reached New York, New Jersey and Illinois, the CDC added it to a list of germs deemed "urgent threats."
Last May, an elderly man who was admitted to the Brooklyn branch of Mount Sinai Hospital for abdominal surgery was found to be infected with the drug-resistant candida. He died after 90 days in the hospital, however C. auris did not according to the Times. According to tests, the germ was everywhere in his room - to such a degree that the hospital required special cleaning equipment and had to rip out ceiling and floor tiles to get rid of it.
"Everything was positive '-- the walls, the bed, the doors, the curtains, the phones, the sink, the whiteboard, the poles, the pump," said Hospital president Dr. Scott Lorin. "The mattress, the bed rails, the canister holes, the window shades, the ceiling, everything in the room was positive."
Dr. Shawn Lockhart, a fungal disease expert at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, holding a microscope slide with inactive Candida auris collected from an American patient.Why is this happening?
Simply put, fungi are evolving defenses to resist and survive modern medications. "It's an enormous problem," said Imperial College of London fungal epidemiology professor Matthew Fisher, who co-authored a recent scientific review on the rise of resistant fungi. "We depend on being able to treat those patients with antifungals."
The C.D.C. investigators theorized that C. auris started in Asia and spread across the globe. But when the agency compared the entire genome of auris samples from India and Pakistan, Venezuela, South Africa and Japan, it found that its origin was not a single place, and there was not a single auris strain.
...
The genome sequencing showed that there were four distinctive versions of the fungus, with differences so profound that they suggested that these strains had diverged thousands of years ago and emerged as resistant pathogens from harmless environmental strains in four different places at the same time. -NYT
"Somehow, it made a jump almost seemingly simultaneously, and seemed to spread and it is drug resistant, which is really mind-boggling," said CDC fungal expert Dr. Snigdha Vallabhaneni.
While various theories exist as to why C. auris has made a grand entrance, Dutch microbiologist Jacques Meis believes the drug-resistant fungi are developing thanks to the heavy use of fungicides on crops.
Dr. Meis visited the C.D.C. last summer to share research and theorize that the same thing is happening with C. auris, which is also found in the soil: Azoles have created an environment so hostile that the fungi are evolving, with resistant strains surviving.
This is similar to concerns that resistant bacteria are growing because of excessive use of antibiotics in livestock for health and growth promotion. As with antibiotics in farm animals, azoles are used widely on crops. -NYT
"On everything '-- potatoes, beans, wheat, anything you can think of, tomatoes, onions," said Dr. Johanna Rodes, an infectious disease expert at Imperial College London. "We are driving this with the use of antifungicides on crops."
Keeping it quiet
In 2015, Dr. Rhodes received a panicked call from the Royal Brompton Hospital medical research center outside of London, where C. auris had taken root months earlier. The hospital had no idea how to get rid of it.
Dr. Johanna Rhodes, an infectious disease expert at Imperial College London. "We are driving this with the use of antifungicides on crops," she said of drug-resistant germs.CreditTom Jamieson for The New York Times"We have no idea where it's coming from. We've never heard of it. It's just spread like wildfire," Rhodes was told, before she helped them clean it up. Under her direction, hospital workers used a special aerosol devices to spray hydrogen peroxide around a room which housed a patient with the germ - with the theory being that the vapor would permeate the entire room.
After one week of saturating the room, they put a "settle plate" in the middle of it with a gel at the bottom that would allow any remaining microbes to grow.
Only one grew back; C. auris. And officials were scrambling to keep a lid on it.
It was spreading, but word of it was not. The hospital, a specialty lung and heart center that draws wealthy patients from the Middle East and around Europe, alerted the British government and told infected patients, but made no public announcement.
''There was no need to put out a news release during the outbreak,'' said Oliver Wilkinson, a spokesman for the hospital.
This hushed panic is playing out in hospitals around the world. Individual institutions and national, state and local governments have been reluctant to publicize outbreaks of resistant infections, arguing there is no point in scaring patients '-- or prospective ones. -NYT
And while the Brompton Hospital case did make headlines, the issue remaied largely out of the spotlight internationally - despite an even larger outbreak in Valencia, Spain occurring at virtually the same time at the 992-bed Hospital Universitari i Polit¨cnic La Fe. Unknown to the public or unaffected patients, 372 people had become "colonized" with the germ - meaning it was on their bodies but they had not yet contracted it. Of those, 85 patients developed bloodstream infections, and 41% of those died within 30 days.
And while other prominent strains of Candida have not developed significant resistance to drugs, over 90% of C. auris infections are resistant to at least one drug, while 30% are resistant to two or more drugs.
According to Connecticut's deputy state epidemiologist Dr. Lynn Sosa, C. auris is now "the top" threat among resident infections.
"It's pretty much unbeatable and difficult to identity."
2020
Opinion | The Electoral College Was Not a Pro-Slavery Ploy - The New York Times
Thu, 04 Apr 2019 20:02
There is a lot wrong with how we choose the president. But the framers did not put it into the Constitution to protect the South.
By Sean Wilentz
Mr. Wilentz is the author, most recently, of ''No Property in Man: Slavery and Antislavery at the Nation's Founding.''
April 4, 2019 Image By the time the delegates at the Federal Convention in 1787 got around to debating how the president ought to be chosen, they had already approved the three-fifths clause, that counted slaves as three-fifths of a person. Credit Credit Howard Chandler Christy, via GraphicaArtis/Getty Images I used to favor amending the Electoral College, in part because I believed the framers put it into the Constitution to protect slavery. I said as much in a book I published in September. But I've decided I was wrong. That's why a merciful God invented second editions.
Like many historians, I thought the evidence clearly showed the Electoral College arose from a calculated power play by the slaveholders. By the time the delegates at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 debated how the president ought to be chosen, they had already approved the three-fifths clause '-- the notorious provision that counted slaves as three-fifths of a person to inflate the slave states' apportionment in the new House of Representatives.
The Electoral College, as approved by the convention in its final form, in effect enshrined the three-fifths clause in the selection of the president. Instead of election by direct popular vote, each state would name electors (chosen however each state legislature approved), who would actually do the electing. The number of each state's electoral votes would be the same as its combined representation in the House and the Senate.
By including the number of senators, two from each state, the formula leaned to making the apportionment fairer to the smaller states. Including the number of House members leaned in favor of the larger states. But the framers gave the slaveholding states the greatest reward: The more slaves they owned, the more representatives they got, and the more votes each would enjoy in choosing the president.
The framers' own damning words seem to cinch the case that the Electoral College was a pro-slavery ploy. Above all, the Virginia slaveholder James Madison '-- the most influential delegate at the convention '-- insisted that while direct popular election of the president was the ''fittest'' system, it would hurt the South, whose population included nonvoting slaves. The slaveholding states, he said, ''could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes.'' Instead, the framers, led by Madison, concocted the Electoral College to give extra power to the slaveholders.
If you stop at this point in the record, as I once did, there would be no two ways about it. On further and closer inspection, however, the case against the framers begins to unravel. First, the slaveholders did not need to invent the Electoral College to fend off direct popular election of the president. Direct election did have some influential supporters, including Gouverneur Morris of New York, author of the Constitution's preamble. But the convention, deeply suspicious of what one Virginian in another context called ''the fury of democracy,'' crushed the proposal on two separate occasions.
How, then, would the president be elected, if not directly by the people at large? Some delegates had proposed that Congress have the privilege, a serious proposal that died out of concern the executive branch would be too subservient to the legislative. Other delegates floated making the state governors the electors. Still others favored the state legislatures.
The alternative, and winning, plan, which became known as the Electoral College only some years later, certainly gave the slaveholding states the advantage of the three-fifths clause. But the connection was incidental, and no more of an advantage than if Congress had been named the electors.
Most important, once the possibility of direct popular election of the president was defeated, how much did the slaveholding states rush to support the concept of presidential electors? Not at all. In the initial vote over having electors select the president, the only states voting ''nay'' were North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia '-- the three most ardently proslavery states in the convention.
Slaveholders didn't embrace the idea of electors because it might enlarge slavery's power; they feared it because of the danger, as the North Carolina slaveholder Hugh Williamson remarked, that the men chosen as electors would be corruptible ''persons not occupied in the high offices of government.'' Pro-elite concerns, not proslavery ones, were on their minds '-- just as, ironically, elite supporters of the Electoral College hoped the body would insulate presidential politics from popular passions.
When it first took shape at the convention, the Electoral College would not have significantly helped the slaveowning states. Under the initial apportionment of the House approved by the framers, the slaveholding states would have held 39 out of 92 electoral votes, or about 42 percent. Based on the 1790 census, about 41 percent of the nation's total white population lived in those same states, a minuscule difference. Moreover, the convention did not arrive at the formula of combining each state's House and Senate numbers until very late in its proceedings, and there is no evidence to suggest that slavery had anything to do with it.
Read more
Opinion articles about the Electoral College.
But didn't the college, whatever the framers' intentions, eventually become a bulwark for what Northerners would later call the illegitimate slave power? Not really. Some historians have revived an old partisan canard that the slaveholding states' extra electoral votes unfairly handed Thomas Jefferson the presidency in 1800-01. They ignore anti-Jefferson manipulation of the electoral vote in heavily pro-Jefferson Pennsylvania that offset the Southerners' electoral advantage. Take away that manipulation, and Jefferson would have won with or without the extra Southern votes.
The early president most helped by the Constitution's rejection of direct popular election was John Quincy Adams, later an antislavery hero, who won the White House in 1824-25 despite losing both the popular and electoral votes to Andrew Jackson. (The House decided that election.) As president, the slaveholder Jackson became one of American history's most prominent critics of the Electoral College, which he blasted for disallowing the people ''to express their own will.'' The Electoral College system made no difference in deciding the presidency during the 36 years before the Civil War.
There are ample grounds for criticizing the Constitution's provisions for electing the president. That the system enabled the election in 2016 of precisely the kind of demagogic figure the framers designed the system to block suggests the framework may need serious repair. But the myth that the Electoral College began as a slaveholders' instrument needs debunking '-- which I hope to help with in my book's revised paperback.
Sean Wilentz is a professor of history at Princeton and the author, most recently, of ''No Property in Man: Slavery and Antislavery at the Nation's Founding.''
The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We'd like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here's our email: letters@nytimes.com.
Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.
Four Question for Those Who Oppose the Electoral College
Sat, 06 Apr 2019 10:25
If you support the direct democracy of a popular vote system, do you also reject republicanism as our form of government? Opponents of the electoral college premise their argument on the claim that the system is undemocratic. This is largely true. In Federalist 10, James Madison wrote of the destructive power of factions, what Tocqueville later called "the tyranny of the majority." For this reason, the Founding Fathers created a republican form of government rather than a direct democracy in order to mitigate the passions and imperfections of the people. Elected representatives would, it was reasoned, take a measured, deliberative approach to governance. A popular vote system, on the other hand, is an instrument of direct democracy and a rejection of republicanism.
If, as Madison argued, factions pose such a danger to our republic, and if our Founding Fathers were so leery of direct democracy, what has changed?
Ironically, there is no better example of a faction than the states participating in the NPVIC. Madison defined the term as "a number of citizens, whether amounting to a minority or majority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community." Is there any doubt that NPVIC members are motivated in part by a sense of injustice following the elections of 2000 and 2016? Further, given that the NPVIC scheme may award a state's electoral votes to a candidate (the national popular vote winner) who did not carry that state, is there any doubt this scheme operates in a manner adverse to citizens' rights?
If you reject the notion of disproportional representation, do you reject the institution of the U.S. Senate? Certain opponents of the electoral college accept the notion of our republican system but take umbrage at the disproportionate representation that contributes to the way in which states' electoral votes are determined. The electoral college allots votes based on the number of a state's federal legislative representatives, meaning the disproportionate representation of the Senate creates a system where certain voters have relatively less or more power than others.
Those who oppose the electoral college must therefore also oppose the representative scheme of the Senate and would look to rework or eliminate this institution. It won't do, as some have claimed, to suggest that altering the Senate would be too cumbersome or radical. The design of the electoral college, like that of the Senate, is written into the Constitution; altering either would require a new amendment, or perhaps convening a constitutional convention. If you oppose disproportional representation, it is only logical to oppose it everywhere.
Parity between the states was key to ratification. Does parity not matter anymore? Disproportionate representation was part of the Great Compromise of 1787, which established a bicameral legislature to ensure some degree of parity between the states. The House of Representatives, with its proportional representation, was meant to address the people's business, while the Senate's disproportionate representation would ensure states could engage on a level playing field on issues that mattered most to them.
The fear that larger states like Pennsylvania, Virginia and Massachusetts would overwhelm the smaller states was palpable. Context here is important. The Articles of Confederation created a weak central government and granted each state a single vote on matters that came before it. Amending the Articles required unanimous consent among the states. When the Constitutional Convention met in Philadelphia to address these shortcomings, smaller states were loath to sign on to an agreement that limited their power against that which might be wielded by larger states. Without the Great Compromise, ratification would never have happened.
The issue of parity remains. In the early days of our republic, state population differences were a fraction of what we see today. In a direct democracy system, California, with its nearly 40 million residents, would have more voting power than the 20 least populous states combined.
Parity is, by design, key to our federal system. Article 5 of the Constitution notes that "no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of this equal suffrage in the Senate." Without the disproportionate representation of the Senate and the electoral college, states like Vermont and Rhode Island would not have viewed the Constitution as a path toward a more perfect union.
Is a popular vote system a cure for the disease? Some of the reasons given for the electoral college have been proven wrong. In Federalist 68, Hamilton envisioned a system that would yield leaders "pre-eminent for ability and virtue." Of course, today's mass media make this a very heavy lift regardless of the system employed.
Still, we are the beneficiaries of several of the electoral system's unforeseen advantages. For example, the electoral college system confers legitimacy. Under it there is little chance third- party candidates will succeed, and so the number of contenders for the presidency is limited. By contrast, a popular vote system is likely to attract more candidates, with the winner receiving a mere plurality of votes. In parliamentary systems, it's not uncommon for the winning party to garner a 25% share; such instances are followed by dicey periods of coalition building, where the winning party attempts to cobble together a governing majority '... and a patina of legitimacy. Israel's current government is a coalition of five parties that hold 61 of the Knesset's 120 seats. The Likud party, winners of the 2015 legislative election, earned just 23.4% of the vote. Switzerland's coalition government has four parties, Germany's three.
The electoral system offers other advantages, such as limiting the incentive for and impact of voter fraud, and encouraging broader campaigns. Despite its shortcomings, the current system has proven effective in surprising ways, and any replacement must at least meet this bar. It's not clear a popular vote system can do so and, indeed, won't be fraught with unforeseen liabilities. At the very least, sober analysis should attempt to ferret these liabilities out.
To be sure, states have the power to determine how their electoral votes are apportioned. But the NPVIC goes further. It promotes combination among the states, creating a de facto popular election system that is blatantly anti-constitutional and almost certainly unconstitutional.
Image credit: Croppped from Pixabay
R. E. Bowse teaches in the Isenberg School of Management at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.
Have you heard? The Electoral College is bad. Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders and others support its abolition. On March 28, Delaware became the thirteenth state to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) in which members agree to award their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the national popular vote. The compact goes into effect only when the combined number of electoral votes of member states reaches 270, assuring their candidate victory. Legislation affixing New Mexico to the NPVIC sits on the desk of Governor Michelle Grisham (D). She's expected to sign it, giving the coalition 189 votes.
The debate surrounding this issue is another example of proponents avoiding the salient points. I pose the following four questions to those would undo the electoral college system, with the goal of promoting clarity and focusing on the nub of the matter.
If you support the direct democracy of a popular vote system, do you also reject republicanism as our form of government? Opponents of the electoral college premise their argument on the claim that the system is undemocratic. This is largely true. In Federalist 10, James Madison wrote of the destructive power of factions, what Tocqueville later called "the tyranny of the majority." For this reason, the Founding Fathers created a republican form of government rather than a direct democracy in order to mitigate the passions and imperfections of the people. Elected representatives would, it was reasoned, take a measured, deliberative approach to governance. A popular vote system, on the other hand, is an instrument of direct democracy and a rejection of republicanism.
If, as Madison argued, factions pose such a danger to our republic, and if our Founding Fathers were so leery of direct democracy, what has changed?
Ironically, there is no better example of a faction than the states participating in the NPVIC. Madison defined the term as "a number of citizens, whether amounting to a minority or majority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community." Is there any doubt that NPVIC members are motivated in part by a sense of injustice following the elections of 2000 and 2016? Further, given that the NPVIC scheme may award a state's electoral votes to a candidate (the national popular vote winner) who did not carry that state, is there any doubt this scheme operates in a manner adverse to citizens' rights?
If you reject the notion of disproportional representation, do you reject the institution of the U.S. Senate? Certain opponents of the electoral college accept the notion of our republican system but take umbrage at the disproportionate representation that contributes to the way in which states' electoral votes are determined. The electoral college allots votes based on the number of a state's federal legislative representatives, meaning the disproportionate representation of the Senate creates a system where certain voters have relatively less or more power than others.
Those who oppose the electoral college must therefore also oppose the representative scheme of the Senate and would look to rework or eliminate this institution. It won't do, as some have claimed, to suggest that altering the Senate would be too cumbersome or radical. The design of the electoral college, like that of the Senate, is written into the Constitution; altering either would require a new amendment, or perhaps convening a constitutional convention. If you oppose disproportional representation, it is only logical to oppose it everywhere.
Parity between the states was key to ratification. Does parity not matter anymore? Disproportionate representation was part of the Great Compromise of 1787, which established a bicameral legislature to ensure some degree of parity between the states. The House of Representatives, with its proportional representation, was meant to address the people's business, while the Senate's disproportionate representation would ensure states could engage on a level playing field on issues that mattered most to them.
The fear that larger states like Pennsylvania, Virginia and Massachusetts would overwhelm the smaller states was palpable. Context here is important. The Articles of Confederation created a weak central government and granted each state a single vote on matters that came before it. Amending the Articles required unanimous consent among the states. When the Constitutional Convention met in Philadelphia to address these shortcomings, smaller states were loath to sign on to an agreement that limited their power against that which might be wielded by larger states. Without the Great Compromise, ratification would never have happened.
The issue of parity remains. In the early days of our republic, state population differences were a fraction of what we see today. In a direct democracy system, California, with its nearly 40 million residents, would have more voting power than the 20 least populous states combined.
Parity is, by design, key to our federal system. Article 5 of the Constitution notes that "no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of this equal suffrage in the Senate." Without the disproportionate representation of the Senate and the electoral college, states like Vermont and Rhode Island would not have viewed the Constitution as a path toward a more perfect union.
Is a popular vote system a cure for the disease? Some of the reasons given for the electoral college have been proven wrong. In Federalist 68, Hamilton envisioned a system that would yield leaders "pre-eminent for ability and virtue." Of course, today's mass media make this a very heavy lift regardless of the system employed.
Still, we are the beneficiaries of several of the electoral system's unforeseen advantages. For example, the electoral college system confers legitimacy. Under it there is little chance third- party candidates will succeed, and so the number of contenders for the presidency is limited. By contrast, a popular vote system is likely to attract more candidates, with the winner receiving a mere plurality of votes. In parliamentary systems, it's not uncommon for the winning party to garner a 25% share; such instances are followed by dicey periods of coalition building, where the winning party attempts to cobble together a governing majority '... and a patina of legitimacy. Israel's current government is a coalition of five parties that hold 61 of the Knesset's 120 seats. The Likud party, winners of the 2015 legislative election, earned just 23.4% of the vote. Switzerland's coalition government has four parties, Germany's three.
The electoral system offers other advantages, such as limiting the incentive for and impact of voter fraud, and encouraging broader campaigns. Despite its shortcomings, the current system has proven effective in surprising ways, and any replacement must at least meet this bar. It's not clear a popular vote system can do so and, indeed, won't be fraught with unforeseen liabilities. At the very least, sober analysis should attempt to ferret these liabilities out.
To be sure, states have the power to determine how their electoral votes are apportioned. But the NPVIC goes further. It promotes combination among the states, creating a de facto popular election system that is blatantly anti-constitutional and almost certainly unconstitutional.
Image credit: Croppped from Pixabay
R. E. Bowse teaches in the Isenberg School of Management at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.
Bernie Sanders calls Trump a racist before Apollo event '' Summerland Review
Sat, 06 Apr 2019 11:26
Sen. Bernie Sanders made a trip to the Apollo Theater in Harlem to pay tribute to Harry Belafonte, Tony Bennett and the legacy of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., but along the way slammed President Donald Trump as a racist.
The Democratic presidential contender was at the Jazz Foundation's ''A Great Night in Harlem'' annual gala where Belafonte and Bennett were honoured on Thursday night. Both worked with King, and the evening marked the 51st anniversary of King's slaying in Memphis, Tennessee, during a visit to rally sanitation works on strike.
''This is also a night that we remember the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and one of the great leaders in American history who died, as we'll never forget helping sanitation workers get some dignity in their lives,'' Sanders told The Associated Press in an interview before the event.
Sanders recounted the great strides King made toward racial harmony, but said that tolerance has lost step over the past couple of years, and put the blame at the feet of President Donald Trump.
''We have a president, and I say this without any joy in my heart, who is a racist. It's hard to believe that we have a president of the United States who is, in fact, a racist,'' Sanders said.
A request for comment from the White House was not immediately returned.
READ MORE: Sen. Bernie Sanders says he's running for president in 2020
Sanders says eradicating racism is a high priority if he were to be elected president.
''As president of the United States, what I would be doing is bringing our people together to create a nation that works for all of us, and not just the 1%. To deal with the racism and the disparities that exists, not only between the rich and the poor, but between whites and blacks,'' Sanders said
Sanders was a contender in the 2016 race, where he lost the bid for the Democratic nomination to Hillary Clinton. But 2020 already shows a crowded field that includes Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, former Rep. Beto O'Rourke, Sen. Corey Booker, Sen. Kamila Harris, and at least a dozen more.
Sanders calls them, ''some really good people,'' and said. ''You're not going to hear me disparaging some of my Democratic opponents. They're friends of mine and they're good people. ''
Before going inside, the 77-year old Sanders joked about maintaining his stamina for an election.
''Well when you have 28 years of age, you know, it ain't hard,'' Sanders said.
John Carucci, The Associated Press
Like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.
Obama: Democrats are having a 'firing squad' over 'purity'
Sun, 07 Apr 2019 10:45
April 6, 2019 | 11:38am | Updated April 6, 2019 | 1:38pm
Former President Barack Obama on Saturday chided fellow Democrats for creating a ''circular firing squad'' that targets party members who don't support far-left views.
''The way we structure democracy requires you to take into account people who don't agree with you,'' he said at an Obama Foundation town hall event in Berlin, Germany. ''And that by definition means you're not going to get 100 percent of what you want.
''One of the things I do worry about sometimes among progressives,'' he continued, ''we start sometimes creating what's called a 'circular firing squad' where you start shooting at your allies because one of them has strayed from purity on the issues.''
Seventeen Democrats have announced they are running for the party's presidential nomination in 2020, and more are expected to enter the race. Legislative proposals from the pack include free college tuition, government-run health care and reparations for slavery and segregation.
Obama also warned the town hall audience of 300 against nationalism and the ''bloodshed'' that can follow.
''Nationalism, particularly from the far right, has re-emerged,'' he said. ''And we know where that leads. Europe knows better than anyone where that leads.''
Obama met privately with Chancellor Angela Merkel Friday, in what her office called a routine get-together of former international colleagues.
Obama 5000 euro in cologne
Sun, 07 Apr 2019 12:35
Search Images Maps Play YouTube News Gmail Drive More >> Help | Sign in TranslateView:Translation
Original
From:To:
Build the Wall
George Soros, Mastercard to partner to aid migrants, refugees - Reuters
Sat, 06 Apr 2019 14:44
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Billionaire investor George Soros will partner with Mastercard Inc on a venture they said could help migrants, refugees and others struggling within their communities worldwide to improve their economic and social status.
FILE PHOTO -- Business magnate George Soros arrives to speak at the Open Russia Club in London, Britain June 20, 2016. REUTERS/Luke MacGregor/File Photo
The partnership, Humanity Ventures, stems from a pledge Soros made in September to earmark up to $500 million for investments to address challenges facing migrants and refugees.
In a joint statement on Thursday, Mastercard and Soros said that despite billions of dollars of humanitarian and development assistance, millions of people remain marginalized, a situation the private sector can help rectify.
''Migrants are often forced into lives of despair in their host communities because they cannot gain access to financial, healthcare and government services,'' Soros said.
''Our potential investment in this social enterprise, coupled with Mastercard's ability to create products that serve vulnerable communities, can show how private capital can play a constructive role in solving social problems,'' he added.
Humanity Ventures intends to focus initially on healthcare and education, with a goal of fostering local economic development and entrepreneurship.
With the creation of Humanity Ventures, Soros could invest up to $50 million to make these solutions more scalable and sustainable, and perhaps encourage smaller projects committed to mitigating the migration crisis.
''Humanity Ventures is intended to be profitable so as to stimulate involvement from other businesspeople,'' Soros said. ''We also hope to establish standards of practice to ensure that investments are not exploitative of the vulnerable communities we intend to serve.''
Soros opened his first foundation, the Open Society Foundations, in 1979 when his hedge fund had reached about $100 million and his personal wealth had climbed to about $25 million.
The Open Society Foundations began Soros's philanthropic activity when he gave scholarships to black South Africans under apartheid. In the 1980s, Soros and his foundations ultimately contributed to the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe.
Just last week, Soros' Open Society Foundations said it will keep working with and financing organizations in Hungary despite the government saying that any civil society group should be ''swept out.''
Reporting by Jennifer Ablan; Editing by Lisa Shumaker
Trump's ''animals'' remark and the ensuing controversy, explained - Vox
Sat, 06 Apr 2019 15:34
President Trump called some people ''animals'' during an immigration roundtable with California sheriffs on May 16.
Who you believe he was referring to probably depends on how you feel about President Trump.
Trump and the White House claim it's clear as day: Trump was obviously referring to MS-13 gang members who commit heinous crimes. Trump's called MS-13 ''animals'' before, but after this controversy the White House has embraced the term: a Monday press release was titled ''What You Need To Know About The Animals Of MS-13.''
MS-13 ''animals'' has gone from a presidential utterance to White House doctrine. This WH press release on ''what you need to know about the violent animals of MS-13'' calls them animals 8 times. pic.twitter.com/ZAfOlYjaDB
'-- Todd Zwillich (@toddzwillich) May 21, 2018But in the eyes of Trump's critics, the justification for ''animals'' wasn't obvious at all. Some believe that the president simply had an obligation to be more careful with his words, while others point to a long history of using a few criminals to smear entire groups of people '-- or simply claim that it's inhumane to refer to any human being as an animal.
At this point, both sides think they've won. Trump and the White House are messaging the idea that MS-13 is a bunch of animals in the aggressive manner they use when they think they've found a winning culture-war argument (see also: ''Merry Christmas''). Meanwhile, Democrats and advocates appear to believe that they have another remark on their hands that will pay political dividends by revealing the president's true animosity toward people of color (see also: ''shithole countries'').
Both sides believe that the other is missing, or deliberately blocking out, the context of Trump's remark. It's an intractable disagreement not because the immediate context is unknowable '-- the whole event was broadcast live '-- but because Donald Trump has spent his entire three years in national politics saying things that sound racist to a lot of people, and America has spent three years arguing about whether that's the fault of the person speaking those words or the people hearing them.
The context of Trump's ''animals'' comment: a statement that isn't as clear as most people thinkThe original wave of progressive outrage over Trump's comments, on Wednesday, was spurred by tweets like this one, which quoted Trump's ''animals'' comment but not the comment from the sheriff that preceded it:
Trump: "We're taking people out of the country '-- you wouldn't believe how bad these people are. These aren't people. These are animals."He says the U.S. has "the dumbest laws on immigration in the world."
'-- Sahil Kapur (@sahilkapur) May 16, 2018That outrage spurred characterization of Trump's comments as being about all deportees or even about all unauthorized immigrants.
Trump's defenders immediately claimed the media was getting the story wrong '-- that Trump had been answering a question about MS-13, so he clearly meant only that violent MS-13 gang members were ''criminals.''
Both of those characterizations were wrong.
This is a pasted selection from the transcript sent out by the White House Press Office after the roundtable Wednesday:
SHERIFF (Margaret) MIMS (Fresno County, CA): Now ICE is the only law enforcement agency that cannot use our databases to find the bad guys. They cannot come in and talk to people in our jail, unless they reach a certain threshold. They can't do all kinds of things that other law enforcement agencies can do. And it's really put us in a very bad position.
THE PRESIDENT: It's a disgrace. Okay? It's a disgrace.
SHERIFF MIMS: It's a disgrace.
THE PRESIDENT: And we're suing on that, and we're working hard, and I think it will all come together, because people want it to come together. It's so ridiculous. The concept that we're even talking about is ridiculous. We'll take care of it, Margaret. We'll win.
SHERIFF MIMS: Thank you. There could be an MS-13 member I know about '-- if they don't reach a certain threshold, I cannot tell ICE about it.
THE PRESIDENT: We have people coming into the country, or trying to come in '-- and we're stopping a lot of them '-- but we're taking people out of the country. You wouldn't believe how bad these people are. These aren't people. These are animals. And we're taking them out of the country at a level and at a rate that's never happened before. And because of the weak laws, they come in fast, we get them, we release them, we get them again, we bring them out. It's crazy.
This context makes a few things clear.
First of all, Trump was not asked a question about MS-13. He was not asked a question at all. He was commiserating with Sheriff Mims about the restrictions that the California ''sanctuary'' law puts on the ability of local law enforcement officers to make decisions about when someone should be flagged to ICE.
Second of all, the context in which MS-13 was mentioned was itself very specific: someone identified by the sheriff's department as a ''known'' gang member but who doesn't meet the ''threshold'' of being charged with or convicted of a serious crime.
Third, Trump's response to Mims's comment wasn't actually a response to the point she was making. It wasn't about people in local jails in the US. He first referred to people ''trying to come in'' to the country and then to people who are being ''taken out of the country.'' He then launched into a complaint about bad US laws that allow people to reenter the country repeatedly '-- something that also has nothing to do with the complaint Mims was making.
In context, Trump's ''animals'' comment was simply part of a riff; something at best tangentially related to the conversation that he and Mims had been having up to that point.
That riff may well have been inspired by Mims's reference to MS-13 in her previous remark. At the same time, though, Trump manifestly wasn't talking about the same people Mims was talking about: MS-13 members in American jails without serious criminal records.
The president often does this. His comments in unscripted settings often fail to follow any obvious train of thought; he often goes off on tangents and rehashes old riffs; he often fails to demonstrate an understanding of the actual policies being discussed. This is why ''what did he mean'' is so often an open question. But because he's the president of the United States, ambiguous statements can't be left ambiguous '-- they're going to acquire whatever meaning people can make from them, based on their existing understanding of what kind of person the president is.
The context of Trump's ''animals'' comment: a three-year political career of talking about immigrant criminals To people who are more skeptical of the ''mainstream media'' than they are of the president, the coverage of the president's remarks seemed like a clear-cut case of ''fake news'' '-- reporters taking Trump's words out of context to make him sound like a racist when he was in fact talking about violent criminals. ''I don't think the term the president used was strong enough,'' press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders told reporters. ''It took an animal to stab a man 100 times and decapitate him and cut his heart out.'' And it inspired a wave of fact-checking and finger-wagging from media reporters themselves.
The Trump critics who were initially outraged about Trump's ''animals'' comment, however, see this entire conversation about the context of Wednesday's exchange as more or less missing the point.
They believe that Trump has shown a willingness to use racist language in the past and has demonstrated that he believes some people of color aren't really human. Those facts, they believe, are more relevant context than what Sheriff Mims said at the roundtable. And they believe that in that context, it is foolish or even dangerous to present the ''animals'' remark as if there's any ambiguity.
This is the debate that has defined Donald Trump's political career. His very first speech as a presidential candidate made a riffing reference to rapists and murderers crossing into the US, spurring outrage from immigrants and progressives that the president had called Mexicans and immigrants ''criminals.'' Trump gleefully exploited the outrage and parlayed it into a surge in the primary polls.
Ever since, his most frequent and enthusiastic rhetorical theme has been that Americans are in danger from criminals coming into the US, and that his particular immigration agenda is the best way to stop them. This is why he keeps talking about MS-13; this is why he keeps dwelling on a few particularly gory crimes and calling the gang ''animals.''
Trump critics accuse him of labeling all immigrants (or all Latinos) criminals; his critics' critics counter that he isn't explicitly talking about all immigrants or all Latinos and that it's liberals who think nonracial comments are about race.
Every iteration of this fight encourages both sides' viewpoints. It encourages Trump's defenders '-- and those who are anti-anti-Trump '-- to believe that Trump's words are being taken out of context to suit a preexisting narrative. It encourages Trump's critics to believe that the president is deliberately engaging in dog-whistle politics because he knows exactly where the line is and how to tiptoe over it without admitting to doing so.
The context of Trump's ''animals'' comments: all people are people '-- but ''violent gang members are people too'' may not be a winning political messageThe Trump administration won the public argument about whether Trump was, at least ostensibly, referring to MS-13 members. But that doesn't resolve the argument over whether it was morally okay for him to do that.
Indeed, to those who believe the most important point is that no one should ever be described as subhuman, attempts to explain the context of Trump's remarks were seen as attempts to justify the dehumanization of some people as long as they're accused of being in a gang.
It feels pretty weird watching folks on this website debate who should and shouldn't be described as less than human by the president.
'-- Matt Ford (@fordm) May 17, 2018On one level, this is a sheer argument of deontological ethics: All people are possessed of innate human dignity, and no act they commit can strip that of them or justify other people acting toward them as if they do not possess it. Most codes of ethics don't allow people to treat others badly just because they have done bad things. Christianity makes a virtue of mercy and has its messiah tell a mob they are morally unfit to stone an adulteress (a violator of one of the Ten Commandments!) unless they are wholly without sin.
On another level, though, this is an instrumental argument that dehumanizing anyone leads to bad outcomes. An entire academic literature is dedicated to the pernicious effects of dehumanizing language; an oversimplified version of that literature, often expressed during the ''animals'' debate, is that dehumanization of a particular scapegoat group is a necessary component of totalitarian rhetoric. (The implication was often that comments like Trump's are always a precursor to genocidal violence, which doesn't hold logically.) More specifically, as criminologist John Pfaff pointed out, a willingness to accept criminals as subhuman encourages law enforcement officers to treat them accordingly, with often horrific results.
The people making this argument weren't primarily Democratic politicians. But after a day or so of the animals debate, Republicans had shifted to the idea that they had jiujitsued liberals into defending MS-13, and that that would help them in November. This, too, is a fixture of dialogue in the age of Trump: even people who wouldn't defend his statements on the merits believe that they create an advantageous political situation for his party by inspiring the other side to do something politically counterproductive.
It seems logical that MS-13 is inherently a winning issue for Trump and a losing one for Democrats (though it's worth noting that in the one post-Trump race where the tie between immigration and crime was central to the campaign, the Virginia gubernatorial election, the Democrat won).
But it's another example of people talking past each other. No one is saying that it is politically useful to adopt the message of ''Trump was just talking about violent MS-13 criminals, but they are people too.'' Trump's critics are either emphasizing that it is true that MS-13 members are also human beings or making the argument that Trump doesn't really just mean MS-13 members when he says ''animals.''
The context: an immigration and criminal justice system that does not actually focus on the ''worst of the worst''The problem with fighting about whom Trump meant when he said what he said is that, on a policy level, what he said does not actually matter.
His administration is not focusing on deporting people who have committed particularly heinous crimes, gang members, or people with criminal records. From Trump's inauguration to the end of 2017, ICE arrested 45,436 immigrants without criminal records.
On Thursday, in the midst of the furor over the ''animals'' comments, ICE released new data for the first three months of 2018 '-- showing that an additional 13,300 immigrants without criminal records were arrested from January to March.
To be sure, ICE arrests of immigrants with criminal records ticked up slightly from the last year of the Obama administration (in which immigration enforcement was subdued compared to previous years) to the Trump administration. But arrests of immigrants without criminal records have also spiked. During President Obama's last year, about 16 percent of ICE arrests were of noncriminal immigrants; each month since July 2017, between 32 and 40 percent of arrestees have been noncriminals.
The Trump administration is still deporting fewer noncriminal immigrants than the Obama administration did circa 2011, and the proportion of deportees who are noncriminals is usually smaller than the proportion of arrestees who are. But the Trump administration is aiming to not just ramp back up to the deportation peak of Obama's first term but surpass it, and that's going to require arresting and deporting a lot of immigrants without criminal records.
If Trump understands his own administration's policy, he's never acknowledged it in public. He sticks to the same rhetorical move every time: refer to some specific criminals, call them horrible people and animals, say that their evil justifies his immigration policy, and allow the conflation of all immigrants and all Latinos with criminals and animals to remain subtext.
This isn't unique to Trump. An entire era of American criminal justice policy was defined by this rhetorical move: Politicians attacked each other over horrific cases of leniency gone wrong, or with the threat of child ''superpredators'' roaming the streets, and the fear of those ''worst of the worst'' criminals led to policies that swept millions of people into the criminal justice system.
As Trump has amped up his rhetoric about MS-13, local and federal law enforcement officials have started rounding up immigrant teens on the basis of suspected gang membership '-- no matter how dubious those claims are.
In a 2017 feature about MS-13 and Long Island's immigrant community, Jonathan Blitzer of the New Yorker says that one Long Island teen was arrested in a gang sweep for having a Salvadoran flag as his profile picture (whose dominant color, bright blue, is also used by MS-13). One ex-girlfriend of a gang member told Blitzer that when they needed to lie low, ''Carlos and his friends from MS-13 would change their style of dress'' '-- like swapping out their shoes '-- and then ''mocked the police for being slow to catch on'' to the fact that they weren't wearing their ''characteristic'' gang attire. ''Immigrant teens without ties to the gang,'' meanwhile, were at risk: They ''didn't necessarily know which clothes were off limits.''
In one high-profile case from 2017, ICE agents made several attempts to strip protections from an immigrant covered under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program by claiming he was a gang member; the immigrant, however, claims that the ICE agents falsified a document to make it look like he admitted to being in a gang (and federal judges have believed him).
These things don't just happen because Donald Trump uses the word ''animals.'' But they don't get the attention that Trump's words do. And while plenty of people are willing to defend calling gang members ''animals,'' few are interested in looking at whether the immigration enforcement system as it exists draws the clear distinction they claim to have heard from Trump.
Clips
VIDEO - YouTube
Sun, 07 Apr 2019 14:56
VIDEO - Brexit: UK prime minister says there is still a chance of a compromise deal - YouTube
Sun, 07 Apr 2019 14:40
VIDEO - Tulsi Gabbard "Right Now U.S. Continues To Support Genocidal War In Yemen! IT MUST STOP NOW!" - YouTube
Sun, 07 Apr 2019 14:07
VIDEO - President Trump "We Can't Take You Anymore! Our Country Is FULL! Turn Around And Go Home!" - YouTube
Sun, 07 Apr 2019 14:06
VIDEO - Chelsea Handler: Life Will Be the Death of Me | Real Time with Bill Maher (HBO) - YouTube
Sun, 07 Apr 2019 13:46
VIDEO - Trump says "our country is full" during border visit - YouTube
Sun, 07 Apr 2019 13:37
VIDEO - Trump to asylum seekers: 'Our country is full ... so turn around' - YouTube
Sun, 07 Apr 2019 13:34
VIDEO - French 'Gilets Jaunes' march for the 21st consecutive week as Macron wraps up nationwide debate - YouTube
Sun, 07 Apr 2019 13:25
VIDEO - (1) REGRET on Twitter: ""Do not let your little girl ever take this vaccine. No matter what happens, don´t let her take this vaccine". This was @RobertKennedyJr´s message to Irish parents on @gemmaod1´s show tonight. He is representing an injur
Sun, 07 Apr 2019 11:31
Log in Sign up REGRET @ REGRET_ie "Do not let your little girl ever take this vaccine. No matter what happens, don´t let her take this vaccine".This was
@RobertKennedyJr´s message to Irish parents on
@gemmaod1´s show tonight. He is representing an injured girl in litigation against the makers of the
#HPVvaccine.
pic.twitter.com/oukiuLPESA 2:31 PM - 5 Apr 2019 Twitter by: REGRET @REGRET_ie Frinne (Truth) @ firinneireland
Apr 5 Replying to
@REGRET_ie @RobertKennedyJr and
3 others It was an interesting interview and great that the book
@eileeniorio is associated with was mentioned. As you are all aware you are facing a battle from the
@hse View conversation · Eileen Iorio @ eileeniorio
Apr 5 Replying to
@REGRET_ie @RobertKennedyJr and
2 others Thank you! It was amazing Bobby spoke directly to the Irish people. We are most grateful.
@RobertKennedyJr #HPVvaccineOnTrial#RobiVMerck@Merck View conversation · Alice Summer @ kuriousmind93
Apr 5 Replying to
@REGRET_ie @RobertKennedyJr @gemmaod1 pic.twitter.com/1XQSoVm7uG View conversation · MyassesDragon @ MyassesDragon
Apr 5 Replying to
@REGRET_ie @BeckyJohnson222 and
2 others You're wrong.
View conversation · Becky Johnson @ BeckyJohnson222
Apr 5 Replying to
@REGRET_ie @RobertKennedyJr @gemmaod1 Looks like
#Merck is now forced to sue RFK Jr. If they don't sue, it's admitting that he's correct.
#Gardasil #HPVvaccine View conversation · Becky Johnson @ BeckyJohnson222
Apr 5 Replying to
@MyassesDragon @REGRET_ie and
2 others About what? That
#Gardasil View conversation · MyassesDragon @ MyassesDragon
Apr 5 Replying to
@BeckyJohnson222 @REGRET_ie and
2 others Here you go:
cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/'... View conversation · Becky Johnson @ BeckyJohnson222
Apr 5 Replying to
@MyassesDragon @REGRET_ie and
2 others Here you go.
pic.twitter.com/zXddyjJ9kh View conversation · MyassesDragon @ MyassesDragon
Apr 5 Replying to
@BeckyJohnson222 @REGRET_ie and
2 others More wronger.They are spreading anti-science lies.
snopes.com/fact-check/on-'... View conversation · Charisse Burchett @ Charbrevolution
Apr 5 Replying to
@MyassesDragon @BeckyJohnson222 and
3 others ooh a government link ð§ let's ignore all the dead and injured and believe this then
View conversation · berni galway @ bernibuzgmail
Apr 6 Replying to
@REGRET_ie @RobertKennedyJr @gemmaod1 Dont trust so called health authorities with your health, they are ruining lives in so many ways not just vaccines, these pharma companies have been caught lying and killing thousands of ppl over and over again. They make billions and get fined a small % of their profit each time
View conversation · Keego @ nkeegan
Apr 6 Replying to
@REGRET_ie @gemmaod1 @RobertKennedyJr Maybe take medical advice from a doctor . Not an author or someone on Twitter!
View conversation · ElaineFitz @ EHFitz_
Apr 6 Replying to
@REGRET_ie @gemmaod1 Two things never to take from a Kennedy 1) advise on appropriate health care or 2) a lift home past a lake'...'....
View conversation · Public Bank Alliance @ publicbankinga
Apr 6 Replying to
@REGRET_ie @RobertKennedyJr @gemmaod1 Your 8-year-old will know to ð''¸ð''¸ð''¸ð''¸after reading the Manufacturers Information.
pic.twitter.com/J3GMYjKqL9 View conversation · Donald @ Donald46503798
Apr 6 Replying to
@nkeegan @REGRET_ie and
2 others Who is the purveyor of medical knowledge to the the doctors?
View conversation · REGRET @ REGRET_ie
Apr 6 Replying to
@SimonHarrisTD However
@SimonHarrisTD is young enough to be around in 40 years when the "Gardasil Generation" start getting cervical cancer. But not to worry, he can simply dust off his talking points on 2018
#CervicalCancerScandal and recycle!
twitter.com/ken_smollen/st'... View conversation · Aine @ amobeirne
Apr 6 Replying to
@REGRET_ie @RobertKennedyJr Younger than 58. Where is other half of data ? They are saying its a big success in Scotland. Started 2008. So those women are in early 20s. Too early to be claiming success. Plus they changed screening age from 20 to 25 in 2016 in ð´ó §ó ó "ó £ó ´ó That's convenient! ð®ðª piechart slide
pic.twitter.com/MyzvjvHvCU View conversation · Maurice Brennan @ mossbrennan
24h Replying to
@kuriousmind93 @REGRET_ie and
2 others How unhinged can you get? This man needs to be mentally checked immediately. A disgrace of a human being.
View conversation · Alice Summer @ kuriousmind93
23h Replying to
@mossbrennan @REGRET_ie and
2 others The best way to figure out is to take
@RobertKennedyJr to a court.
View conversation · Enter a topic, @name, or fullname
Settings Help Back to top ·
Turn images off
VIDEO - Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy explains why mastectomies for healthy teen girls is no big deal - YouTube
Sun, 07 Apr 2019 11:07
VIDEO - Rubella: Why Its Appearance At A Detroit Auto Show Is A Problem
Sat, 06 Apr 2019 14:51
Someone infected with the rubella virus attended the North American International Auto Show (NAIAS) at the Cobo Center in Detroit, Michigan. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)
GettyThe U.S. has well over 99 problems but rubella shouldn't be one of them. The rubella vaccination program, started in 1969, had helped eliminate rubella from the U.S. as of 2004. But these days, in 2019, with the anti-vaccination movement, things have changed.
Case in point. Rubella recently made an appearance at the North American International Auto Show in Detroit, Michigan. No, rubella is not a new car line. Naming an automobile "rubella" would be a bit like naming your motorbike "herpes." Rather, rubella is a very contagious virus that can be readily spread by coughing or sneezing. If the virus is smeared on a surface (such as a steering wheel, for example), it could survive an average of 21+ hours outside of a human body, although half of the viruses tend to perish within an hour, according to the Canadian government web site.
The rubella virus can cause a disease called rubella (hence the name), also known as the German measles. The name German measles is a bit misleading because it has nothing to do with the measles virus, doesn't make you speak German, and is possible to get outside Germany.
On February 1, the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (MDHHS) announced that someone infected with the rubella virus had attended the auto show between January 13 and 15. According a news report from WNDU 16, this person was not a Michigan resident and was visiting from another state. Here is a WXYZ-TV Detroit Channel 7 news segment on the auto show exposure:
As a result, the MDHHS warned that "individuals who may have been exposed and are unsure of their vaccination status should contact their healthcare provider with any questions."
"Unsure of their vaccination status" is a polite way of saying "did you somehow not get the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine, which everyone should be getting as part of the routine series of childhood vaccinations?" Or "did you not do what billions of people around the world have done over the past several decades?" Or "do you actually believe that there is a viable alternative to vaccination to prevent rubella?"
Or maybe for some reason you think that rubella is no big deal, that it will just give you a temporary rash? Well, that type of thinking would be very rash.
Sure, most people infected will have no or relatively mild symptoms. The hallmark symptom is a rash that first appears on your face (usually 2-3 weeks after you get infected by the virus) and subsequently spreads to the rest of your body, typically lasting for 3 days or so. You may have other symptoms such as a low-grade fever, headache, sore throat, cough, runny nose, pink eye, swollen lymph nodes, and general discomfort, that could begin 1 to 5 days before the rash appears, as described by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Note that you tend to be contagious from 7 days before the rash appeared to 5-7 days after the rash first appeared.
Rubella infection can lead to miscarriages, stillbirths, and a range of birth defects. (Photo: Getty Images)
GettyThe big deal, though, is what the rubella virus can do to your baby if you are pregnant. As the CDC describes, the last major rubella epidemic in the United States took place from 1964 to 1965, five years before the rubella vaccination program began. During this epidemic, "an estimated 12.5 million people got rubella, 11,000 pregnant women lost their babies, 2,100 newborns died, and 20,000 babies were born with congenital rubella syndrome (CRS)." Still think rubella is no big deal?
Yes, rubella infection, especially during the first trimester of your pregnancy, can really play havoc with you and your baby, resulting in miscarriages, still births, and a variety of birth defects that could affect nearly every part of your baby's body. The term CRS encompasses this range of possibilities that includes deafness, cataracts, brain damage, intellectual disabilities, heart defects, and liver and spleen damage.
Fortunately, CRS is much less of a concern these days, thanks to the MMR vaccine. The rubella vaccination program helped take a contagious virus from being common and widespread to being extremely rare and virtually non-existent in the U.S.
However, things could change very quickly, thanks to the anti-vaccination movement. The rubella virus is still spreading in certain parts of the world that, surprise, surprise, don't routinely give children the rubella vaccine. A single person infected with the rubella virus can then on average infect anywhere between 3 and 12 people who are not protected against the rubella virus, in other words, not vaccinated. You can see how rubella outbreaks could occur in places where people are not getting the MMR vaccine, just like the measles outbreak that is continuing in the state of Washington.
The only way to prevent such outbreaks is to make sure that as many people as possible are vaccinated against rubella. Getting the vaccine yourself will help protect you (and your baby) but no vaccine is 100% effective. A single dose of MMR vaccine can be 97% effective at protecting you from getting rubella, which is pretty darn good but not perfect. Therefore, it will also be important to prevent the rubella virus from circulating by making sure that everyone else is vaccinated. Not just you. Not just your BFFs. But everyone around you to keep the rubella virus from silently spreading.
Oh, and if someone tries to sell you an alternative to the rubella vaccine, you might as well use your money as toilet paper. No homeopathic regimen, no supplement, no potion, no special diet, no chiropractic manipulation is going to do what the vaccine can do.
Could rubella reappear in the same way measles has in the U.S., simply because people aren't getting the MMR vaccine? That is a distinct possibility. Since 25% to 50% of those infected with the rubella virus don't even show any symptoms, the virus could spread even more insidiously throughout the population. The threat of the rubella virus is yet another reason why the World Health Organization (WHO) has listed "vaccine hesitancy" as one of the top 10 global health threats of 2019. That's what happens when the anti-vaccination movement threatens to put in reverse some of public health's greatest successes.
Back in 2004, the belief was that the rubella virus had gone the way of the Ford Edsel. But if MMR vaccination coverage continues to drop, the anti-vaccination movement could be driving a big comeback for the virus.
VIDEO - Robert F. Kennedy Jr Explains the Dangers of the HPV - LewRockwell
Sat, 06 Apr 2019 11:15
Is the HPV vaccine safe? In an age where legislators are pushing for mandatory vaccinations, the push to take away the freedom of choice has more people looking at information that the mainstream continues to ignore. The truth is, vaccines are not as safe and effective as they're marketed to be. This is evident by the fact that the National Childhood Vaccine Injury act as now paid approximately $4 billion dollars to vaccine injured children, and that only accounts for 1 percent of vaccine injured children as the majority of injuries go completely unreported.
A great example to use would be the MMR vaccine. On its own, it has caused approximately 100,000 adverse events, 2000 disabilities, 7000 hospitalizations and 500 deaths. (source) And again, according to VAERS, only 1 percent of injuries are accounted for. Meanwhile, measles does not kill. The chances of dying of measles are akin to getting hit by lighting, the odds of dying from measles are 0.01 percent! (source) And those who contract measles receive natural immunity that lasts a lifetime, unlike the vaccine-induced immunity that wanes over time.
Note: Listen to our latest podcast deconstructing the vaccine subject in detail here.
Looking Into The Human Papillomavirus Vaccine
Dissolving Illusions: ... Suzanne Humphries MD, ... Best Price: $30.93 Buy New $22.80 (as of 10:55 EDT - Details ) When it comes to the HPV vaccine, it seems to get worse. There are a multiple of problems with the HPV vaccine, and one of them is that it's loaded with aluminum. Why is this a problem that needs to be addressed? Well, because aluminum, among several other vaccine ingredients, have simply been used in vaccines as presumed to be safe without any actual safety testing. Studies that have examined aluminum raise great cause for concern. One from 2015 points out:
Evidence that aluminum-coated particles phagocytozed in the injected muscle and its draining lymph notes can disseminate within phagocytes throughout the body and slowly accumulate in the brain further suggests that alum safety should be evaluated in the long term. (source)
Aluminum is an experimentally demonstrated neurotoxin and the most commonly used vaccine adjuvant. Here's a great clip of doctor Christopher Shaw from the University of British Columbia explaining how injected aluminum does not exit the body. He, alongside Sneha K.S. Sheth andYongling Li, published a study in 2017 looking at animal models. They found that almost ''100 percent of the intramuscularly injected aluminum (as in vaccine adjuvants) is absorbed into the systemic circulation and travels to different sites in the body such as the brain, joints and spleen where it accumulates and is retained for years post-vaccination.'' (source)
Gardasil Victims
When it comes to the HPV vaccine, countless numbers of girls, and boys, have had severe adverse reactions which have resulted in disability and/or death. The latest example to make noise regarding HPV vaccine injury is Jennifer Robi, a 24-year-old former athlete and scholar who has been confined to a wheelchair since receiving her third Gardasil vaccine at age sixteen. She suffers continual uncontrolled neuro/muscular contractions (jerking) and postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS) and many other symptoms of systemic autoimmune dysregulation. You can read more about that story here.
Another one we've written about is Colton Barrett, who took his own life after being unable to cope with his Gardasil vaccine injuries. You can read more about that and watch an interview with him here. Christopher Bunch is also another teenager who recently died as a result of the HPV vaccine, you can read more about that here.
The list of deaths and injuries as a result of the Gardasil Vaccine is a long one. In America, the chances of dying from cervical cancer is 2.3 out of 100,000. The chances of getting an autoimmune disease from this vaccine are 2.3 out of 100. That means that your chances of getting an autoimmune disease from this vaccine are 1000 time greater than getting cervical cancer, as Kennedy points out in his lecture below.
Reports to the World Health Organization's global adverse drug reactions database'--conservatively estimated to represent 10% of actual reactions'--show over 305,000 adverse reactions where the HPV vaccine ''is believed to have been the cause,'' including 445 deaths (23 of which were sudden) and over 1,000 cancerous tumors (including 168 cervical cancers), among other serious reactions (BMJ letter, December 2017).
''A healthy 16-year-old is at zero immediate risk of dying from cervical cancer but is faced with a small but real risk of death or serious disability from a vaccine that has yet to prevent a single case of cervical cancer.''
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Gaining Credibility
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. recently made an appearance in Hartford, Connecticut at the ''Science of Vaccines forum'' in response to proposed mandatory vaccination initiatives in the state. He had a previously planned vaccination discussion with three Yale doctors cancelled on him, and the doctors have since refused to return emails asking for statements as to why they didn't attend.
He made some bold statements, and he used evidence and science to back them up. After using Merck's own HPV pre-licensure safety study documents showing the manipulation of data to hide increases in severe adverse vaccine reactions, he stated:
I'm saying this not on belief but because it's true. And I'm saying it that way so that Merck will sue me if I'm saying something wrong, and they won't.''
In the talk, he goes on to state that if the truth was known, ''nobody in the world would ever, who has any concern for a little girl, would ever give them this vaccine.''
After showing a slide of evidence illustrating how people who have already been exposed to HPV and receive the vaccine have a much higher percentage of actually getting cancer, which is a fact, the vaccine is much less effective to people who have already been exposed to HPV (many of whom are exposed in the birth canal). He states, ''this vaccine gives you cancer, if you've already been exposed.''
You can view the full lecture below where some of the above quotes come from. Another set of quotes come from the same conference, but is not filmed below. You can view that part of the lecture in this video posted to Kennedy's Children's Health Defence Facebook Page.
>>
Pap Smears VS Vaccines
Kennedy provides legitimate sources in his lecture, and there are many others to back up his claims that this vaccine could actually be contributing to cervical cancer.
As a result of the introduction of pap smear tests, the percentage of incidences of invasive cancer of the cervix decreased from 13.5 to 9.4 in Great Britain, 13.5 to 7 in Australia, 11.6 to 10.2 in Sweden, 15.1 to 11 in Norway, 10.7 to 6.67 in the USA, and 11 to 7.1 in France, in less than 20 years. Out of all countries across the globe that used smear screening, the average annual rate of decline was 2.5% between 1989 and 2000 and 1% between 2000 and 2007, resulting in a total decrease of nearly 30% across 1989-2007. (1,2,3,4,5)
The HPV Vaccine has reversed this trend.
In 2017, Sweden's Center for Cervical Cancer prevention reported that incidences of invasive cervical cancer are climbing in nearly all countries. Over the two-year period from 2013 to 2015, for example, there was a steep 20 percent increase. (source) Note that in Sweden, the Gardasil vaccination program was rolled out in 2010, with vaccination coverage of 12-year-old girls approaching 80%. In 2012-2013, thanks to a catch-up program, almost all girls aged 13 to 18 were vaccinated. (source)
In France, incidences of cervical cancer have increased steadily since vaccinations started, from 9.6 per 100000 in 2006 to 9.7 in 2009, 10.3 in 2012, and 11.49 in 2015. (source)
On April 30th of 2018, a study published in the Indian Journal of Medical Ethics suggested that the HPV vaccine may actually be causing cervical cancer in some women rather than preventing it. According to the editors of the journal, ''the issues raised by it [the study] are important and discussion on it is in the public interest.''
That last point there is so important: ''discussion on it is in the public interest.'' Any type of discussion regarding heavily marketed medication is extremely important, and it's highly concerning when there is a large attempt to ridicule or prevent such a discussion from taking place.
The study was retracted, but remains accessible on the journal's site.
As editors, we are wary of the extreme ideological divide that views discussions on vaccines as either ''pro'' or ''anti''. In low and middle-income countries like India, where early HPV infection and incidence of carcinoma cervix are relatively high, scientific discussion and resolution of issues concerning the HPV vaccine is critical, for women receiving it, and for policy making on its introduction in the universal immunisation programme. We hope that the hypothesis of possible harm of vaccinating women previously exposed to HPV is carefully explored in future studies. (source)
Gardasil Failure Likened To The Titanic
Here's another great quote from Dr. Nicole Delepine, a surgeon and Oncologist from France.
It takes a long time to affirm that a preventive action really protects. But the failure of this supposed protection can sometimes be very quickly obvious. To prove that the Titanic was truly unsinkable would have required decades of navigation on the most dangerous seas of the world. Demonstrating that it wasn't, took only a few hours '... This Titanic demonstration is unfortunately reproduced by the Gardasil vaccination.
Evidence that vaccination increases the risk of invasive cancer can be rapid, if the vaccine changes the natural history of cancer by accelerating it. The analysis of trends in the incidence of invasive cervical cancer published in official statistics (registers) was studied in the first and most fully vaccinated countries (Australia, Great Britain, Sweden and Norway). Unfortunately, it's the case for HPV vaccines. (source)
Gardasil's prevention failure has essentially erased the perceived benefits of the Pap smear, which is accelerating the onset of cervical cancer, according to Delepine. She points out how, in all of the countries who have implemented large HPV vaccination programs, there's been a significant increase in the frequency of invasive cancers within the most vaccinated populations. She makes an important points and emphasize how non-vaccinated women continue to benefit from screening with a Pap smear:
During the same period, older women (and therefore unvaccinated) saw their cancer risk decrease significantly: less 17% for women aged 55 to 59 (from 9.7 to 8.1), less 13% for women aged 60 to 64 ( from 10.3 to 8.9), less 23% for those aged 75 to 79 (from 11.5 to 8.8) and even less 31% for those aged 80 to 84 (from 14.5 to 10).
Jabbed: How the Vaccin... Brett Wilcox Check Amazon for Pricing. From their inception, the two HPV vaccines (Merck's Gardasil and, outside the U.S., GlaxoSmithKline's Cervarix) have been aggressively marketed, with their potential benefits oversold and their many risks disguised, particularly through the use of inappropriate placebos. It has been left to independent researchers to critique the regulatory apparatus' fraudulent evidence. Recent letters published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) have brought forward some stark numbers that illustrate the vaccine's appalling record: A seriously adverse event rate of 1 in 15 (7%) and a death rate among the vaccinated (14 per 10,000) that far exceeds the risk of dying from cervical cancer which is 0.23 per 10,000 (BMJ letter, May 2018).
This quote from RFK Jr. sums it all up:
When it comes to the HPV vaccine, is it really necessary? There is a very small percentage of women who will contract an HPV infection throughout their lifetime, and 95 percent of these women who do get an HPV infection will clear it by themselves within a couple of years, you don't even have to detect it. Of the remaining 5 percent, approximately half of those women will develop pre-cancerous lesions, which could then take decades to develop into cancerous lesions. Furthermore, the HPV vaccine only provides 5-10 years of immunity, and girls (and boys) are injected with it at approximately 12 years old. How likely is it that a child will develop an HPV infection between the ages of 12 and 17?
Sources Used Not Highlighted Within the Article:
1] Cancer Research UK, Cervical Cancer (C53): 1993-2015, European Age-Standardized Incidence Rates per 100,000 Population, Females, UK Accessed 08 [ 2018 ].
[2] AIHW [2]. 13. AIHW 2017. Cancer in Australia 2017. Cancer series no. 101. Cat. No. CAN 100. Canberra: AIHW.
[3] NORDCAN, Association of the Nordic Cancer Registries 3.1.2018
[4] Bo T Hansen, Suzanne Campbell, Mari Nyg¥rd Long-term incidence of HPVrelated cancers, and cases preventableby HPV vaccination: a registry-based study in Norway BMJ Open 2018; 8: e019005
Reprinted with permission from Collective Evolution.
VIDEO - Dem Pramila Jayapal: Government MUST regulate behavior of ALL Americans to protect transgender freedom '' DC Clothesline
Sat, 06 Apr 2019 10:35
If Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., has her way, the federal government would regulate the behavior of every single American. Her ''reason?'' to protect the freedom of transgender people, Breitbart.com reported Wednesday.
''My beautiful, now 22-year-old child told me last year that they were gender nonconforming,'' she said Tuesday, referring to her son as ''they'' instead of ''he.'' According to Jayapal, her son claims to be neither male nor female.
''I came to understand what their newfound freedom ' it is the only way I can describe what has happened to my beautiful child, what their newfound freedom to wear a dress, to rid themselves of some conformist stereotype of what they are, to be able to express who they are at their real core '... My child is free to be who they are,'' she said.
''And in that freedom comes a responsibility for us as legislators to protect their freedom to be who they are and to legislate, as Dr. Wiley so beautifully said, to legislate our behavior towards all people in our society,'' she added.
Here's video the Washington Democrat posted to Twitter:
During @HouseJudiciary today, I shared why the #EqualityAct is so personal to me and my family. My child is finally free to be who they are. With that freedom comes a responsibility, for us as legislators, to legislate with love and not fear. pic.twitter.com/VfpiD9aDyY
'-- Rep. Pramila Jayapal (@RepJayapal) April 2, 2019
Neil Munro noted:
Jayapal's demand and her tearful celebration for her adult son's ''freedom'' came during a hearing about H.R. 5, the Democrat-drafted bill that would require federal agencies to pressure Americans into agreeing that men and women can change their sex by declaring an opposite-sex ''gender identity.''
This bill is not a stretch for Indian-born Jayapal, because she is a progressive who favors top-down direction of Americans' economy, civic life, culture, and population. For example, she justifies this demand for government authority over sexual identity with a claim that progressives can maximize people's freedom by imposing intensive regulation on thoughts and words.
As Faye Higbee explained earlier Friday, HR 5, the so-called ''Equality Act,'' would '''...institute protections against anyone who might slip up and call a man a man instead of a woman based solely on their 'gender identity.'''
The measure is sponsored by 240 representatives, most of whom are Democrats. Higbee also notes the measure ''uses grand sounding words that hide the agenda to destroy anything that runs counter to the LGBTQ viewpoint.''
Rep. Doug Collins, R-Ga., slammed the bill as one that ''silences calls for fairness, flouts science and has no compassion for the women and children it marginalizes.''
He also noted:
The biological differences between the sexes remain scientific and certain '... H.R. 5 nullifies ''women and girls as a coherent legal category worthy of civil rights protection.'' The bill privileges the rights of men who identify as women over biological women and girls '... Allowing men to compete against women in women's sports isn't demoralizing because female athletes '... aren't talented; it's demoralizing because it makes their talent irrelevant. Martina Navratilova explained the threat H.R. 5 poses to women's sports: ''Unless you want to completely remake what Women's Sports means, there can be no blanket inclusion rule. There is nothing stereotypical about this '' it's about fairness and it's about science.''
In fact, H.R. 5 ignores fairness and denies science in order to codify [gender] stereotypes and sexism. If a man who adopts mannerisms associated with women can receive every federal protection afforded to women, we've reduced womanhood to a set of stereotypes '-- the same stereotypes some men have chronically exploited for social, professional and political advantage. H.R. 5 plays into tropes that hurt women and girls across every dimension of society, and it would give those stereotypes the trump card whenever tension arises between the rights of a transgender person and the rights of a biological woman.
'...
Under this bill, adolescents who can't decide what major to pursue in college would be empowered to force doctors '-- bound by anti-discrimination laws '-- to administer hormones that could render these children sterile and conduct irreversible surgeries. Mothers and fathers who have watched their children deteriorate physically and emotionally as they transition away from their biological sex are begging Congress to listen before we leap.
'...
Though women and children have historically been uniquely vulnerable, Democrats are condemning people who advocate for their rights and against H.R. 5 as bigoted. The ideology driving H.R. 5 is content to see women, lesbians and families become the collateral damage of identity politics that has no basis in science.
.@RepDougCollins: I ask my friends across the aisle not to peddle the notion that, under #HR5, everybody wins. There will be many losers because #HR5 bows to political expedience that hurts women and children. pic.twitter.com/ORIfPvLGZM
'-- House Judiciary GOP (@JudiciaryGOP) April 2, 2019
But we now know, thanks to Jayapal, that this measure has nothing to do with ''fairness.'' It has everything to do with controlling and legislating the behavior of every single American and destroying the very fabric of the Republic.
Courtesy of Conservative Firing Line
COMMUNITY LINKS: Visit Our Sister Site for Articles Not Seen Here | Browse our Store for Conservative Gifts & Apparel | Join Our Free Speech Social Media Network
VIDEO - Rob Dew on Twitter: "Bizarre: Democrats Announce The Date The World Will End January 21st 2030 AOC made the announcement on 1-21-19 and 97% of Climate Scientists concur that the world will indeed end on January 21st 2030. Please send your contribu
Fri, 05 Apr 2019 23:12
Welcome home! This timeline is where you'll spend most of your time, getting instant updates about what matters to you.
Tweets not working for you? Hover over the profile pic and click the Following button to unfollow any account.
Say a lot with a little When you see a Tweet you love, tap the heart '-- it lets the person who wrote it know you shared the love.
Spread the word The fastest way to share someone else's Tweet with your followers is with a Retweet. Tap the icon to send it instantly.
Join the conversation Add your thoughts about any Tweet with a Reply. Find a topic you're passionate about, and jump right in.
Learn the latest Get instant insight into what people are talking about now.
Get more of what you love Follow more accounts to get instant updates about topics you care about.
Find what's happening See the latest conversations about any topic instantly.
Never miss a Moment Catch up instantly on the best stories happening as they unfold.
VIDEO - Benny on Twitter: "Who has the worst, pandering fake Southern accent? 1. AOC 2. Hillary Clinton (I've made a little video for you to be the judge)'... https://t.co/yO8Vm3h862"
Fri, 05 Apr 2019 23:09
Welcome home! This timeline is where you'll spend most of your time, getting instant updates about what matters to you.
Tweets not working for you? Hover over the profile pic and click the Following button to unfollow any account.
Say a lot with a little When you see a Tweet you love, tap the heart '-- it lets the person who wrote it know you shared the love.
Spread the word The fastest way to share someone else's Tweet with your followers is with a Retweet. Tap the icon to send it instantly.
Join the conversation Add your thoughts about any Tweet with a Reply. Find a topic you're passionate about, and jump right in.
Learn the latest Get instant insight into what people are talking about now.
Get more of what you love Follow more accounts to get instant updates about topics you care about.
Find what's happening See the latest conversations about any topic instantly.
Never miss a Moment Catch up instantly on the best stories happening as they unfold.
VIDEO - Ryan Saavedra on Twitter: "Ocasio-Cortez speaks in an accent that she never uses while telling a room of predominately black people that there is nothing wrong with them folding clothes, cooking, and driving other people around on a bus for a livi
Fri, 05 Apr 2019 23:08
Welcome home! This timeline is where you'll spend most of your time, getting instant updates about what matters to you.
Tweets not working for you? Hover over the profile pic and click the Following button to unfollow any account.
Say a lot with a little When you see a Tweet you love, tap the heart '-- it lets the person who wrote it know you shared the love.
Spread the word The fastest way to share someone else's Tweet with your followers is with a Retweet. Tap the icon to send it instantly.
Join the conversation Add your thoughts about any Tweet with a Reply. Find a topic you're passionate about, and jump right in.
Learn the latest Get instant insight into what people are talking about now.
Get more of what you love Follow more accounts to get instant updates about topics you care about.
Find what's happening See the latest conversations about any topic instantly.
Never miss a Moment Catch up instantly on the best stories happening as they unfold.
VIDEO - Democrats Tell Protesters Full Mueller Report Will Reveal if Trump Has 'Abused His Office'
Fri, 05 Apr 2019 15:48
''All across the country America is rising up,'' Blumenthal said, adding that Barr's summary ''doesn't exonerate the president.''Two virulent anti-Trump lawmakers headlined a rally outside of the White House on Thursday to demand that the Department of Justice release the Mueller report in its entirety, claiming that it will reveal whether President Donald Trump has ''abused his office.''
The protest, staged by leftist groups like moveon.org, People for the American Way, Public Citizen, the Women's March, and the Center for American Progress, drew a couple of hundred people carrying anti-Trump and ''release the report'' signs.
And despite newly confirmed Attorney General William Barr's report to Congress that Mueller and his team over two years found no evidence that Trump or his campaign colluded with Russia during the 2016 presidential campaign nor evidence of obstruction of justice, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), who is on the Senate Judiciary Committee, told the crowd that the president may well be found guilty of those charges and others.
Alex Jones breaks down how the globalists are attempting to collapse civilization within the next six months by intensifying their migrant fueled destabilization of the west alongside the chemical castration of the population by targeting food, water, and air with toxic pollutants worldwide. Their goal is to cull the population down to an easily manipulated / controlled few under their technocracy. Lawyer Robert Barnes joins Alex Jones live in studio to discuss the latest in the Sandy Hook show trials, and Ali Alexander hosts the final hour.
''All across the country America is rising up,'' Blumenthal said, adding that Barr's summary ''doesn't exonerate the president.''
''There is evidence of obstruction,'' Blumenthal said. ''That there may well be evidence of collusion with Russia,even if it isn't beyond a reasonable doubt.''
Read more
VIDEO - Kamala Harris Consoles Seth Meyers Over Mueller Report: 'We Are Not Crazy'
Fri, 05 Apr 2019 15:14
Senator Kamala Harris appeared on Late Night With Seth Meyers on Thursday night and she was greeted with all the adoration you would expect from a liberal fanboy like Meyers.
Meyers opened up with a softball question, asking about her colleagues in the Senate who are also running for president, ''Is it awkward when you see each other?''
After complimenting Harris that she's ''very good at asking questions,'' Meyers got right to what every liberal is dying to talk about: the Mueller report.
''I think everyone is smart enough to know how could he possibly have summarized two years worth of around the clock investigations in two days into just four pages,'' Harris said, echoing liberal conspiracy theories that Attorney General Bill Barr is hiding the truth of what the Mueller report revealed.
Holding on to the Trump derangement, Harris reassured him, ''We all have to remember that we are not crazy.''
Seth: Does it square, what the four-page letter Barr put out with what you know?
Kamala: Well, put aside what I know. I think what the American public knows is that Bob Mueller was engaged with an incredible team for two years in an investigation. And the attorney general produced a four-page document in two days. And so, I think everyone is smart enough to know how could he possibly have summarized two years worth of around the clock investigations in two days into just four pages. For that reason I think we all know we need to have full transparency. The American public deserves to see and know what that investigation involves. [ Cheers and applause ]
Seth: I will say -- this is a nonpartisan observation. Nothing happens quickly in D.C. The fact it was two days later, he's like, good news, we got your answer, it's nothing, was very surprising to me. But I also want to ask, are you surprised, disappointed, that Mueller did have these two years and it seems as though, you know, some people have used the expression that he punted on the decision whether or not there was enough evidence for obstruction. Do you feel as though an investigator who had that much time and that much freedom should have come to a more concrete answer on that question?
Kamala: Well, but we don't know what Mueller said because we've not seen the report. That's part of the issue. The American public and certainly the United States Congress should have the ability to judge for itself what the evidence was, what was the underlying evidence that supported the report, and there should be no hesitancy by this administration, certainly this attorney general in giving it to us. It is a matter of serious concern. [ Applause ] And then we'll see. You know, I think that there's every reason to believe based on his entire career that Bob Mueller was thorough. That he went where the evidence took him. But we need to see it. Because the other thing I know as a prosecutor is that there is a difference between knowing what happened and being able to prove what happened. It doesn't mean there's no evidence, but it probably means that there was not sufficient evidence to maybe bring certain charges. But let's not also forget, there have been 33 indictments. Let's not forget that there is a whole lot of evidence of crimes that have happened. And people are taking a toothbrush to the courtroom these days because of it.
Seth: Are you shocked as a prosecutor how quickly it does seem like you have to remind people how many people who were close to or worked explicitly for the Trump administration are either in prison or have been arrested?
Kamala: I mean, I think that it is --
Seth: If I had asked you this question four years ago, and said, there will be somebody in office and they'll have this many people connected to them in jail.
Kamala: It is quite unbelievable.
Seth: Yeah, right. Okay, good.
Kamala: You're right. [ Laughter ]
Seth: Okay, good. ´Cause I thought I was crazy. [ Laughter and applause ]
Kamala: No, no. Actually, that's the thing. We all have to remember that we are not crazy.
Seth: Yeah.
Kamala: And that these are serious, serious matters.
The pair also talked about Harris' initiative to increase teacher pay, or as Meyers put it, ''Let's not put more money in schools, let's put more money in teacher's pockets.''
Harris claimed, ''Teachers are paid 10 percent or more less than similarly educated college graduates,'' but something tells me they're not factoring in how teachers work 10 percent or more less than similarly educated college graduates with all the time off they get over the summer and other breaks.
She said the ''teacher pay gap'' is about $13,500 a year, and wants to increase teachers' salaries by that much. The average public school teacher made $58,950 in 2017, so an additional $13,500 represents a 23 percent raise. It is estimated that her plan will cost $315 billion.
Ironically, in support of her education idea, the pro-abortion politician said, ''I think you can judge a society based on the way it treats its children.''
They talked about her reaction to Trump's election in 2016 '' ''Utter shock and dismay.'' Harris said it was "extremely bittersweet" to win her Senate seat on the same day, while Meyers joked, "Was it like being someone on the Titanic going, 'I've got a boat. I've got a life raft.'"
Yeah, you guys keep telling yourselves you're not crazy...
VIDEO - U.S. Revokes Visa Of War Crimes Prosecutor For The International Criminal Court! - YouTube
Fri, 05 Apr 2019 13:47
VIDEO - Maxine Waters reignites calls to impeach President Trump, accuses him of 'conspiring with the Kremlin and oligarchs of Russia' | Fox News
Thu, 04 Apr 2019 21:53
Maxine Waters has ramped up her President Trump impeachment talks once again.
The California Democrat seemed to be moving on from pushing impeachment when she admitted it was ''never discussed'' as a realistic strategy among Democrats. But the congresswoman took a very different tone when speaking to supporters this week.
''Some people say, 'How dare her (sic) come out and say, 'Impeach him? She doesn't know enough about him to talk about impeaching him.' But now the American people, whether they say it or not, they know that this man is dangerous,'' Waters told the Woman's National Democratic Club dinner on Tuesday.
MAXINE WATERS SAYS IT WAS 'CORRECT THING' FOR JUSSIE SMOLLETT CHARGES TO BE DROPPED
''That certainly, he conspired with the Kremlin and with the oligarchs of Russia.''
Waters, who has frequently attacked President Trump since he took office, went on to question Attorney General William Barr.
''I know that you are all worried about the special counsel and the fact that we have a report that has been described to us in a letter by the attorney general. We don't know what's in the report yet, and we're going to demand it,'' she said, according to the Washington Examiner.
She then wrapped up the speech with a message to her supporters: ''Let me leave you with this: Despite the fact that we haven't gotten the report yet, and we're going after it, and it may be subpoenaed, that it is being worked on. I'm still saying impeach 45.''
MAXINE WATERS TONES DOWN TRUMP IMPEACHMENT TALK, SAYS DEMS NEVER SERIOUSLY DISCUSSED IT
The fiery promise was in stark contrast to her words from just one week ago.
''I think we do nothing now but concentrate on getting the information, getting that report,'' Waters said, in reference to the report by Mueller, the conclusions of which were provided by Barr.
''[Impeachment has] never been discussed as a strategy for this caucus. It's only a few of us,'' she added, according to Politico.
Many Democrats have expressed reservations about going down the impeachment route, with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi warning that the process just isn't worth pursuing.
''I'm not for impeachment,'' Pelosi told the Washington Post Magazine. ''Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there's something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don't think we should go down that path, because it divides the country.''
She added: ''And he's just not worth it.''
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
Yet some Democrats, most notably U.S. Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., are already working behind the scenes to begin hearings and investigations that would pave way for the impeachment.