Hotmail problems

Not sure what this is all about but Microsoft have severely downgraded their Hotmail service in Australia.  It started being very slow to load and for the last week it has usually come up without file managing tools.  I can read or delete messages but not answer them, move them or mark them as spam.  Very pesky!

So for personal emails I have moved to my Gmail a/c.  jonjayray@gmail.com .  I have left Hotmail as a receptacle for political emails

I am crossing my fingers that Gmail will stay normal

******************************************

Denmark returns to ‘life as we knew it’ despite Omicron

Omicron is running wild across the world — and its impact is being felt keenly in Europe where several nations have imposed strict new rules and vaccine mandates over the course of the northern hemisphere winter.

But as cases increase to levels never seen before across the continent, one nation has made a move that has caught many by surprise.

Denmark on Tuesday becomes the first European Union country to lift all of its Covid restrictions despite record numbers of cases, relying on its high vaccination rate to cope with the milder Omicron variant.

After a first attempt at lifting all its restrictions between September and November, the Scandinavian country is once again ditching its face masks, Covid passes and limited opening hours for bars and restaurants.

“I’m so happy that this is all going to be over tomorrow. It’s good for life in the city, for night-life, just to be able to be out longer”, 17-year-old student Thea Skovgaard told AFP the day before the lifting.

Nightclubs reopen on Tuesday, when limits on the number of people allowed at indoor gatherings also come to an end.

Only a few restrictions remain in place at the country’s borders, for unvaccinated travellers arriving from non-Schengen countries.

The easing comes as Denmark registers around 40,000-50,000 new Covid cases a day, or almost one per cent of the country’s 5.8 million inhabitants.

“We have an extremely high coverage of adults vaccinated with three doses,” epidemiologist Lone Simonsen of the University of Roskilde told AFP.

More than 60 per cent of Danes have received a third dose — one month ahead of health authorities’ schedule — compared to an EU average of just under 45 per cent.

Including those who have recently had Covid, health authorities estimate that 80 per cent of the population are protected against severe forms of the disease.

“With Omicron not being a severe disease for the vaccinated, we believe it is reasonable to lift restrictions”, Simonsen said.

The broad spread of the Omicron variant is also expected to lead to a “more robust and long-lasting immunity”, helping the country fend off future waves, she said.

Two years after the outbreak of Covid-19, the Danish strategy enjoys broad support at home.

In a poll published Monday by daily Politiken, 64 per cent of Danes surveyed said they had faith in the government’s Covid policy.

Personal responsibility

Going forward, Danes are being urged to exercise personal responsibility, Simonsen said.

“Without a Covid pass there will be a shift of responsibility”, she said. Danes have increasingly used home tests to detect infection, but these are now being phased out and instead, anyone with symptoms is advised to stay home.

The Danish Health Authority currently “recommends” those who test positive to isolate for four days, while contact cases no longer need to quarantine.

Face masks and the Covid pass are also recommended for hospital visits. The government said it does not expect to have to revert to new closures again but has remained cautiously optimistic.

“We can’t provide any guarantees when it comes to biology”, Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said last week when announcing the country’s return “to life as we knew it before corona”.

“It’s really nice that this is ending but will we really live without any restrictions now? I doubt it,” said Cille Hjort, a fast-food vendor eager to see her patrons’ faces without masks again.

This is the second time Denmark has tried to return to a pre-pandemic lifestyle. On September 10, the country lifted all its restrictions, before reintroducing some of them in early November.

Museums, cinemas and theatre and concert venues then closed just before Christmas, and reopened again in early January.

Faced with a lower level of hospitalisations than in previous waves, several European countries, including France, Ireland and the United Kingdom, have announced the lifting or a considerable reduction of their restrictions, despite record or very high cases.

“Two years into the pandemic, populations in most countries have reached high levels of immunity, from vaccines or natural illness”, Simonsen said.

“This is how it ends, judging from what we have seen with historical pandemics”. According to the World Health Organisation, 73 per cent of the European population has contracted Covid-19 at least once since January 2020.

Tyra Krause of Denmark’s public health and research institution SSI said meanwhile she expected Covid-19 to return in regular waves, “like the flu”.

“We may end up having to vaccinate risk groups ahead of the autumn to prevent severe cases”, she told science magazine Videnskab.

https://www.news.com.au/world/coronavirus/global/denmark-returns-to-life-as-we-knew-it-despite-omicron/news-story/f33b6be4aacc1174ff37a8418e0b41e0

*********************************************************

Future lockdowns should be ‘rejected out of hand’, new international report says

Lockdowns have “had little to no effect on” reducing deaths from Covid-19 and should be “rejected out of hand” for dealing with the next pandemic, according to a new international study that comes amid falling confidence in public health authorities in the US.

Business closures and stay at home orders in the US and Europe reduced deaths by 0.2 per cent on average, according to a new analysis by American and Swedish researchers that questioned whether the novel health policy, pioneered by China in Wuhan in early 2020, would pass a cost-benefit analysis.

“Lockdowns have not been used to such a large extent during any of the pandemics of the past century,” the authors said, suggesting their “marginal at best” benefits needed to be compared with their “devastating effects”.

“They have contributed to reducing economic activity, raising unemployment, reducing schooling, causing political unrest, contributing to domestic violence, and undermining liberal democracy.”

The study, conducted by Steve Hanke, a founder of the Johns Hopkins School of Applied Economics, Jonas Herby and Lars Jonung, a Swedish economist, comes amid debate over the effectiveness of mandates in “slowing the spread” of Covid-19 as the pandemic enters its third year and cases and hospitalisations from surge to new highs.

Americans’ confidence in public health authorities has fallen during the pandemic, from 55 per cent in 2020 to 44 per cent, according to a national NBC poll conducted earlier this month. Forty-three per cent specifically said they did not trust the Centre for Disease Control’s recommendations.

Governments imposed lockdowns of various severity and duration, including seven in Victoria totalling more than 260 days, from March 2020 onwards, after British epidemiologist Neil Ferguson, who was advising the UK government, forecast that lockdowns would reduce deaths by “up to 98 per cent”.

Pandemic plans published prior to Covid-19 had either advised specifically against lockdowns, which until now had been a fringe, untried “nuclear option”.

Difficulties in enforcement, voluntary social distancing, and unintended consequences, such as confining infected and uninfected people together at home and stopping socialising at safe, outdoor areas such as parks and beaches, may have worked against the effectiveness of lockdowns, the study suggested.

“Countries like Denmark, Finland, and Norway that realised success in keeping Covid-19 mortality rates relatively low allowed people to go to work, use public transport, and meet privately at home during the first lockdown,” they said.

“Island nations are birds of a different feather in more ways than one. In addition to Australia and New Zealand, Iceland, Japan, South Korea (a de facto island), Singapore and Taiwan have had very few Covid deaths. But some of them had very mild lockdowns, too.

“And let’s not forget the UK. It’s had one lockdown after another and relatively high rates of mortality, too.”

Proponents of the radical policies have struggled to explain how jurisdictions that imposed no or few lockdowns, such as Scandinavian nations, Japan, or southern states of the US, have ended up with Covid-19 outcomes not greatly different or even better than other jurisdictions.

The lockdown study, a “meta-analysis” that aggregated the findings of other studies, whittled down 117 empirical analyses of lockdowns published before July 2020 to 34, discarding any that used computer modelling to predict counterfactuals.

Lockdowns were defined as any mandatory policy that reduced movement or mandated masks. “Shelter in place orders”, a subcategory, reduced deaths by 2.9 per cent, it found.

A separate survey found three quarters of American adults said they were “tired and frustrated” with the pandemic while 77 per cent said it was inevitable people would catch Covid-19, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

The UK and Denmark have dumped all Covid-19 restrictions, while major US cities have introduced new vaccine passports and extended mask mandates indefinitely.

President Joe Biden recently ruled out a return to lockdowns as daily deaths from Covid-19, which have increased to more than 2,500 during the current Omicron wave, surpass earlier peaks.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/world/future-lockdowns-should-be-rejected-out-of-hand-new-international-report-says/news-story/2ee3a4d8f46cd043c7f3feee7c2d8192

***********************************************

The war on natural immunity

The ability for the body to produce memory cells is what allows for natural immunity to occur. Given that the memory cells last for a long period of time, antibodies can be produced quickly each time an individual is subsequently infected by the same virus. It is indeed a marvellous system.

It does, however, have one fatal flaw – at least in the eyes of Big Pharma. It is not profitable. There is no money to be made in natural immunity because it is a part of us that we are born with and do not have to pay a subscription for.

And that is why companies who thrive on medicating people see natural immunity as a significant problem that must be dealt with accordingly.

The solution? Convince the masses natural immunity does not exist, or, if that fails, play down its efficiency. This is what politicians, bureaucrats, so-called ‘experts,’ and scientists (who should know better) have been attempting to do throughout the Covid era.

To ensure the protection of their own pecuniary interests, these people have pushed vaccines as the only way out of the pandemic. Never mind that Covid vaccines do not prevent you from getting the virus, spreading it to others, or becoming sick.

They are denying the effectiveness of natural immunity against disease by claiming it only lasts for a short period of time against Covid, and telling people to get the vaccine even if they have already had the virus. This is completely unnecessary. Vaccine-induced antibodies are temporary. This is evident in that the vaccines only provide immunity for a few months, which is a pretty poor effort for what is supposed to be an ‘effective’ vaccine.

Generally, if a vaccine is effective, you do not need a ‘booster’ every three months. This booster schedule is not only absurd, but also likely dangerous. Even the European Union’s drug regulator, the European Medicines Agency (EMA), have stated as much. The EMA’s head of vaccines strategy, Marco Cavaleri, said that ‘repeat vaccinations within short intervals will not represent a sustainable long term strategy’ and that if we give them frequently, even every four months, ‘we will end up potentially having problems with immune response and immune response may end up not being as good as we would like it to be, so we should be careful in not overloading the immune system with repeated immunisation.’ Constant boosters could easily do more harm than good to the immune system and render an individual more susceptible to disease.

Natural immunity is real, and it works. The US Centre for Disease Control (CDC) had to admit that natural immunity was six times more effective than vaccines when it came to the Delta variant. With more people contracting Omicron, it stands to reason that there will be a greater saturation of the population with natural immunity, which could actually put an end to the virus.

But that would not be politically nor financially convenient for the big players. When the virus recedes into obscurity, so does their source of fear-inducement, power, and profit. Our governments have already signed contracts with vaccine companies like Pfizer for millions of vaccines, and they cannot return them and get our money back. With two hundred million plus vaccines on standby for a population of twenty-five million, it stands to reason they will continue to push booster after booster. And the denial of natural immunity will persist.

Conservative commentator Michael Knowles sums it up brilliantly in his book Speechless: Controlling Words, Controlling Minds.

‘These “experts” lend credibility to the politically correct regime, not by furnishing it with facts, but by redefining scientific terms to better accord with the dictates of progress. Calls for more modest regulations in the pursuit of herd immunity threatened the radicals’ plans for cultural transformation, which benefited from the massive transfer of wealth and power brought about by the lockdowns.’

That transfer of wealth has been from the lower and middle class to big corporations and Big Pharma. It is one of the main reasons natural immunity is admonished and vaccines hailed.

Our immune systems have enabled us to survive for millennia, and they are not going to stop just because a bunch of greedy, power-hungry elites say so.

https://spectator.com.au/2022/02/the-plot-against-natural-immunity/

*********************************************

Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

*************************************

The Covid Narrative Falls Apart in South Africa

Last week, China Daily published an article that perfectly encapsulates the magical thinking taking place worldwide around Covid-19. Titled “Plea for jabs even as Africa infections trend lower,” the piece described how African “health experts” are “stepping up calls for more people to get vaccinated against COVID-19 in a bid to ward off future outbreaks even as trends point to a decline in the growth rate for new infections.”

That’s right, despite a clear downward trend in mostly-mild Omicron cases, “health experts” want shots imposed indiscriminately throughout the whole population. And adding even more to the cognitive dissonance here are the reasons they cite for the decrease:

“John Nkengasong, director of the Africa CDC, attributed South Africa’s decrease in new infection cases to increased population levels of antibodies, meaning that many people have been infected so hence developed antibodies combined with the high vaccination rate in the country,” wrote Edith Mutethya before adding the kicker: “To date, South Africa has fully vaccinated 27.3 percent of its population.”

This is, of course, a perfect example of how ‘health officials’ massage and manipulate the facts to suit their narrative. In this case, in his drive to get more “jabs,” Nkengasong laughably tells us the country’s “high vaccination rate” is partially responsible for the decline in Omicron cases. A “high vaccination rate,” in this case, of… wait for it… 27.3 percent.

Granted, 27.3 percent is higher than the meager 10 percent full vaccination rate for the rest of Africa. But given these low percentages, especially by Western standards, one would be forgiven for thinking Covid-19 was raging like a wildfire across the continent, overwhelming hospitals and leaving massive levels of death and severe illness in its wake.

Except, that’s not the case at all. Not even close. In fact, deaths per million are surprisingly low for the vast majority of countries in Africa. Tunisia, a small country of 12 million, leads the pack at ~2,200, and only five others—South Africa, Namibia, Seychelles, Eswatini, and Botswana—are even above 1,000. That’s a stark contrast to the United States’ ~2,600, Brazil’s ~2,900, or Bulgaria and Hungary with more than 4,000 each.

Still, according to World Health Organization regional emergency director Abdou Gueye: “Although Africa appears to be emerging from the peak of its fourth pandemic wave, vaccination which is a pivotal measure against the virus remains far too low. About 50 percent of the world’s population is fully vaccinated. In Africa, this is just 10 percent.”

After a peak of 37,875 reported cases on Dec. 12, 2021, South Africa—‘home’ of the Omicron variant that now dominates the globe—has seen its case numbers decline steadily since. How can this be? Nkengasong, to his credit, tells a partial truth by partially crediting natural immunity. He should have stopped there. Why didn’t he? I submit that it’s because of the magical thinking around Covid vaccines. Even a paltry 27.3 vaccination rate, he reasons, must have contributed to the decline. Would that ‘health officials’ here in the States were so generous. Instead, the third of the country that remains unvaccinated is blamed for everything from virus spread to the Black Death.

We’re told that vaccines against a spike protein that is no longer dominant are the keys to ending the pandemic, but they refuse to explain in light of recent data exactly how. Instead, our overlords allow the majority of the public to falsely blame the unvaccinated for contraction and spread, even while knowing full well that the vaccinated are just as responsible.

Why is the virus raging again in Israel, the most vaccinated and boosted country on the planet? Why is there no statistical difference between virus infection rates in highly vaccinated versus lower uptake areas in the United States? Why do the unvaccinated have the lowest infection rate according to disturbing newly revealed data from Scotland? I could go on and on. (And yes, we have asked the same questions about mask use.)

The sad, tragic fact is that their measures, from lockdowns to masks to even vaccine mandates, have done little to nothing to curb the spread of this highly contagious respiratory virus, and taken as a whole they’ve likely done more harm than good.

I take no pleasure in pointing this out. Truly, I wish something HAD worked. If so, we wouldn’t be talking about this two years in. But alas, the only thing that’s working is viral attenuation and Omicron infecting everything it touches, regardless of masking or vaccine status.

It’s not that these vaccines don’t have their uses. If someone is at high risk for a bad outcome from Covid, taking the “jab” and even endless boosters could be a smart move. But we were promised something else a year ago, weren’t we? “Take the shot,” we were told, “and you can live a normal life free of masks and restrictions.”

That promise, like so many others, has been broken and memory-holed, relegated to the dustbin of so many other Faucian ‘noble lies.’

Try to get into a restaurant in New York City or Chicago with eight masks on but without a vaccine card and see where that gets you. Walk into almost any large restaurant or retail establishment in the country, even here in eastern Tennessee, and every employee will be forcibly masked. It seems like the more the vaccines don’t work to stop this pandemic, the more our overlords double down on nonsense. Thankfully, the prevalence of Omicron is exposing their absurdity for the world to see, if people would only look.

“But but but … it would have been worse,” people smugly retort. To that, I would simply point to South Africa, where Omicron is on its last legs despite a poor healthcare system, much of its population living in poverty, and a vaccination rate that would have Joe Biden really losing his patience.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/the-covid-narrative-falls-apart-in-south-africa_4243565.html

*************************************************

One-off wonder jab could fight off all strains of flu for LIFE by targeting a completely different part of the virus

Every year, millions of Britons have a flu jab — and every year it’s a different version, as flu viruses mutate so quickly that vaccines have to be reformulated.

But what if there were a one-off flu jab, possibly for life, that not only protected against currently circulating strains but also all future versions?

The so-called ‘universal’ jab has been the holy grail of flu vaccine research for decades — but has proved elusive.

That’s because the flu virus is constantly swapping genes between strains. In this way, it creates variants that dodge any immunity people have from previous flu infections or vaccines.

This process of mutation, called antigenic drift, can happen even within the six to nine months it takes from the World Health Organisation identifying the particular strains that are a threat (usually around February) to the vaccine being ready in the autumn, so making it much less effective.

But now scientists think they are closer than ever to finding the answer. And it involves targeting vaccines at a completely different part of the virus than current jabs aim for.

All flu jabs are made to attack hemagglutinins — proteins dotted all over the surface of flu viruses. These proteins help the flu virus bind to healthy cells, before breaking into them and taking over their internal machinery so the virus can replicate and spread.

Vaccines are currently made with a weakened version of hemagglutinin so that the immune system recognises it as foreign and produces the antibodies needed to fight flu.

If they later encounter the real virus, the antibodies lock on to the bulbous ‘head’ of the hemagglutinin protein, blocking the virus’s attempts to bind to healthy cells.

This part of the protein sticks out from the virus’s surface and is an easy target for antibodies to strike. But it’s also the part that mutates most.

Hemagglutinin is very important in terms of the flu virus binding to cells and getting inside them, explains Professor Peter Openshaw, an immunologist at Imperial College London. ‘But nearly all of the big genetic variations that occur in the flu virus happen up on the globular-shaped head of this protein,’ he adds.

Once those mutations occur, the antibodies triggered by the vaccine are largely powerless to fight infection.

One way round this is to make vaccines that target not the head of the protein but the ‘stalk’ region, where the hemagglutinin protein joins the main body of the virus.

Mutations occur much less frequently here than in the head, as the genetic material found there is vital for the virus’s survival, and constantly changing it could jeopardise this. The genetic make-up of the stalk region of hemagglutinin is also almost identical in all flu strains — making it an ideal target for a universal jab.

‘The stalk region is part of the basic structure of the protein and is needed to help the flu virus bind with cells so it can gain entry to them,’ says Professor Openshaw. ‘It cannot mutate as easily as the head part of the protein [can] as this would be lethal for the virus.

‘What scientists are now trying to do is use the stalk region as the basis of a vaccine. ‘Such a vaccine will hopefully activate the immune system to produce antibodies that will attack this area, rather than the head.

‘In theory, these antibodies would then recognise a wide variety of different flu viruses and cope not just with whatever current strain is in circulation but potentially all those that emerge in future — even ones capable of causing a pandemic.’

But it’s not that simple, and previous attempts to make a stalk-based flu jab have faltered. This is because, even when the head area of the protein has mutated, some of its genetic material stays the same.

The immune system, after years of exposure to flu infections or vaccines, remembers this material and pumps out antibodies in response.

Despite these potentially not being the right antibodies to fight off infection (because the virus has mutated), this drowns out the production of antibodies needed to target the stalk region.

But a few weeks ago, researchers at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York revealed they had got round this by genetically tinkering with the protein.

They replaced the head of the protein with new genetic viral material that the immune system would be less likely to recognise and attack.

This allowed the immune system to instead produce much higher levels of antibodies to target the stalk region.

They tested the experimental jab on 51 volunteers and found a single dose triggered ‘remarkably high’ levels of anti-stalk antibodies, they wrote in the journal Nature Medicine.

Now the scientists hope to set up larger trials, although this is likely to take several years.

But another one-off jab, using a different approach, is already undergoing trials in the U.S.

FluMos-v1 is similar to some existing jabs in that it produces antibodies to the hemagglutinin protein from the four different types of flu virus (two influenza type A strains and two influenza type B strains) that usually circulate. (Flu jabs usually protect against strains of A and B.)

But whereas existing vaccines carry just one copy of the protein from each of the four strains, FluMos-v1, which is being tested at the U.S. National Institutes for Health in Bethesda, Maryland, has 20.

The hope is that it fires up a much more potent immune response, enough to see off all future invading flu viruses. First results are expected in 2023.

‘I’m more optimistic than I used to be about the chances of developing a universal flu vaccine,’ says Professor Openshaw. ‘Progress is definitely being made,’ he says, though adding a note of caution: ‘But it could still be another ten years before we get there.’

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-10461359/One-wonder-jab-fight-strains-flu-LIFE.html

*********************************************

Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

*************************************

What This Scientist Said About Omicron Explains Everything…

Dr. Robert Malone a vaccine scientist known for his work on the mRNA vaccine believes there is some very good news emerging from the rapid spread of the COVID omicron variant, suggesting that God may have given the world a “Christmas present.”

Notably, Malone helped invent the mRNA technology used in the Pfizer and Moderna COVID vaccines.

Shortly before Christmas, Malone appeared on Fox News’s “The Ingraham Angle,” the doctor stated omicron may well do what vaccines have not been able to fully accomplish to date: provide strong immunity.

Here’s what Malone said, referring to the two-round initial shots and the booster:

“Omicron blows right through the vaccines and through the triple jab.”

“Now here’s the good news,” he continued. “The number of deaths from omicron worldwide is less than 10 [by] my last count.”

He then confirms that the vaccines and the mandates were only an illusion. It gets better, “Omicron blows right through the vaccines and through the triple jab.”

Malone contended:

“So the good news with omicron is very low disease, highly infectious. It looks an awful lot to the experienced vaccinologist like a live-attenuated virus vaccine that you might design for the purpose. It’s going to elicit a strong mucosal immune response.”

“This is about as good as we could possibly want right now in terms of outcomes.”

After a dramatic pause for effect, the doctor declared:

“Now, here’s the good news. The number of deaths from omicron worldwide is less than 10 to my last count.” In case you don’t get the significance, he adds, “if you believe in a God, this looks an awful lot like a Christmas present.”

Deep State Rabbithole has more of this report:

Delta and all the previous mutant versions dove deep into the patient’s lungs. That “can lead to serious illness.” This strain doesn’t, instead of shifting “to the upper airway, indicating that the virus is weakening.”

Since a vaccine is simply a man-made crippled copy of the virus to start with, omicron is a natural vaccine against itself. This variant is both a very low disease and highly infectious.

“It looks an awful lot to the experienced vaccinologist like a live-attenuated virus vaccine that you might design for purpose. This is about as good as we could possibly want right now in terms of outcomes.”

“The thing is with omicron, it has a reproductive coefficient — now that’s fancy medical epidemiology talk — but it has a reproductive coefficient with a measure of effectiveness that’s in the range of measles. It’s in the seven to 10 range.”

Monica Gandhi, an immunologist at the University of California, confirms that NO mandate is required:

“One infected person will on average spread it to seven to 10 more people. We’re all going to get infected. I hope this variant creates profound immunity in the population. It will hopefully end the pandemic.”

https://thepatriotnation.net/what-this-scientist-said-about-omicron-explains-everything/

***********************************************

FDA is accused of trying to force Americans to get vaccinated after 'asinine' decision to limit use of COVID antibody treatments because 'they don't work against Omicron'

Critics are expressing fury after the Food and Drug Administration revised the emergency use authorizations for COVID-19 antibody treatments from Regeneron and Eli Lilly to limit their use, saying the drugs are unlikely to work against the Omicron coronavirus variant.

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, who opened treatment centers to distribute the antibody drugs, slammed the decision, saying the FDA had acted 'without shred of clinical data to support its decision.'

Following the FDA ruling on Monday, Florida said it had been forced to close all of its treatment centers and cancel thousands of appointments, and DeSantis lashed out at President Joe Biden over the decision.

'There are real-world implications to Biden's medical authoritarianism – Americans' access to treatments is now subject to the whims of a failing president,' DeSantis said in a statement.

The FDA noted in its decision on Monday that Omicron accounts for more than 99 percent of U.S. infections, making it 'highly unlikely' the antibodies would help people now seeking treatment.

The agency said restricting their use would also eliminate unnecessary drug side effects from ineffective treatment, including allergic reactions.

The two treatments are still effective against Delta, but the CDC now estimates that Delta accounts for just 0.5 percent of new cases in the country.

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, who opened treatment centers to distribute the antibody drugs, slammed President Joe Biden over the decision, calling it 'medical authoritarianism'

Some critics accused the FDA of trying to restrict treatment options to coerce people into getting vaccinated.

'This is all about the Biden and his admin taking away a treatment that helps to try to force people into getting the Vaccine,' one person tweeted.

'I just saw that the FDA has withdrawn emergency approval for the Regeneron and Eli Lilly monoclonal antibodies. What are they doing? Trying to kill us?' another wrote.

'Ok, so now the govt is actually saying we want people to die. There is still delta floating around. To take away [emergency use authorization] is asinine,' another wrote.

The FDA said Monday the two antibody treatments are currently not cleared for use in any U.S. states or territories, but may be authorized in certain regions if they work against potential new variants.

Doctors have alternate therapies to battle early COVID-19 cases, including two new antiviral pills from Pfizer and Merck, but both are in short supply.

An antibody drug from GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) that remains effective also is in short supply.

Last month, the U.S. government had paused the distribution of Regeneron and Lilly's treatments and said the halt would continue until new data emerges on their efficacy against Omicron.

The two drugs are laboratory-made versions of virus-blocking antibodies. They are intended to head off severe disease and death by supplying concentrated doses of one or two antibodies early in an infection.

Then-President Donald Trump received Regeneron's antibody combination after he tested positive for the coronavirus in 2020.

GSK and Vir Biotech are boosting production of their alternative antibody drug, sotrovimab, to help meet soaring demand in the United States.

The FDA has also expanded its approval for the use of Gilead Sciences' antiviral COVID-19 drug remdesivir to treat non-hospitalized patients aged 12 years and above.

'The FDA is committed to continuing to review emerging data on all COVID-19 therapies related to the potential impact of variants and revise the authorizations further as appropriate to ensure healthcare providers have an effective arsenal of treatments for patients,' the agency said in a statement.

But the announcement, coming in a press release with no warning, drew criticism from officials in Florida as 'abrupt' and poorly supported.

'Rather than giving Americans the option for various COVID treatments, the FDA and the Biden Administration issued their royal decree, taking away the very thing that is proven to reduce hospitalizations and save lives,' said Florida Lieutenant Governor Jeanette Nuñez in a statement.

'Monoclonal antibody treatments like Regeneron have had a positive impact for thousands of Floridians,' she added.

'For the CDC and FDA, which have been consistently inconsistent throughout the entire pandemic, to restrict treatment does nothing but put individuals at risk.'

DeSantis has heavily promoted antibody drugs as a signature part of his administration's COVID-19 response, setting up infusion sites and lauding them at news conferences, while opposing vaccine mandates and other public health measures. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has also launched state-sponsored infusion sites.

The drugs are not a substitute for vaccination and are generally reserved for people who are the most vulnerable, including seniors, transplant recipients and those with conditions like heart disease and diabetes.

Since early January, the U.S. government has shipped enough doses of the two antibodies to treat more than 300,000 patients.

Both Regeneron and Lilly previously announced they were developing new antibodies that target omicron.

The move comes days after regulators broadened the use of remdesivir - the first drug approved for COVID-19 - to treat more patients.

On Friday, the FDA expanded the antiviral's approval to include adults and children with early COVID-19 who face a high risk of ending up in the hospital. Remdesivir previously had been limited to hospitalized patients.

An influential panel of federal experts had already recommended using the infused drug to try to head off hospitalization. The same guidelines from the National Institutes of Health panel recommend against continued use of Lilly and Regeneron's antibody drugs due to their reduced effectiveness against omicron.

Still, many hospitals will face challenges in ramping up remdesivir treatments.

The drug requires three consecutive IV infusions over three days, when used for non-hospitalized patients. That time-consuming process won't be an option for many over-capacity hospitals facing staff shortages.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10440181/FDA-faces-criticism-restricting-COVID-antibody-treatments.html

*********************************************

Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

*************************************

Super immunity on the horizon

A former CSIRO scientist’s discovery of crossover immunity between an ancestor of Covid-19 and the virus that has plunged the world into a third year of chaos has given rise to a candidate vaccine that could work against all future variants. The pan-Covid jab is set to enter human trials within months.

Linfa Wang, the one-time “batman” of Australian science who traced the path of the deadly Hendra virus from flying foxes, to horses and then people, and who now heads the Singapore government’s Covid research program, calls it a “silver lining” to the death and suffering unleashed by the pandemic.

It was a shaft of hope in an otherwise grim week, as the nation wearily marked the second anniversary of the virus’s onslaught. Nearly 3500 Australians have died to date, with the known number of people infected approaching two million.

Professor Wang, 61, leveraged the experience and dogged determination he used to identify the origin of Hendra virus to get to the bottom of another mystery.

The horse vaccine he helped develop at the CSIRO’s then Australian Animal Health Laboratory in Geelong for the zoonotic disease had also worked on Hendra’s cousin, the Nipah virus.

So why didn’t the neutralising antibodies carried by SARS survivors block the related Covid coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2?

Puzzled, he persuaded the Singapore government to allow him to perform an experiment with people who had contracted SARS during the 2002-04 outbreak. That virus killed 10 per cent of those infected – a much higher fatality rate than Covid-19 – but was sharply less contagious than Covid-19, striking only 8000 people mainly in Southeast Asia.

Professor Wang tested the blood of eight SARS survivors who had received the Pfizer vaccine against a panel of coronaviruses from the sarbecovirus subgroup that gave rise to Covid-19. This included the original Wuhan strain of SARS-CoV-2, its Beta and Delta variants, as well as five bat and pangolin sarbecoviruses.

To his astonishment, the results came back with bells on them: the vaccine had stimulated some of the highest immunity levels he had ever seen to all the sarbecoviruses, including the Covid variants. No such potent and all-encompassing antibody response was detected in blood samples from fully vaccinated individuals not exposed to the original SARS virus, even those who had also contracted Covid-19.

“That really was what people define as a Eureka moment,” Professor Wang told The Weekend Australian. “When I saw the data I just thought, ‘this is too good to believe’.”

He asked an assisting scientist, only half in jest, whether the report had been photoshopped.

“We repeated it and when we got the same data, I said, ‘wow, that’s big’. Against the 10 viruses we did, they were all up there,” he continued, lifting a hand to eye level and chopping the air. “When you give a SARS survivor two doses of the (Covid) vaccine they get this super-immunity. Their neutralising antibodies blocked everything from … Beta, Delta and now Omicron.”

How? Professor Wang said the human immune system was set up to recognise and target specific parts of an invading virus. Omicron emerged with alarming mutations to the spike protein, the needle-like outcrops on the surface of the virus that bind with human cells, allowing the hyper-contagious new variant to evade existing vaccines in some circumstances as well as most monoclonal antibody treatments.

Overlaying the Covid vaccine on the acquired immunity of a SARS survivor supercharged the immune system, forcing it to “go back and go deeper”, he said.

“Basically, you have to trigger the human immune system to work harder by giving it two related viruses that are still substantially different.”

This “opened the door” to what Nobel prize-winning immunologist Peter Doherty calls a consensus vaccine between SARS-1 and SARS-CoV-2 to protect against any future variant Covid might throw out. “This is the silver lining, right, of people dying and the whole world suffering,” Professor Wang said.

Taking advantage of Australia’s reopened international border, he returned last week to Victoria, his home of 25 years, to confer with former colleagues and researchers at Professor Doherty’s eponymous research institute. “We are looking for collaboration. A pandemic is not a national thing, it is an international thing,” Professor Wang said.

The 81-year-old Nobel laureate said the cross-reactive process was something he had looked at, but had been unable to pursue due to technology restraints. “It is a very exciting development,” Professor Doherty said.

Professor Wang’s team at the Emerging Infectious Disease Program at the Duke University-National University of Singapore medical school was one of a number of international research groups in the running. But his had the advantage of ready access to samples from SARS survivors and breakthrough assaying technology that allowed them to test the bloodwork against multiple sarbecoviruses. Animal studies of the candidate vaccine had shown it provided cross-protection in mice and negotiations were advancing with a number of pharmaceutical companies, he said. A phase-1 human safety trial was pencilled in for the coming months.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/science/batman-linfa-wang-to-the-rescue-with-covid-immunity-breakthrough/news-story/4993ce3d40904cca87c0370337b805a4

***************************************************

The Scale of Death Caused by the Suppression of Treatments for Covid-19

The debate about early treatments for covid-19 has been continuing despite all attempts by the corporate media to quash any notion that treatments might work. Mountains of data have been distributed on the internet through alternative sources. This data reveals a shocking indication of the scale of death that has been caused by suppression and censorship.

We know about the wicked suppression of ivermectin. For two years (two years!) and counting our health authorities did nothing to investigate the repurposing of existing treatments for potential use against covid-19. However, some talented doctors around the world didn’t waste any time. From the start, they were looking for ways to treat their patients and began to share their professional observations with colleagues. Discussions between individual doctors led to the formation of the FLCCC (Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance).

In mid-October 2020, Professor Paul E. Marik noticed a data signal indicating that ivermectin could play an important role in the treatment of covid-19. Professor Marik then presented his findings to the FLCCC. At that stage, the other members of the FLCCC were somewhat skeptical - they thought that perhaps Professor Marik might be overstating the case. However, after looking at the data in more detail the FLCCC came around to the idea and one month after Professor Marik’s presentation the FLCCC officially got behind the use of ivermectin.

Professor Marik is board certified in Internal Medicine, Critical Care Medicine, Neurocritical Care and Nutrition Science. For more than a decade Dr. Marik was Professor of Medicine and Chief of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School (EVMS). A position that ended about a week ago due to an ongoing legal battle with Sentara Norfolk General Hospital, where Dr. Marik is also the director of the ICU.

https://sovrintv.substack.com/p/the-scale-of-death-caused-by-the

**********************************************

What we know about the BA.2 Omicron variant

As newly reported cases of Covid-19 decline in parts of the U.S., researchers around the world are monitoring a new variant of the Omicron variant dubbed BA.2. The variant is under observation by countries including Denmark, India and the U.K., though little is still known about its properties and the threat it may pose.

Here’s what scientists and public-health experts know so far about the BA. 2 variant:

What is the BA. 2 variant of Covid-19?

The BA. 2 variant of Covid-19 is a relation of the widely-spreading original Omicron variant known as BA. 1, according to Theodora Hatziioannou, an associate professor of virology at Rockefeller University.

The two variants arose around the same time and come from the same immediate ancestor strain. They have many mutations in common but there are also around 20 mutations that are different between the two variants. The differences between this variant and BA. 1 can be seen in the spike protein of the virus, Dr. Hatziioannou said.

Viruses mutate all the time and diversification within a variant is normal. The earlier Delta variant comprised more than 200 sublineages before it was replaced by Omicron, according to Francois Balloux, director of the University College London Genetics Institute.

Is the BA. 2 variant in the U. S.? Yes. The BA. 2 variant has been detected in the U.S., according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which provides estimates of the prevalence of various Covid-19 strains. The CDC’s estimates show that Omicron was likely responsible for 99.9% of Covid-19 infections in the week ending Jan. 22. The CDC said the prevalence of some other variants including BA. 2 was included in the Omicron tally.

Where else in the world has the BA. 2 variant been detected?

At least 40 countries have detected the BA. 2 variant, including the U.K., Denmark, India, Sweden, Singapore and the Philippines. It isn’t possible at this point to determine where the sublineage originated, according to the U.K. Health Security Agency.

The BA. 2 variant may be displacing the BA. 1 in Denmark, said Dr. Hatziioannou. “They’re identifying more and more cases of BA. 2 rather than BA. 1,” she said.

Is BA. 2 a Covid-19 variant of concern?

No. The World Health Organization designated Omicron the fifth “variant of concern” in November based on the risks posed by changes in its makeup and behaviour compared with other versions of the virus, including its increased infectiousness. It hasn’t given BA. 2 any designation, but has urged researchers to closely track and study the variant. Earlier variants of concern included Delta, which drove a wave of cases in the U.S. and elsewhere last summer, and Beta, which like Omicron was first identified in South Africa.

Other variants have remained variants of interest, meaning they have genetic changes that affect the way the virus works, according to the WHO. Lambda and Mu are variants of interest that sickened people in some parts of the world, such as South America, but didn’t outcompete variants including Delta in the U.S. and elsewhere.

What are the symptoms for the BA. 2 variant? Is the BA. 2 variant more severe than the Omicron variant?

It isn’t clear whether the BA. 2 variant behaves in materially different ways than the Omicron variant, which research has shown to be far more infectious than previous strains but also less likely to lead to severe disease in many cases.

In Denmark, one of the countries with high rates of BA. 2, an initial analysis by the government-run State Serum Institute showed no differences in hospitalisation for BA. 2 compared with BA.1.

Though BA. 2 continues to spread in different countries, the CDC said the variant was responsible for a very small share of recent Covid-19 infections compared with other circulating viruses in the U.S. and around the world. “Currently there is no evidence that the BA. 2 lineage is more severe than the BA. 1 lineage. [The] CDC continues to monitor variants that are circulating both domestically and internationally,” said the agency.

How is the BA. 2 variant responding to treatment and vaccinations?

Though it is too early to tell, Dr. Hatziioannou predicts the BA. 2 variant will be as resistant to monoclonal antibodies as BA.1. She said there are only slight differences on the spike protein of BA. 2 compared with BA. 1, leading her to conclude that they are likely to behave similarly. The monoclonal antibody treatment made by GlaxoSmithKline PLC may be effective in treating this variant because it has been successful in treating BA.1. Pfizer Inc. and Merck & Co. antiviral pills for Covid-19 continue to work against the original Omicron variant and may have similar effects against BA.2.

Researchers predict that there won’t be a significant difference in how vaccines hold up against BA. 2, compared with the original Omicron. Most of the mutation differences between the two variants occur outside areas of the virus that are important for immune recognition. Studies are under way to confirm this.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/the-wall-street-journal/what-we-know-about-the-ba2-omicron-variant/news-story/25da591c6ae7775fbe0e9f141601cf9b

*********************************************

Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

*************************************

Doctor’s offering early treatment of Covid have Treated Over 150,000 COVID-19 Patients With 99.99 Percent Survival

A doctor who has been offering free telehealth services to COVID-19 patients during the pandemic says that early treatment for COVID-19 works, claiming that he has a 99.99 percent survival rate.

“We have a team of volunteer free doctors that donate their time to help treat these patients that come to us,” Dr. Ben Marble, the founder of myfreedoctor.com, an online medical consultation service, said at a roundtable discussion hosted by Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) on Jan. 24.

He added, “We deliver the early treatment protocols to them as early as we can, and we have a 99.99 percent survival rate. So, I believe myfreedoctor.com, the free volunteered doctors have settled the science on this—early treatment works, period!”

Marble was answering Johnson’s question about what people can do if they or their loved ones have COVID-19.

People can visit the website myfreedoctor.com, create an account, and fill out a patient intake form if the doctors are accepting new patients for that day. One of the doctors will then reach out in less than 24 hours. With a huge demand for their services, the physicians say they can only “accept a certain number of patients each day.”

Marble says that he and his small team of volunteer doctors prescribe Dr. Peter McCullough’s treatment protocol, which consists of hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, monoclonal antibodies, prednisone, and other low-cost generic drugs. They also prescribe vitamins D and C, and zinc.

McCullough, a cardiologist, and epidemiologist, along with several physicians put together an early treatment protocol to provide outpatient care for COVID-19 patients. Their paper was published in The American Journal of Medicine in August 2020.

Dr. Pierre Kory, a pulmonologist and the President at the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care (FLCCC) Alliance, says that the public is not aware that there are doctors across the country who will provide telehealth and early treatment for COVID-19.

“On our website, we have a button, which says find a provider. We’ve tried to collect as many telehealth providers that treat all states in the country,” Kory said.

“We are trying to let that message be known because that message is being suppressed that this disease is treatable,” he added.

Kory also claims that there is corruption at the federal level in suppressing early treatment with repurposed cheap drugs and their availability and that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has been “captured by the pharmaceutical industry.”

“The corruption is because they don’t want you to use off-label, repurposed generic medicines. It does not provide profit to the system,” Kory said, adding that, “you know what’s going on in this country right now, is that the CDC has been captured by the pharmaceutical industry.”

“They sent out a memo in August of 2021, they sent out a similar memo back in the spring 2020, telling the nation’s physicians and pharmacists not to use generic medicines.”

The Epoch Times has reached out to the CDC for comment.

Early treatments were and continue to be discouraged by the CDC, whose guidance since the beginning of the pandemic up until January 2022, only focused on people self-quarantining for 14 days, keeping hydrated, taking analgesics, and only seeking hospital care when they can’t breathe or turn blue. They also warned people to not take any medications not approved for COVID-19.

“People have been seriously harmed and even died after taking products not approved for use to treat or prevent COVID-19, even products approved or prescribed for other uses,” the CDC wrote on its potential treatments webpage.

The weblink provided for the alleged harmful product was related to a March 2020 health alert warning of a serious health effect from ingesting non-pharmaceutical chloroquine phosphate used to clean fish tanks. This alert came after an Arizona man and his wife took the non-pharmaceutical drug in an attempt to self-medicate for COVID-19.

For the past two years, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has only authorized limited early outpatient treatments for COVID-19 that include monoclonal antibodies for high-risk patients and antiviral pills from Merck and Pfizer. However, the FDA on Jan. 24 announced it was limiting the use of Eli Lilly and Regeneron monoclonal antibodies only to patients “likely to have been infected with or exposed to a variant that is susceptible to these treatments.”

Johnson held the roundtable discussion to offer a different perspective on the response to the pandemic, including on “the current state of knowledge of early and hospital treatment, vaccine efficacy and safety, what went right, what went wrong, what should be done now, and what needs to be addressed long term.”

The discussion panel consisted of health experts and scientists that included McCullough, Dr. Robert Malone, and Dr. Paul Marik.

According to a press release, Johnson also invited over a dozen prominent figures involved in developing, promoting, and leading the pandemic response, including the CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky and White House Coronavirus Response Coordinator Jeffrey Zients. All of the individuals declined to attend the forum.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/doctors-organization-has-treated-over-150000-covid-19-patients-with-99-99-percent-survival_4236896.html

**************************************************

COVID-19 oral antivirals have been embraced in much of the US and could be a pandemic game changer

Jeff Carlson is a keen cyclist who has kept active throughout the pandemic, and is double-vaccinated and boosted.

But as he lay on his couch struggling for breath, he felt worse than he could ever remember feeling in his life.

Within a day or two of experiencing COVID-19 symptoms, the 61-year-old from Minnesota was "going downhill" fast. "I was laying on my couch. A lot of my body functions were slowing," he said.

His blood oxygen levels, which he measures regularly because of underlying health conditions, dropped dangerously low. In his condition, he could have been sent straight to hospital.

But his telehealth team offered him what he now describes as a "miracle drug": a course of one of the newly authorised oral antivirals for COVID-19.

A friend picked the pills up at the pharmacy for him. Mr Carlson said less than 24 hours later, things were turning around.

A week later he could barely believe he had been sick at all. "I'm back out exercising … and I don't have any side effects," he said.

Mr Carlson was among the very first Americans to be prescribed oral antivirals for COVID-19.

In December, the US Food and Drug Administration authorised Pfizer's Paxlovid and Merck's molnupiravir for the treatment of mild to moderate cases of COVID-19.

The drugs are taken twice a day for five days with the aim of preventing hospitalisations.

"I believe it saved my life," Mr Carlson said. "And if it didn't save my life, it saved me from taking up another bed in the hospital."

Vaccines are still considered the best defence against serious disease. The pills are intended for patients who are not yet hospitalised but are at risk of being admitted or of dying.

Until now, COVID-19 treatments, including monoclonal antibodies and the antiviral remdesivir, have largely only been available in hospitals because they are administered intravenously.

The arrival of the take-at-home COVID treatments has been eagerly awaited. "It's a game changer that allows us to get back to some kind of normal life where we can treat patients effectively and easily," Bryan Jarabek, from M Health Fairview in Minnesota — Mr Carlson's healthcare provider — said.

Dr Jarabek said he and his team were thrilled by Mr Carlson's speedy recovery. "We all celebrated a tonne," Dr Jarabek said.

M Health Fairview is just beginning to roll out the new medicines and is experiencing the kinds of issues that will challenge providers the world over.

The first issue with antivirals is supply. Mass production of the drugs is time consuming, so for the moment stock is "extremely limited", according to Dr Jarabek.

There is also a small time frame in which the drugs can be prescribed. The drugs interfere with the virus's ability to multiply so a patient must take them within five days of becoming ill.

That means that in a very short space of time the patient has to be tested for COVID-19, get the result, consult with their medical team, locate a pharmacy that has the drug and start taking it.

The third issue is that although Paxlovid has a far higher success rate in preventing hospitalisations in trials — 90 per cent compared to 30 per cent for molnupiravir — it has potentially dangerous interactions with other drugs.

For Mr Carlson, who was already on medications for diabetes and coronary heart disease, Paxlovid just was not an option.

He was lucky that in his case, molnupiravir worked. "I was told this drug that I took had a 30 per cent effective rate," he said. "In my case, it was 100 per cent."

Katherine Yang, a clinical professor of pharmacy at the University of California San Francisco (UCSF), said the danger of drug interactions associated with Paxlovid were "a little bit of a Catch 22".

The very patients who could benefit most from the COVID pills are the very ones who shouldn't take it.

Dr Yang said the arrival of the first generation of COVID-19 pills was nevertheless "exciting and the next step".

"I don't know if it's the magic bullet," she said. "It's the most magic bullet we have so far."

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-01-27/australians-to-soon-have-access-to-covid-oral-antiviral-drugs/100779702

***********************************************

Proposed State Law Would Make It Illegal to Request a Person’s Vaccine Status

A newly proposed South Carolina law would make it illegal for certain institutions to ask a person for their COVID-19 vaccination status.

“The government has no place in making you or telling you to take the vaccination or threatening your livelihood if you don’t,” said state Rep. William Chumley, a co-sponsor of the bill, known as H.4848.

A representative of a public, private, or nonprofit entity who asks about a person’s COVID-19 vaccination status should be fined more than $14,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both, according to the text of the bill.

“South Carolina didn’t want to get in this fight,” Chumley told local media outlets. “It was brought to us by the federal government.”

The bill is currently being discussed in a state House committee.

Lawmakers who sponsored the bill said they support the measure because it can serve as a bulwark against government coercion.

“It’s about protecting people from being forced or coerced into getting a vaccine for purposes of employment, admission to schools, or government services,” state Rep. Wayne Long, a Republican, told Channel 2 News.

“I get calls from people literally every week begging the legislature to take some kind of action to protect people’s rights, to protect their privacy, and to keep them from being forced or coerced into getting a vaccine that they frankly don’t want to get,” Long added. “And even for people who have gotten the vaccine, I’ve spoken with many of them, it’s really a privacy issue.”

South Carolina labor law attorney Jeremy Summerlin told local media that he believes the bill would be very difficult to implement.

“You put employers in an impossible position,” Summerlin remarked. “You’ve got a (proposed) state law now that says that if you ask about that, and try to comply with federal law, then you are going to jail,” he added.

“What if you ask your coworker about their vaccination status, and you are just having a conversation?” he said. “What if you are a nurse, and you ask a fellow nurse about it? Do you want the local law enforcement to go in and arrest them because of this law?”

The proposed law comes two weeks after the Supreme Court, in a 6–3 majority opinion, blocked an Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) emergency temporary standard that required employees at companies with 100 or more workers to either get the vaccine or submit to weekly testing. And on Tuesday, OSHA published an announcement saying it would formally withdraw the rule Wednesday.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/proposed-state-law-would-make-it-illegal-to-request-a-persons-vaccine-status_4235736.html

*********************************************

Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

*************************************

The SON of Omicron: health expert warns about new Covid-19 variant that's even MORE contagious

A version of Omicron that is even more contagious than the original strain could extend Australia's deadly latest wave of cases, a leading health expert has warned.

The new BA.2 subvariant has been detected across Europe and already makes up 45 per cent of all cases in Denmark.

Scientists fear the 'stealth' variant could also be even harder to track than previous strains as it can only be confirmed through lab analysis rather than a PCR test.

University of Melbourne epidemiologist Professor Nancy Baxter said initial data showed BA.2 could be even more infectious than its more common BA.1 ancestor.

She said it was unclear if BA.2 would worsen the latest wave of Omicron cases or whether it would even land on Australian shores.

'It looks like, if people can believe it, it could be more contagious than Omicron,' she said. 'So if it gets here, it may extend our waves and they may take a lot longer to get out of. But we don't know enough yet, so stay tuned.'

Danish Health Minister Magnus Heunicke on Wednesday said the BA.2 subvariant appeared to be more contagious than the original Omicron variant.

The BA.1 lineage accounts for 98 per cent of all cases globally but in Denmark has been pushed aside by BA.2, which became the dominant strain in the second week of January.

The United Kingdom Health Security Agency has designated BA.2 a variant under investigation, saying it could have a growth advantage.

Preliminary calculations suggest BA.2 could be 1.5 times more infectious than BA.1, Denmark's top infectious disease authority Statens Serum Institute (SSI) said in a note on Wednesday.

However, an initial analysis by the institute showed no difference in the risk of hospitalisation for BA.2 compared to BA.1. "There is some indication that it is more contagious, especially for the unvaccinated, but that it can also infect people who have been vaccinated to a greater extent," SSI's technical director Tyra Grove Krause said at the briefing.

This could mean the peak of Denmark's epidemic will extend a bit further into February than previously forecast, Krause said.

BA.2 cases have also been registered in the UK, Sweden and Norway but to a much lesser extent than in Denmark.

Denmark on Wednesday announced plans to scrap the last of its Covid-19 restrictions by February 1, the latest country in Europe to do so despite record high daily infection numbers

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10445209/Expert-stuns-Karl-Stefanovic-warns-contagious-Covid-variant-BA-2.html

*********************************************

Military Whistleblowers May Blow Up the COVID Vaccine Narrative

On January 26, thousands showed up in Washington, D.C., to protest COVID-19 vaccine mandates. The protest received little if any coverage in the corporate media. To try and give the clinicians and researchers fighting the vaccine mandates more coverage, Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) held an all-day panel on Monday

Two speakers shared some shocking statistics about illness and disease in the military over the 11 months COVID vaccines have been available. Human rights attorney Leigh Dennis raised concerns about data on myocarditis in the Department of Defense (DOD) tracking system. Myocarditis is the only side effect warning the FDA places on the mRNA vaccines.

Dennis told Johnson that in August of 2021, when a DOD report was run on the incidence of acute myocarditis, there were 1,239 cases. When the report is run for the same period now, there are only 307 cases. She added that the initial report for January of 2022 showed 176 cases. Now it only shows 17.

Dennis said the military data was one of the most comprehensive because it contains baseline rates. The occurrence of disease across all categories for the previous five years averaged 1.7 million. Ten months after the vaccine program launched, it jumped to nearly 22 million. Dennis added:

“We need to not be calling this suspicious. With all due respect, we need to be asking hard questions of the DOD. And I will close by saying they are charged at least in part with protecting the sanctity and the welfare of the brave men and women who are defending this country. And right now these numbers indicate something is drastically wrong.”

Dennis is working with attorney Thomas Rentz to support three whistleblowers who are doctors in the military and who signed affidavits under the penalty of perjury. Renz identified them as Lt. Colonel Dr. Theresa Long, Dr. Samuel Sigoloff, and Colonel Dr. Peter Chambers. According to Renz, the data the physicians provided showed alarming increases in several diagnoses:

Data like this provides a signal that requires further investigation. Much like any correlation, researchers must prove causation. However, it does not appear from the testimony that any serious question is underway. There has been anecdotal data on reproductive issues following the vaccines, and the agencies just released information affirming that vaccines can affect a woman’s menstrual cycle. The DOD data, if confirmed, raises questions about safety in pregnancy and childbearing years. Yet, the CDC still recommends vaccines for Americans down to the age of five and pregnant women.

Even more disturbing, Renz alleges the CDC receives data from the Department of Defense through a program called Project Salus. In the weekly report for September 28, 2021, Renz stated that 71% of the new COVID cases and 60% of the hospitalizations were fully vaccinated. Meanwhile, Dr. Anthony Fauci appeared multiple times on television to assert the late summer wave was a pandemic of the unvaccinated.

Unlike the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), where anyone may submit a report, the information provided by these would be more like insurance claims data that contain diagnosis codes. A recent preprint study on claims data from Kaiser Northwest showed the frequency of myopericarditis was 1 in 1,860 for males 18-24 and 1 in 2,650 for boys 12-17. This finding was more than two times higher than the previously cited number from the FDA of 1 in 5,000. It would not be surprising if DOD data showed higher rates of post-vaccine illnesses that the CDC or FDA report from the less rigorous systems the agencies use.

Dennis asked Johnson to take the testimony of the whistleblowers and put them on the record. Johnson committed to taking their transcribed interviews and shared he has put the DOD on notice to preserve all records pending an investigation. As of December 2021, an estimated 40,000 active troops remained unvaccinated and under threat of discharge. Each branch is implementing its own policy under the mandate. Increases in serious illnesses such as cancer and heart disease will further impair military readiness. All while hotspots worldwide, like the Ukrainian border, are heating up.

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/stacey-lennox/2022/01/25/military-whistleblowers-may-blow-up-the-covid-vaccine-narrative-n1552966

*****************************************

Two-thirds of Covid cases in England last month may have been in people who were REINFECTED, official data suggests

One of the country's largest surveillance studies — which randomly tested 100,000 people in the fortnight ending January 20 — found 4.4 per cent had the virus.

Imperial College London experts, who carry out the project, said it was the highest rate ever recorded, mirroring other swabbing surveys.

The team also claimed England's Covid outbreak was now starting to plateau after the Omicron wave 'rapidly' dropped off on its own.

Analysis of the data showed 2,315 of the 3,582 positive tests in the sample (64.6 per cent) were people who had coronavirus before.

And a further 267 (7.5 per cent) suspected they had caught Covid previously, even though their case was not confirmed with a test at the time.

Getting Covid after being fully-jabbed triggers 'super-immunity'

Fully-vaccinated people who catch Covid end up with 'super immunity', scientists have claimed.

Oregon Health and Science University experts say the same is also true for people who get infected before getting two jabs.

Academics took blood samples from more than 100 fully-vaccinated volunteers and exposed them against three different strains of coronavirus.

Volunteers with 'hybrid' immunity produced an 'amazingly high' antibody response, tests showed.

Their antibodies were 10 times more potent than proteins made by participants who managed to dodge Covid completely.

Despite the study being carried out before the emergence of Omicron, the authors believe the findings will hold up against the highly-transmissible variant.

And the high levels of protection among those with hybrid immunity could see the virus become a 'mostly mild' infection and bring about the end of the pandemic, the researchers said.

Professor Paul Elliott, director of the REACT programme, told a press briefing: 'What we are essentially seeing is the same sort of people catching Covid before are catching it again.'

The REACT-1 data suggests one in 23 people in England were infected with the virus over that two-week period.

Despite extremely high prevalence last month, cases have been dropping in all age groups other than under-18s.

It was highest in those aged five- to 11-year-olds over the course of the month (7.81 per cent) and lowest in those aged 75 and over (2.43 per cent).

Professor Elliott added: 'There is good news in our data in that infections had been rapidly dropping during January.

'But they are still extremely high and may have recently stalled at a very high prevalence.

'Of particular concern is that there is rapidly increasing prevalence among children now they are mixing more following the start of the school term.

'And, compared with December, prevalence in older people aged 65 and over has increased seven- to 12-fold, which may lead to increased hospitalisations.

'It's therefore vital that we continue to monitor the situation closely to understand the impact of the Omicron variant, which now makes up almost all infections in the country.'

Regionally, Covid was most prevalent in the North East, where 6.85 per cent of residents had the virus during the month.

In comparison only 2.93 per cent of people in the South East ended up testing positive during the month.

Health and Social Care Secretary Sajid Javid said: 'It's reassuring to see Covid infections beginning to slow across the country, as we move back to Plan A.

'Covid rates are still high so as we learn to live with the virus it is vital we continue to be vigilant — wash your hands, let in fresh air, get tested and, if you haven't already, get boosted now.'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10440351/TWO-THIRDS-Covid-cases-England-reinfections-month.html

*********************************************

Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

*************************************

Pfizer to launch trial of Omicron-targeted COVID vaccine

Pfizer and BioNTech say they have started a clinical trial to test a new version of their vaccine specifically designed to target the COVID-19 Omicron variant, which has eluded some of the protection provided by the original two-dose vaccine regimen.

Banking on volunteers in the United States, the companies plan to test the immune response generated by the Omicron-based vaccine both as a three-shot regimen in unvaccinated people and as a booster shot for people who already received two doses of their original vaccine.

They are also testing a fourth dose of the current vaccine against a fourth dose of the Omicron-based vaccine in people who received a third dose of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine three to six months earlier.

The companies plan to study the safety and tolerability of the shots in the more than 1400 people who will be enrolled in the trial.

“While current research and real-world data show that boosters continue to provide a high level of protection against severe disease and hospitalisation with Omicron, we recognise the need to be prepared in the event this protection wanes over time and to potentially help address Omicron and new variants in the future,” Pfizer’s head of vaccine research and development, Kathrin Jansen, said in a statement on Wednesday AEDT.

Depending on the amount of clinical trial data required by regulators, it may not be possible to realise a current plan to launch an Omicron-targeting vaccine by the end of March, BioNTech said.

Pfizer has said that two doses of the original vaccine may not be sufficient to protect against infection from Omicron, and that protection against hospitalisations and deaths may be waning.

Still, the US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention says a third dose of an mRNA vaccine like the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine has provided 90 per cent protection against hospitalisation due to COVID-19.

Some countries have already started offering additional booster doses, but a recent study from Israel showed that while a fourth dose of an mRNA vaccine boosted antibodies, the level was not high enough to prevent Omicron infection.

DATA The European Medicines Agency (EMA) said on Friday that international regulators want data from clinical studies like the one being done by Pfizer and BioNTech before approval of a new vaccine.

EMA said these studies should show that the new vaccines elicit more neutralising antibodies in the blood than current vaccines and might also protect against new variants of concern.

BioNTech declined to comment on what type of data it was asked to file with regulators.

It said an analysis of antibodies elicited by its Omicron-targeted booster should help answer whether shots will be needed that address more than one variant at a time. It hopes to show the antibodies neutralise a spectrum of variants.

Still, some scientists question whether any change is currently needed.

“The goal of this vaccine is to protect against serious illness,” said Dr Paul Offit, an infectious disease expert at the University of Pennsylvania. “To date, these vaccines do that, including protection against Omicron.”

https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/pfizer-to-launch-trial-of-omicron-targeted-covid-vaccine-20220126-p59r9g.html

**************************************************

Growing up poor affects your BRAIN: Children in low-income households show slower activity in key neural regions linked to thinking and learning, study reveals

This study of cognitive development in neonates is interesting but its generalizability is low. We know that IQ measured in young children shows negligible correlation with IQ in adulthood, for instance. And the lesson from HeadStart is that early improvements fade over time

Children who grow up in poorer households show slower activity in key brain regions linked to both thinking and learning, a study has warned.

Experts from Columbia University found that the brain development of infants in low-income families varied with the amount of financial support they were given.

Scans at age one showed faster brain activity in kids whose families were given $333 (£250) of support monthly compared to those given only $20 (£15) per month.

It is unclear if the differences in brain activity will persist as the children age, or how they might influence cognitive and behavioural growth.

However, in older children, activity in the regions in question has previously been linked to the development of learning skills.

The researchers are now investigating how the payments benefited the children, with possibilities including facilitating better nutrition, or relieving parental stress.

Either way, they said, the results suggest that interventions designed to reduce poverty could benefit infant brain development and improve later outcomes.

The investigation was undertaken by neuroscientist Kimberly Noble of New York's Columbia University and her colleagues.

'The brain changes speak to the remarkable malleability of the brain, especially early in childhood,' said Professor Noble.

'We have known for many years that growing up in poverty puts children at risk for lower school achievement, reduced earnings, and poorer health.

'However, until now, we haven't been able to say whether poverty itself causes differences in child development, or whether growing up in poverty is simply associated with other factors that cause those differences.'

In the study, the researchers measured brain activity levels among a subset of 435 one-year-old children who were participating in the so-called 'Baby's First Years' trial.

This randomised controlled trial into the benefits of poverty reduction has seen 1,000 low-income mothers recruited from postpartum wards in four US metropolitan areas — New Orleans, New York City, Omaha, and Minneapolis–Saint Paul.

The mothers, who were primarily Black or Latina and not college educated, were then given a cash gift of either $333 (£250) or $20 (£15) per month to spend it whatever way they chose.

While these results come from one year into the interventions, the trial is still ongoing, and the mothers will continue to receive the monthly cash gifts until their children are four years and four months old.

Each child's brain activity was measured using an electroencephalography, or 'EEG', machine via an electrode-bearing cap that was placed on the child's head.

The researchers found that children whose mothers were given $333 per month had around 20 per cent more high-frequency brain activity than those whose parents were only given $20 of support monthly.

High-frequency brain activity in the frontal region has previously been linked to both the development of learning and thinking skills.

Professor Noble explained that children’s brains naturally adapt to their experiences. 'All healthy brains are shaped by their environments and experiences, and we are not saying that one group has "better" brains,' she said.

'But — because of the randomized design — we know that the $333 per month must have changed children's experiences or environments, and that their brains adapted to those changed circumstances.'

'Families are all different, and the potential promise of money as a way of directly supporting families is that it allows parents to make choices about what their children most need,' said paper author Katherine Magnuson. 'Thus, there may not be just one way in which money positively affects families; —money may matter in a lot of small ways.

'We hear from the mothers in our study how challenging it is to raise children without enough money. 'A few hundred dollars a month has the potential to do a lot of good for these families, and we are grateful that we will continue to learn from them about how the money has helped them meet their goals.'

'Global evidence is thin on how children are affected by cash transfers, especially with respect to very young children,' said fellow paper author and applied economist Lisa Gennetian of North Carolina's Duke University.

'This is mostly because it is so hard and expensive to objectively capture children's development. This study's findings on infant brain activity are unprecedented.'

The outcomes seen, she added, 'really speak to how anti-poverty policies — including the types of expanded child tax credits being debated in the US — can and should be viewed as investments in children.'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-10436909/Extra-cash-low-income-mothers-influence-baby-brains.html

***********************************************

Biden Forced To Bend The Knee To Trump, Admit He Was Right

Joe Biden (well, the people calling the shots for Joe Biden) have made such a mess out of the Southern border that it’s not even funny.

The media fell over itself to label Trump’s border policy a failure, yet have nothing to say when Biden fills cages with kids, to 1700% of capacity … during what we are told is a pandemic.

It really is not even funny. The number of rapes and abuse of children that this administration is responsible for are mind boggling. This administration has committed crimes against humanity not seen since the Obama/Biden admin ran guns to drug cartels.

Things have gotten so bad that Biden has been forced to concede that Trump was right … but you won’t hear this on the TV ‘news’

Conservative Treehouse reported:

‘The JoeBama administration are pathetic in their manipulation of policy.

After taking apart the Trump agreement with central American nations (Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador) to secure their own northern border the mass migration toward the United States began…. a crisis created. However, once the crisis turns public opinion against them, the JoeBama administration then proposes to return to the exact same policy President Trump initiated and Biden destroyed.

The White House and the media then herald the return of the Trump agreement as a groundbreaking new policy initiative instituted by JoeBama. It would be funny, if it were not so ridiculous to watch it in real time.’

CNN repoerted – The Biden administration has secured agreements for Mexico, Honduras, and Guatemala to tighten their borders and stem the flow of migration, Special Assistant to the President for Immigration for the Domestic Policy Council Tyler Moran told MSNBC Monday.

“We’ve secured agreements for them to put more troops on their own border. Mexico, Honduras and Guatemala have all agreed to do this. That not only is going to prevent the traffickers, and the smugglers, and cartels that take advantage of the kids on their way here, but also to protect those children,” Moran said.

The Biden administration has struggled to keep up with the influx of migrants coming to the border and as there has been a major spike in the number of migrant children in US custody. (read more)’

They did not ‘struggle’ they created this situation on purpose. They don’t care about all the lives that were and are yet to be ruin from their policies. The left wants everyone equally poor, so poor that they can not revolt.

Unfortunately, they are well on their way to making that a reality.

https://uafreport.com/mark/biden-forced-to-bend-the-knee-to-trump-admit-he-was-right-we-told-you-so-joe/

*********************************************

Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

*************************************

Omicron vaccine on the way

The emphasis on vaccines is wrong headed. Medicines to cure it are the way of the future. Several are now available

The race is on to find a variant-proof vaccine

Since the emergence of Omicron, both Pfizer and Moderna have announced they're working on vaccines to specifically target the variant, with production promised as early as March of this year.

So, are variant-specific vaccines the way we regain control of COVID?

A vaccine targeting Omicron will increase immunity to the variant on both an individual and population level.

However, variant-specific vaccines are ultimately a reactive measure that could always leave us behind the eight ball. By the time we roll out any variant-specific vaccine, a wave of infections driven by that variant may already have peaked, and a new variant will likely be on the way.

The solution to this problem may be "variant-proof" vaccines, also known as "universal" COVID vaccines. These are vaccines that work across different variants, rather than being targeted to a specific variant. These are in development and could be a proactive way to prevent new variants from taking hold.

Variant-specific vaccines could take too long to roll out
Scientists have little doubt vaccination with an Omicron-specific vaccine will provide enhanced immunity to Omicron.

Approvals of these new vaccines should be comparatively rapid because they're similar to previously approved vaccines, though some additional data on safety and efficacy will be required.

Reactively relying on developing variant-specific vaccines, even under idealised production and distribution systems, would always leave us vulnerable to disruptive waves of infection and pose ongoing challenges to health strategies.

Waves of new variants would engulf the population faster than variant-specific vaccines could ever be deployed.

Mass infection isn't likely to protect against future variants
Health officials predict almost all Australians will soon be exposed to Omicron.

This has left many wondering if mass exposure could finally provide us with the antibody protection required for the fabled "herd immunity", making the need for future variant-specific vaccines unnecessary.

A small-scale pre-print study, yet to be reviewed by other scientists, suggests infection with Omicron did produce some antibodies that could neutralise Delta, but only around a quarter the magnitude of those produced against the infecting variant.

Whether these antibodies would be sufficient to protect against the infection from the Delta or other variants, remains to be established.

Most antibodies induced by vaccination and natural infection predominantly target regions of the virus that can easily mutate.

It's plausible the next variants that emerge could be even more different in this region than Delta or Omicron. This means it could evade current antibody responses induced by infection, or by vaccines specific for either the original virus or the Omicron variant.

So it's likely mass infection with Omicron won't protect us from catching future variants.

Here's where a variant-proof vaccine comes in

These are vaccines which generate antibodies to regions of the virus that cannot be easily mutated.

The goal of using such vaccines across the population is to protect us not just against current variants of the virus, but also against future variants.

Unlike the current reactive strategy of generating variant-specific vaccines following the emergence of a new invasive threat, a universal vaccine could be used to prevent a new variant from ever taking hold.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-01-25/will-an-omicron-specific-vaccine-control-covid/100778152

***********************************************

Dissecting the supreme court's split decision on vaccine mandates

Major issues remain to be resolved with respect to the Chevron doctrine and agency power and the question of what police power, if any, the federal government has.

The Supreme Court has issued its opinions in the two vaccine mandate cases. In the case involving the mandate that all employers with 100 or more employees require their staff to be vaccinated (with very limited exceptions), the Court, by a 6-3 vote, reinstated an injunction against the regulation adopted by the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) being enforced. The Justices in the majority were Justices Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett. The dissenters were Justices Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan.

In the case involving the mandate that all healthcare workers at facilities that receive Medicare or Medicaid funds be vaccinated (with the exception of employees who telecommute entirely) or that the medical facility with unvaccinated healthcare workers would be barred from participating in Medicare and Medicaid, the Court, by a 5-4 vote, lifted the injunction against the applicable regulation. The Justices in the majority were Justices Roberts, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan and Kavanaugh. The dissenters were Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Barrett.

Note that the switch by Justices Roberts and Kavanaugh from blocking a vaccine mandate in the one case to allowing a vaccine mandate in the other case created the mess and confusion about the power of the Federal government to mandate that Americans be jabbed with a vaccine or lose their jobs. This reinforces the “enigma of Justice Roberts” and perhaps the alliance in that “enigma” of Justice Kavanaugh.

Before we object that it is unfair to call these votes a reinforcement of such an “enigma” since Justices Roberts and Kavanaugh are part of a conservative majority committed to enforcing and interpreting the Constitution as written and generally join the Court’s conservatives in opinions of the Court and in dissents, let me say that I am not suggesting that Justices Roberts and Kavanaugh have followed in the footsteps of Justices like Justice Souter, who once appointed and seated, became a reliable liberal vote.

The reason I say “enigma” is that in major cases where the weight of the major liberal institutions in the media and the universities and the leaders of the Democrats express outrage at the possibility of striking at one of their sacred cows and they scream about a partisan Court, Roberts has generally sided with the Court liberals and increasingly so has Kavanaugh. We saw how Justice Roberts stretched and twisted to find a way to uphold the Affordable Care Act and avoid the questions of whether the Federal government could mandate that every person have health insurance and whether the statute violated the Commerce Clause. The question is why.

I wish I could say it was simply an honest disagreement based on the legal reasoning of Justices Roberts and Kavanaugh, but it appears that they are bending to the demands that the Court not be or appear to be partisan. It may also be, in the case of Justice Kavanaugh, that the vicious attacks on him during his confirmation hearing, have made him gun shy. As I discuss the healthcare worker mandate below, I will return to this very important question.

The opinion in the healthcare worker mandate case was an unsigned per curium opinion, meaning that no author was identified and that all 5 of the Justices in the majority agreed, with none issuing a concurring opinion. For those readers who don’t know the purpose of a concurring opinion, it allows a Justices to vote with the majority but explain where he or she has different reasons or doesn’t agree with statements in the majority opinion while still voting for the result. The Court’s opinion relied on numerous statutes (a “hodgepodge” in the words of the dissenters and many commentators) to conclude the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services had the authority to issue the regulation creating the mandate.

The Court said that the Secretary of Health and Human Services “has general statutory authority to promulgate regulations ‘as may be necessary to the efficient administration of the functions with which [he] is charged’…” -- 42USC Section1302(a) -- and that “one such function, perhaps the most basic, given the Department’s core mission is to ensure that the healthcare providers who care for Medicare and Medicaid patient protect those patients’ health and safety.” The Court further said that Congress authorized the Secretary “to promulgate, as a condition to a facility’s participating in the programs, such requirements as [he] finds necessary in the interest of the health and safety of individuals who are furnished services in the institutions.” (42USC Section 1395(c)(9). The Court noted that, in adopting the healthcare worker mandate and relying on these statutes, the Secretary “further noted that staffing shortages caused by COVID-19 related exposure and illness has disrupted patientcare.” That is a rather ironic justification since the regulation will result in many healthcare workers losing their jobs.

Now it should be noted that Congress adopts laws and under the Court’s delegation doctrine, Congress cannot delegate its legislative power to regulatory agencies. There are two important ancillaries that have followed in Supreme Court opinions.

One is what is known as the Chevron doctrine. That comes from a 1984 Supreme Court opinion in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. in which the Court said that whenever a regulatory agency makes a rule or regulation which deals with a statute adopted by Congress -- and there is ambiguity in the statutory language or the intent of Congress is not clear, and there is any reasonable way to argue that such rule or regulation is consistent with the statute under which it is acting -- the Court will defer to the regulatory agency. The Court said that determining the intent of Congress often requires the opinions of experts and that judges should not interpose their own preferences.

The many subsequent cases applying this doctrine are beyond the scope of this article, but the core concept has been extremely consequential. It is at the heart of the growth of the regulatory state in which Congress adopts ambiguous or broad law and lets the agencies fill in the blanks. That absolves Congress from having to take actions that may be unpopular or consequential and it takes the general public out of the equation since regulators are not elected. The enormous power given to the regulatory agencies by the Chevron doctrine has been a prime factor in the enormous growth of the Federal government. The possibility that the Court would reverse or weaken Chevron terrifies fans of big government because without the ability to freeze out Congress and thus the public through their ability to vote for their elected members of Congress, many radical or so called “progressive” policies would have no chance of adoption.

The second ancillary is known as the “major questions doctrine.” This doctrine holds that courts should not defer to regulatory agency interpretations in matters that have “vast economic significance.” The Court has said repeatedly in subsequent cases that Congress must speak clearly if it intends to give a regulatory agency the authority to act in a particular way. Justice Kavanaugh addressed this doctrine in response to questions during his confirmation hearing when he said: “I’m not a skeptic of regulation at all. I am a skeptic of unauthorized regulation, of illegal regulation, or regulation that’s outside the bounds of what the laws passed by Congress have said. And that is what is at the root of our administrative law jurisprudence.” As we discuss the dissents, consider if Justice Kavanaugh’s interpretation of the “major questions doctrine” has been applied by Justice Kavanaugh.

As stated above, there were 4 dissenters. Three were 2 written dissenting opinions—by Justice Thomas and Justice Alito, and Justices Gorsuch and Barrett joined in both of these dissents.

Justice Thomas described the “major questions doctrine,” and he said there is no question the healthcare worker mandate falls within its scope. He noted that 10 million workers across the entire country are affected by either getting vaccinated or losing their jobs. He noted that nothing in the statutes on which the agency relied had clear language that could possibly empower the agency to make this mandate. Then he noted that: “Vaccines mandates fall squarely within a state police power”, citing Zuch v King 260 US 174 (1920). This case is a bedrock of federalism. Justice Thomas further said: “We expect Congress to use exceedingly clear language if it wishes to significantly alter the balance between state and federal power.” Allowing the healthcare worker mandate to go into effect as the Court has done will allow the federal government to intrude on the police power of the states.

Justice Alito said: “Under the constitution, laws that impose obligations on the American people is conferred on Congress, whose members are elected by the people… Today, however, most federal law is not made by Congress. It comes in the form of rules issued by unelected administrators, except in rare cases.” This was a direct attack on the administrative state.

Major issues remain to be resolved with respect to the Chevron doctrine and agency power and the question of what police power, if any, the federal government has. We will watch keenly in future case and with particular interest in the cases of Justice Roberts and Kavanaugh.

https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/dissecting-the-supreme-courts-split-decision-on-vaccine-mandates

*********************************************

Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

*************************************