MEMORIAL DAY BALTIMORE, MARYLAND:
GOD BLESS AMERICA-
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S FULL SPEECH
Showing posts with label Military. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Military. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 27, 2020
Saturday, May 23, 2020
TRUMP EXITS OPEN SKIES TREATY OVER RUSSIAN VIOLATIONS
TRUMP EXITS OPEN SKIES TREATY
OVER RUSSIAN VIOLATIONS
BY STEVE BYAS
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research
purposes:
“Russia didn’t adhere to the treaty, so until they adhere, we will pull out,” President Donald Trump announced this week, confirming that the United States will be leaving the 35-nation Treaty on Open Skies because of Russian violations.Under the terms of the 1992 treaty, which has been in force since 2002, members are allowed to have short-notice, unarmed reconnaissance flights over the land of the other members, so as to observe military forces and activities, by using specific, pre-approved observation aircraft. The official certified U.S. Open Skies aircraft is the OC-135B Open Skies (shown). The stated purpose of the treaty is to reduce the chances that military miscalculations could cause a war.The United States has objected to Russia’s imposition of restrictions on flights near Kaliningrad, an area between Poland and Lithuania, which has a significant Russian military presence. Jonathan Hoffman, a Defense Department spokesman, said that Russia had denied U.S. flights “within 10 kilometers of the Georgia-Russia border, and denying a flight over major military exercises the past year which completely prevented imaging of military exercise activity that was scheduled and approved previously. Russia flagrantly and continuously violates its obligations under Open Skies and implements the treaty in ways that contribute to military threats against the United States and our allies and partners.” Hoffman also noted that the United States is “committed to our treaty obligations, but in this era of great power competition we are looking to advocate for agreements that benefit all sides and that includes partners who comply responsibly with their obligations.”Not surprisingly, Trump’s unilateral action was opposed by his enemies in the intelligence and security community. For example, retired four-star General Michael Hayden, a former director of the National Security Agency, tweeted, “This is insane.” Other important posts held by Hayden include being the former deputy director of national intelligence and director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) under President George W. Bush.Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, said the treaty was too important to abandon over the overflights near Kaliningrad. “Concerns about Russian compliance with the accord, though serious, are resolvable [although he does not explain how they are resolvable], pertain to political disputes between Russia and some of its neighbors, and do not rise to the level of a material breach that would merit U.S. withdrawal from the treaty.” Other opponents of Trump’s action include former Secretary of State George Schultz and former National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger.Trump, however, argued that the withdrawal would not hurt relations with Russia: “No, I think that we’re going to have [a] very good relationship with Russia.” He expressed optimism that his action could force the Russians to take the actions necessary to cause the U.S. to reinstate the treaty, or for the two nations to write a new treaty. “There’s a chance we may make a new agreement or do something to put that agreement back together. I think what’s going to happen is we’re going to pull out and they’re going to come back and want to make a deal.”President Trump was supported in his decision by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Pompeo noted the concern expressed by nations in Europe at the withdrawal, and said, “If not for the value they place on the OST, we would likely have exited long ago. We are not willing, however, to perpetuate the Treaty’s current problems of Russian-engendered threat and distrust simply in order to maintain an empty façade of cooperation with Moscow.” He added that the United States is prepared to reconsider the exit from the treaty “should Russia return to full compliance with the Treaty.”The opposition to Trump’s actions recalls the almost religious devotion to arms-control agreements with the Russians from the Reagan Era, despite the Soviet Union’s chronic cheating on those very same treaties.It also illustrates the hypocrisy of Trump’s critics. For his entire presidency, and even before, the Democratic Party leadership, the bipartisan “Deep State” of the intelligence community, and their allies in the mainstream media have said that Trump is somehow under the thumb of Russian President Vladimir Putin, and have criticized every attempt Trump has made to have good relations with him.A review of headlines from 2019 demonstrates vividly this mantra. The Chicago Tribune wrote, “Trump can’t seem to resist the urge to do failures for Putin,” while Politico argued, “Trump can’t help himself when it comes to Putin.” CNN’s David Andelman wrote, in a piece entitled, “Trump keeps doing favors for Putin,” that “There seems to be no end to the ‘solids’ or favors that Donald Trump has managed to do for Vladimir Putin.”Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has even said, “All roads lead to Putin.”Yet, when Trump exits a treaty because of violations by a government led by that same Vladimir Putin, he is castigated for it.What seems more likely is that Trump is doing what he thinks is in the national interest of America. That would include cultivating a good relationship with the man who runs a very powerful country — Russia — while at the same time refusing to allow that same country and its leader — Putin — to develop a military advantage over the United States.In other words, it could be that Trump is simply putting “America First” — perhaps the most-hated phrase among his globalist critics.
Friday, May 15, 2020
PRESIDENT TRUMP TO MOBILIZE MILITARY TO GIVE COVID-19 VACCINE; THIS IS THE WORST IDEA EVER~ WTF IS THE PRESIDENT THINKING?
PRESIDENT TRUMP TO MOBILIZE MILITARY
TO GIVE COVID-19 VACCINE;
THIS IS THE WORST IDEA EVER
WTF is the president thinking?SEE: https://www.infowars.com/president-trump-to-mobilize-military-to-give-covid-19-vaccine-this-is-the-worst-idea-ever/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:In a move that will make globalists squeal with delight, President Trump says he would mobilize the military to give out the Covid-19 vaccine to the American public.What a horrible idea! This is literally an idea the deep state would cook up. Does the president realize the pro-mandatory vaccine crowd is not his base?According to CBS:President Trump says he would “rapidly” mobilize the U.S. military to distribute a coronavirus vaccine once it’s ready, focusing first on nursing homes and the elderly most vulnerable to deadly complications from the virus. Mr. Trump made the comments during an interview with Fox Business’ Maria Bartiromo.“We’re mobilizing our military and other forces but we’re mobilizing our military on the basis that we do have a vaccine. You know, it’s a massive job to give this vaccine. Our military is now being mobilized so at the end of the year we’re going to be able to give it to a lot of people very, very rapidly,” the president said.“We will have a tremendous force because assuming we get it, then you have to distribute it,” he added. “And unless you’re mobilized and ready, you’re not going to be able to do it for a long time. So we’re starting now.”Voice of America also reported that the president would release more details on Friday.Notice the number of downvotes on this video posted by his base:Scientists in Iceland said they have already found at least 40 different mutations of the coronavirus, which suggests that the vaccine could be as ineffective as a flu shot.“So now they’re telling us they’re gonna rush a COVID vaccine when we know there have been twenty to thirty mutations of this virus already, and I’m very, very concerned that they’re rushing out a vaccine that will be dangerous, ineffective, et cetera, so I said this,” radio host Michael Savage said last week. “…And I don’t care who tells me I have to take it, if Donald Trump tells me to take it, I’m not taking it, you hear me? I’m not taking it for Jesus, I’m not taking it for Trump, I’m not taking it for Moses, I’m not not taking it for Isaiah, I’m not taking it for Muhammad, I’m not taking it for Charlie Parker, I’m not taking it.”
Did you listen? Will you listen now?
3 OUT OF 5 DEADLIEST CORONAVIRUS OUTBREAKS WERE IN STATE NURSING HOMES~DEMOCRAT GOVERNORS KEEP SENDING COVID PATIENTS TO NURSING HOMES~BIOLOGICAL WARFARE AGAINST THE ELDERLY?
3 OUT OF 5 DEADLIEST CORONAVIRUS OUTBREAKS WERE IN STATE NURSING HOMES
Socialized medicine isn’t the answer unless the question is, “How do we kill more senior citizens?”
BY DANIEL GREENFIELD
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research
purposes:
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.The lockdown model sought to flatten the curve by preparing hospitals for a massive influx of patients by clearing out everyone including elderly patients, who were sent back to nursing homes. The hospitals, with a few limited exceptions, were not overwhelmed, but the nursing homes were.1 in 3 coronavirus deaths, as of now, have involved nursing homes. These deaths were amplified by policies in blue states, especially New York and New Jersey, compelling facilities to take coronavirus patients, while concealing the number of deaths at facilities behind false claims of resident privacy.Blue state administrations have tried to blame the thousands of deaths on mismanaged private nursing homes, and while some nursing homes are badly run, the worst death tolls were in state nursing homes.The 5 deadliest outbreaks in nursing homes took place in New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts. Three of those facilities, the Soldiers' Home in Holyoke, Massachusetts, the Paramus Veterans Memorial Home, and Veterans Memorial Home in Menlo Park in New Jersey, are state run facilities.New Jersey's Department of Military and Veterans Affairs runs 3 homes for veterans. 2 of them had major deadly outbreaks. As of now, the Paramus home had 72 deaths and the Menlo Park facility had 55 deaths. But the third, Vineland Veterans Memorial Home, had recorded only one death.Paramus has 211 residents and 189 cases which means that nearly all of the residents are infected. The Menlo Park facility has 167 cases in a 190-resident facility with an equally bad infection rate. The latter facility had repeatedly come to the attention of federal inspectors who cited it for not following infection-control procedures and its health violations rate was four times the state average.Its Medicare rating was ‘Below Average” and its health inspections rating was ‘Much Below Average’. The Paramus veterans home was also poorly rated. The Vineland home, by contrast, was highly rated.State officials had apparently lied about staff not coming down with the virus, workers were told not to wear protective equipment, and the Paramus facility wasn’t following CDC disinfection guidelines. At Menlo Park, the family of a Vietnam veteran complained that he was wrongly placed with coronavirus patients leading to his death, and family members of other deceased residents reported facility failures.Garden State nursing homes have been ground zero for some of the worst outbreaks in the country, but even among them, the homes run by New Jersey have been the worst. Had a Republican been in charge of the state, instead of a Wall Street donor to the Obama campaign, the media might have noticed that.When Governor Murphy was asked who was currently running the Department of Military and Veterans Affairs, he replied, “There’s an acting person who came in from under him. I don’t know that name.”Murphy didn’t know because, his political appointee had resigned in the middle of the pandemic to run for Congress, infuriated that some members of the New Jersey delegation, one of whom had a brother-in-law at one of the facilities, had called for a federal investigation into the breakdown.The former department boss claimed that he had resigned so as not "embarrass Gov. Murphy by running against a candidate [he] supports."Despite the pretense that blue state politicos cared about veterans or nursing homes, Murphy had no clue who was in charge of veterans affairs or the facilities that had 2 of the 3 deadliest nursing home outbreaks in the state. And he made it quite clear that he really didn’t care.In Massachusetts, the outbreak at the Soldiers' Home in Holyoke with 74 deaths was by far the worst in the state where other facilities had an average of 10 deaths. Holyoke is one of only two state run facilities for veterans, the other being the Chelsea Soldiers’ Home where the death toll is up to 28.In New Jersey, two out of three state homes for veterans had major outbreaks with massive death tolls, and in Massachusetts, it was one out of two. Statistics like these tell their own story about socialized medicine.The United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts and the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division are investigating the Holyoke facility, and Governor Baker has brought in Mark Pearlstein, a former DA, to conduct an independent investigation on behalf of Massachusetts.The spectacle of dead veterans and investigations of facilities meant to serve them is not a new one. It is all too likely that what happened at state facilities is exactly what had been happening at the VA with an entrenched bureaucracy running the system for its own benefit, not for those whom it’s meant to serve. The investigations will turn up local mismanagement and recommend more funding. As they usually do.The VA, which helps funds the state homes, has claimed that it conducted inspections and that the facilities met its standards even as, some like the Paramus facility, were receiving poor Medicare grades.Attorney General Gurbir Grewal, Governor Murphy's lackey, launched an investigation meant to focus on private nursing homes, a point he made clear when he threw around rhetoric about, "profits over patients." While there may be some truth to that, it's New Jersey's state-run homes which were some of the worst killing fields in the state. And any reckoning ought to begin with the state officials responsible.The death tolls in nursing homes are already being used to push for more socialized medicine, but it was state medicine that was responsible for the deadliest outbreaks in nursing homes in America.The VA scandals of the Obama administration, which may have claimed the lives of as many as 1,000 veterans, were swept under the rug, and Senator Bernie Sanders, who had tried to cover up the deaths as chairman of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, rebounded with a push for socialized medicine.After all this time, socialized medicine is still killing veterans.The deaths of hundreds of veterans in state-run facilities in blue states will be covered up the same way, but they must not, cannot, and should not be forgotten. The deaths of thousands of nursing home residents are an outrage. And blue state governors in New York, New Jersey, and California, among others, should be held accountable for putting lockdown politics ahead of saving the lives of seniors.Our nation owes a particular debt to the veterans who were left to die in Paramus, Menlo Park, and Holyoke. We should remember their names and honor the debt by telling the truth about their deaths.Many of them defended our country by fighting socialist regimes in Korea and Vietnam. Their deaths should not be exploited to promote the big lie that socialized medicine is the answer.Socialized medicine is not the answer unless the question is, “How do we kill more senior citizens?”______________________________________________________________DEMOCRAT GOVERNORS KEEP SENDING COVID PATIENTS TO NURSING HOMES~BIOLOGICAL WARFARE AGAINST THE ELDERLY?BY KIT DANIELSrepublished below in full unedited for informational, educational and researchpurposes:There’s been a recent pattern of Democratic governors persistently sending coronavirus patients to nursing homes, which were already hot spots of Covid-19 deaths.In Michigan, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer has actually alienated other state Democrats with her insistent order to send coronavirus patients into nursing homes.“To return seniors into an environment, seniors with the virus still recovering from the virus, into an environment with, well, seniors, just didn’t seem — it’s not a good idea,” said state representative Leslie Love (D-Detroit.)The fact that Whitmer’s own party is rebelling against her decision suggests the governor might have been influenced by someone from above.At the start of the outbreak, it was well reported that senior citizens were the most vulnerable to the coronavirus, especially those with compromised immunity systems who typically live in nursing homes.Yet, in April, Whitmer demanded that seniors diagnosed with Covid-19 are to be placed in nursing homes, called “regional hubs,” with other healthy seniors.Likewise, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo also demanded in April that his state’s nursing homes should admit Covid-19 patients.According to the New York Post:The governor — who himself has described nursing homes as a “feeding frenzy’’ for the deadly coronavirus — said that the facilities can’t challenge a state regulation forcing them to admit patients with the contagion.But he insisted that nursing homes could transfer those ill with the virus to another facility if the centers lacked such things as quarantine space, proper protective equipment and staff.Asked by a reporter at his daily briefing Sunday if there was anything contradictory about his statements, the governor replied, “No.”Cuomo just recently rescinded the order after massive pushback.It’s certainly significant that Democratic governors, who have been largely coordinating their Covid-19 responses together, were so adamant about sending coronavirus patients to nursing homes despite the explosion of coronavirus cases centered around nursing homes nationwide.
President Trump said that he was mobilizing the military to inoculate most of the population against Covid-19 with a vaccination that has not even gone into production yet.________________________________________________________________PRESIDENT TRUMP TO MOBILIZE MILITARY
TO GIVE COVID-19 VACCINE;
THIS IS THE WORST IDEA EVER
WTF is the president thinking?republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and researchpurposes:In a move that will make globalists squeal with delight, President Trump says he would mobilize the military to give out the Covid-19 vaccine to the American public.What a horrible idea! This is literally an idea the deep state would cook up. Does the president realize the pro-mandatory vaccine crowd is not his base?According to CBS:President Trump says he would “rapidly” mobilize the U.S. military to distribute a coronavirus vaccine once it’s ready, focusing first on nursing homes and the elderly most vulnerable to deadly complications from the virus. Mr. Trump made the comments during an interview with Fox Business’ Maria Bartiromo.“We’re mobilizing our military and other forces but we’re mobilizing our military on the basis that we do have a vaccine. You know, it’s a massive job to give this vaccine. Our military is now being mobilized so at the end of the year we’re going to be able to give it to a lot of people very, very rapidly,” the president said.“We will have a tremendous force because assuming we get it, then you have to distribute it,” he added. “And unless you’re mobilized and ready, you’re not going to be able to do it for a long time. So we’re starting now.”Voice of America also reported that the president would release more details on Friday.Notice the number of downvotes on this video posted by his base:Scientists in Iceland said they have already found at least 40 different mutations of the coronavirus, which suggests that the vaccine could be as ineffective as a flu shot.“So now they’re telling us they’re gonna rush a COVID vaccine when we know there have been twenty to thirty mutations of this virus already, and I’m very, very concerned that they’re rushing out a vaccine that will be dangerous, ineffective, et cetera, so I said this,” radio host Michael Savage said last week. “…And I don’t care who tells me I have to take it, if Donald Trump tells me to take it, I’m not taking it, you hear me? I’m not taking it for Jesus, I’m not taking it for Trump, I’m not taking it for Moses, I’m not not taking it for Isaiah, I’m not taking it for Muhammad, I’m not taking it for Charlie Parker, I’m not taking it.”
Did you listen? Will you listen now?
Tuesday, May 12, 2020
HEALTH OFFICIALS LAUNCH MOBILE APP TO PRE-REGISTER CHICAGOANS FOR MASS COVID-19 VACCINES~IMPLEMENTING "CONTACT TRACING, MAPPING, MONITORING"~WHY "OPERATION WARP SPEED" COULD BE DEADLY; FORCING VACCINES ON YOU WITH IMMUNITY FOR THE PHARMACEUTICALS
HEALTH OFFICIALS LAUNCH MOBILE APP
TO PRE-REGISTER CHICAGOANS
FOR COVID-19 VACCINE
BY RISHMA PARPIA
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research
purposes:
The Chicago Department of Public Health (CDPH) has developed a website and an application known as the “Chi COVID Coach “ app where Chicagoans can now pre-register to receive a COVID-19 vaccine once it is licensed by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in the U.S.1According to the Chicago Sun Times, the “Chi COVID Coach” mobile app was developed by Google and MTX in collaboration with the CDPH to help communicate with Chicagoans who have either tested positive for the coronavirus or may be experiencing symptoms.1 The application uses Google Cloud’s technology to provide residents with real-time information.Pre-Registration for Future Mass Vaccination in Chicago
The CDPH website states that the main purpose of the “Chi COVID Coach” app is to coach COVID-19 patients on symptoms, provide testing information, announce the availability of future antibody testing information and allow pre-registration for when a vaccine becomes available.2The website states, “Looking even further ahead, registering with Chi COVID Coach will ensure CDPH has your individual information as we plan for Chicago’s COVID-19 vaccination campaign–which likely will not happen until 2021, once a vaccine is available.”CDPH Commissioner Allison Arwady said officials are building their plans with the intention to vaccinate the whole city of Chicago.3 According to a press release from Mayor Lori Elaine Lightfoot’s office, “Though a vaccine may be many months away, CDPH is already taking steps to prepare for mass vaccination. Because of this, everyone is encouraged to sign up, whether they have symptoms or not.”4Although Mayor Lightfoot and CDPH Commissioner Arwady said a COVID-19 vaccine is not expected until 2021, both said they are already mapping plans to vaccinate the whole city by purchasing syringes and equipment and choosing locations where the vaccine will be administered.1Using Technology For “Contact Tracing” and Mapping Plans
Even though a COVID-19 vaccine is not expected to be licensed for emergency use until the end of this year with widespread use not expected until 2021, the goal of pre-registering Chicagoans and collecting personal medical information in an electronic database will make the data immediately available to public health officials once a licensed vaccine is distributed in the United States.5Public health officials in Chicago are weighing technology options needed to link a person’s symptoms to COVID-19 test results, vaccination status and ultimately, contact tracing.5Contact tracing involves electronically monitoring the movements of people, usually through smartphones carried by the majority of people, and tracing everyone that a person, who tests positive for the coronavirus, has been in contact with. Public health officials have said that this practice is viewed as a crucial step to safely re-open the Chicago economy.5Mayor Lightfoot said that the city of Chicago is looking at adopting a mobile app technology being developed in Germany.1 She states, “The German government is working on an app that will automatically be able to do and facilitate contact tracing on the basis of proximity to somebody who is subsequently tested positive. The app will collect information about who you’ve been in contact with, then automatically send out an alert.”1Chicago officials maintain that the electronic surveillance data is protected and will only be used by CDPH for public health purposes related to controlling the spread of COVID-19.5References:1 Spielman F. Chicago creates app to pre-register for coronavirus vaccine. Chicago Sun Times Apr. 27, 2020. 2 Chicago Department of Public Health. COVIDCoach. 3 NBC Chicago. Officials Want to Vaccinate All of Chicago for Coronavirus When One Becomes Available. Apr. 27, 2020. 4 NYS on PAUSE Extended. New York 5 Office of the Mayor. Mayor Lightfoot Joins Chicago Department of Public Health to Launch Chi COVID Coach Mobile Application to Further Citywide Response to COVID-19. Chicago.gov Apr. 27, 2020.____________________________________________________________WHY "OPERATION WARP SPEED" COULD BE DEADLYBY BARRY BROWNSTEIN, PhDrepublished below in full unedited for informational, educational and researchpurposes:Opinion | Politicians are dreaming of a “Manhattan Project-style effort” to develop and distribute a coronavirus vaccine “for most Americans by year’s end.” To accomplish this dramatic cut in vaccine development time, “the program will pull together private pharmaceutical companies, government agencies and the military.” Normal vaccine development time is significantly longer.Fourteen potential coronavirus vaccines are vying to be selected as the winner of “Operation Warp Speed.” Government will shield pharmaceutical companies from liability for damages that their vaccines may inflict. Taxpayers will reimburse companies for development costs for vaccines that don’t make it to market.If you’re cheering the government for cutting red-tape, think again. Liability shields for crony capitalists and no cost for failure policies guarantee errors will be made. Without market safeguards significant injuries to human beings are highly likely. Errors will be exacerbated if medical tyranny prevails with legal mandates requiring the COVID-19 vaccination for employment and travel.Haven’t we learned there was no such thing as efficient food distribution in the Soviet Union? Haven’t we learned there was no such thing as a safe East German Communist Trabant automobile? There is no such thing as efficient and safe, centrally planned pharmaceutical development. As we will see later in this essay, the last time government sought a “warp speed” vaccine, dead and paralyzed vaccine recipients were the tragic consequences.Limits on Liability
Pharmaceuticals, including vaccines, have benefits and costs. We don’t have to resolve our cognitive dissonance by denying the benefits of vaccines or denying the harm they can do.Faced with “challenges to vaccine orthodoxy, scholars, commentators, and public health officials are quick to characterize dissent as mere propaganda of ‘anti-vaxxers,’” writes law professor Efthimios Parasidis in his Boston University Law Review article “Recalibrating Vaccination Laws.”Parasidis wrote his essay a mere three years ago. Could he have imagined what is happening today, just a few years later? A group affiliated with the FBI is labeling those who question the vaccine orthodoxy as a “threat to national security.” In a similar vein, California State Senator Dr. Richard Pan claims that those demanding an end to lockdowns and those who question vaccines “have the same message: We want you to get sick.” Demonizing dissenters is rhetoric straight out of a totalitarian playbook. People who threaten “national security” and who “want you to get sick” will be ideal “devils” for politicians to blame when their own policies fail.Parasidis wrote that such tactics obfuscate safety and legal issues, “Focusing contemporary vaccine policy debate on anti-vaxxer rhetoric detracts from adequate consideration of important vaccine-related issues.” In his article, Parasidis points to both “the health benefits of vaccines” and “the shortcomings of the legal framework governing immunizations.”The shortcomings of the legal framework to which Parasidis refers stem from the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (Vaccine Act).The Vaccine Act granted pharmaceutical manufacturers broad legal immunity from lawsuits for vaccine injuries. Further, Parasidis writes, “once a vaccine is approved and made available to the public, a manufacturer does not have a statutory obligation to actively collect and analyze safety and efficacy data, nor are manufacturers obligated to update vaccine formulas in light of new scientific advancements.”On top of the protections in the 1986 Vaccine Act, vaccine manufacturers have received additional liability protections under a February 2020 declaration by Alex Azar, Secretary of Health and Human Services. Azar claims his authority to make such a declaration is granted by the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act).Azar’s order makes “immune from suit and liability…to all claims of loss,” for all those who “manufacture, distribute, administer, prescribe or use” any treatments or vaccines. Administer a rushed-to-market vaccine to healthy individuals at no particular risk from COVID-19 and the government will shield you from liability. Lobby to make the vaccine mandatory and government will shield you from liability.Noted vaccine advocates and developers such as Dr. Paul Offit have expressed alarm that “warp speed” developers might ignore standard vaccine development safeguards. “Remember,” Offit cautioned, “You’re giving this vaccine, likely, to healthy people — who are not the people typically dying from this infection.”Liability shields warp decision-making and increase risk. Having to pay insurance premiums provides incentives to reduce risk. Think of insurance premiums on cars. Insurance premiums might help us decide against the sports car we have been coveting for years in favor of a sedate sedan. High insurance premiums for drivers involved in crashes or caught driving drunk or frequently speeding help those drivers make needed behavioral changes.If the government indemnified us from damages from driving, risky driving would become more common. Those taking added risks would fool themselves with an illusion of competency. They might be indignant when charged with endangering others.Libertarian law professor Richard Epstein has explored the problem in limiting liability. Writing about the 2010 BP Gulf of Mexico oil spill, he explained why “the best way to deter future spills is to expose drillers to the full costs of any mistake and not let any company without proper insurance near an oil derrick.”Let’s rewrite Epstein’s observations: the best way to ensure vaccine safety is to expose pharmaceutical companies to the full costs of any mistake and not let any company without proper insurance near a human body.Epstein was adamant:The legal system should never allow self-interested parties to keep for themselves all the gains from dangerous activities that unilaterally impose losses on others—which is why the most devout defender of laissez-faire must insist, not just concede, that tough medicine is needed in these cases.As Epstein explained, insurance companies are the best regulators:“A tough liability system does more than provide compensation for serious harms after the fact. It also sorts out the wheat from the chaff—so that in this case companies with weak safety profiles don’t get within a mile of an oil derrick. Solid insurance underwriting is likely to do a better job in pricing risk than any program of direct government oversight. Only strong players, highly incentivized and fully bonded, need apply for a permit to operate.”Epstein’s logic applies to the Vaccine Act. Pharmaceutical companies are highly incentivized to produce the safest vaccines when they are subject to the discipline of obtaining insurance coverage.Those advocating in favor of liability shields say that protecting public health requires this waiver. Without the waiver, they claim, too few vaccines would be produced.The case against liability shields is not a case against vaccines; it is a case against the distorted production of vaccines. Limits on liability override the risk-reducing incentives provided by having to pay insurance premiums and thus result in vaccines that are less safe than they would otherwise be.Swine Flu Lessons
In his book, The Myth of Scientific Public Policy, economist Robert Formaini challenges the view that elite experts can evaluate public policy objectively “while remaining neutral on troublesome ethical issues.”Formaini looks at lessons we should have learned from the 1976 swine flu outbreak. The outbreak began at Fort Dix, New Jersey. The flu outbreak was not unusual; it was winter, and in the close quarters of army barracks, respiratory illnesses and flu were common. Formaini writes, “The outbreak may have passed unnoticed except for a bet between two doctors about the nature of the disease.” Throat cultures were sent to multiple health organizations; the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) found swine flu.The CDC asked Congress “for a $134 million program to vaccinate virtually every person within the United States.”Formaini writes, “Private drug companies did not want to make the vaccine unless they were statutorily protected from liability from torts.” Congress granted such protection despite warnings from some such luminaries as polio vaccine pioneer Dr. Albert Sabin. Sabin “castigated the rush to vaccinate everyone and urged that vaccines be stockpiled for ‘high risk’ groups.” Sabin also derided “scare tactics” used to get people to vaccinate.Within months, a swine flu vaccine was produced and approved. The CDC failed “to alert the public to any serious potential side effects other than a possible case of ‘mild’ flu.” Even a mild flu can lead “to fatal complications” for “high-risk groups.”Within days, 33 people who received the vaccine died. Health officials refused to acknowledge the connection between the vaccine and the deaths. “Walter Cronkite chastised his media colleagues” for covering the deaths. Vaccinations continued, and an alarming number of Guillain-Barré syndrome cases, a known potentially fatal side effect of flu vaccines, appeared.Shortly after that, the CDC director resigned, and government shelved the vaccination program.Formaini raised pointed questions that should be asked again today in the rush for a COVID-19 vaccine. Among those questions were:
- Why did “experts immediately decide” that “universal vaccination was the only option?”
- “Why were the drug companies released from liability if the ‘risks’ were so small?”
- “Why was disengagement so difficult when the program’s consequences began to materialize?”
- “Who ought to have been liable for this policy?”
Today’s experts are like the experts in the 1970s who were full of hubris and overconfidence. Policy analysts who later examined the 1976 swine flu concluded among other things:
- “There was overconfidence by medical specialists in theories ‘spun’ from ‘meager evidence.’”
- “Conclusions were reached ‘fueled by conjunctions’ with pre-existing ‘personal agendas.’”
- “There often was ‘premature commitment’—deciding more than had to be decided.”
- There often was “insufficient questioning of scientific logic and implementation prospects.”
Distorted decision-making was driven by “rent-seeking” by public officials during this crisis where “the heads of bureaucratic departments or agencies,” sought expansion of “their personal empires within the government.”Reading Formaini, it is easy to see the same mistakes of 1976 repeated in 2020. In his Meditations, Marcus Aurelius observed of politics, “All of this has happened before. And will happen again—the same plot from beginning to end, the identical staging.”Biochemical Individuality
The late biochemist Roger J. Williams is famed for his study of the implications of biochemical individuality. His research explains the importance of understanding that “real people exhibit individuality and in a sense are always exceptional people.” Biochemical individuality explains why, for some, a coronavirus vaccine may help to maintain health; for others, it may prove deadly.In his essay “Individuality and Its Significance in Human Life” contained in the Liberty Fund book Essays on Individuality, Williams writes: “Concerning the ubiquity of individuality, we can, I believe, accept without danger of contradiction the categorical statement that every human individual (even in the case of identical twins) is distinctive and different.”Yet, in medicine, often only lip service is paid to individuality. We like “the idea of distinctiveness,” yet, as Williams observes, we are “all the time being ignorant about the character of the differences and perhaps even assuming they are inconsequential.”Williams explores startling differences in our organs: “Although the textbook picture of the human stomach, for example, is well stereotyped, there are enormous variations in shape and about a sixfold variation in size.” Even the position of the stomach in the body may vary by up to eight inches.Similar differences in size and position are found in livers and intestines. Should we be surprised, Williams asks, “that people exhibit individuality in their eating?”Williams explains that “Each individual has a highly characteristic breathing pattern,” and “has a distinctive heart action.”“Endocrine glands vary widely from individual to individual.” Williams adds that “our entire nervous system is subject to the same wide variation, which is not only anatomic but physiological as well.If you’re thinking all these differences even out and most people are average, you would be wrong. The chance that we have an average anatomical makeup, according to Williams, is only about one in 1024.Physiological individuality is also the norm. For example, there are up to “100 fold variations in the taste sensitivity of different individuals for such common substances as sugar [and] salt.” Nutritional needs vary up top fivefold for vitamins, minerals, and amino acids.In short, Williams writes, “Whether we consider heart action, brain waves, circulation, breathing, the endocrine functions, the blood, temperature regulation, or a multitude of other facets of physiology, the story is the same—abundant evidence of individuality involving differences of great magnitude.”Biochemical individuality has great significance for the administration of drugs or vaccines. Since body chemistries differ among individuals, reactions to pharmaceuticals also differ.According to Williams, “Some specific chemical reactions may be taking place 10 times as fast in one individual as in another.” Consider that “Using objective tests 10.5 percent were intoxicated when the alcohol blood level was 0.05 percent, whereas 6.7 percent were sober when the alcohol blood level was eight times this high or 0.4 percent.”There is no “normal man” for which a particular reaction is guaranteed.Williams emphatically rejects the assumption of “every recognized treatise in the fields of biochemistry, physiology, pharmacology, and physiological psychology… that normal man, the prototype of all humanity, is the primary if not the exclusive object of study—he, above all is to be fathomed and understood.”Caution is warranted. Previous attempts to develop “SARS coronavirus vaccines” led to “pulmonary” issues in animal testing. Vaccines against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) led to enhanced disease response among infants and toddlers. “Frequent hospitalization” was the result; an unacceptable result since RSV illnesses are usually mild. Despite “expert” assurances to the contrary, medical research suggests receiving a flu vaccination “may increase the risk of other respiratory viruses, a phenomenon known as virus interference.”The Greater Good?
Some might say, yes, mandatory vaccines may harm some, but the greater goal of protecting public health is worth the price. This “greater good” mindset led to the famed New York Times correspondent Walter Duranty covering up Stalin’s atrocities. Duranty was fond of saying, “You can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.”Immunization levels thought to generate herd immunity, “magic numbers,” have never been proven as public health historian James Colgrove reports in his book State of Immunity: The Politics of Vaccination in Twentieth-Century America.In 2009, during another swine flu outbreak, in their essay, “Does the Vaccine Matter?” Shannon Brownlee and Jeanne Lenzer report of doctors challenging the medical orthodoxy about flu vaccines and antivirals. They provided evidence that “flu vaccines do not protect people from dying—particularly the elderly, who account for 90 percent of deaths from seasonal flu.”Vaccination may have unintended psychological consequences as well. Brownlee and Lenzer observe a connection between vaccinating and “breeding feelings of invulnerability, and leading some people to ignore simple measures like better-than-normal hygiene, staying away from those who are sick, and staying home when they feel ill.” Feelings of invulnerability lead people to eschew responsibility and become potential breeding grounds for disease.Nothing we can do will guarantee health, but there are steps we can take that tilt the odds in our favor. Sugar-laden diets suppress the immunological system, while exercise boosts it. This year, the average American will eat nearly 200 pounds of disease-promoting sugar and corn syrup and will consume only about 6 pounds of disease-fighting broccoli and a mere “2 to 3 cups of kale every year — one of the healthiest foods on the planet.”Biochemical individuality explains why, for some, a coronavirus vaccine may help to maintain health; for others, it may prove deadly. Biochemical individuality also explains why there is no one best way to a healthy immune system. Some thrive on keto diets, while others thrive on vegan diets. Others seek a middle ground in a Mediterranean diet.For some, perhaps those in crowded urban environments, taking a COVID-19 vaccine may seem like a wise choice. Individuals choosing to be vaccinated deserve the safest possible vaccine, a vaccine for which insurance companies insuring vaccine manufacturers will provide liability protection.For those who wish to avoid a COVID-19 vaccine, fundamental natural rights guarantee that freedom. No individual should be forcibly injected with a vaccine because of policy mandates from self-interested and zealous “expert” decision-makers.Williams is clear: “Among the myriad of potentialities with which every individual is born, there still are an infinite number of possibilities of development—provided this ability to order one’s own life exists.” “In medicine,” Williams writes, “recognition of the scope and importance of individuality is indispensable to progress.”For a central planner, individuality is a meaningless idea. Central planners will ignore Williams’s admonition at our peril.
This article was reprinted with the author’s permission. It was originally published by the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER). Barry Brownstein is professor emeritus of economics and leadership at the University of Baltimore. He is senior contributor at Intellectual Takeout and the author of The Inner-Work of Leadership.Note: This commentary provides referenced information and perspective on a topic related to vaccine science, policy, law or ethics being discussed in public forums and by U.S. lawmakers. The websites of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) provide information and perspective of federal agencies responsible for vaccine research, development, regulation and policymaking.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)