Coronavirus

Subterms

    Latest story

    150 Shares65 Views

    Trump is ‘fully fit’ and manages high cholesterol, says White House physician

    by

    Donald Trump – the oldest person to ever be elected US president – controls high cholesterol with medication and has elevated blood pressure but is “fully fit”, White House physician Sean Barbella said in a report released on Sunday.The US navy captain’s report was published two days after Trump underwent a routine physical. It also said he was up to date on all recommended vaccines – despite his national health secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr having spent years sowing doubt about the safety and efficacy of vaccination.Trump himself has previously spread debunked claims about links between vaccines and autism often invoked by Kennedy.Barbella’s report is the most detailed information on the health of Trump, 78, since he returned to the White House in January for a second presidency.“President Trump exhibits excellent cognitive and physical health and is fully fit to execute the duties of the Commander-in-Chief and Head of State,” Barbella wrote in his report.The report noted that Trump’s high cholesterol is “well-controlled” with two medications addressing it.The medicines are rosuvastatin and ezetimibe, generic names of the branded drugs Crestor and Zetia. They have improved Trump’s cholesterol over time.Ideally, total cholesterol should be less than 200. At his physical in January 2018, his total cholesterol was 223. In early 2019, the reading came in at 196 and it stood at 167 in 2020. In Sunday’s report, it was listed as 140.Trump’s blood pressure was 128 over 74. That is considered elevated. And people with elevated blood pressure are likely to develop high blood pressure – or hypertension – unless they take steps to control the condition.The report also noted that Trump has scarring on his right ear, the result of a gunshot wound he suffered when a would-be assassin fired at him during a campaign rally in Pennsylvania last year.A secret service sniper killed the attacker, who fatally shot one spectator while wounding two others.Barbella’s report also references Trump’s history with Covid-19. Trump was hospitalized during a serious bout with the virus in October 2020 during a run for re-election that ended in defeat to Joe Biden.Amid questions about his age and mental acuity, Biden then dropped out of an electoral rematch with Trump in November 2024 and endorsed his vice-president, Kamala Harris, to succeed him. Trump won the popular and electoral votes against Harris to return to the presidency.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionAfter the exam preceding the report, Trump told journalists on Air Force One: “It went, I think, well … Every test you can imagine, I was there for a long time, the yearly physical.“I think I did well.”Trump also told reporters he took a cognitive test. Barbella’s report gave Trump a 30 out of 30 on what is known as the Montreal Cognitive Assessment.The screening takes about 10 minutes to administer, according to information online. One version available online asks those undergoing the screening to draw a clock, repeat words, name animals and count backwards from 100 at intervals of seven, among other tasks.Trump’s resting heart rate was 62 beats per minute, in line with previous tests. A normal resting heart rate for adults ranges from 60 beats to 100 beats per minute. And generally, a lower rate implies better cardiovascular fitness.Reuters and the Associated Press contributed reporting More

    More stories

    • 138 Shares103 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘A case study in groupthink’: were liberals wrong about the pandemic?

      by

      Were conservatives right to question Covid lockdowns? Were the liberals who defended them less grounded in science than they believed? And did liberal dismissiveness of the other side come at a cost that Americans will continue to pay for many years?A new book by two political scientists argues yes to all three questions, making the case that the aggressive policies that the US and other countries adopted to fight Covid – including school shutdowns, business closures, mask mandates and social distancing – were in some cases misguided and in many cases deserved more rigorous public debate.In their peer-reviewed book, In Covid’s Wake: How Our Politics Failed Us, Stephen Macedo and Frances Lee argue that public health authorities, the mainstream media, and progressive elites often pushed pandemic measures without weighing their costs and benefits, and ostracized people who expressed good-faith disagreement.View image in fullscreen“Policy learning seemed to be short-circuited during the pandemic,” Lee said. “It became so moralized, like: ‘We’re not interested in looking at how other people are [responding to the pandemic], because only bad people would do it a different way from the way we’re doing’.”She and Macedo spoke to the Guardian by video call. The Princeton University professors both consider themselves left-leaning, and the book grew out of research Macedo was doing on the ways progressive discourse gets handicapped by a refusal to engage with conservative or outside arguments. “Covid is an amazing case study in groupthink and the effects of partisan bias,” he said.Many Covid stances presented as public health consensus were not as grounded in empirical evidence as many Americans may have believed, Macedo and Lee argue. At times, scientific and health authorities acted less like neutral experts and more like self-interested actors, engaging in PR efforts to downplay uncertainty, missteps or conflicts of interest.It’s a controversial argument. Covid-19 killed more than a million Americans, according to US government estimates. The early days of the pandemic left hospitals overwhelmed, morgues overflowing, and scientists scrambling to understand the new disease and how to contain it.Still, Macedo and Lee say, it is unclear why shutdowns and closures went on so long, particularly in Democratic states. The book argues that in the US the pandemic became more politically polarized over time, after, initially, “only modest policy differences between Republican- and Democratic-leaning states”.After April 2020, however, red and blue America diverged. Donald Trump contributed to that polarization by downplaying the severity of the virus. Significant policy differences also emerged. Ron DeSantis, the Republican governor of Florida, moved to re-open physical schools quickly, which progressives characterized as irresponsible.Yet in the end there was “no meaningful difference” in Covid mortality rates between Democratic and Republican states in the pre-vaccine period, according to CDC data cited in the book, despite Republican states’ more lenient policies. Macedo and Lee also favorably compare Sweden, which controversially avoided mass lockdowns but ultimately had a lower mortality rate than many other European countries.The shutdowns had foreseeable and quantifiable costs, they say, many of which we are still paying. Learning loss and school absenteeism soared. Inflation went through the roof thanks in part to lockdown spending and stimulus payments. Small businesses defaulted; other medical treatments like cancer screenings and mental health care suffered; and rates of loneliness and crime increased. The economic strain on poor and minority Americans was particularly severe.Covid policies escalated into culture wars, amplifying tensions around other social issues. Teachers’ unions, which are often bastions of Democratic support, painted school re-openings as “rooted in sexism, racism, and misogyny” and “a recipe for … structural racism”, the book notes, despite the fact that minority and poor students were most disadvantaged by remote learning.These measures also had a literal price. “In inflation-adjusted terms,” Macedo and Lee write, “the United States spent more on pandemic aid in 2020 than it spent on the 2009 stimulus package and the New Deal combined” – or about what the US spent on war production in 1943.View image in fullscreenYet of the $5tn that the US Congress authorized in 2020 and 2021 for Covid expenditure, only about 10% went to direct medical expenses such as hospitals or vaccine distribution, according to the book; most of the spending was on economic relief to people and businesses affected by shutdowns. Ten per cent of that relief was stolen by fraud, according to the AP.The pandemic was an emergency with no modern precedent, of course, and hindsight is easy. But In Covid’s Wake tries to take into account what information was known at the time – including earlier pandemic preparedness studies. Reports by Johns Hopkins (2019), the World Health Organization (2019), the state of Illinois (2014) and the British government (2011) had all expressed ambivalence or caution about the kind of quarantine measures that were soon taken.“We take a look at the state of the evidence as it was in early 2020,” Lee said. “It was clear at the time that the evidence was quite unsettled around all of this, and if policymakers had been more honest with the public about these uncertainties, I think they would have maintained public trust better.”The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security hosted a wargaming exercise in October 2019, shortly before the pandemic began, to simulate a deadly coronavirus pandemic; the findings explicitly urged that “[t]ravel and trade … be maintained even in the face of a pandemic”. Similarly, a WHO paper in 2019 said that some measures – such as border closures and contact tracing – were “not recommended in any circumstances”.“And yet we did all of that in short order,” Macedo said, “and without people referring back to these plans.”He and Lee also believe there was a strong element of class bias, with a left-leaning “laptop class” that could easily work from home touting anti-Covid measures that were much easier for some Americans to adopt than others. Many relatively affluent Americans became even wealthier during the pandemic, in part due to rising housing values.At the same time, the laptop class was only able to socially isolate at home in part because other people risked exposure to provide groceries. Stay-at-home measures were partly intended to protect “essential workers”, but policymakers living in crisis-stricken major metropolitan areas such as New York or Washington DC did not reckon with why social distancing and other measures might be less important in rural parts of the country where Covid rates were lower.Lockdowns were intended to slow Covid’s spread, yet previous pandemic recommendations had suggested they only be used very early in an outbreak and even then do not buy much time, Macedo said.View image in fullscreenPolicymakers and experts often embraced stringent measures for reasons that are more political than medical, Macedo and Lee argue; in a pandemic, authorities are keen to assure anxious publics that they are “in charge” and “doing something”.In strange contrast, policymakers and journalists in the US and elsewhere seemed to take China as a model, the book argues, despite the fact that China is an authoritarian state and had concealed the scale of the outbreak during the crucial early days of the pandemic. Its regime had obvious incentives to mislead foreign observers, and used draconian quarantine measures such as physically welding people into their homes.When the WHO organized a joint China field mission with the Chinese government, in February 2020, non-Chinese researchers found it difficult to converse with their Chinese counterparts away from government handlers. Yet the WHO’s report was “effusive in its praise” of China’s approach, the book notes.“My view is that there was just a great deal of wishful thinking on the part of technocrats of all kinds,” Lee said. “They wanted there to be an answer – that if we do X and Y, we can prevent this disaster. And so they’re kind of grasping at straws. The Chinese example gave them hope.” She noted that Covid policymakers might have been better served if there had been people assigned to act as devil’s advocates in internal deliberations.Lee and Macedo are not natural scientists or public health professionals, they emphasize, and their book is about failures in public deliberation over Covid-19, rather than a prescription for managing pandemics.But they do wade into the debate about Covid-19’s origin, arguing that the “lab leak” hypothesis – that Covid-19 accidentally leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, rather than spontaneously leaping from animals to humans – was unfairly dismissed.The Wuhan Institute studied coronaviruses similar to the one responsible for Covid-19, had a documented history of safety breaches, was located near the outbreak, and is known to have experimented on viruses using controversial “gain-of-function” methods funded by the US, which involve mutating pathogens to see what they might look like in a more advanced or dangerous form.Perhaps because Trump had fanned racial paranoia by calling Covid-19 the “China virus” and rightwing influencers were spreading the notion that it had been deliberately engineered and unleashed on the world by China, many scientists, public health experts and journalists reacted by framing the idea of a lab leak – even an accidental one – as an offensive conspiracy theory. Dr Anthony Fauci and other top public health figures were evasive or in some cases dishonest about the possibility of a lab leak, Macedo and Lee say, as well as the fact that a US non-profit funded by the National Institutes of Health allegedly funded gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute.Since then, though, the CIA and other US intelligence agencies have cautiously endorsed the lab leak theory, and the discourse around Covid has softened somewhat. The economist Emily Oster sparked immense backlash by arguing against school closures in 2020. Now publications such as New York Magazine and the New York Times have acknowledged the plausibility of the lab leak hypothesis, for example, and there is growing consensus that school closures hurt many children.The reception to In Covid’s Wake has been more positive than Macedo and Lee expected – perhaps a sign that some of their arguments have penetrated the mainstream, if not that we’ve gotten better as a society at talking about difficult things. “The reception of the book has been much less controversial [and] contentious than we expected,” Macedo said.Yet the wounds fester and debates continue. Some readers of the New York Times were furious when The Daily, the newspaper’s flagship podcast, recently interviewed them, with subscribers arguing that the episode was not sufficiently critical of their stance. And some coverage of the book has criticized it for underplaying the danger of the disease.Macedo and Lee said that a few of their colleagues have expressed concern that their critique could fuel political attacks on science – a worry that crossed their minds too. “Our response is that the best way to refute criticisms that science and universities have been politicized is to be open to criticism and willing to engage in self-criticism,” Macedo said.“We need to make sure these institutions are in the best possible working order to face the challenges ahead. And we think that’s by being honest, not by covering over mistakes or being unwilling to face up to hard questions.” More

    • 175 Shares195 Views

      in US Politics

      US wine importers and bars nervously wait for tariff decision: ‘It’s a sad situation’

      by

      As the threat of exorbitant US tariffs on European alcohol imports looms, a warehouse in the French port city of Le Havre awaits a delivery of more than 1,000 cases of wine from a dozen boutique wineries across the country.Under normal circumstances, Randall Bush, the founder of Loci Wine in Chicago, would have already arranged with his European partners to gather these wines in Le Havre, the last stop before they are loaded into containers and shipped across the Atlantic. But these wines won’t be arriving stateside anytime soon.After the Trump administration threatened on 13 March to impose 200% tariffs on alcoholic products from Europe, many US importers like Bush have halted all outgoing shipments from Europe.The 1,100 cases of his wine, from family-owned producers in his company’s modest European portfolio, have already been paid for. But due to the tariff threat, they will remain stranded at their respective domaines at least until 2 April when the Trump administration is expected to reveal a “reciprocal tariff number” for each of its global trading partners.The newfound uncertainty around tariffs has many restaurant owners, beverage directors, liquor distributors and wine importers on edge in recent weeks. The only certainty among the trade professionals interviewed is that a 200% tariff would be catastrophic for the wine and spirits industry globally. And while most believe the actual number will end up much lower, everyone agrees that even modest tariffs would send shock waves throughout the entire food and beverage ecosystem, weakening distribution channels and further driving up already astronomical prices.“What scares me is how these hypothetical tariffs would affect [the many] European-themed restaurants like French bistros, Italian trattorias and German beer halls,” said Richard Hanauer, wine director and partner with Lettuce Entertain You. The Chicago-based group owns, manages and licenses more than 130 restaurants and 60 brands in a dozen different states and Washington DC. Hanauer predicts that concept-driven eateries that rely on European products would have to source wine and spirits from other regions because “the consumer is not going to accept the markup”.Even though Trump has been known to walk back dubious claims about tariffs before, the wine and spirits industry is taking this recent threat very seriously. Most American importers, such as Loci’s Bush, are adhering to the US Wine Trade Alliance’s (USWTA) guidance issued in mid-March warning its members to cease wine shipments from Europe. Without guarantees that any potential tariffs would come with a notice period or exemptions for wines shipped prior to their announcement, the organization had no choice but to advise its constituents to halt all EU wine shipments.“Once the wine is on the water, we have no power,” said Bush. “We’re billed by our shippers as soon as the wine arrives.”Tariffs are import taxes incurred by the importer and paid as a percentage of the value of the freight at the point of entry upon delivery. Since shipments from Europe can often take up to six to eight weeks to arrive, firms like Loci face the predicament of not knowing how much they will owe to take delivery of their products when they reach US ports.“We’ve had many US importers tell us that even a 50% unplanned tariff could bankrupt their businesses, so we felt we had no choice,” said Benjamin Aneff, president of the USWTA, of the organization’s injunction. “It’s a sad situation. These are mostly small, family-owned businesses.”Europe’s wineries can also ill afford to be dragged into a trade war with the United States. According to the International Trade Center, the US comprises almost 20% of the EU’s total wine exports, accounting for a total of $14.1bn (€13.1bn) of exported beverage, spirit and vinegar products from the EU in 2024.Many independent importers still recall Trump levying $7.5bn of tariffs on exports from the EU during his first presidency, which included 25% duties on Scotch whiskey, Italian cheeses, certain French wines and other goods. These retaliatory measures, which took effect in October 2019, resulted from a years-long trade dispute between the US and the EU over airline subsidies.“We were hit with duties in late 2019. But we negotiated with a lot of our suppliers, so we were able to stave off any significant price increases,” said André Tamers, the founder of De Maison Selections, a fine-wine importer with a large portfolio of French and Spanish wines and spirits. But because the Covid-19 pandemic hit shortly thereafter, Tamers admitted, it was difficult to gauge the impact of the first round of Trump tariffs. The Biden administration eventually rescinded the measures in June 2021.To pre-empt any potentially disastrous news on the tariff front, many restaurants and bars are ramping up inventory purchases to the extent that their budgets allow. “We made some large commitments for rosé season,” said Grant Reynolds, co-founder of Parcelle, which has an online wine shop as well as two bars and a bricks-and-mortar retail outlet in Manhattan. “To whatever we can reasonably afford, we’ve decided to secure those commitments sooner than later so that we can better weather the storm.”The same is true for many cocktail-focused bars around the country, which are looking to shore up supplies of popular spirits that could end up a victim of tariffs, including allocated scotches and rare cognacs.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“If it becomes very apparent that these tariffs are going to go live, we could be looking at dropping close to $100,000 on inventory just to insulate ourselves because it will save us so much money over the next six months,” said Deke Dunne, beverage director of Washington DC’s award-winning cocktail bar Allegory. “It will have to be a game-time decision, though, because the last thing I want to do is to buy up a lot of inventory I don’t need.” Hanauer said that he’s seen some vendors offering wine buyers heavy discounts and incentives to stockpile cases of European products to prepare for the possibility of onerous tariffs.One bar owner feeling a little less panic compared with his industry counterparts is Fred Beebe, co-owner of Post Haste, a sustainability-minded cocktail bar in Philadelphia. Since it opened in 2023, Post Haste eschews imported spirits of any kind; the bar is stocked exclusively with US products from east of the Mississippi River. “We always thought it would be advantageous to have our producers close to us for environmental reasons and to support the local economy,” said Beebe, “but we didn’t necessarily think that it would also benefit from fluctuations in distribution or global economic policy.”Instead of serving popular European liquor brands such as Grey Goose vodka or Hendrick’s gin, the bar highlights local craft distillers such as Maggie’s Farm in Pittsburgh, which produces a domestic rum made from Louisiana sugar cane. After the recent tariff threats, Beebe says, the decision to rely on local products has turned out to be fortuitous. “I feel really bad for anyone who is running an agave-based program, a tequila or mezcal bar,” said Beebe. “They must be worried constantly about whether the price of all of their products are going to go up by 25% to 50%.”On the importing side, there is agreement that this is an inopportune moment for the wine industry to face new headwinds. Wine consumption has steadily declined in the United States in recent years as gen Z and millennial consumers are turning to cannabis, hard seltzers and spirits such as tequila, or simply embracing sobriety in greater numbers.“Unfortunately, the reality is that wine consumption was already down before this compared to what it was five years ago,” said Reynolds. “This obviously doesn’t help that. So, with more tariffs, you would start to see a greater shift of behaviors away from drinking wine.”But despite slumping sales and the impending tariff threats, niche importers like Tamers say they have little choice but to stay the course. “You leave yourself vulnerable, but if you don’t buy wine, then you don’t have any wine to sell. So, it’s a double-edged sword,” he said. “Our customers are still asking for these products, so there’s not much else we can do.”Aneff hopes that commonsense negotiations will lead to both parties divorcing alcohol tariffs from other trade disputes over aluminum, steel and digital services.“I do have some hope for a potential sectoral agreement on wine, and perhaps spirits, which would benefit domestic producers and huge numbers of small businesses on both sides of the Atlantic,” he said. “I can’t think of anything that would bring more joy to people’s glasses than ensuring free trade on wine.” More

    • 188 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘The goal is to disassemble public health’: experts warn against US turn to vaccine skepticism

      by

      As vaccine hesitancy increases in the US, isolated, tight-knit and religious communities have frequently been at the center of high-profile outbreaks.Such is the case in west Texas, where a rural community is the center of an expanding measles outbreak that has already claimed the lives of two Americans – the first deaths from the disease in nearly a decade.However, as the conspiracy theories of Maga conservatism marry the bugbears of the US health secretary and vaccine skeptic Robert F Kennedy Jr, the one-time fringe view of vaccines has become increasingly mainstream – with activists in right-leaning population centers taking lessons learned from the Covid-19 pandemic into the realm of childhood inoculations.One need look no further than Sarasota, Florida, for a full-throated political denunciation.“Generally, people are weak, lazy,” said Vic Mellor, an activist based near Sarasota, and a close ally of former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn.Mellor owns the We the People Health and Wellness Center in nearby Venice. Mellor, in a shirt that shouts “VIOLENCE MIGHT BE THE ANSWER”, is a self-professed attendee of the January 6 insurrection at the US Capitol.“And that lazy part just makes them ignorant … Covid has proven that obviously this is true. I mean, all the facts are starting to come out on Covid now – that it was a hoax. That is just an extension of where this hoax began decades earlier with the vaccines, OK? This is all a money grab, this is all a power grab.”The pandemic was real, and it started Mellor down the road of questioning vaccines. Where he once opposed only the Covid-19 shots, he now opposes vaccines entirely – arguing they harm children despite experts on vaccines considering them one of mankind’s greatest medical achievements.“This is not an isolated, rural, religious community, which I think is what a lot of people associate with an anti-vaccine mentality,” said Kathryn Olivarius, the author of Necropolis: Disease, Power, and Capitalism in the Cotton Kingdom, and a historian of disease at Stanford University. “This is in the heart of everything.”Sarasota has become a proving ground for the Maga right. Among nail salons, mom-and-pop Cuban restaurants and roadside motels lining US 41, known locally as the Tamiami Trail, a visitor can find the gates of New College. This was once a public university prized for its progressive liberal arts education. Now it is part of the new conservative experiment in remaking higher education led by activists aligned with Donald Trump and the Republican Florida governor, Ron DeSantis.Along the same road is the Sarasota memorial hospital, an aberration in American healthcare – it is publicly owned with open board elections. The normally sleepy election became contentious when insurgent “health freedom” candidates, supported in part by Mellor, entered the race. Three won seats on the nine-member board in 2022.Even the name of this stretch of sun-bleached asphalt is up for debate. This year, a state Republican lawmaker – who has also introduced bills to limit vaccine requirements – briefly proposed changing its name to the “Gulf of America Trail” – a nod to Trump’s renaming of the Gulf of Mexico.Arguably the most salient artifact of this activism in Sarasota is the least visible: vaccination rates against measles.Measles vaccination rates for kindergarteners have plummeted over the last two decades – from 97% in 2004 to 84% in 2023, according to state health records. Sarasota is roughly on par with the vaccination rates in rural Gaines county, Texas – the center of the ongoing measles outbreak that sickened 279 people in in that state alone. Notably, both Gaines county and Sarasota have large home-schooling communities, meaning vaccination rates could in fact be lower.It is well known in research circles that right-leaning states across the US south and west have worse health metrics – from obesity to violence to diseases such as diabetes. That reality was supercharged during the pandemic; as vaccine mandates became a fixation on the right, Republican-leaning voters became more skeptical of vaccines. In turn, places with politically conservative leaders experienced more Covid-19 deaths and greater stress on hospitals.Measles is one of the most contagious diseases known to medicine. At least 95% of the population needs to be vaccinated to prevent outbreaks of the disease. But despite a supremely effective vaccine that eliminated the disease from the US in 2000, vaccine hesitancy has increasingly taken hold.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionConservative activism alone can’t be blamed for declining measles vaccination rates. The measles vaccine in particular has been subject to a sustained firehose of misinformation stemming from a fraudulent paper linking the vaccine to autism in 1999. For years, this misinformation was largely nonpartisan. And Florida’s anti-vaccine movement was active even before the pandemic – with a vocal contingent of parents arguing against strengthening school vaccine standards in 2019.What appears new in Sarasota is how local conservative activists have brought opposition to vaccines into the heart of their philosophy. By Mellor’s telling, he and a loosely affiliated group of Maga activists began to adopt anti-vaccine beliefs as the pandemic wore on – helping organize major health protests in the area in recent years, such as mask mandate opt-outs and the “health freedom” campaign for hospital board seats.Mellor said his nearby property, the Hollow, was a gathering place during the pandemic (it is also a part-time gun range). He cites ivermectin, an anti-parasitic drug that became a fascination of the right, as the reason “we didn’t lose people at all” during the height of the pandemic. Available clinical evidence shows it is not effective against Covid-19.Kennedy has fit neatly into this realignment. He enjoys trust ratings among Republicans nearly as high as Trump, according to polling from the health-focused Kaiser Family Foundation. Kennedy has already spread dubious information about measles vaccines in public statements (notably: from a Steak ’n Shake in Florida) – a response one vaccine expert said “couldn’t be worse”.“While children are in the hospital suffering severe measles pneumonia, struggling to breathe, [Kennedy] stands up in front of the American public and says measles vaccines kill people every year and that it causes blindness and deafness,” said Dr Paul Offit, the director of the Vaccine Education Center and an attending physician in the division of infectious diseases at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. Severe side effects from the vaccine are possible, but they are much rarer than disability and death from measles.“This is what happens when you have a virulent anti-vaccine activist, a science denialist, as the head of the most important public health agency in the United States,” said Offit. “He should either be quiet or stand down.”The same poll found trust in public health agencies has fallen precipitously amid Republican attacks. More than a quarter of Republican parents report delaying childhood vaccines, the poll found, a rate that has more than doubled since 2022. There is no analogous trend among Democratic parents. Despite how claims espoused by vaccine skeptics can be easily refuted, their power has not been undercut.“The anti-vaccine business is big business,” said Offit, pointing to the myriad unproven “treatments” offered by promoters of vaccine misinformation, some of which are offered at Mellor’s We the People health center. “We have been taken over by a foreign country, and the goal of that foreign country is to disassemble public health.”The misery of measles did not take long to appear in Texas – measles-induced pneumonia has already led pediatricians to intubate children, including at least one baby, according to the Associated Press. About one to three people out of 1,000 who are infected by measles die from the infection, and one in 1,000 suffer severe brain swelling called encephalitis, which can lead to blindness, deafness and developmental delays.“We actually don’t have the perspective people in the past had on these diseases,” Olivarius. “I have spent many, many, many years reading letters and missives from parents who are petrified of what’s going to happen to their children” if there are outbreaks of yellow fever, polio or measles, Olivarius said about diseases now largely confined to history – thanks to vaccines.“The lesson from history is these are not mild ailments,” she said. “These are diseases that have killed hundreds of millions of people – and quite horribly too.” More

    • 175 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      Local food for schools helps farmers and kids. So why is Trump cutting funding?

      by

      “If you happened to smell hickory smoke in the city this week, we were probably to blame,” the North Little Rock school district’s child nutrition program shared in a 30 January Facebook post featuring a picture of the day’s lunch.The locally sourced menu included school-smoked chopped beef, pulled pork, fresh apples and coleslaw. This isn’t standard cafeteria fare, but funds from the US government helped kids in this Arkansas town get fresh, nourishing foods produced by farmers and ranchers in their own community.Menus like this might be a thing of the past come next school year. On 7 March, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) notified states of the withdrawal of $1bn in taxpayer dollars that states used to contract with local producers, effectively ending these and other innovative programs. School districts like that of North Little Rock were counting on these funds to plan menus for the next school year. Now, with just five months to go, the funding has been abruptly rescinded.As someone who has spent my entire career working in school food and now serves as the senior director of programs and policy for the National Farm to School Network, I know the best way to ensure that American children receive a nourishing school lunch every day is to expand federal support for community-based food producers.I know first-hand the impact of investing in local food for schools. Living in Arkansas with my two little girls – who attend public school and participate in the school meal program – I see how vital these programs are for the health and wellbeing of our kids, economy and communities. Thanks to the growth of the farm-to-school movement, the North Little Rock lunch-tray experience is becoming more and more common across the country.While I faced empty shelves at my local Kroger early in the pandemic, supply-chain shortages affected school cafeterias in unimaginable ways. Meeting nutrition regulations became nearly impossible as basic staples like fresh produce and milk suddenly became unavailable, leaving school nutrition professionals scrambling to provide balanced meals. Food insecurity surged as communities relied more heavily on school meals, yet the systems in place to meet that need were breaking down. In response to these unprecedented challenges, schools across the country began to turn to local sources for food like never before – partnering directly with farmers to keep meals coming and meet community needs.The food supply chain has still not fully recovered from the disruptive effects of the pandemic, and growing challenges such as bird flu and labor uncertainties exacerbate the problem. Schools and the communities they serve want to serve good, locally grown and prepared food, but taking the programs from activities like an occasional taste-test of apples from a nearby orchard to a full transformation of menus away from ultra-processed foods and big food manufacturers is going to require more support. It’s going to require investments like the Local Food for Schools Program.In 2021, an incredibly effective solution arose to both feed schoolchildren well and support (mostly rural) American farmers: the Commodity Credit Corporation’s Local Food for Schools Program. That initial $200m investment went directly through states and into local farms across the country specifically for school meals. The next round of $660m was intended to expand to include early childcare programs.The program was successful, an investment of our tax dollars right back into our communities. US farmers typically earn 15.9 cents for every dollar spent on food. But when schools purchase directly from farmers, 100% of every dollar goes to farmers. And now a program that provided critical support has been canceled in the name of government efficiency.John Wahrmund, a friend of mine and third-generation beef farmer in rural Arkansas, benefited from the Local Food for Schools Program. Selling to schools became a new and vital market for his farm. To meet demand, Wahrmund invested tens of thousands of dollars in processing and refrigeration equipment to ensure his high-quality, grass-fed beef fit the strict regulations for selling to schools.View image in fullscreenNow those sales will end. Without the kickstart these funds provide, cash-strapped schools are forced to go back to the cheapest products because local farmers are easily undercut by multinational food companies. When I called Wahrmund to ask how he was holding up, he told me: “[The Local Food for Schools Program] is everything for my sales. Without this, it will literally shut me down. I have focused solely on schools.”He has been driving across Arkansas, not just the North Little Rock school district but from Fayetteville to Hope, to get his beef into school cafeterias. “It will be over – not just with me, but with all the farmers trying to serve the school lunch program. Not just beef [producers], rice, vegetables, all of it.”The National School Lunch Program has always been tied to the fate of farmers in our country. Of the National School Lunch Act of 1946, which created the program, then president Harry Truman said: “In the long view, no nation is any healthier than its children or more prosperous than its farmers; and in the National School Lunch Act, the Congress has contributed immeasurably both to the welfare of our farmers and the health of our children.”At a 23 January nomination hearing to Congress, Brooke Rollins, who is now the secretary of the Department of Agriculture, stated that she aimed to support rural communities, bolster domestic markets and ensure that nutrition programs are efficient. Just last week, she and the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, Robert F Kennedy Jr, moved forward with “Make America healthy again” (Maha) commitments to “create and implement policies that promote healthy choices, healthy families and healthy outcomes”.The Local Food for Schools program was exactly that kind of policy. It was more than just fresh thinking. It was a proven, common-sense investment that gave farmers and school nutrition programs a vital boost.March is when farmers plan their next growing season, and when school food professionals set their menus. Now, without this funding, farmers like Wahrmund may go out of business, and school food programs – already operating on razor-thin margins of an average of $1.40 per tray – will struggle to provide nourishing meals to students who rely on them every day. Arkansas, the most food-insecure state in the nation, stood to receive over $8m of the funds. With working families already struggling with rising food costs, eliminating this support is not just shortsighted – it’s harmful.This funding wasn’t government inefficiency or a liberal scheme; it was an investment in our children’s health, our farmers’ livelihoods and the resilience of our communities. Rolling back this support isn’t just a mistake; it betrays every principle of public health and supporting farmers, America’s first entrepreneurs and essential workers. As Rollins said to Fox News this week: “If we are making mistakes, we will own those mistakes and we will reconfigure.” Rollins herself has identified “creat[ing] new opportunities to connect America’s farmers to nutrition assistance programs” in her vision for the agriculture department.The USDA continues to assess its programs and funding. It must correct course and reinstate this vital funding, but it must do so immediately. Speaking on behalf of 20,000-plus National Farm to School Network members from across the US, I ask Rollins to restore this robust local foods market program and transform school food so that meals like that North Little Rock lunch can become the norm. More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump cuts reach FDA workers focused on food safety and medical devices

      by

      The Trump administration’s effort to slash the size of the federal workforce reached the Food and Drug Administration this weekend, as recently hired employees who review the safety of food ingredients, medical devices and other products were fired.Probationary employees across the FDA received notices on Saturday evening that their jobs were being eliminated, according to three FDA staffers who spoke to the Associated Press on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.The total number of positions eliminated was not clear on Sunday, but the firings appeared to focus on employees in the agency’s centers for food, medical devices and tobacco products – which includes oversight of electronic cigarettes. It was not clear whether FDA employees who review drugs were exempted.On Friday, the US Department of Health and Human Services announced plans to fire 5,200 probationary employees across its agencies, which include the National Institutes of Health, the FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.People who spoke with the AP on condition of anonymity on Friday said the number of probationary employees to be laid off at the CDC would total nearly 1,300. But as of early Sunday afternoon, about 700 people had received notices, according to three people who spoke on condition on anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly. They said none of the CDC layoffs affected the doctors and researchers who track diseases in what’s known as the Epidemic Intelligence Service.The FDA is headquartered in the Maryland suburbs outside Washington DC and employs nearly 20,000 people. It’s long been a target of newly sworn-in health secretary Robert Kennedy Jr, who last year accused the agency of waging a “war on public health” for not approving unproven treatments such as psychedelics, stem cells and chelation therapy.Kennedy also has called for eliminating thousands of chemicals and colorings from US foods. But the cuts at FDA include staffers responsible for reviewing the safety of new food additives and ingredients, according to an FDA staffer familiar with the firings.An HHS spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Sunday afternoon.Nearly half of the FDA’s $6.9bn budget comes from fees paid by companies the agency regulates, including drug and medical device makers, which allows the agency to hire extra scientists to swiftly review products. Eliminating those positions will not reduce government spending.A former FDA official said cutting recent hires could backfire, eliminating staffers who tend to be younger and have more up-to-date technical skills. The FDA’s workforce skews toward older workers who have spent one or two decades at the agency, and the Government Accountability Office noted in 2022 that the FDA “has historically faced challenges in recruiting and retaining” staff due to better money in the private sector.“You want to bring in new blood,” said Peter Pitts, a former FDA associate commissioner under George W Bush. “You want people with new ideas, greater enthusiasm and the latest thinking in terms of technology.”Mitch Zeller, former FDA director for tobacco, said the firings are a way to “demoralize and undermine the spirit of the federal workforce”.“The combined effect of what they’re trying to do is going to destroy the ability to recruit and retain talent,” Zeller said.The FDA’s inspection force has been particularly strained in recent years after a wave of departures during the Covid-19 pandemic, and many of the agency’s current inspectors are recent hires. It was not immediately clear whether those employees were exempted.FDA inspectors are responsible for overseeing thousands of food, drug, tobacco and medical device facilities worldwide, though the AP reported last year that the agency faced a backlog of roughly 2,000 uninspected drug facilities that hadn’t been visited since before the pandemic.The agency’s inspection force have also been criticized for not moving faster to catch recent problems involving infant formula, baby food and eyedrops. More

    • 225 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Robert F Kennedy Jr has mass appeal despite his extreme ideas. This theory explains why | Darren Loucaides

      by

      “Back at home in the United States, the newspapers are saying that I came here today to speak to about 5,000 Nazis,” Robert F Kennedy Jr told a large crowd in Berlin. Estimated at 38,000 people, the crowd was a mix of hippies, anti-war types, Green party voters and anti-vaxxers, rubbing shoulders with a smattering of skinheads. It was late August 2020 and a group called Querdenken had rallied this motley crew together in defiance of Covid-19 restrictions.“Governments love pandemics,” Kennedy said. “They love pandemics for the same reason they love war – it gives them the ability to impose controls that the population would otherwise never accept.”Last month, in Senate confirmation hearings for his appointment as the US secretary of health and human services, Kennedy was questioned on having previously compared the Center for Disease Control’s work to that of “Nazi death camps”, calling Covid-19 a bioweapon genetically engineered to target black and white people while sparing Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese people, and blaming school shootings on antidepressants. “He has made it his life’s work to sow doubt and discourage parents from getting their kids life-saving vaccines,” said the Democratic senator Ron Wyden. “It has been lucrative for him and put him on the verge of immense power.”Kennedy has gone from courting the conspiratorial fringes of the internet to the halls of the White House. He could be confirmed within days. With hindsight, the Berlin speech he gave five years ago was the moment a dangerous new political phenomenon went global. It’s called diagonalism.Coined by the political theorist William Callison and the historian Quinn Slobodian, diagonalism describes the union of disparate groups across the political spectrum around a suspicion of all power being involved in conspiracy. Diagonal movements see big tech, big pharma, banks, climate science and traditional media as accomplices in totalitarianism, evidenced by Covid mandates through to innocuous intergovernmental proposals such as the “great reset” and 15-minute cities.For diagonalists, the control of electoral processes by powerful interests means that governments are de facto illegitimate. And so they advocate for distributed power – not to empower any community, but the individual. By definition they are susceptible to far-right radicalisation. Callison and Slobodian trace their use of the term back to Querdenken – which roughly translates as “lateral thinkers” – the group that organised the Berlin rally addressed by Kennedy.Kennedy recalled his uncle’s visit to the same city decades earlier, even repeating the historic line “Ich bin ein Berliner”. “And today again, Berlin is the frontline against global totalitarianism,” he said, before working through a bingo card of conspiracy theories. An extended “quote” Kennedy read from Hermann Göring’s testimony at the Nuremberg trials, including that “the only thing a government needs to make people into slaves is fear”, was copy and pasted across social media for months afterwards – even though there is no record of Göring saying those words.But Kennedy’s Berlin speech and the Querdenken rally itself were not merely notable for the controversy they caused. In drawing together veterans of anti-war and anti-globalist groups alongside health influencers, environmentalists and the far right, Querdenken became the blueprint for diagonal movements. Through its anti-power conspiratorial framing and the mirroring of methods used by decentralised grassroots movements, Querdenken was able to draw diagonal lines across pre-existing political allegiances, cultural divides and single issues, such as the climate or vaccines, to forge a mass coalition of support. Kennedy himself epitomises this new coalition – one that was nascent at the time, but is now at the heart of Trumpism.As a former environmental lawyer, Kennedy spoke with eloquence and passion in the past about corporations contaminating rivers and polluting the skies, the plight of asthma especially afflicting black people, and the existential threat of the climate crisis. In the Berlin speech, Kennedy mingled conspiracy theories with genuine concerns and anxieties held by the public. He said he saw “people who want leaders who are not going to lie to them, people who want leaders who will not make up arbitrary rules and regulations to orchestrate the obedience of the population. We want health officials who don’t have financial entanglements with the pharmaceutical industry, who are working for us and not big pharma.”In her book Doppelganger, Naomi Klein writes powerfully on how diagonal movements and influencers often identify real issues that progressives had grown timid about – the sway of oligarchical wealth over politics, the rise of digital surveillance, the impact of rampant capitalism on our mental and physical health. But instead of articulating the actual causes or plausible solutions, they have constructed bogus metanarratives. Rather than increasingly antidemocratic billionaires, it was an organised cabal of global elites, unaccountable deep-state bureaucrats who secretly ran the world – or, at the furthest end, blood-sucking satanists, as QAnon followers believed. A mirrorworld had emerged. And it is demagogues such as Trump who have benefited.“Despite claims of post-partisanship, it is right-wing, often far-right, political parties around the world that have managed to absorb the unruly passions and energy of diagonalism,” says Klein, “folding its Covid-era grievances into preexisting projects opposing ‘wokeness’ and drumming up fears of migrant ‘invasions’. Still, it is important for these movements to present themselves (and to believe themselves to be) ruptures with politics-as-usual; to claim to be something new, beyond traditional left-right poles.”While the crowd that listened to Kennedy’s speech that day in 2020 was a heterogeneous mix, a few miles away, a mob of far-right activists and QAnon supporters tried to storm the Reichstag, home to Germany’s parliament, after one of their number falsely announced Trump was in Berlin to liberate the country. The violent scenes would be replicated in the more deadly assault on the Capitol on 6 January 2021. This was the extreme end of diagonalism exploding into life. (An investigation I led into Covid-sceptic groups found that by then, Querdenken and others had become obsessed with Trump – and gravely radicalised.)If Robert F Kennedy Jr is confirmed to Trump’s cabinet, a once-staunch environmentalist and defender of women’s reproductive rights turned conspiracy theorist and super-spreader of health misinformation will dictate health policy in the US. Diagonalism has ascended to the pinnacle of global power. The mirrorworld is becoming our reality.

      Darren Loucaides is a writer based in Barcelona and London

      Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here. More

    • 175 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Biden says he was ‘stupid’ not to sign Covid stimulus checks as Trump did

      by

      Joe Biden has voiced regret for not following Donald Trump’s example by putting his signature on Covid-19-era economic stimulus cheques sent to Americans during a speech about his record on the economy as he prepares to leave office.Five weeks after his vice-president, Kamala Harris, lost the presidential election to Trump, the US president suggested on Tuesday that his failure to put his name on the cheques may have contributed to voters blaming his administration for high prices even when the economy was improving.“Within the first two months of office I signed the American Rescue Plan,” Biden said in a speech at the Brookings Institution, a Washington-based thinktank. “And also learned something from Donald Trump – he signed checks for people, $7,400 for people because we passed the plan. I didn’t – stupid.”Trump was widely criticised after becoming the first president to have his name printed on cheques disbursed by the Internal Revenue Service – America’s federal tax authority – in 2020. The move followed legislation from Congress intended to ease the impact of the economic slowdown that resulted from the first wave of the Covid pandemic.“I’m sure people will be very happy to get a big, fat, beautiful check and my name is on it,” he said at the time.Anecdotal evidence suggested that he may have been given credit by voters that was denied to Biden for his response to the pandemic.Campaigning for Harris, Barack Obama told audiences that some voters had told him that “Donald Trump sent me a check during the pandemic” to explain their support for him.Biden interrupted his speech after about 10 minutes to tell the audience that his teleprompter had broken down, forcing him to speak unscripted. Such a move was notable as during his presidency, critics frequently remarked on Biden’s public appearances for an over-reliance on teleprompter-scripted deliveries, suspected by many as intended to guard against his tendency for verbal gaffes.His attempt at justifying his self-styled “Bidenomics” approach amounted to a rebuff to detractors – both Democrat and Republican – who blamed his administration for failing to counteract inflation and persistently high prices, even while job creation and growth rebounded strongly after the Covid-19 pandemic forced a widespread economic shut down.“We got back to full employment, got inflation back down, managed a soft landing that many people thought was not likely to happen,” Biden said. “Next month, my administration will end, and a new administration will begin. The new administration’s going to inherit a very strong economy, at least at the moment.”During the campaign, opinion polls repeatedly showed concerns over the economy topping voters’ priorities, with many voicing frustration over high fuel and grocery costs. The administration blamed fallout from the pandemic – which prompted the enactment of a $1.9tn stimulus plan early in Biden’s term aimed at reviving the economy – and on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.But Biden suggested Trump might squander his economic legacy by reverting to “trickle-down” economics amid indications that the president-elect intends to extend his 2017 tax cuts, which drastically slashed rates paid by corporations and the rich, while imposing tariffs on foreign imports.“By all accounts the incoming administration is determined to return the country to another round of trickle-down economics … once again causing massive deficits or significant cuts in basic programs,” Biden said.“I believe this approach is a major mistake. I believe we’ve proven that approach is a mistake over the past four years.” More

    • 138 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump pick for US health agency proposed ‘herd immunity’ during Covid

      by

      Jay Bhattacharya, an unofficial Covid adviser in Trump’s first administration, has been selected as the director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), one of the leading biomedical research institutions in the world.The choice of Bhattacharya, a Stanford economist whose proposal for widespread Covid-19 infection was backed by the White House, signals a return to controversial and scientifically questionable health policies in the second Trump administration, experts say.Bhattacharya, an economist who attended medical school, has called for an “an absolute revamping of the scientific community”.He has questioned the safety of vaccines, testified against the effectiveness of face masks, and argued that NIH officials should not be involved with scientific policy.Bhattacharya did not respond to requests for comment.In early 2020, Bhattacharya downplayed Covid’s deadliness, and he soon joined two other scientists in a recommendation to let Covid spread with “focused protection” – a proposal on the scientific fringes that soon became politically mainstream.After the Trump administration adopted the strategy of “herd immunity” through infection, millions of Americans were disabled and killed, with a vastly higher mortality rate than peer nations.In April 2020, Santiago Sanchez, then a first-year student at Stanford Medical School, wanted to do something to help as the novel coronavirus swept the nation and brought the world to a standstill.That’s how he found himself volunteering in a makeshift laboratory in the ballroom of the Palo Alto Sheraton, carefully squeezing droplets of blood samples into rapid tests for 10 to 12 hours a day.The research project was an attempt to see how many people had already gotten sick from Covid. If more people than previously known had already gotten sick and recovered, that would mean the virus wasn’t as severe as it seemed, and it might also mean there were enough people out there with immunity to help stop the virus from spreading, Sanchez hoped.But as he saw negative result after negative result, Sanchez felt his optimism curdle. After two days, the volunteers had conducted more than 3,300 tests, but fewer than two dozen turned positive, as Sanchez remembers it.That’s why he was puzzled when one of the senior researchers of the study, Jay Bhattacharya, stepped into the ballroom, saw the handful of positive tests alongside stacks of negative tests, and said, “there’s definitely signal here,” according to Sanchez’s recollection.“That was my first sinking feeling, because I was like, ‘That is not how I am interpreting this experiment,’” Sanchez said.The ensuing preprint study estimated that between 2.5% to 4% of people in the region had been infected – a rate vastly higher than previously thought, and a figure significantly higher than the number of positive tests Sanchez says he saw.Bhattacharya became a fixture on Fox News and other networks, proclaiming the opposite of what Sanchez now believed: that many more people had the virus than anyone thought, and that meant the US should reopen.“He was everywhere during the pandemic except hospitals,” said Jonathan Howard, associate professor of neurology and psychiatry at NYU Langone Health and author of the book We Want Them Infected. “He didn’t treat a single Covid patient himself and became famous despite having no real-world responsibility that way.”Scientists quickly discovered significant errors in the study: the people who gave blood weren’t a random sample; the positive tests may well have been false positives; and the study was sponsored in part by an airline founder who was an avid proponent of reopening in the midst of Covid’s strongest grip.Despite criticism, the study results “spiraled out of control”, Sanchez said. “I and many others who worked on this study had this shared feeling of being taken advantage of, like we had been pawns in an obviously ideological project that did not meet scientific muster.”A few months later, Bhattacharya and other skeptics of Covid precautions met with President Trump at the White House, at a time when Trump had stopped speaking with his chief medical adviser, Anthony Fauci.Bhattacharya and two other scientists, Sunetra Gupta and Martin Kulldorff, soon unveiled a plan, known as the Great Barrington Declaration, to let the virus spread unchecked among the general population while attempting to protect the vulnerable. The authors believed this approach could stop the pandemic within three to six months.“This is not mainstream science. It’s dangerous,” said Francis Collins, then director of the NIH.Yet the day after the proposal was released, the authors met with Alex Azar, then the secretary of Health and Human Services, who confirmed that the proposal echoed the Trump administration’s policy of reopening.Within months, the worst wave of deaths of the entire pandemic crashed into the US. The strategy of protecting the vulnerable never materialized; even Trump, perhaps the most protected person in the nation, was hospitalized with Covid.“He was a pro-infection doctor,” Howard said of Bhattacharya. “He said that parts of the country had reached herd immunity in summer 2020 … He said that one infection led to permanent, robust immunity, and he treated rare vaccine side effects as a fate worse than death.”In the past four years, Bhattacharya has testified in state and Canadian courts, as well as US congressional hearings. Bhattacharya has said that public health has become a “tool for authoritarian power … a political tool that’s been used to enforce the biosecurity state”, and that the field needs to be rebuilt.When Sanchez sees patients who say they don’t need a Covid booster, he wonders if they’ve been influenced, directly or indirectly, by Bhattacharya’s messages.And he sees a direct line from the economist’s Covid advice to his possible appointment at the NIH.“They handed Trump a huge gift. They gave him a way to talk about the pandemic that obviously reached a lot of people, that let them, in their own minds, compartmentalize what had happened and feel that it was okay to tolerate the amount of disability and death,” Sanchez said of the researchers.“It totally obfuscated people’s ability to even assess risk, to the point that we have well-established, highly efficacious childhood vaccines that are now being denied – to the point that measles is coming back in some parts of the United States.”With trust in public health greatly diminished, the repercussions could be long-lasting and tragic in coming years, particularly as Trump’s health nominees erode trust in the safety and effectiveness of vaccines and other public-health precautions, Howard said.“Every measles outbreak, every pertussis outbreak, will be on them.” More