Categories
Biden Cartel Biden Pandemic Commentary Corruption COVID Links from other news sources. Reprints from others. The Courts

Court Revives Doctors’ Suit Over FDA Anti-ivermectin Campaign.

Court Revives Doctors’ Suit Over FDA Anti-ivermectin Campaign.

A Federal appeals court Friday revived a lawsuit by three doctors who say the Food and Drug Administration overstepped its authority in a campaign against treating COVID-19 with the anti-parasite drug ivermectin.

Ivermectin is commonly used to treat parasites in livestock. It can also be prescribed for humans, and it has been championed by some as a treatment for COVID-19. The FDA has not approved ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment because certain studies have not proven it is effective. The agency did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Friday’s ruling from a panel of three judges on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal in New Orleans focused on various aspects of an FDA campaign against ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment.

The ruling acknowledged FDA’s receiving reports of some people requiring hospitalization after self-medicating with ivermectin intended for livestock. But the ruling said the campaign — which at times featured the slogan “You are not a horse!” — too often left out that the drug is sometimes prescribed for humans.

The doctors can proceed with their lawsuit contending that the FDA’s campaign exceeded the agency’s authority under federal law, the ruling said.

“FDA is not a physician. It has authority to inform, announce, and apprise — but not to endorse, denounce, or advise,” Judge Don Willett wrote for a panel that also included Jennifer Walker Elrod and Edith Brown Clement. “The doctors have plausibly alleged that FDA’s posts fell on the wrong side of the line between telling about and telling to.”

Drs. Robert L. Apter, Mary Talley Bowden, and Paul E. Marik filed the lawsuit last year. All three said their reputations were harmed by the FDA campaign. Bowden lost admitting privileges at a Texas hospital, the ruling noted. Marik alleged he lost his positions at a medical school and at a hospital for promoting the use of ivermectin.

The lawsuit was dismissed in December by U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Vincent Brown, who ruled that the complaints didn’t overcome the FDA’s “sovereign immunity,” a concept that protects government entities from many civil lawsuits regarding their responsibilities. The appellate panel said the FDA’s alleged overstepping of its authority opened the door for the lawsuit.

Willett was nominated to the 5th Circuit by former President Donald Trump; Clement and Elrod, by former President George W. Bush. Brown was nominated to the district court bench by Trump.

Categories
Biden Cartel Commentary Corruption Elections Government Overreach January 6 Links from other news sources. Opinion Politics Uncategorized

Eastman explains it all. He did not urge Vice President Pence to reject electors whose certification was still pending.

Eastman explains it all. He did not urge Vice President Pence to reject electors whose certification was still pending. Eastman was on with Laura  Ingraham the other night and explained exactly what he told Mike Pence. Here’s part of his discussion with Ingraham.

“Several things,” Eastman replied. “Some people had urged that Vice President Pence simply had power to reject electors whose certification was still pending.” “I don’t believe that,” Ingraham shot back. “That’s one thing I don’t agree with.”

“I don’t either,” the lawyer said. “And I explicitly told Vice President Pence in the Oval Office on January 4th, that even though it was an open issue, under the circumstances we had, I thought it was the weaker argument and it would be foolish to exercise such power even if you had it.”

“What I recommended, and I’ve said this repeatedly,” he continued, “is that he accede to requests from more than 100 state legislators in the swing states to give them a week to try and sort out the impact of what everybody acknowledged was illegality in the conduct of the election.”

And from Eastman asking Pence to wait a week the far left took that to mean Pence needed to rig the election.

https://twitter.com/BradMossEsq/status/1697036539396562967?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1697036539396562967%7Ctwgr%5Ed42304f5abb8a22305f6fc3bc43eadadd7b6dd5d%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bizpacreview.com%2F2023%2F09%2F01%2Fhe-literally-just-confessed-to-the-crime-libs-lose-it-after-trump-co-defendant-attorney-john-eastman-goes-on-tv-1392234%2F

The full interview below.

 

Categories
America's Heartland Commentary Crime Links from other news sources. Opinion Stupid things people say or do.

Yes, Virginia it was a good shoot. You don’t drive forward towards the Police Officer.

Yes, Virginia it was a good shoot. You don’t drive forward towards the Police Officer. Sadly, a mother of two and pregnant for some reason would not listen to numerous requests from the police officer.

The policeman was notified by a store employee that a woman had committed a theft. What the officer didn’t know was that the person had put back the stolen items. How could they?

The woman then puts the car in gear and hits the accelerator. The police officer directly in front of the vehicle is hit and staggers for several feet. He fires and the rest is history.

 

WATCH: This former police chief breaks down what happened.

Categories
Back Door Power Grab Commentary Corruption Crime Government Overreach How sick is this? Links from other news sources. The Courts The Law

How crazy is this? Fani says defendants have no Constitutional rights.

How crazy is this? Fani says defendants have no Constitutional rights. Fani Willis stated that based on Georgia law, asking for a speedy trial or separation from the other defendants causes this.

“Defendants cannot now argue that they are entitled to the State’s discovery responses ten (10) days in advance of trial.”

“Defendants cannot now argue that they are entitled to notice of the State’s similar transaction evidence ten (10) days in advance of trial.”

“Defendants cannot now complain that they received less than seven (7) days notice of the trial date in this case.”

 

Categories
Biden Cartel Commentary Corruption Crime Elections Government Overreach Links from other news sources. Opinion Politics Reprints from others. Uncategorized

Raffensperger Testimony Supports Trump Defense in Georgia Case.

Raffensperger Testimony Supports Trump Defense in Georgia Case.

By JOEL B. POLLAK

Testimony this week in federal court by Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger reportedly contradicted claims that former President Donald Trump insisted he violate his oath of office by fabricating enough votes to win the state.

As Breitbart News has long noted, the media have misrepresented the January 2021 phone call between Trump and Raffensperger, quoting Trump as telling Raffensperger that he should “find” the votes necessary for him to win. In fact, Trump said “I just want to find” the votes, referring to his own state of mind. Moreover, the context was that Trump believed he actually had won the state of Georgia, and the votes simply had not been properly counted yet.

 

Raffensperger took the stand in a federal court in the Northern District of Georgia as part of a hearing on a motion by former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, who is one of Trump’s 18 co-defendants in the criminal case in Fulton County, Georgia. Meadows argued that the case should be removed to federal court, because he was just working for the president, and therefore cannot be tried in state court under the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.

Meadows stunned many observers by testifying in his own defense. Raffensperger was subpoenaed to testify by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis. According to George Washington University Law School professor Jonathan Turley, Raffensperger testified that the call, while “extraordinary,” was a “settlement negotiation” in the context of an argument over whether to pursue another recount of votes — not a demand to make up new votes.

Turley wrote:

The call was misrepresented by the [Washington] Post and the transcript later showed that Trump was not simply demanding that votes be added to the count but rather asking for another recount or continued investigation. Again, I disagreed with that position but the words about the finding of 11,780 votes was in reference to what he was seeking in a continued investigation. Critics were enraged by the suggestion that Trump was making the case for a recount as opposed to just demanding the addition of votes to the tally or fraudulent findings.

Raffensperger described the call in the same terms. He correctly described the call as “extraordinary” in a president personally seeking such an investigation, particularly after the completion of the earlier recount. That is manifestly true. However, he also acknowledged that this was a “settlement negotiation.”

So what was the subject of the settlement talks? Another recount or further investigation. The very thing that critics this week were apoplectic about in the coverage. That does not mean that Trump had grounds for the demand. Trump’s participation in the call was extraordinary and his demands were equally so. However, the reference to the vote deficit in demanding continued investigation was a predictable argument in such a settlement negotiation. As I previously stated, I have covered such challenges for years as a legal analyst for CBS, NBC, BBC, and Fox. Unsupported legal claims may be sanctionable in court, but they have not been treated as crimes.

If Meadows succeeds in his bid to have the case removed to federal court, other defendants will do the same, and may ague that the charges should be dismissed because of the Supremacy Clause and on other grounds. However, Raffebsperger’s testimony could also be used to dismiss at least some of the Fulton County indictments, particularly regarding “Solicitation of Violation of Oath by Public Officer,” in reference to the phone call with Raffensperger.

Categories
Commentary Corruption Life Links from other news sources. Opinion Politics Reprints from others. Stupid things people say or do.

Washington Post goes over some of the Joe Biden Lies.

Washington Post goes over some of the Joe Biden Lies. This is just a small sampling of Joe’s story telling.

By Gabriel Hays Fox News

The Washington Post’s chief fact-checker Glenn Kessler took exception to several stories President Biden has repeatedly told about his life to connect with audiences in a piece Thursday.

Kessler went through several recurring anecdotes that Biden has shared with crowds over the years and detailed how many of them were embellished or just plain not true. He declared, “But throughout his career… Biden’s propensity to exaggerate or embellish tales about his life led to doubts about his truthfulness.”

Kessler analyzed Biden’s recent recounting of a past fire at his house almost destroying his Corvette, anecdotes about being him arrested for standing up during the civil rights era, and a story about the circumstances that led him to be accepting of same-sex relationships.

Kessler stated that each of these folksy stories from Biden are part of his “tradition of embellishing his personal tales in ways that cannot be verified or are directly refuted by contemporary accounts.”

WASHINGTON POST SLAPS BIDEN WITH ‘FOUR PINOCCHIOS’ FOR FALSELY CLAIMING HUNTER NEVER MADE MONEY FROM CHINA

The Washington Post logo and President Biden

President Biden was called out by the Washington Post fact-checker for several embellished stories he has told audiences over his career. (Getty Images)

The fact-checker began with Biden’s most recent exaggerated story. He wrote, “At least six times as president, mostly recently in comments to Hurricane Idalia victims Wednesday, Biden has exaggerated the extent of a fire that occurred at his house in 2004.”

In those retellings, Kessler noted how Biden, then a U.S. senator from Delaware, had claimed “a couple firefighters” almost died, how his 1967 Corvette was nearly destroyed, and that a “significant portion” of his house burned.

The fact-checker corrected the record, saying, “The contemporary news accounts in the Wilmington News Journal and The Associated Press are much less dramatic.”

Citing the outlets, he added, “’Biden’s house on Barley Mill Road was reported hit by lightning at 8:16 a.m., emergency officials said,’ the News Journal reported. ‘There were no injuries and firefighters kept the fire contained to one room.’

“Cranston Heights Fire Co. Chief George Lamborn told the newspaper the flames did not spread from the kitchen. ‘Luckily, we got it pretty early. The fire was under control in 20 minutes.’”

BIDEN BLASTED FOR COMPARING KITCHEN FIRE IN HIS HOME TO DEVASTATING MAUI BLAZE: ‘ABSOLUTELY DISGUSTING’

Biden in Maui

President Biden speaks after touring areas devastated by the Maui wildfires  in Lahaina, Hawaii, on Aug. 21, 2023. (Evan Vucci)

Kessler then mentioned Biden’s oft-used anecdote about his conversation with an Amtrak conductor. He wrote, “At least 10 times as president, most recently during an Aug. 15 speech in Milwaukee, Biden has told a heartwarming but implausible story about an Amtrak conductor named Angelo Negri who congratulated him for traveling more on Amtrak than he had on Air Force planes as vice president.”

As Biden has told the story, Negri congratulated the then-vice president for traveling 2 million miles on Amtrak trains, almost double the amount he has traveled on Air Force One.

Kessler corrected this, saying, “But it’s not possible this conversation took place as Biden describes… Biden did not pass the 1.2 million-mile mark until 2016; Negri retired from Amtrak in 1993, 16 years before Biden became vice president. Negri died in 2014, two years before Biden claims they had this conversation.”

The fact-checker also poked holes in one of Biden’s go-to gay rights stories. Kessler stated, “Three times this year — and at least seven times since 2014 — Biden has told a version, most recently on Aug. 10, of a story about words his father supposedly spoke after a teenage Biden saw two well-dressed men in suits kiss each other in downtown Wilmington in the early 1960s.”

However, the author noted, “Biden depicts a scene that would have been unusual six decades ago. He describes this exchange with his father usually as taking place in 1961. But back then, gay men generally did not kiss in public. Many people regarded homosexuality as deviant.”

“Moreover,” Kessler added, “Biden’s story has evolved over time. In 2014, in a New York Times article on his evolution on same-sex marriage, he was the father in the story, speaking to one of his sons.”

Categories
Child Abuse Commentary Education Emotional abuse Government Overreach Links from other news sources. Progressive Racism Reprints from others. Transgender WOKE

CONSERVATIVE GROUP TO ANNOUNCE TRIO OF PROPOSED TRANSGENDER BALLOT INITIATIVES

 

CONSERVATIVE GROUP TO ANNOUNCE TRIO OF PROPOSED TRANSGENDER BALLOT INITIATIVES.

BY ANDREW SHEELER

Sacramento Bee.

Riverside Republican Assemblyman Bill Essayli’s bill to force California schools to out transgender students to their parents never got a hearing in the Assembly. But it could soon get a hearing from California voters. Essayli is set to join Assemblyman Joe Patterson, R-Rocklin, on the west steps of the Capitol at 3 p.m.

Monday to unveil a trio of proposed anti-transgender ballot initiatives. Joining the Republican lawmakers are conservative activists Jonathan Zachreson, Scott Davison and Jay Reed; speakers Erin Friday of the group Our Duty; former NCAA athlete Sophia Lorey of the conservative California Family Council, and “de-transitioner” Chloe Cole, who headlined her own event at the Capitol earlier this year.

The activists, calling themselves Protect Kids California, are looking to advance three ballot initiatives that would: Force schools to notify parents if their child uses a different name or pronouns; Block transgender girls from competing in girls’ sports programs; Block transgender minors from accessing gender-affirming medical treatment. Once a proposed ballot measure has been written, its language must be submitted to the California Attorney General’s Office for review.

It will then have until Oct. 26 to prepare a title and summary, at which point the measure’s backers will be cleared to begin circulating petitions for signatures. Proposed initiative statutes require 546,651 signatures, while constitutional amendments require 874,641, according to the California Secretary of State’s Office.  is the last day for the California secretary of state to determine whether an initiative petition meets the minimum signature requirement.

An account for Protect Kids California on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, points to polling it says shows that California voters would support the measures. The group doesn’t cite the source of the polling on its website. The event was promoted on X by Northern California chapters of the group Moms for Liberty.

Edited.

 

Categories
Back Door Power Grab Biden Cartel Commentary Corruption Crime Government Overreach How sick is this? Leftist Virtue(!) Links from other news sources. Opinion Politics Progressive Racism Reprints from others. The Courts The Law

Judge’s order in Mark Meadows case “could be very bad news” for Fani Willis.

Judge’s order in Mark Meadows case “could be very bad news” for Fani Willis.

By Areeba Shah.

U.S. District Court Judge Steve Jones on Tuesday ordered Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis and former president Donald Trump’s chief of staff Mark Meadows to offer opinions on a key matter essential to addressing Meadows’s argument that his Georgia prosecution should be tried in federal court.

Jones asked both parties to provide their views on whether “a finding that at least one (but not all) of the overt acts charged occurred under the color of Meadow’s office [would] be sufficient for federal removal of a criminal prosecution under [the federal removal statute].”

When Meadows took the stand on Tuesday, he argued he was acting in his capacity as Trump’s top White House aide when he reached out to Georgia officials following the 2020 elections. Fulton County prosecutors, on the other hand, asserted that Meadows’ actions went well beyond the responsibilities of his federal position.

Meadows was charged in Willis’ sprawling racketeering indictment, which accuses him and 17 others of conspiring to subvert the results of the 2020 election in Georgia.

In court documents, his legal team has already revealed their plans to seek the dismissal of the charges from a federal judge if the case is transferred to federal court, according to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

Even if a judge doesn’t dismiss the charges, the shift to federal court would provide Meadows with a broader and potentially more conservative pool of jurors and bar cameras from entering the courtroom.

The pivotal point of contention for the removal hinges mainly on whether Meadows can prove that he was indicted for actions he carried out in his capacity as a federal official.

Clark Cunningham, professor of law at Georgia State University, also weighed in on X, formerly Twitter, arguing that this order “could be very bad news” for Willis.

“If I were the DA, I would ask grand jury for a superseding indictment that removes the name of Mark Meadows from Acts 5, 6, 7, and 19 of Count 1 (but continuing the allegations as to Donald Trump),” he wrote.

The first three alleged overt acts by Meadows (Acts 5, 6 and 7) are not necessary to establish his liability under RICO, but keeping them in the indictment now runs an “enormous risk” for the DA of losing the removal issue, in light of Judge Jones’ order, since these overt acts come closest to meeting the test for federal officer removal, he added.

Cunningham explained that Acts 5 and 7 involve White House meetings between Trump and state legislators, for which Meadows made “plausible claims” on the witness stand that his role was limited to what the Chief of Staff typically does. Act 6 alleges only that Meadows asked a member of Congress from Pennsylvania for the phone numbers of the leaders of the state legislature in Pennsylvania, again saying this was a typical task for a chief of staff.

“Act 19 alleges that Trump & Meadows met together with another White House staffer, John McEntee and asked him to prepare a memo for a strategy to disrupt the January 6 session of Congress,” Cunningham wrote. “Meadows testified firmly that Act 19 did not describe anything he had done and it is not worth continuing to try and prosecute Meadows for Act 19.”

Jones ordered that Willis and attorneys for Meadows file their briefs by 5 p.m. on Thursday.

Categories
Biden Cartel Commentary Corruption Economy Education Elections Links from other news sources. Polls

This is why they keep on indicting Trump. Latest Poll. Trump Beats Biden in Electoral Landslide.

This is why they keep on indicting Trump. Latest Poll. Trump Beats Biden in Electoral Landslide. Ever wonder why the Progressives don’t want Trump running again? The latest poll sheds some light.

The McLaughlin national survey finds Trump leads Biden 47% to 43%  up 2 points this month alone.

But here’s the really big news. In the key battleground states Trump leads Biden 49% to 41%.

If the election was today, Trump would defeat Biden in an electoral landslide.

Our poll – and other national surveys are confirming a huge turnaround for Trump.

Remember, Donald Trump never won the popular vote in the 2016 and 2020 national popular vote, and almost all polls had him losing the popular vote in both elections. But now our poll and others show him leading.

 

 

Categories
Biden Cartel Biden Pandemic Commentary Corruption COVID Links from other news sources. Medicine Reprints from others. Science

Who gets the jab. Not I. Just putting this out there.

Who gets the jab. Not I. Just putting this out there. There’s much that I disagree with here, but there are some good points. Overall the article was trying to be fair, but only doctors from the left were included. I’ll highlight some of the good points.

by Kristina Fiore, Director of Enterprise & Investigative Reporting, MedPage Today.

While the FDA and CDC have yet to weigh in on fall COVID boostersopens in a new tab or window, experts in infectious disease and public health are already discussing who should get them, and who may not need to.

High-risk groups get a resounding “yes” — but when it comes to younger, healthy adults, the answer is less clear.

There’s wide agreement that older adults will receive a hearty recommendation to receive the booster, which targets the XBB.1.5 strainopens in a new tab or window, said William Schaffner, MD, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee and a spokesperson for the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA).

The same goes for people younger than 65 who have chronic conditions, are immunocompromised, or who are pregnant, he said.

“Now for adults who are otherwise healthy and younger than 65, and young adults, adolescents, and children, that’s all going to be debated,” Schaffner noted, anticipating how discussions at CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) will go when the group meets on September 12opens in a new tab or window. “Whether they receive a routine recommendation or one for shared clinical decision making … I think there will be some brisk discussion about that.”

Aaron Glatt, MD, of Mount Sinai South Nassau in Oceanside, New York, who is also a spokesperson for IDSA, said that people “who have been vaccinated, who are healthy, who are younger, are probably not the first people who should be getting in line to get another COVID booster, especially if they’ve had one.”

In addition, someone who’s recently had COVID probably doesn’t need a booster, he added.

Glatt was a strong advocate for shared decision making when it comes to COVID boosters. He gave the example of a 62-year-old who was boosted 6 months ago and is in good health. “I think for that group, there’s more leeway to say, let’s individualize the decision.”

Georges Benjamin, MD, executive director of the American Public Health Association, said unlike last year, when CDC recommended bivalent BA.4/5 boosters for all people ages 5 and upopens in a new tab or window (and later expanded the recommendation further), he expects CDC to take a risk-based approach to its recommendations.

“The good news is that you’ve had the full primary series of the vaccine and a bivalent booster, or you were vaccinated and infected, you have substantial protection against getting very sick and dying,” Benjamin told MedPage Today. “But the older you are, the greater your risk of getting very sick and dying.”

Paul Offit, MD, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said the goal of the vaccine has always been to prevent serious illness, and on that basis, the highest-risk groups who should be candidates for vaccination include the elderly, especially people over 75; people with multiple chronic conditions; pregnant people; and the immune compromised.

“These four groups will get the most benefit,” Offit said. “We’re just not going to prevent mild disease for a short-incubation-period mucosal infection for any reasonable amount of time.”

Neither Schaffner, Glatt, nor Offit thought children should be strongly recommended to get a COVID booster. Schaffner noted that in young children, Omicron has been less likely to cause severe disease. In addition, he said, doctors are seeing less multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) due to COVID.

“Virtually every child has been exposed to COVID through infection or vaccination or both, so the population immunity, children included, is pretty high,” Schaffner said. “I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the recommendations for these younger healthy populations are in the shared clinical decision-making category.”

“Why does a healthy 12-year-old with three doses of vaccine need another dose?” Offit said. “There would have to be protection against severe disease and I just don’t see that evidence.”

Glatt noted that “an immunocompromised, very sick child is a different story.” But if the child is healthy, “you’d really have to show me [good data] that there’s a reason to [boost].”

Even the U.K. is focusing its booster recommendations on older and more vulnerable people. Its Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) recommendedopens in a new tab or window offering vaccines to those at high risk of serious disease, including adults ages 65 and up, people with chronic conditions, and people who work in care homes for older adults.

Indeed, that recommendation makes sense from a population health perspective that asks who would benefit most from this intervention, said Bob Wachter, MD, of the University of California San Francisco.

But he believes even young people can get an incremental benefit from fall boosters. Wachter, whose wife has long COVID and who himself experienced a trip to the hospital because of COVID — not from respiratory distress, but from a related fallopens in a new tab or window — said he would recommend a booster to his 30-year-old children because the benefits outweigh the minimal risks.

Even though people in this age group have a low baseline risk of hospitalization from the disease, a booster would reduce that risk even further, he said. It might also help lower their risk of long COVID, he added.

“I start from the baseline that this is a very safe intervention, and there is potential benefit in almost everybody, including relatively young and healthy people,” Wachter said. “But to the question of who’s most likely to benefit, clearly those are the people at higher risk of bad outcomes.”

He added that this year’s fall booster will probably not be very popular, “because not a lot of people got it when the risk was higher and the public attention on COVID was greater.”

“It’s pretty clear that the national consciousness is over it,” he said. “If you’re a healthy 40-year-old, you’re not making a crazy choice not to get boosted.”