Categories
Links from other news sources. Politics

If you’re 21 and under, vote, Katie Porter says you’re immature. Especially if you vote for her.

Views: 11

If you’re 21 and under, vote, Katie Porter says you’re immature. Especially if you vote for her. Follow this conversation with Porter.

Democrat Rep. Katie Porter Saturday night sparred with Piers Morgan and Bill Maher on “Real Time with Bill Maher.” Katie Porter accidentally admitted something about her own constituents during a debate about gun ownership. ‘Kids are immature!” Kate Porter shouted

“Not at 21,” Bill Maher said before being interrupted by Katie Porter.

“21-year-olds are immature! That’s why we don’t let them drink until they’re 21. That’s why some of us don’t think that 20 year olds, that 19-year-olds ought to be able to get AR-15s,” Katie Porter added.

“But they can go fight – they can be in the Army! They can vote!” Bill Maher said.

“I thought if you vote you should have a certain level of maturity – they’re deciding whether you should be in Congress or not,” Bill Maher said directing his statement to Kate Porter.

Katie Porter replied, “By the way, I win those votes… and I’m proud of it!”

Bill Maher interjected, “You just said you win the votes of the immature!”

Crickets.

 

 

Loading

93
Categories
Corruption Crime Just my own thoughts Politics The Law

What does President Trump, The Leaker, and Joe Biden have in common? All three had top secret documents. Only President Trump had top secret documents legally.

Views: 15

What does President Trump, The Leaker, and Joe Biden have in common? All three had top secret documents. Only President Trump had top secret documents legally. Biden and the leaker had those top secrets illegally.

Also President Trump had the power to declassify the documents. Biden and the leaker did not. President Trump had the documents in a locked secured location where you had Secret Service Personnel on site.

President Trump did not release the documents to the public. The leaker did, and with Joe Biden, who knows. Biden wouldn’t remember if he did. And remember when sked about the documents, Biden at first denied it than said they were in his garage on the floor in boes secured.

Loading

117
Categories
Links from other news sources. Reprints from others. The Courts

Clarence Thomas is taking one for the team. The controversy over his gifts is another tempest to fill the dead space between Orange Man Bad stories

Views: 33

Clarence Thomas is taking one for the team.

Did Clarence Thomas do anything wrong in accepting gifts from a wealthy Republican? Or is he the victim of years of pent-up anger at the Supreme Court by Democrats?

Yes.

According to an investigation by ProPublica, for more than twenty years, Justice Thomas received lavish and expensive gifts, including trips on a private yacht and a private jet, from Harlan Crow, a Texas billionaire and real estate developer with a long record of support for Republican politicians. Under the ethics regulations that guide Supreme Court justices, it is not clear that Thomas had to report any of this. (Thomas says the guidance he received affirmed he did not need to report any of the gifts as his angel, Crow, had no business before the Court and the trips were “personal hospitality” — a gift from a friend.)

ProPublica asserts that the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 required Thomas to report these gifts. This is probably untrue. People do not report “personal hospitality,” such as Thomas’s vacations. It wasn’t until a few weeks ago that the Judicial Conference issued new guidelines saying free trips and air travel must now be reported. This was announced as a change in policy, meaning disclosure was not required in the past but would be in the future. It is as simple as that.

So it appears that while Thomas did not break the letter of these regulations, he certainly skirted the edge of what we’ll call propriety — the appearance of being on Harlan Crow’s extended payroll. For a guy who has lived so long in Democratic crosshairs. it seemed an unwise thing for Thomas to do, even if it was legal. One theme of government ethics classes is you don’t just have to demonstrate actual impropriety; you must avoid even the possible appearance of impropriety. Accepting lavish travel perks (or operating your own email server) is just not what regular feds do.

Thomas’s long war with the left started with his confirmation hearings in 1991 after his nomination by President George H.W. Bush. Anita Hill, who worked for Thomas at the Department of Education and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that Thomas had sexually harassed her. Her testimony ignited a national conversation about sexual harassment in the workplace and the treatment of women in the legal profession. It introduced many Americans to the vocabulary of pornography long before Bill Clinton soiled the waters (small world: Senator Joe Biden was then chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which oversaw the confirmation process. Biden has faced criticism for his sexist handling of Hill’s testimony and for not allowing three other female witnesses to testify.)

As a jurist, criticism of Thomas has focused on three points. Many liberals disagree with his conservative judicial philosophy, which emphasizes originalism and strict interpretation of the Constitution. They argue that this approach leads to narrow interpretations of individual rights and protections, particularly for marginalized groups. Similarly, liberals criticize Justice Thomas for his opposition to affirmative action and other civil rights policies. They argue that his views on these issues are harmful to communities of color. Lastly, Thomas is known for being one of the least vocal members of the Supreme Court, rarely asking questions during oral arguments or engaging in public discourse about his opinions. Some liberals argue that this makes it difficult to understand his reasoning. There are accusations that he often makes up his mind along ideological lines before even hearing a case.

Thomas has more recently become a lightning rod for everything Democrats have come to hate about the Supreme Court, as the Court has shifted rightward and Roe v. Wade was overturned. They see Thomas’s “corruption” as emblematic of the Court’s outsize power due to lifetime appointments, isolation from traditional constitutional checks and balances, and virtual immunity from public pressure, making it a magnet for corruption and influence-peddling. They see Harlan Crow as having purchased direct access to one of the most influential and powerful men in America and argue that while Crow may not have a specific issue in front of the Court, he holds a generic interest in right-wing causes and thus has bought himself a sympathetic judge for his broader conservative agenda.

Things only got worse when it was discovered that Thomas’s spouse Ginni donated to Republican causes and sent texts cheering on the protests of January 6. A woman with political thoughts of her own!

The only real check and balance on Supreme Court justices is formal impeachment and removal from the bench, so it’s not surprising that at the first sign of impropriety Democrats like AOC immediately called for Thomas to be impeached. It won’t happen: the standards for impeachment are high, whether what Thomas did actually qualifies is far from clear, and a partisan Congress will never go along with it. Only one Supreme Court justice has ever been impeached: Samuel Chase, in 1804, for alleged political bias in his judicial conduct. The Senate held a trial, but ultimately acquitted Chase of all charges. In addition, Justice Abe Fortas did resign more than fifty years ago over money issues, ahead of a likely try at impeachment.

Some have already gone further than the expected calls for hearings and investigations. The New Republic writes, “The Democrats need to destroy Clarence Thomas’s reputation. They’ll never successfully impeach him. But so what? Make him a metaphor for every insidious thing the far right has done to this country.” The magazine went on to call him the “single worst Supreme Court justice of all time. Clarence Thomas is an embarrassment to the Supreme Court and the country, and the worship of this man on the right is one of the greatest symbols of their contempt for standards, the law, precedent, and democracy.”

The hyperbole gives it away — this is another tempest to fill the dead space between Orange Man Bad stories. Thomas should not be proud of his actions, but nor should he face impeachment, never mind some sort of public drawing and quartering of his reputation. Clarence Thomas is taking one for the team.

Loading

130
Categories
How funny is this? Links from other news sources.

Anheuser-Busch Loses More than $6 Billion in Market Value Following Transgender Dylan Mulvaney Bud Light Deal

Views: 20

Anheuser-Busch Loses More than $6 Billion in Market Value Following Transgender Dylan Mulvaney Bud Light Deal. What did A-B think was going to happen?

As Breitbart News reported, bars across the country are seeing customers avoid the brand. In one Missouri bar, sales of Bud Light and other Anheuser-Busch beverages have reportedly dropped by roughly 40 percent. A bar in New York’s Hell’s Kitchen neighborhood — which has a high population of gays — reportedly saw Bud Light sales drop 70 percent.

Another report found Anheuser-Busch distributors across America’s heartland and the South are being “spooked” by public backlash to the Dylan Mulvaney campaign.

I’m sure this may go over in blue areas like California, but many there are stuck on their Ripple and Colt 45.

 

Loading

113
Categories
Just my own thoughts The Courts The Law

What a crybaby.

Views: 10

What a crybaby. So the local yokel from NYC is now begging the Federal courts  to bail his butt out of having to explain why he would use federal charges in a state court.

He created these phony 34 charges and now wants a federal judge to help him out of this mess. Well he used Federal charges and spent Federal dollars on this, so yes Congress has a right to call him out.

He’s outright lying claiming that Congress wants him to reveal his strategy. They are only asking him to explain how he came up with his charges since he’s a local yokel trying to use big boy charges.

 

Loading

66
Categories
Just my own thoughts Links from other news sources.

ESPN’s Stephen A. Smith Says He Knows Trump Is Not ‘Racist’ from Personal Experience

Views: 8

ESPN’s Stephen A. Smith Says He Knows Trump Is Not ‘Racist’ from Personal Experience. I have no love for this noted race baiter. I always wondered why a sports reporter talks more about politics than sports. Odds are another affirmative action hire.

But he did get this one right. ESPN analyst Stephen A. Smith recently batted down claims that Donald Trump is a racist and said he never saw or heard Trump acting like a bigot during any of their many personal meetings.

The ESPN First Take host was speaking at the Semafor Media Summit on Monday when the topic of the former president was raised in a question-and-answer period.

Smith pushed back on the left’s constant claim that Trump is somehow a racist. “I think he’s changed, but I will tell you this: I think when people call him racist and stuff like that, I’ve never thought of Trump that way,” Smith told the audience.

Loading

96
Categories
Links from other news sources. Reprints from others.

Musk kicks butt and takes names.

Views: 12

 

Originally Published on DailyClout

“You just lied!” pressed Elon Musk to BBC reporter James Clayton. “You said you experienced more hateful content [on Twitter] and then couldn’t name a single example. That’s absurd!”

The above remarks were in response to James Clayton’s declarations that he has experienced more “hateful content” on Twitter since Elon took over the platform. But when Elon probed him to give an example, he stumbled, fumbled, and couldn’t come up with one instance.

This moment marks just one of many where BBC’s Clayton looked completely unprepared to deal with Elon Musk.

BBC’s James Clayton was hoping to be the one asking all the questions in this spontaneously-planned interview. But it turns out Elon’s curiosity sparked him to ask a few questions of his own.

One of those questions was about the BBC’s COVID misinformation policy.

“Does the BBC hold itself at all responsible for misinformation regarding masking and side effects of vaccinations — and not reporting on that at all? And what about the fact that the BBC was put under pressure by the British government to change the editorial policy? Are you aware of that?” asked Elon Musk.

“This is not an interview about the BBC,” responded Mr. Clayton. “Let’s talk about something else!”

Clayton asked Musk about his decision to reinstate former President Trump.

Elon stated that he didn’t vote for Donald Trump, but he believes people of all political persuasions should be allowed on the platform. “Free speech is meaningless unless you allow people you don’t like to say things you don’t like. Otherwise, it’s irrelevant. At the point in which you lose free speech, it doesn’t come back.”

The next topic was “misinformation.”

“Do you believe you prioritize freedom of speech over misinformation and hate speech,” asked James Clayton.

Mr. Clayton was caught off-guard as Elon turned the tables on him.

“Who is the arbiter of that [misinformation]? Is it the BBC?” asked Musk.

James Clayton stammered, “Are you literally asking me?”

“Yes,” replied Elon. “Who is to say that one person’s misinformation is another person’s information?”

Paid blue checkmarks were another topic. BBC’s Clayton asked if that feature would dilute the pool of sources people could trust.

Elon expressed that he often trusts the average citizens over professional journalists —because when a journalist doesn’t know an industry or topic too well and only has a few facts to play with, their article doesn’t exactly “hit the bullseye.”

“You’re sort of saying, who knows best? The average citizen or someone who is a journalist? And I think in a lot of cases, the average citizen knows more than the journalist,” he opined.

“If someone comes in and offers you $44 billion for Twitter right now, would you take it?” questioned Clayton.

” No,” replied Elon.

“Would you consider it?” Clayton asked.

“No,” answered Musk. Because “I do want to have some source of truth that I can count on.” And Mr. Musk said he believes that Twitter does that in real-time — and that the platform will only get more accurate as time progresses.

Lastly, Mr. Clayton asked for Elon’s response to criticisms that he “ruined” the platform.

“Well, we have all-time high usage. So I don’t think it has been [ruined],” expressed Musk.

“Some people say it has been. I’ll tell you that,” replied BBC’s Clayton.

“They’re probably the same people who predicted that Twitter would cease to exist, and their predictions have turned out to be false,” Elon responded

For BBC’s self-interpretation of the interview, you can read that here:

Loading

127
Categories
How sick is this? Opinion The Law

Democrats declare war on Catholics — under a “Catholic” president. What???

Views: 25

 

Spying on Catholics is now cool.

Here are just a few disturbing articles appearing in recent weeks, even if you’re NOT a Catholic:

FBI sought to develop sources in Catholic churches to combat domestic terrorism, docs show

(Those documents showed the FBI planned to use churches as “new avenues for tripwire and source development.” The federal law enforcement agency also aimed to specifically target “mainline Catholic parishes” as part of its efforts.)

FBI used an undercover ‘employee’ to monitor Catholic clergy and parishioners.

Vivek Ramaswamy blasts ‘federal bureaucracy’ after FBI Catholic church revelations: ‘Shut it down’

“When a federal bureaucracy becomes this toxic, there’s only one answer left. You shut it down,” Ramaswamy said. “Top-down ‘reform’ becomes impossible.”

DOJ, FBI targeting Catholics as ‘violent extremists’ under scrutiny by state AGs: ‘Bigotry’ is ‘festering’

(“Anti-Catholic bigotry appears to be festering in the FBI, and the Bureau is treating Catholics as potential terrorists because of their beliefs,” the 20 AGs wrote to FBI Director Christopher Wray and U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland.)

The FBI has found a new gateway to declare Christians as criminals, a federal whistleblower said

(An internal document from the bureau’s Richmond, Virginia, field office allegedly vowed to spy on “radical traditionalist Catholics and their ideology.” He or she stated the very simple statement, which is that if they’re going to go after radical, traditional Catholics, then radical traditional Baptists are next and radical, traditional evangelicalism and anybody else that espouses essentially what is radical, which is just a Christian faith and that is dangerous apparently in this country,” )

But — and it’s a big one:

Feds want no jail time for a pro-abortion vandal who defaced a church, assaulted a church worker

(Federal prosecutors have offered a no-jail plea deal to a vandal who admitted to defacing a Catholic church with profane graffiti, destroying a Virgin Mary statue, assaulting a church worker, and resisting arrest.)

Huh?

No jail time for a federal felony hate crime??? Interesting.


Whatever you may think of Jack Kennedy, can you imagine these things happening while he was President? Neither can I.

Biden is nominally a Catholic.

Biden is nominally a Catholic, even though his transgressions put Kennedy’s peccadilloes to shame by several orders of magnitude. So why are they going against Christians in general and Catholics in particular? Power, pure and simple.

It would be both easy (and fallacious) to simply blame George Soros and the globalists like WHO and WEF. Or to get all caught up in other “End Times” conspiracy theories. The former should not need an explanation. The latter is explained in the Bible itself.

1.) There will be no “Rapture” prior to the 2nd coming. (that concept was introduced over 1800 years after the Crucifixion.) What people point to as “the Rapture” is in fact a description of the second coming.

2.) What did Jesus Himself say to those seeking to know when the “end times” would be? : Acts 1:6-11 [NIV]6 Then they gathered around him and asked him, “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?” 7 He said to them: “It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority.8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” 9 After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight. 10 They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. 11 “Men of Galilee,” they said, “why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven.”

3.) Further 1 Thessalonians 5 states that His return will happen like “a thief in the night” while everyone is saying “peace and safety”. So, the more people are expecting the end at any time the less it is likely to happen — at least IMO. 1 Thessalonians 5:1-5: 1Brothers and sisters, we don’t have to write to you about times and dates. You know very well how the day of the Lord will come. It will come like a thief in the night. People will be saying that everything is peaceful and safe. Then suddenly they will be destroyed. It will happen like birth pains coming on a pregnant woman. None of the people will escape.

Those last six words seem to eliminate the idea of a Rapture right there. And while not a popular position. many biblical scholars point to passages in both the Old and New Testaments that indicate that the “end days” started with Jesus Christ’s appearance on earth either at His birth or His death/resurrection.

That said, I don’t like how things are going, but how is it any different than what happened throughout the last two millennia? Or more, if you count the Jewish people.

Either way, what is happening is, in fact, evil, and — as a number of men have stated in various forms: Evil only flourishes when good men and women do nothing.

You don’t have to agree with my own religious opinions but don’t attack me rather instead of staying on the topic(s) stated above.

Don’t worry, you won’t miss it. But it’s not what you’re expecting.

Even Robert A. Heinlein — who was not exactly a devout Christian — depicts the Rapture as simply the second coming (See his book JOB.)

Loading

117
Categories
Back Door Power Grab Corruption Just my own thoughts Links from other news sources.

Now we know why Biden removed Trumps Executive Privilege.

Views: 49

Now we know why Biden removed Trumps Executive Privilege. After Biden removed Trump’s Executive Privilege, the DOJ did their raid. A raid done knowing the Secret Service would not have been there.

Mar-a-Largo was invaded by armed FBI agents. An FBI who did not want to do this but now we learn that it was a raid planned by the White House. What did they find? Documents in a secured locked room. Documents there because the President had a right to have.

Unlike the stolen documents found at the Biden cartel locations. Documents marked top secret that Biden had no right to have in his position. How do we now know this?

This week more evidence came out that Biden was involved with the raid on Mar-a-Lago:

NARA records obtained through America First Legal’s investigation into the circumstances surrounding the Mar-a-Lago raid further confirmed that the FBI obtained access to these records through a “special access request” from the Biden White House on behalf of the Department of Justice (DOJ).

Loading

119
Categories
Biden Pandemic COVID Drugs Life Science Stupid things people say or do.

White House to invest $5 billion in next-generation COVID vaccines. Here’s why we [don’t] need new ones.

Views: 20

Story by Karen Weintraub, USA TODAY

Bracketed comments by Phoenix

The Biden Administration Monday announced a $5 billion program to accelerate the development of next-generation COVID-19 vaccines and treatments.

[Of course, the elephant in the room is: “Why? We already have effective treatments, ones that don’t kill people.” Oh, wait: they’re cheap, and Big Pharma can’t make more Billion$ from them. Carry on…..]

Like Operation Warp Speed, which developed and distributed vaccines in the early days of the pandemic, Project NextGen will cut across government agencies and involve public-private collaborations, a senior Biden official told USA TODAY.

Current vaccines, developed rapidly in the heat of the emergency, are “really good, but they’re not great,” said Michael Osterholm, an epidemiologist who worked with the administration to develop the new program. “There is a substantial amount of work (to be done) to take these good vaccines and hopefully achieve better vaccines.”

Project NextGen has three primary goals, which Osterholm and colleagues laid out in a “roadmap” issued in February: Develop a nasal vaccine that will hopefully prevent infection as well as severe disease; develop longer-lasting vaccines; and create “broader” vaccines that protect against all variants and several different coronaviruses

[ Why do they need a “new” nasal vax when two already exist? Oh, wait. Same answer.]

It will also include funding to develop more durable monoclonal antibodies resistant to new variants, according to the administration. Antibodies were highly effective treatments earlier in the pandemic but have not been able to keep up with the virus as it evolved and are no longer available.

The Biden administration Monday announced a $5 billion program to accelerate the development of next-generation COVID-19 vaccines and treatments.

Like Operation Warp Speed, which developed and distributed vaccines in the early days of the pandemic, Project NextGen will cut across government agencies and involve public-private collaborations, a senior Biden official told USA TODAY.

Current vaccines, developed rapidly in the heat of the emergency, are “really good, but they’re not great,” said Michael Osterholm, an epidemiologist who worked with the administration to develop the new program. “There is a substantial amount of work (to be done) to take these good vaccines and hopefully achieve better vaccines.”

Project NextGen has three primary goals, which Osterholm and colleagues laid out in a “roadmap” issued in February: Develop a nasal vaccine that will hopefully prevent infection as well as severe disease; develop longer-lasting vaccines; and create “broader” vaccines that protect against all variants and several different coronaviruses

It will also include funding to develop more durable monoclonal antibodies resistant to new variants, according to the administration. Antibodies were highly effective treatments earlier in the pandemic but have not been able to keep up with the virus as it evolved and are no longer available.

The administration said the initial allocation of $5 billion for Project NextGen would be financed through money saved from contracts costing less than originally estimated. The investment was first reported Monday by the Washington Post.

Dr. Gregory Poland, director of the Mayo Clinic’s Vaccine Research Group who was also involved in the earlier roadmap, said he and others have been advising the White House since last summer to launch something like Project NextGen.

The funding is a start, he said, “but much more will be needed to accomplish all three goals,” he said. “The need though is urgent and now – something government generally doesn’t do well, hence the key will be prioritization and implementation.”

The Biden administration Monday announced a $5 billion program to accelerate the development of next-generation COVID-19 vaccines and treatments.

Like Operation Warp Speed, which developed and distributed vaccines in the early days of the pandemic, Project NextGen will cut across government agencies and involve public-private collaborations, a senior Biden official told USA TODAY.

Current vaccines, developed rapidly in the heat of the emergency, are “really good, but they’re not great,” said Michael Osterholm, an epidemiologist who worked with the administration to develop the new program. “There is a substantial amount of work (to be done) to take these good vaccines and hopefully achieve better vaccines.”

Project NextGen has three primary goals, which Osterholm and colleagues laid out in a “roadmap” issued in February: Develop a nasal vaccine that will hopefully prevent infection as well as severe disease; develop longer-lasting vaccines; and create “broader” vaccines that protect against all variants and several different coronaviruses

It will also include funding to develop more durable monoclonal antibodies resistant to new variants, according to the administration. Antibodies were highly effective treatments earlier in the pandemic but have not been able to keep up with the virus as it evolved and are no longer available.

The administration said the initial allocation of $5 billion for Project NextGen will be financed through money saved from contracts costing less than originally estimated. The investment was first reported Monday by the Washington Post.

Dr. Gregory Poland, director of the Mayo Clinic’s Vaccine Research Group who was also involved in the earlier roadmap, said he and others have been advising the White House since last summer to launch something like Project NextGen.

The funding is a start he said, “but much more will be needed to accomplish all three goals,” he said. “The need though is urgent and now – something government generally doesn’t do well, hence the key will be prioritization and implementation.”

Why do we need new coronavirus vaccines?

When the current vaccines were developed, speed was a priority along with safety and effectiveness. They were 95% effective at preventing all disease when first released in late 2020. But their effectiveness against mild disease, in particular, wanes over just a handful of months.

Protection may also not be as good as the virus continues to evolve. The current bivalent booster is aimed at both the original virus and the BA.5 variant.

But SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID, is the third new coronavirus to pop up in the last two decades, following Middle-Eastern Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and Severe Acute Respiratory (SARS). If and when a fourth turns up, it would be great to already have a vaccine that could protect against” it,’ said Osterholm, who directs the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota.

[ “…when a fourth turns up, it would be great TO ALREADY HAVE a vaccine that could protect against it…”  Hmm, Bill Gates & friends have already told us there’s another pandemic coming, is there something they know that we don’t?]

A nasal vaccine is the third item on the wish list. The idea is that by delivering a vaccine directly to the area where the virus enters the body, scientists could set up a barrier of protection to prevent even mild infections and transmission from one person to the next.

[But didn’t they tell us initially that surface contact would spread it? DISINFECT EVERYTHING! And what about people who breathe more through their mouths — like people with allergies such as Hay Fever?]

“I think an initiative like this is much needed and should have been put in place much sooner,” said John Moore, an immunologist at Weill Cornell Medical College in New York.

What happens next?

Reaching these goals will likely be more difficult than it sounds, Moore said. 

“Anyone familiar with vaccine development knows that translation into a practical product is a much harder and more expensive process” than simply creating a basic vaccine, he said. “A lot of designs that look good in the early stages fizzle out because they cannot be manufactured efficiently under the conditions required for human trials.”

[And when did they have time for human testing under Warp Speed?]

Dr. Paul Offit, a pediatrician who directs the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, is skeptical that any of these goals are realistic.

Researchers have been trying for more than 40 years to develop vaccines against multiple strains of flu and against HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. Both have proven elusive, he said, because the viruses mutate so much, as does SARS-CoV-2.

Meanwhile, nasal vaccines are still being tested in clinical trials, so it’s not yet clear how effective they’ll be against COVID. A nasal vaccine for the flu doesn’t provide any more protection than a shot, Offit said, and it’s most effective in young children who have never been exposed to the flu virus before. At this point, nearly every American has already been exposed to the virus that causes COVID.

Moore agrees that developing a nasal vaccine should be a high priority, but “it’s seriously naive to believe that it will be easy to make one.”

Offit worries that the emphasis on making COVID vaccines better will undermine public trust in the ones we already have. He said the current vaccines have been “amazing,” but that vaccines can only do so much.

What did Operation Warp Speed do?

Under the Trump administration, Operation Warp Speed spent about $30 billion beginning in March 2020 to develop, manufacture and distribute COVID-19 vaccines.

The federal government essentially placed bets on six different drug companies hoping at least a few of them would prove successful. Each received over $1 billion (although Pfizer/BioNTech developed its vaccine without government support) with a promise of a guaranteed market if they succeeded. 

Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech both developed, tested, passed regulatory hurdles and produced millions of doses of their mRNA vaccines in under a year. Previously, the fastest vaccine had taken four years to bring to market.

Johnson and Johnson also developed a vaccine based on a different technology. While effective, the vaccine led to a rare side effect and is no longer widely available in the United States.

Novavax pursued a third type of vaccine technology and has also won emergency regulatory approval, though it is not widely available.

►The other two efforts, one by Sanofi and another by AstraZeneca, fell behind early and were not advanced beyond preliminary testing.

[It’s obvious I’m skeptical of the claims here. If the previous record for developing a vaccine was FOUR YEARS, how did they manage to develop –AND TEST– them so quickly (less than a third of that time)? Why weren’t these vaccines pulled after the deadly side effects became apparent? It only took a ‘mere’ 50 deaths to yank the swine flu vaccine; how many THOUSANDS have died/been seriously affected by the clot shots?]

Loading

102
Verified by MonsterInsights