​​Then it happened. We reached our peak. But like the COVID-19 waves, there were three peaks. The CDC gets credit for all of this. It’s disheartening to pick on the CDC because there are some brilliant doctors and scientists that do incredible work. Still, it’s clear that after COVID-19, the leadership needs a change. They jumped off the mountain of public healthcare twice and flew off in a wing suit, trying to achieve Zero-COVID-19. If you follow extreme sports, you know how dangerous that can be. Just look up climbing great Dean Potter.

I watched Happy Days as a little kid. Even before the expression “jumping the shark” became a commonplace term, seeing Fonzie in real time, jumping a shark on waterskies while wearing a leather jacket, was just too much.

Businesses have created products that jumped the shark. Many television shows have jumped the shark. You’ve probably had a dinner party when someone made a comment so over the top that you had to look down to see if they were wearing waterskis.

The CDC did it with two different directors.

Dr. Robert Redfield was appointed director of the CDC in 2018, and the CDC was the first to proclaim that wearing masks was necessary to curb COVID-19 transmission in the spring of 2020.

On September 16, 2020, Dr. Redfield spoke to a Senate committee. While holding up a disposable surgical mask (below), he said this:

“We have clear scientific evidence they work, I might even go so far as to say that this face mask is more guaranteed to protect me against COVID than when I take a COVID vaccine, because the immunogenicity may be 70 percent and if I don’t get an immune response, the vaccine’s not going to protect me; this face mask will. Masks are the most important, powerful public health tool we have.”

He said that the pandemic would be brought under control if Americans embraced mask-wearing for six to twelve weeks (just two more weeks!). He specifically called out 18-to-25-year-olds, whom he said are responsible for continuing the outbreak in America. The picture doesn’t show it, but Redfield must be wearing waterskis under that table.

There’s a lot to unpack here. First, some percent of the population has natural immunity–T-cell immunity. We don’t know how much, but with so many people infected and asymptomatic (most of the infections), it could be 20-50% of the population. Second, the only way out of any pandemic is population, or herd, immunity. When a high percentage of the population acquires natural or vaccinated immunity, there just aren’t enough people able to pass it on, and it fizzles out.

Third, the world had very high mask-wearing compliance. If masks are better than a vaccine, why didn’t it work? Anywhere? We cannot find a state in the country with sustained suppression of cases, hospitalizations, and COVID-19 deaths following a mask mandate.

In January 2021, some inventive middle-schoolers took some leftover mannequins from one of the retailers that went out of business because of the lockdowns. For their science project, they placed a surgical mask on a dummy head and a cloth mask over the surgical mask. Double masking. They declared it more effective than single masking (it probably was). Except it wasn’t some middle-schoolers. It was the CDC:

The second shark jump: we need to wear two masks. On February 11, 2021, Dr. Fauci told Savannah Guthrie on TODAY that “two masks are better than one, it’s common sense.”

First, this recommendation by the CDC came nearly one year after the initial face mask recommendation. We went from “mask science BC” (before COVID-19) that symptomatic individuals should maybe wear masks (a reasonable thought) to the CDC recommending everyone wear masks in March 2020, to this new recommendation of two face masks for everyone. How could a finding or recommendation like this take a full year?

There was no real-world data that wearing two masks actually improved mask efficacy. In the mask-wearing universe, there are three segments of wearers: those that believe masks work and wear them with great discipline; those that wear them whenever they are required, the rule-followers; and those that rebel and either refuse to wear them or wear them as little as possible, adjusting their activities for a year to avoid wearing them.

The middle group has lost confidence in the CDC and the effectiveness of masks to protect against COVID-19. The CDC should have identified by late summer 2020 that mask-wearing wasn’t stunting the spread: cases and hospitalizations in places with high mask usage weren’t any better than the places without mandates. A real study comparing people in two masks to those in a single mask, controlled by providing the masks for consistency, would have been valuable data.

CDC Study on Mask Efficacy

On November 27, 2020, the CDC released a mask study called “Trends in County-Level COVID-19 Incidence in Counties With and Without a Mask Mandate — Kansas, June 1–August 23, 2020.” The governor of Kansas issued an executive order requiring wearing masks in public spaces, effective July 3, 2020, which was subject to county authority to opt out. “After July 3, COVID-19 incidence decreased in 24 counties with mask mandates but continued to increase in 81 counties without mask mandates.”

​The study was released in late November of 2020 but had a cutoff of late August. During the study period, COVID-19 hospitalizations in Kansas hovered around 300 a day against a capacity of 6,400, about 5% of capacity. In October, hospitalizations rose, like every state in their part of the country. By December, COVID-19 hospitalizations hovered around 1,000 a day for several weeks and then dropped sharply in January.

Below is what happened with absolute numbers of cases during the CDC study period:

​As you can see, the counties with mask mandates had more cases per capita during that period than those without mask mandates.

Instead of comparing the case rate growth from July 3, 2020, when the mandate started, they chose to start by looking at the weekly case rate ending on July 9, after the masked counties had seen a huge increase. The seven-day average on July 3 was 91 per million. On July 9, it was 178 per million. They chose to start from 178. What that allowed them to do was claim a 6% decrease after the mask mandate, because they ignored the 96% growth in the first week after the mandate, giving themselves a higher baseline to start from. If you take the starting date of July 3 and the ending date of August 23, the case rate growth in the masked counties was 89%. If you start on July 9, it’s a 6% decrease.

​Further, you can see what happened to cases when the winter season hit the upper Midwest. The CDC cut off their study before the seasonal bump but released it well after cases rose. The CDC had this data but chose not to qualify their results, nor pull the entire study. Any time a study of this nature is completed and future data negates the conclusions, the study is supposed to be scrapped. In this case, it was released with no acknowledgement of what happened following the study period.

From the time the study ended through the end of 2020, cases were about the same (actually lower) in the mask-mandated versus non-mandated counties. However, the burden is not on the non-masked counties to be better; having the same results nullifies the value that masks are supposed to bring to the table.

The CDC had almost three months’ worth of data between the study’s end date and the release of the study. I went to my primary care physician in late fall 2020, and we discussed masks. He mentioned this Kansas study. I asked him if he knew what the data showed after the study cut-off date, and he did not. If there is one thing COVID-19 and the lockdowns should teach us, it’s that we should fact-check data ourselves before running with anything provided from just one source.

Governor Greg Abbott sent shock waves through the country when he announced on March 2, 2021, that Texas would lift all restrictions and mask mandates a week later. Further, no city or county would be able to enact their own restrictions unless COVID-19 hospitalizations exceeded 15% capacity in that area.

Texas is the second-largest and most powerful state in the U.S. behind California. It’s one thing when Iowa lifts all restrictions and quite another when Texas does. Nationally, the U.S. at the time had about 5% of total hospital beds occupied with COVID-19 patients (it’s likely that about 2/3 of them had a primary diagnosis of COVID-19). At what number do you go back to normal? New York City was under 1% when they would not send kids back to school in the fall of 2020.

Texas lifting restrictions was the biggest step forward of the pandemic. When Mississippi followed suit (to some extent), President Biden called the decision by Texas and a Mississippi governors “Neanderthal thinking.”

If Texas remains on its current trend of COVID-19 activity without masks and closures, how will other states justify the measures? You can picture Governor Newsom or Cuomo calling the White House in a panic. You can then picture someone from the White House calling the CDC in a panic: “Do something! You must put something out that shows this is a mistake, or they’re all going to open up by May 1!”

Three days later, the CDC released this study: “Association of State-Issued Mask Mandates and Allowing On-Premises Restaurant Dining with County-Level COVID-19 Case and Death Growth Rates — United States, March 1–December 31, 2020.” Below are some key findings:

​How much of an increase? Twice as much? Three to four times more? Ten times more? To write a paper and publish it, the authors would need to offer some very material differences in COVID-19 activity. They couldn’t jump the shark three times in six months, could they? If you play poker at all, you can relate to the expression that the CDC became “pot-committed.” They’d invested so much in the lockdown pot that they had to see it through.

And so it went, with these startling conclusions from their ten-month study on mask-wearing and indoor dining:

​The CDC is stating that not wearing masks and dining indoors caused about a one percent increase in cases and thus drew the conclusion that everyone should wear masks and not eat inside a restaurant. Any community college freshman stats student could tell you that one percent is within the margin of error and not statistically significant. The authors are further concluding that these NPIs contributed an additional 2.6% in COVID-19 deaths.

It doesn’t pass the logic test. Half the deaths were to people at life expectancy with multiple underlying conditions. These are generally not people who are going out to dinner. You can argue that people in contact with them could have caught it and passed it on to those at risk. That is possible. This is where you encourage those individuals to practice more personal responsibility, not close hundreds of thousands of businesses indefinitely.

America is pulling out of the pandemic and the lockdowns. The early CDC and WHO playbooks suggested a maximum of four-week closures for a Class Two pandemic like COVID-19. As we reach our one-year anniversary of the lockdowns, it’s time to get kids in class, get people back to work, and let everyone practice personal responsibility.

Michael Betrus is the author of COVID-19: Lockdowns on Trial

​https://rationalground.com/the-cdc-jumps-the-shark/

Amidst the rising “cases,” are the lockdowns a proportionate response? Recall that governors locked down because the March 2020 Imperial College model predicted we’d be in a worst-case ten-fold shortfall of ICU capacity at our peak and a best-case three-fold shortfall. That never happened; we never got remotely close. Still, we’re locked down and really never fully reopened anywhere.

The WHO estimated in September that there may be 750 million people worldwide that have been infected with SARS-CoV-2. That run rate in America means that over 150 million Americans have been infected. No one that follows this closely would doubt at least 100 million have been infected. As “cases” rise and daily testing is between one and two million tests a day, it’s almost surprising that we’re not reporting over 300,000 cases a day.

Meanwhile, COVID-19 hospitalizations in America were at an all-time high in early January at ~132,000. How alarming is that? There’s no doubt COVID-19 activity is rising, but enough to justify more crushing lockdowns? With so many people infected, data from North Dakota, Iowa, and Miami suggest a good third of all COVID-19 hospitalizations are not from COVID-19 but rather patients with an unrelated illness that are carrying the virus. That applies to COVID-19 fatalities, too.

Consider South Dakota, which is, along with Florida, one of the two most open states. Governor Kristi Noem has been criticized by lockdown advocates for their rising cases and hospitalizations. However, the default for all states is to be open; we seem to have forgotten that. Locked-down states need to demonstrate far superior COVID-19 results in hospitalizations and fatalities to justify lockdowns. They aren’t.

South Dakota has 5.6% of their hospital beds occupied with patients with SARS-CoV-2 (meaning that they tested positive for the virus or have the disease COVID-19), down from a peak of 14% in November, when COVID-19 finally reached them. The United States as a whole is at 13.3%. However, look at the COVID-19 hospitalization percent in states neighboring South Dakota: Nebraska – 11.1%; North Dakota – 2.5%, down from a peak of 12% (North Dakota only counts those hospitalized for COVID-19 disease, not just testing positive, something all states need to do); Idaho – 15%; Montana – 9%; Iowa – 6%. Shouldn’t the locked-down states demonstrate fewer hospitalizations than South Dakota if their lockdowns were effective? They aren’t. Critics point to the surge in hospitalizations in South Dakota in November, as well as COVID-19 deaths. What they don’t contextualize is that every state around South Dakota peaked in the very same weeks. You can overlay one state’s curve over another, and they were nearly identical.

The total number of occupied hospital beds is basically flat compared to a year ago. South Dakota is below average in total occupied hospital beds for any cause. In November, tightly-locked Minnesota and Michigan were both up almost 10%, Pennsylvania was up a whopping 26%, and Wisconsin up almost 30%. If lockdowns work, shouldn’t they be doing better on average than the open states? South Dakota rose to a top-ten state in COVID-19 deaths per capita by year end, but it’s still in the mix with a dozen states that have been issuing harsh lockdowns for nine months and counting.

Florida completely opened up on September 25, removing individual mask mandates and most capacity restrictions; the Education Commissioner has consistently required schools to offer in-person options. If lockdowns work, the states surrounding Florida should have far better metrics for hospitalizations and deaths than the Sunshine State. They do not. Florida is rising in hospitalizations (still below their summer high), but so is every state within a thousand miles. Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, both Carolinas… on and on. We can overlay each state’s curves, and they look almost identical to Florida. While it’s not reasonable to compare Florida to New Jersey and New York, it’s expected to compare them to the many states in the southeast.

CDC reports indicate that we have about 350,000 excess deaths in America for 2020. Most of those may be attributed to COVID-19, but a solid hundred thousand-plus are attributed to lockdowns: deaths of despair, Alzheimer’s abandonment deaths, deaths of those age 26-44 not from COVID-19, not to mention that it is estimated that 46% of the six most common cancers didn’t get diagnosed, half the 650,000 cancer patients missed treatments, and half of child immunizations were missed. We can discuss the 40+ million kids losing a year of education this year another time, all while people age 0-25 are actually 2% below average in total deaths this year. School-aged people are below average this year in total deaths.

The United States is +12% in all-cause deaths for 2020. Open South Dakota should be far surpassing locked down states this year in all-cause deaths. South Dakota is +13% in excess deaths this year. States doing worse than South Dakota that are locked down include New Jersey (+29%), Arizona (+22%), Illinois (+17%), Michigan (+14%), New Mexico (+9%), Colorado (+14%), Texas (+17%), and several others. When this is over, measuring all-cause mortality impacts will be the most reliable metric to determine the impact of COVID-19 and the lockdowns. If you consider COVID-19 deaths per million, locked-down states should have far fewer total lives lost than those that are open, and they do not. In many cases they are doing worse.

States that are locking down are not outperforming those that are open, and they should be by huge margins to justify lockdowns. The burden of proof is on the lockdown states to prove they are effective at suppressing COVID-19 infections, hospitalizations, COVID-19 fatalities, and all-cause fatalities compared to those that are open. They simply are not.

Michael Betrus is the author of COVID-19: Lockdowns on Trial, @betrus_michael

​https://rationalground.com/the-burden-of-proof/

Yes we do have a pandemic, but it’ a pandemic of ginned up pseudo-science masquerading as unbiased fact. Here are nine facts backed up with data, in many cases from the CDC itself that paints a very different picture from the fear and dread being relentlessly drummed into the brains of unsuspecting citizens.

1) The PCR test is practically useless 

According to an article in the New York Times August 29th 2020 testing for the Covid-19 virus using the popular PCR method results in up to 90% of those tested showing positive results that are grossly misleading.

Officials in Massachusetts, New York and Nevada compiled testing data that revealed the PCR test can NOT determine the amount of virus in a sample. (viral load) The amount of virus in up to 90% of positive results turned out to be so miniscule that the patient was asymptomatic and posed no threat to others. So the positive Covid-19 tests are virtually meaningless.

2) A positive test is NOT a CASE

 For some reason every positive Covid-19 test is immediately designated a CASE. As we saw in #1 above up to 90% of positive Covid-19 tests result in miniscule amounts of virus that do not sicken the subject. Historically only patients who demonstrated actual symptoms of an illness were considered a case. Publishing positive test results as “CASES” is grossly misleading and needlessly alarming.

3) The Centers for Disease Control dramatically lowered the Covid-19 Death Count 

On August 30th the CDC released new data that showed only 6% of the deaths previously attributed to Covid-19 were due exclusively to the virus. The vast majority, 94%, may have had exposure to Covid-19 but also had preexisting illnesses like heart disease, obesity, hypertension, cancer and various respiratory illnesses. While they died with Covid-19 they did NOT die exclusively from Covid-19.

4) CDC reports Covid-19 Survival Rate over 99% 

The CDC updated their “Current Best Estimate” for Covid-19 survival on September 10th showing that over 99% of people exposed to the virus survived. Another way to say this is that less than 1% of the exposures are potentially life threatening. According to the CDC the vast majority of deaths attributed to Covid-19 were concentrated in the population over age 70, close to normal life expectancy.

5) CDC reveals 85% of Positive Covid cases wore face masks Always or Often 

In September of 2020 the CDC released the results of a study conducted in July where they discovered that 85% of the positive Covid test subjects reported wearing a cloth face mask always or often for two weeks prior to testing positive. The majority, 71% of the test subjects reported always wearing a cloth face mask and 14% reported often wearing a cloth face mask. The only rational conclusion from this study is that cloth face masks offer little if any protection from Covid-19 infection.

6) There are inexpensive, proven therapies for Covid-19

Harvey Risch, MD, PhD heads the Yale University School of Epidemiology. He authored “The Key to Defeating Covid-19 Already Exists. We Need to Start Using It” which was published in Newsweek Magazine July 23rd, 2020. Dr. Risch documents the proven effectiveness of treating patients diagnosed with Covid-19 using a combination of Hydroxychloroquine, an antibiotic like azithromycin and the nutritional supplement zinc. Medical Doctors across the globe have reported very positive results using this protocol particularly for early stage Covid patients.

7) The US Death Rate is NOT spiking

If Covid-19 was the lethal killer it’s made out to be one would reasonably expect to see a significant spike in the number of deaths reported. But that hasn’t happened. According to the CDC as of early May 2020 the total number of deaths in the US was 944,251 from January 1 – April 30th. This is actually slightly lower than the number of deaths during the same period in 2017 when 946,067 total deaths were reported.

8) Most Covid-19 Deaths Occur at the End of a normal Lifespan

According to the CDC as of 2017 US males can expect a normal lifespan of 76.1 years and females 81.1 years. A little over 80% of the suspected Covid-19 deaths have occurred in people over age 65. According to a June 28th New York Post article almost half of all Covid suspected deaths have occurred in Nursing Homes which predominately house people with preexisting health conditions and close to or past their normal life expectancy.

9) CDC Data Shows Minimal Covid Risk to Children and Young Adults

The CDC reported in their September 10th update that it’s estimated Infection Mortality Rate (IFR) for children age 0-19 was so low that 99.97% of those infected with the virus survived. For 20-49 year-olds the survival rate was almost as good at 99.98%. Even those 70 years-old and older had a survival rate of 94.6%. To put this in perspective the CDC data suggest that a child or young adult up to age 19 has a greater chance of death from some type of accident than they do from Covid-19.

Taken together it should be obvious that Covid-19 is pretty similar to typical flu viruses that sicken some people annually. The vast majority are able to successfully fight off the virus with their body’s natural immune system. Common sense precautions should be taken, particularly by those over age 65 that suffer from preexisting medical conditions.

The gross over reaction by government leaders to this illness is causing much more distress, physical, emotional and financial, than the virus ever could on its own. The bottom line is there is NO pandemic, just a typical flu season that has been wildly blown out of proportion by 24/7 media propaganda and enabled by the masses paralyzed by irrational fear.

State and local governments in particular have ignored the rights of the people and have instituted outrageous attacks on freedom and liberty that was bought and paid for by the blood and sacrifice of our forefathers.

Slowly the people are recognizing the great fraud perpetrated on them by bureaucrats and elected officials who have sworn to uphold rights and freedoms as spelled out in the US Constitution. The time has come to hold these criminals accountable by utilizing the legal system to bring them to justice.

Either we act now to preserve freedom and liberty for our children and future generations yet unborn, or we meekly submit to tyrants who crave more power and control. I will not comply!
Copyright © 2020 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.

written by jeff harris

​http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2020/october/28/nine-covid-facts-a-pandemic-of-fearmongering-and-ignorance/

Krista Marx, the Palm Beach chief judge who also heads a panel that polices judicial conduct, has potential conflicts of interest involving three prominent players embroiled in the Epstein sex-trafficking saga: State Attorney Dave Aronberg, who has been sued by the Palm Beach Post to release the grand jury records; Sheriff Ric Bradshaw, whose department’s favored treatment of Epstein while he was in the Palm Beach County jail is part of an ongoing state criminal investigation; and ex-State Attorney Barry Krischer, part of the same investigation in connection with his decision not to prosecute Epstein on child-sex charges.

Special prosecutors appointed by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis went to court in January to unseal records of Krischer’s secret 2006 state grand jury presentment in the case.

Prosecutors wanted to examine whether Krischer’s office told the panel the full scope of Epstein’s crimes, or whether state prosecutors kept key evidence from the grand jury. The grand jury returned a minor charge of solicitation of prostitution against Epstein, who later managed to negotiate a lenient plea deal, resulting in him serving 13 months in the Palm Beach County Jail, much of at his lavish office in West Palm Beach, thanks to generous work-release provisions.

Last year, following a series of stories in the Miami Herald detailing the machinations behind Epstein’s plea deal, DeSantis ordered a state criminal probe focusing on Krischer’s decision not to prosecute and on Bradshaw’s role in helping Epstein maintain an opulent lifestyle — including having sex with women — while subject to sheriff’s custody on sex charges.

But Marx in January rejected the criminal prosecutors’ effort to unseal the grand jury records, calling it a “fishing expedition.’’ Then on Wednesday, she rebuffed a similar request by attorneys representing the Post, who sued Aronberg, and the county clerk, Sharon Bock, for release of the records.

Marx was dismissive of the Post’s lawsuit against Aronberg, who has denied he has custody of the grand jury records; and Bock, who has custody of the records but won’t release them without a court order.

Marx, however, did not disclose from the bench that Krischer was her former boss, that her daughter works for Aronberg as an assistant state attorney and that her son works for Bradshaw as a sheriff’s deputy.

Marx’s husband, Palm Beach County Judge Joe Marx, has a disclosure on his county web page stating he would recuse himself from any cases that involve his two stepchildren. Krista Marx’s county web page does not have such a disclosure.

Marx, a six-term elected judge, chairs Florida’s Judicial Qualifications Commission, the state agency that polices judges and handles complaints filed against judges.

The Miami Herald reached Krista Marx on her cell phone late Friday. She instructed a reporter to send her questions via text.

Shortly after, she sent the following:

“A judge is prohibited from commenting on open cases. It is a clear rule of the judicial canons. See cnn 3 (B) 9.”

Krischer did not respond to a request for comment.

Neither the attorney for the Palm Beach Post nor the criminal prosecutor handling the state probe were aware of Marx’s work for Krischer.

The attorneys would not comment on the record, but confirmed they didn’t know that Marx, a six-term elected judge, had worked as an assistant state attorney for Krischer from 1992 to 1998.

In 2012, Marx weighed running for state attorney herself, then decided against it after supporters of Aronberg, the only other candidate, indicated they would file an ethics complaint against her and also run a candidate against her husband, who was up for re-election, the Post reported at the time. Judges in Palm Beach County rarely face opposition and such reelection contests, when they do occur, are costly and time consuming.

Despite his denials, Aronberg, who won that year and has been state attorney ever since, had a “direct, personal role’’ in the events that led Marx to drop her bid, the Post found in 2012.

The Miami Herald could not reach Aronberg for comment.

The Post investigation showed that Aronberg’s campaign manager prepared a five-point public records request in an effort to obtain information detrimental to Marx. Aronberg emailed the request himself to an associate, the paper found. The issue involved soliciting political support from practicing attorneys, the Post said.

The records request was never filed, but Aronberg’s campaign manager acknowledged that he drafted the request to obtain information on Marx because she was planning to challenge Aronberg. Both the campaign manager and Aronberg, however, denied knowing anything about what the Post described as a “threat” to damage Krista Marx’s campaign.

At the time, Marx acknowledged that she was warned by political operatives that several lawyers were preparing to file an ethics complaint against her for soliciting political support from them.

“A complaint would be filed with the Judicial Qualifications Commission and could entail an investigation and hearing that Marx supporters say would have stained her reputation, even if she were exonerated,’’ the Post wrote.

Aronberg, a former member of the Florida Senate and a regular commentator on MSNBC, has said he doesn’t have custody of the 2006 grand jury records. He is a close ally of Krischer, who served on Aronberg’s transitional committee and has done some unspecified “volunteer work’’ in Aronberg’s office, the Post has reported.

A spokesman for Aronberg said that Krischer is not an assistant state attorney in his office. But when asked to clarify what role, if any, Krischer has had during Aronberg’s tenure as state attorney, the spokesman did not respond.

Krischer is also a paid “volunteer’’ in Bradshaw’s sheriff’s department. Public records show he has earned over $112,000 in that capacity.

The original handling of the Epstein case a decade ago stands as a flagrant example of the corrosive effects of power, wealth and privilege on the criminal justice system. Epstein avoided prison despite dozens of young women and girls telling authorities he sexually abused them.

During Epstein’s short stint in the county jail, the multimillionaire was given expansive work-release privileges that are rarely, if ever, afforded to sex offenders in Florida. Bradshaw, one of the most powerful figures in Palm Beach politics, has denied he had a direct role in Epstein’s treatment.

The fight over the grand jury records — with its backdrop of ties between keys players — illustrates the peculiar nature of Florida politics, where behind-the-scenes power brokers and consultants, fueled by money, can decide who runs for office, which incumbents face challengers and which do not, and who is rewarded with political appointments and jobs.

“The system is one that the good ‘ol boys have built for 20 or 30 years. And now, it’s in jeopardy over this case,’’ said Jose Lambiet, a former writer for the Post who covered gossip and politics, including the Epstein scandal, for many years. He also wrote a column for the Miami Herald and is now a private investigator.

“Marx needs to recuse herself and anything that is done in the Epstein case should be in a different county.’’

If you served on the Epstein grand jury in Palm Beach County, jbrown@MiamiHerald.com would like to hear from you.

McClatchy DC data reporter Shirsho Dasgupta contributed to this report.

This story has been updated.

BY JULIE K. BROWN
JUNE 06, 2020 08:30 AM , UPDATED JUNE 06, 2020 02:22 PM

​https://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article243320521.html

OAKLAND, Calif. — Google violated federal wiretap laws when it continued to collect information about what users were doing on the internet without their permission even though they were browsing in so-called private browsing mode, according to a potential class-action lawsuit filed against the internet giant on Tuesday.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, said Google tracked and collected consumer browsing history even if users took steps to maintain their privacy. The suit said Google also violated a California law that requires consent of all parties to read or learn the contents of private communication.

The complaint focuses largely on what the company does to collect and track online activity when users surf the web in private browsing mode. Even when a user opts for private browsing, Google uses other tracking tools it provides to website publishers and advertisers to keep tabs on what websites the user visits, according to the lawsuit.

“Google tracks and collects consumer browsing history and other web activity data no matter what safeguards consumers undertake to protect their data privacy,” said the complaint, which was filed by Mark C. Mao, a partner at the law firm Boies Schiller Flexner.

Google has faced other lawsuits over its data collection, but this one tries to use the Federal Wiretap Act. The statute provides users with the right to sue if their private communications are intercepted. The lawsuit claims that Google intercepts the contents of communication between users and websites by collecting browsing history, specific website addresses and search queries.

“We strongly dispute these claims, and we will defend ourselves vigorously against them,” a Google spokesman, Jose Castaneda, said. “Incognito mode in Chrome gives you the choice to browse the internet without your activity being saved to your browser or device. As we clearly state each time you open a new incognito tab, websites might be able to collect information about your browsing activity during your session.”

The lawsuit said users had a “reasonable expectation” that their communications would not be intercepted or collected when they were in private browsing mode. It also said Google’s practices “intentionally deceive consumers” into believing that they maintain control of the information shared with the company and encouraging them to surf the web in private browsing if they want to maintain their privacy.

However, Google fails to mention that other tracking tools used by the company may continue to track users by collecting information such as internet protocol addresses as well as browser and device information, according to the complaint.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of three people with Google accounts: Chasom Brown and Maria Nguyen, both of Los Angeles, and William Byatt, a Florida resident. It seeks compensatory damages.

By Daisuke Wakabayashi
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/02/technology/google-sued-wiretap-privacy.html
By Daisuke Wakabayashi

Recently, this idea has been taking hold in the realm of medical injury. Fed up with the medical malpractice status quo, many advocate moving medical-malpractice cases outside the traditional court system into freestanding, dedicated tribunals. More than just a passing fancy, legislation to establish these “health courts” has been introduced in more than a half-dozen states, while bills to charter pilot projects have been introduced in both houses of Congress. If health courts’ many influential supporters are to be believed, these specialized courts are poised to revolutionize medical-malpractice litigation: They would offer faster compensation to far more people, while quelling adversarialism and restoring faith in the reliability of legal decision-making.

But would they? Do alternative compensation mechanisms really operate as effectively as proponents now predict? The best place to look for answers to that question is the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.

​Created by Congress in 1986 as the problem of vaccine injury hit crisis proportions, the program is a no-fault compensation system housed within the U.S. Court of Claims and funded by a 75-cent tax on each vaccine dose administered. Since its effective date, the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has adjudicated more than 14,000 petitions for vaccine injury. As such, it offers a rich empirical template to assess whether the advantages thought to accompany alternative compensation mechanisms actually accompany these mechanisms once the rubber hits the road.

I have studied nearly three decades of previously untapped material concerning the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program’s operation, and the results are discouraging. Echoing current claims about health courts, back when the program was created, expectations for its operation were sky high. Congress expressed confidence that the program would resolve claims “quickly, easily and with certainty and generosity,” while contemporary commentators predicted that it would offer prompt justice to vaccine-injured children, while guaranteeing equal compensation to similarly situated individuals. So certain was Congress that adjudications would be straightforward that it established a mandatory, statutory 240-day deadline for all vaccine-injury adjudication decisions. Yet, it’s putting it charitably to say that the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has failed to live up to these high hopes.

Despite predictions at enactment that it would “guarantee” equal treatment to similarly situated claimants, a lack of consistency has bedeviled the program. Even though Congress established that each petition would take, at most, 240 days to adjudicate, in reality, the average program adjudication takes more than five years. This is substantially ­longer than similar claims resolved by court judgment or trial verdict within the traditional tort system.

And although claims within the system are supposed to be amicably resolved, in reality their resolution is frequently antagonistic. In the words of a medical expert who has long participated in the program: “What should be a quiet, civil, deliberative discussion of facts and medicine too frequently degenerates into a contentious, vituperative, decibel-escalating exchange.”

The bottom line is that the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program was supposed to offer “simple justice” to vaccine-injured children. But it has largely failed to do so.

For two reasons, these findings should give us pause. First, problems that plague the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program should trouble us if we care about the plight of vaccine-injured children and whether the safety net Congress created to protect those who suffer from vaccine injury is working as intended. This concern is especially urgent now.

Vaccination rates in the United States are lower than they should be, with fewer of our children vaccinated for the measles than children in Uzbekistan, for example. And with the recent California measles outbreak, the effects of this comparatively low vaccine rate seem to be coming home to roost.

At the time the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program was enacted, many thought a smoothly functioning, reliable compensation system would help to convince Americans to become (in the words of the day) “soldiers in the battlefield in the war against disease.” If we want to convince more American parents to vaccinate their children, improving the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program could help.

Second, these findings shed light on how well other alternative compensation mechanisms, including health courts, might work. There have been many proposals to create alternative compensation schemes in the past and many more will follow. But the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, with high hopes at its enactment yet disappointing performance over the past three decades, stands as a cautionary tale for all of them.

By Professor Nora Freeman Engstrom| July 2, 2015

http://stanfordlawyer.law.stanford.edu/2015/07/heeding-vaccine-courts-failures/
(Retreved by Internet Archive's Wayback Machine)

​This story was first published on June 29 in the National Law Journal.

A Stanford professor has found that the federal Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has not lived up to its original goals of providing "simple justice" to children injured by vaccines. Lengthy delays and an adversarial tone characterize the program.

Created by Congress in 1986 as the problem of vaccine injury hit crisis proportions, the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, or VICP, is a no-fault compensation system housed within the U.S. Court of Claims and funded by a 75-cent tax on each vaccine dose administered across the country.

Vaccines are given to reduce the threat of common diseases, such as measles, chicken pox, smallpox and polio, and they save the lives of tens of thousands of Americans each year. However, vaccines also cause a very small proportion of those inoculated to sustain serious and sometimes fatal injuries, according to Engstrom.

She said the VCIP uses a no-fault alternative dispute resolution system for resolving vaccine injury claims. Known as an “alternative compensation mechanism,” it is similar to workers’ compensation funds or the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund in providing payment to injured individuals outside the traditional court system.

Engstrom, who also recently wrote an op-ed on this issue, noted the vaccine fund has adjudicated more than 14,000 petitions for vaccine injury since its beginning in 1986. In her research, she analyzed nearly three decades’ worth of data concerning the program’s operation.

“The results are discouraging,” she said. “Despite initial optimism in Congress and beyond that such a fund could resolve claims efficiently and amicably, in operation the program has been astonishingly slow and surprisingly combative.”

For example, Congress originally established a 240-day deadline for all adjudication decisions. But Engstrom reported that, in reality, the average adjudication takes over five years. “This is years longer than similar claims resolved by court judgment or trial verdict within the traditional tort system,” she said.

The tone and nature of the experience is also disillusioning, she noted. Though claims within the system are supposed to be amicably resolved, in reality “the resolution of petitions is frequently antagonistic,” she said.

Engstrom found that even when children are found to be entitled to compensation, governmental lawyers have sometimes hassled petitioners over relatively piddling amounts. For example, in one case, a dispute arose whether a 14-year-old girl with profound mental retardation was or was not entitled to a $40 pair of high-top tennis shoes.

Perhaps as a result, Engstrom said, the vaccine program has heavily relied on lawyers. Early on, some hoped that procedures would be straightforward and collaborative enough to make it unnecessary to hire counsel. But Engstrom discovered that petitioners need counsel – and often highly specialized legal help – to have any chance at successfully resolving their claims.

​Engstrom said her findings serve as a cautionary tale in two aspects. First, child vaccination rates in the United States are lower than they should be, she said, adding, “With the recent measles outbreak, the effects of this comparatively low vaccine rate seem to be coming home to roost.”

Originally, she said, the vaccine compensation program was supposed to represent a simple and effective safety net that would encourage more parents to immunize their children.

Applying that logic, she said, “If we want to convince more American parents to vaccinate their children, improving the VICP could help.”

Second, the findings, she said, shed light on the effectiveness of health courts and other options for resolving disputes beyond traditional courts, which are often suggested as possible solutions to medical malpractice litigation problems.

Engstrom calls health courts the “tort reform du jour.” In fact, legislation to enact health courts has been introduced in several state legislatures and both houses of Congress.

She said health courts would take medical malpractice cases out of the traditional court system and relocate them to a specialized venue. Health court supporters suggest that this relocation would promote faster, more predictable and less adversarial resolutions of disputes.

But Engstrom wrote that the vaccine fund example is cause for great concern: “Moving cases outside the court system in no way guarantees that claim resolution will be fast, simple or straightforward.”

She noted, “Before we charge forward in creating new compensation systems, we ought to make sure we understand how our past experiments with tort reform have fared – and we’ve got to learn the sometimes bitter lessons that come from our past mistakes.”

BY CLIFTON B. PARKER

​https://news.stanford.edu/2015/07/06/vaccine-court-engstrom-070615/

A single mother raising three daughters in Satellite Beach, Fla., Zuhlke needed help with the enormous costs of Rachel’s lifetime care. So she brought a case in a federal tribunal set up to handle vaccine injury claims.

There, opposing lawyers hired expert witnesses to prove that Rachel’s injuries weren’t vaccine-related. When that failed, they balked at paying for costly medicines her doctors said she badly needed.

The Zuhlkes finally won -- but it took more than 10 years.

“I thought it was very cruel,” Zuhlke said. “People were very aware of the fact that my family was suffering.”

The lawyers who opposed the Zuhlkes were not working for a vaccine company but the Justice Department. Government attorneys fought relentlessly to defeat a mother who thought she was doing the right thing by getting her daughter a government-mandated vaccine.

It wasn’t supposed to happen that way in the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, informally known as the vaccine court. Created by Congress and jointly run by the Department of Health and Human Services, the Justice Department and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, it was designed to shield vaccine makers from damage awards that were threatening to drive them from the business.

It also was supposed to compensate victims in rare cases of injury under a flexible, no-fault system that would avoid the rancor and delay of traditional litigation. Claims were to be handled “quickly, easily and with certainty and generosity,” said a House report accompanying the legislation in 1986.

Instead, say advocates for families with injury claims, federal officials often fight them with such zeal that many who deserve help are denied it, and even successful cases get bogged down for years.

The program “was supposed to be non-adversarial and it’s become very adversarial,” said Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.), whose House Subcommittee on Human Rights and Wellness has held hearings on the matter. Many have “had legitimate claims and they went on for eight, nine, 10 years.”

Vaccine compensation officials refused to be interviewed, but in written statements they said the program had “an excellent record of promptly and appropriately compensating” valid claims.

Over the years, about $1.5 billion has been paid out in compensation and legal fees for more than 1,800 families, most of which would have had little chance of winning a civil trial, the officials said. They insisted that the vaccine court was less adversarial than civil courts, but said they were obliged to fight claims that weren’t based on good science.

This was “never intended to serve as compensation source for ... conditions that are not vaccine-related,” said Joyce Somsak, the program’s acting director.

But in trying to weed out undeserving claims, critics say, the government has insisted on a level of proof of injury that is almost impossible to meet.

And a Times analysis of claims data shows that the court has become more unyielding over time: Officials are much less likely than in earlier years to concede that a vaccine was responsible for an injury or death. The percentage of people getting awards also has declined.

Even when families do win compensation, officials have sometimes battled them over just a few dollars.

In one case, government representatives argued that $150 a year was too much to spend on wheelchair maintenance. They have haggled over how much to allow for replacement shoes and braces for people with polio. Another time, they recommended rubber sheets for the bed of an incontinent person because they were cheaper, although less comfortable, than disposables costing $135 a year.

“We never anticipated the extent [they] would go to deny these kids compensation,” said Barbara Loe Fisher of the National Vaccine Information Center, who lobbied for the bill that created the program.

Viewed another way, by being tightfisted, officials have been good stewards of the vaccine injury trust fund, the self-insurance pool that pays awards to the injured. In fact, the fund -- fed by a surcharge of 75 cents per vaccine dose -- has ballooned to more than $2 billion, while earning about as much in annual interest as it pays in awards.

But the fund was not meant to be a moneymaker. The idea was that it was better to “err on the side of compensating the victim,” said Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Los Angeles), sponsor of the legislation.

Roots of the Program

Along with clean water and sanitation, mass immunization ranks among the great milestones in public health. Among its glittering achievements: Measles cases in the U.S. dropped from about half a million in 1960 to 42 last year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or CDC.

But although millions benefit, even the safest vaccines aren’t safe for everyone.

Because of genetic differences, some people are harmed by vaccines “that almost everybody else responds to just fine,” said Dr. Robert W. Block, former chairman of a federal advisory panel on childhood vaccines.

And some have paid a terrible price. For example, until 2000, when the U.S. switched from the oral live polio vaccine to inactivated polio shots, the vaccine itself caused a few polio cases each year.

Gordon Pierson, a 12-year-old in Jackson, Tenn., contracted polio as an infant this way and is paralyzed and unable to speak.

“We were doing what we thought was best for our son, and the exact opposite happened,” said his father, Randy Pierson. “We were just heartbroken, and we are every day.”

Fear of legal fallout inspired the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Act. At the time, vaccine makers were facing a surge in claims, mainly from adverse reactions to the diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus, or DPT, vaccine. An exodus from the market and shortages seemed possible. In response, Congress decreed that instead of suing vaccine makers, people would first have to seek compensation from the new vaccine court.

Health and Human Services officials would administer the trust fund and screen petitions, deciding whether to concede or oppose each claim. Justice Department lawyers would appear in court on their behalf.

Petitioners could not seek awards for punitive damages or losses to family members as they could in civil court. But they were to benefit from greater speed and flexibility, and a lower burden of proof. Moreover, the program typically would pay petitioners’ legal costs once the case was over, win or lose.

However, what was meant to be a win-win proposition instead has been mostly “a stupendous success in protecting the industry,” said George Washington University law professor Peter H. Meyers, who directs a group of law students who represent petitioners. As for helping victims, he said, the record is “much more spotty.”

Some see this as a natural result of federal health officials’ fierce devotion to the immunization program -- and their fear that if enough injuries were acknowledged, people would be afraid to get their shots.

Universal immunization is a fundamental mission of Health and Human Services. One of its branches, the Food and Drug Administration, licenses vaccines, and another, the CDC, promotes their use with such slogans as “Vaccination: An Act of Love.”

From the start, agency officials worried that the program might create an exaggerated public impression of the risks of vaccines. At a congressional hearing before passage of the bill, Assistant Secretary for Health Edward N. Brandt Jr. warned that despite the program’s laudable goal, it could “provide a significant disincentive to childhood vaccination programs.”

Burden of Proof Shifts

In 1995, the government changed the rules of the vaccine court in a way that made cases more contentious, protracted and harder for petitioners to win.

Officials amended the vaccine injury table, a set of guidelines that had tilted many cases in petitioners’ favor. According to the table, if certain symptoms appeared within a specified time after a shot, the vaccine was deemed the culprit unless the government could prove another cause. Many “table injuries” were simply conceded by the government, leaving only the amount of compensation to be determined.

A few amendments changed all that. In one major shift, “seizure disorder” was scratched from the table as a telltale sign of injury from a DPT shot. And a new, more restrictive definition of encephalopathy -- or brain dysfunction -- meant that many conditions that had been table injuries suddenly were not.

Somsak said the table was changed for one reason only: to better “conform with the scientific evidence.”

But the upshot was that in many cases the burden shifted from the government to prove the shot didn’t cause injury to the petitioner to show that it did. Because it’s usually hard to prove with certainty that a vaccine caused harm, the effect of the change was profound.

The Times analyzed a vaccine court database of 10,741 claims filed over 16 years. The analysis showed that in the three years before the changes, the government conceded one-third of all claims. Of cases filed in that period, compensation was awarded in just over half.

But since the changes took effect March 10, 1995, the government has conceded just one claim in seven. About 35% of petitioners have received compensation.

And cases dragging beyond five years have become increasingly common.

Even the court’s top judicial officer, Chief Special Master Gary J. Golkiewicz, has lamented the drift toward “full-blown litigation.”

“Clearly,” he said in one of his rulings, “that is not what Congress intended when it designed the program as an alternative to tort litigation.”

Clifford J. Shoemaker, a lawyer for petitioners, said if the government softened its stance, the worst that would happen is that a “family that needs some money to deal with their profoundly injured child is going to get it.”

“Is that such a terrible thing?” he asked.

Some observers have warned that the government’s uncompromising attitude could backfire.

Although the law directs all claims to vaccine court, it allows those who disagree with a ruling -- or have waited more than 240 days -- to sue vaccine makers in civil court. So far, few have.

But by their tough stance, officials may be inviting more civil suits, Rep. Waxman said. “The whole idea of the compensation system is to be generous so they [petitioners] won’t want to go to court.”

Lost on a Technicality

Vaccine court officials were none too generous with Veronica Spohn.

Her parents claimed that a DPT shot caused their infant daughter to suffer brain damage. But they lost on a technicality: Their petition was filed a few hours late.

Although the vaccine compensation program was billed as more flexible, its three-year statute of limitations is draconian compared with rules of civil courts in all 50 states, which place no deadlines on the filing of injury claims for minors.

In the Spohn case, the doctor’s records were a mess, alternately giving July 17 and July 19, 1992, as the date of the fateful shot. The family’s lawyer filed the petition July 18, 1995, thinking he had made the deadline with a day to spare. In fact, he was a day late.

Seizing on the error, the Justice Department moved for dismissal. Special Master Elizabeth Wright concurred, citing the Spohns’ “failure to use due diligence in pursuing the claim.”

It was “very much an injustice,” said Veronica’s mother, Karen Spohn, a nurse in Butler, Pa. “I had a normal child, and all of a sudden in one day, within hours of the vaccine ... she became a child with a disability” who is “going to need assistance for the rest of her life.”

“They didn’t rule that she didn’t have damage. All they did was say, you filed 12 hours too late -- too bad on you.”

Spohn said she was too heartsick at that point to look into filing a civil lawsuit.

“Emotionally I couldn’t deal with” continuing the fight, said Spohn, who preferred to “accept what you’re dealt with and go through life.”

Lengthy Legal Battle

In the case of Dustin Barton, the government fought so long that the Albuquerque boy did not live to see the resolution of his claim.

As an infant, he had suffered seizures and brain damage after a DPT shot. But Dustin had a congenital neurological condition, known as periventricular leukomalacia, that the government blamed for his injuries.

His mother, Lori Barton, filed the claim in November 1991. The case dragged on for years. Barton told friends and family that she suspected the government was waiting for Dustin to die -- noting that it would be cheaper for the program to pay the death benefit of $250,000 than to buy an annuity to cover lifetime care.

Dustin eventually did die of a seizure, nearly six years into the case, but the government continued to fight. Finally in May 2000, 8 1/2 years after the petition was filed, the family won a ruling that Dustin’s injuries were vaccine-related.

Not ready to give up, Justice Department lawyers considered an appeal. Then they offered a deal: They would drop the challenge if the Bartons agreed the decision would remain unpublished. This meant it would not be sent to legal databases, such as Westlaw, where attorneys for other petitioners could see it.

Lori Barton, who has since died, described her reaction at a congressional hearing in December 2001: “To me, it was extortion.” But Barton, who then was seriously ill and had borrowed thousands of dollars to pay expert witnesses, took the deal.

In a statement to The Times, the Justice Department said it had made similar deals “on very rare occasions.” It happens when the government “disagrees with a decision but believes that settlement is fair and in both parties’ interests.”

Family Finances Ruined

Rachel Zuhlke’s claim was filed in September 1992. The government blamed her brain injuries on complications from a strep infection she had about the same time she got her DPT shot.

Janet Zuhlke said Rachel’s illness contributed to the breakup of her marriage. She also lost her job as a dental assistant because of frequent absences to deal with Rachel’s medical emergencies. Even with health insurance, the family’s finances were wrecked.

“We had a lot of hot dogs,” Zuhlke said. “We had two other children that went without many, many, many things ... because I couldn’t afford them.”

Her case moved at a crawl, getting repeatedly reassigned to different special masters, and from one Justice Department lawyer to another, who repeatedly got extensions to complete filings in the case.

Nearly eight years into the case, Golkiewicz, the chief special master, brought in a mediator for settlement talks. Zuhlke recalled her despair -- and the special master’s shock -- when the Justice Department refused to make a settlement offer. “You should have seen Golkiewicz’s face fall on the table,” she said.

Golkiewicz said recently that he was disappointed that the case didn’t settle, but that didn’t mean “that one side or the other was at fault.”

Still, he said, the case took far too long, and the Zuhlkes “had every reason to feel frustrated.”

As it turned out, the government lost its all-or-nothing gamble. In July 2001, Special Master George Hastings ruled that Rachel was entitled to compensation. Fifteen months later, he granted a multimillion-dollar award, including $925,000 for her pain and suffering, future lost earnings and past medical bills, and at least $90,000 a year for living and healthcare costs.

Although relieved that the case is finally over, Zuhlke still struggles with grief over what happened to her child, now a young woman. Rachel’s life, she said, “is so different from what it should be at 20.”

And she still finds it “unfathomable” that the government fought her claim for so long, Zuhlke said. “My little girl hadn’t done anything wrong.”

By MYRON LEVIN
NOV. 29, 2004 12 AM
TIMES STAFF WRITER

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2004-nov-29-fi-vaccinecourt29-story.html​

​Fewer than 4 out of 10 adults in the United States got flu shots last winter, the lowest rate in seven seasons and one likely reason that the 2017-2018 season was the deadliest in decades.

Reports released Thursday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention provide new details outlining the severity of the past flu season, during which more people were killed by seasonal influenza than in any other since the 1970s.

Flu vaccination is the main way to prevent sickness and death caused by flu. But last season, vaccination coverage among adults was 37.1 percent, a decrease of 6.2 percentage points from the previous season. That’s the lowest rate for adults 18 and older since 2010-2011. For many years, overall vaccination coverage has remained flat, with less than half of the U.S. population getting vaccinated. But the most recent drop has caused concern among experts.

“That’s huge. It’s a striking inflection down from the previous year,” said William Schaffner, an infectious-diseases expert at Vanderbilt University and medical director of the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases.

​Data released Thursday also provide a comprehensive picture of the impact of last season’s deadly respiratory virus. Some data about deaths and hospitalizations were released last month, but new details show the scope of last season’s harshness. The CDC estimates that:

Last winter’s flu season was so devastating for several reasons. It was dominated by an especially fierce virus strain. Seasons where H3N2 is dominant typically result in the most complications, especially for the very young and the old, experts say. Vaccines are also less effective against H3N2. The virus changes rapidly, requiring more updates to the seasonal vaccine, and making it that much harder for the body’s immune system to generate a good response.

The drop in vaccine coverage also could have contributed to last season’s severity, said Alicia Fry, chief of epidemiology and prevention in CDC’s influenza division. Flu vaccine, while far from perfect, reduces illness and serious complications, such as hospitalizations and admission to intensive-care units.

Schaffner and CDC officials said the drop in vaccine coverage could be related to preliminary reports about low vaccine effectiveness in Australia. Flu activity in the southern hemisphere can often predict what Americans might expect.

“I think that really discouraged a lot of people from getting vaccinated,” said Schaffner, who noted that the early data about the vaccine’s effectiveness in Australia was incorrect.

It’s too early to know whether people are “still carrying that around in their minds,” he said.

It’s still unclear what this coming flu season will be like. Flu activity is low, but there has already been one child death reported. Last season, the flu killed 183 children, the most since federal health authorities began tracking pediatric deaths 14 years ago. About 80 percent of those children were unvaccinated.

It takes about two weeks after getting a flu shot for the body to generate a full immune response.

“This is the perfect time,” said the CDC’s Fry, noting that flu activity is still relatively low.

This year, CDC officials are hoping to boost vaccine coverage by helping doctors and nurses make a strong case to their patients for a flu shot. A strong recommendation from a clinician makes a huge difference in whether someone gets the influenza vaccine.

This year, the CDC has created new tools for clinicians, including videos, on making a strong flu vaccine recommendation, said Cindy Weinbaum, deputy director of CDC’s immunization services division. That includes identifying and addressing any questions or concerns in plain and understandable language.

Ahead of the brunt of this winter’s flu season, the Food and Drug Administration on Wednesday approved the first new type of flu drug in two decades. Xofluza is a pill for people age 12 and older. It can reduce the severity and shorten the duration of flu symptoms after one dose, FDA officials said.

But to get the most benefits, the medicine needs to be taken within 48 hours of becoming sick with flu symptoms. The drug works by slowing down the replication of the virus in the body. So the earlier a person can take the medicine, the sooner it can catch the infection and the better it works.

“If you start it later, you already have a ton of virus wreaking havoc,” said the CDC’s Fry, who welcomed more options for health-care providers.

The drug was developed by the Roche Group and Shionogi & Co.

During last winter’s severe flu season, there was a shortage of the anti-viral medicine Tamiflu and other generic anti-viral drugs.

By Lena H. Sun
​October 25 at 12:57 PM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2018/10/25/drop-adult-flu-vaccinations-may-be-factor-last-seasons-record-breaking-deaths-illnesses/

Today’s false flag operations are generally carried out by intelligence agencies and non-government actors including terrorist groups, but they are only considered successful if the true attribution of an action remains secret. There is nothing honorable about them as their intention is to blame an innocent party for something that it did not do. There has been a lot of such activity lately and it was interesting to learn by way of a leak that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has developed a capability to mimic the Internet fingerprints of other foreign intelligence services. That means that when the media is trumpeting news reports that the Russians or Chinese hacked into U.S. government websites or the sites of major corporations, it could actually have been the CIA carrying out the intrusion and making it look like it originated in Moscow or Beijing. Given that capability, there has been considerable speculation in the alternative media that it was actually the CIA that interfered in the 2016 national elections in the United States.

False flags can be involved in other sorts of activity as well. The past year’s two major alleged chemical attacks carried out against Syrian civilians that resulted in President Donald Trump and associates launching 160 cruise missiles are pretty clearly false flag operations carried out by the rebels and terrorist groups that controlled the affected areas at the time. The most recent reported attack on April 7 might not have occurred at all, according to doctors and other witnesses who were actually in Douma. Because the rebels succeeded in convincing much of the world that the Syrian government had carried out the attacks, one might consider their false flag efforts to have been extremely successful.

The remedy against false flag operations such as the recent one in Syria is, of course, to avoid taking the bait and instead waiting until a thorough and objective inspection of the evidence has taken place. The United States, Britain and France did not do that, preferring instead to respond to hysterical press reports by “doing something.” If the U.N. investigation of the alleged attack turns up nothing, a distinct possibility, it is unlikely that they will apologize for having committed a war crime.

The other major false flag that has recently surfaced is the poisoning of Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia in Salisbury, England, on March 4. Russia had no credible motive to carry out the attack and had, in fact, good reasons not to do so. The allegations made by British Prime Minister Theresa May about the claimed nerve agent being “very likely” Russian in origin have been debunked, in part through examination by the U.K.’s own chemical weapons lab. May, under attack even within her own party, needed a good story and a powerful enemy to solidify her own hold on power so false flagging something to Russia probably appeared to be just the ticket as Moscow would hardly be able to deny the “facts” being invented in London. Unfortunately, May proved wrong and the debate ignited over her actions, which included the expulsion of twenty-three Russian diplomats, has done her severe damage. Few now believe that Russia actually carried out the poisoning and there is a growing body of opinion suggesting that it was actually a false flag executed by the British government or even by the CIA.

The lesson that should be learned from Syria and Skripal is that if “an incident” looks like it has no obvious motive behind it, there is a high probability that it is a false flag. A bit of caution in assigning blame is appropriate given that the alternative would be a precipitate and likely disproportionate response that could easily escalate into a shooting war.

This work by MWC News is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License

Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National Interest.

​http://www.intrepidreport.com/archives/24062