Spitfire List Web site and blog of anti-fascist researcher and radio personality Dave Emory.

For The Record  

FTR#1258 Pandemics, Inc., Part 8: Covid Update

You can sub­scribe to RSS feed from Spitfirelist.com HERE.

You can sub­scribe to the com­ments made on pro­grams and posts–an excel­lent source of infor­ma­tion in, and of, itself, HERE.

WFMU-FM is pod­cast­ing For The Record–You can sub­scribe to the pod­cast HERE.

Mr. Emory’s entire life’s work is avail­able on a 32GB flash dri­ve, avail­able for a con­tri­bu­tion of $65.00 or more (to KFJC). Click Here to obtain Dav­e’s 40+ years’ work, com­plete through Late Fall of 2021 (through FTR #1215).

“Polit­i­cal language…is designed to make lies sound truth­ful and mur­der respectable, and to give an appear­ance of solid­i­ty to pure wind.”

— George Orwell, 1946

EVERYTHING MR. EMORY HAS BEEN SAYING ABOUT THE UKRAINE WAR IS ENCAPSULATED IN THIS VIDEO FROM UKRAINE 24

ANOTHER REVEALING VIDEO FROM UKRAINE 24

Mr. Emory has launched a new Patre­on site. Vis­it at: Patreon.com/DaveEmory

FTR#1258 This pro­gram was record­ed in one, 60-minute seg­ment.

Intro­duc­tion: Updat­ing the Covid-19 pan­dem­ic, this broad­cast explores trou­bling devel­op­ments in the admin­is­tra­tion of aspects of the pan­dem­ic.

NB: Mr. Emory is not an anti-vaxxer. When prop­er­ly man­u­fac­tured and vet­ted, they are fun­da­men­tal to the main­te­nance of pub­lic health.

The dis­turb­ing aspects of Biden’s vac­cine pol­i­cy sug­gest the pos­si­bil­i­ty that the reg­u­la­to­ry hand­i­cap­ping of the FDA advo­cat­ed by Trump backer Peter Thiel and his ide­o­log­i­cal fel­low trav­el­ers may have been imple­ment­ed, under the pres­sure of the pan­dem­ic.

That de-reg­u­la­tion of the FDA may have car­ried over into Avi­a­tor Glass­es Joe’s admin­is­tra­tion.

An inter­est­ing and trou­bling sto­ry con­cerns the FDA’s “thumbs down” on the John­son & John­son vac­cine because of a blood-clot­ting dis­or­der that affects 3.25 recip­i­ents per mil­lion. There have been a total of nine deaths from the dis­or­der out of 18 mil­lion recip­i­ents of the vac­cine.

The mRNA vac­cines, by way of con­trast, pro­duce a seri­ous con­di­tion called myocardi­tis in strong, healthy adults. That strikes eleven in every one hun­dred thou­sand recip­i­ents.

One must won­der why this con­clu­sion was reached. Is there Big Phar­ma prof­it-mak­ing con­sid­er­a­tions at play here? Or is the read­i­ly-adapt­able mRNA tech­nol­o­gy to new organ­isms that might be craft­ed as part of a bio­log­i­cal war­fare pro­gram loom­ing in the back­ground of such a deci­sion?

An even more dis­turb­ing, per­haps relat­ed, arti­cle con­cerns sub­stan­tive indi­ca­tions that the much-maligned John­son & John­son vac­cine is more effec­tive than its mRNA com­peti­tors.

It may pro­vide bet­ter pro­tec­tion against the Omi­cron vari­ant.

” . . . . By now, all the vac­cines seem to be per­form­ing about equal­ly well against coro­n­avirus infec­tions; in fact, John­son & John­son appears to be hold­ing up slight­ly bet­ter. . . . Over­all, then, the John­son & John­son vac­cine appeared to be some­what more pro­tec­tive against infec­tion than the two alter­na­tives. . . . . . The J.&J. vac­cine may pro­duce anti­bod­ies that decline more slow­ly than those pro­duced by the oth­er vac­cines, some research sug­gests. Or those anti­bod­ies may become more sophis­ti­cat­ed over time, through a bio­log­i­cal phe­nom­e­non called affin­i­ty mat­u­ra­tion. . . . Per­haps, some researchers sug­gest, the vac­cine offered a more robust defense against the Omi­cron vari­ant, respon­si­ble for the huge increase in infec­tions over the past few months. And stud­ies have shown that the vac­cine trains oth­er parts of the immune sys­tem at least as well as the oth­er two vac­cines. . . .”

Anoth­er stun­ning devel­op­ment con­cerns the FDA’s deci­sion to vet the next gen­er­a­tion of [mRNA] boost­ers with mouse tri­als, instead of human!

” . . . . ‘For the FDA to rely on mouse data is just bizarre, in my opin­ion,’ says John Moore, an immu­nol­o­gist at Weill Cor­nell Med­i­cine in New York. ‘Mouse data are not going to be pre­dic­tive in any way of what you would see in humans.’ . . . .”

WHY?

Peter Thiel favored “kneecap­ping the FDA” in order to bring Big Phar­ma’s prod­ucts to mar­ket soon­er, in full aware­ness of the col­lat­er­al dam­age that would result from this.

” . . . . For Food and Drug Admin­is­tra­tion com­mis­sion­er, he [Thiel] attempt­ed to nom­i­nate can­di­dates who shared his belief that the FDA’s main role—regarding tri­als for drugs—was unnec­es­sary. One of Thiel’s allies in this cru­sade, and his top pick to lead the FDA, was Bal­a­ji Srini­vasan, the Stan­ford com­put­er sci­ence lec­tur­er and cryp­tocur­ren­cy entre­pre­neur who’s invest­ed along­side Thiel in Cur­tis Yarvin’s com­pa­ny and shared Thiel’s views. . . . ‘For every thalido­mide,’ he tweet­ed, “many dead from slowed approvals.” . . . . Thiel had argued much the same. . . .”

Note that the FDA’s reg­u­la­to­ry “red light” on the use of thalido­mide saved the U.S. from the birth defects night­mare expe­ri­enced by Europe.

We note in that regard that Thiel comes from an “I.G.” back­ground, to coin a term. As not­ed in FTR #718, Thiel’s father was a chem­i­cal engi­neer from Frank­furt, the cap­i­tal of I.G.

After the pan­dem­ic, Thiel seemed pleased at that event, main­tain­ing that it had pro­ject­ed us into the future. ” . . . . ‘COVID-19 cre­at­ed a shift. There used to be this feel­ing that the future was being held back some­how. Changes that should have tak­en place long ago did not come because there was resis­tance. Now the future is set free.’ He was, it seemed, wel­com­ing the pan­dem­ic as a chance to reset soci­ety accord­ing to his ideals and plans. . . .”

Joe Biden’s pol­i­cy vis a vis Covid may well be eugeni­cist in its ori­en­ta­tion. Return­ing to “nor­mal,” in most respects, but allow­ing the virus to cir­cu­late, plac­ing seniors–no longer in the workforce–at risk

We have not­ed that Biden’s social poli­cies appear to be exten­sions of his nation­al secu­ri­ty pol­i­cy. He has stat­ed that com­pet­ing with Chi­na is a pri­or­i­ty.

In that regard, trim­ming expens­es, includ­ing the rel­a­tive­ly expen­sive social pro­grams need­ed to care for the elder­ly, is appar­ent­ly on the front burn­er. 

Bot­tom line: old folks don’t work.

” . . . . ‘And the ques­tion I have is, how much death are we OK with?’ she asks. ‘Have we decid­ed this is OK? And if so, why?’ . . . . Covid-19 has always been a dis­ease of the elder­ly, defined almost more by its age skew of mor­tal­i­ty than by any of its oth­er char­ac­ter­is­tics, with risk dou­bling rough­ly every eight years and octo­ge­nar­i­ans hun­dreds of times more at risk of death than young adults. . . .”

Indica­tive of Biden’s cyn­i­cism on social and eco­nom­ic pol­i­cy is his selec­tion to serve on the Social Secu­ri­ty Admin­is­tra­tion:

” . . . . Defend­ers of Social Secu­ri­ty on Tues­day urged the U.S. Sen­ate to block Pres­i­dent Joe Biden’s lit­tle-noticed nom­i­na­tion of Andrew Big­gs — an Amer­i­can Enter­prise Insti­tute senior fel­low with a his­to­ry of sup­port­ing Social Secu­ri­ty pri­va­ti­za­tion — to serve on the inde­pen­dent and bipar­ti­san Social Secu­ri­ty Advi­so­ry Board. . . . Biden was vice pres­i­dent when for­mer Pres­i­dent Barack Oba­ma pro­posed a ‘grand bar­gain’ with the GOP that would have entailed cuts to Social Secu­ri­ty. Big­gs, too, has a long record of advo­cat­ing Social Secu­ri­ty cuts. As Cun­ning­ham-Cook wrote last month, ‘For years, Big­gs has been a vocal crit­ic of expand­ed Social Secu­ri­ty and work­ers’ right to a secure, sta­ble retire­ment free from the vagaries of the stock mar­ket.’. . .”

1a.

In a new­ly filed law­suit, Mod­er­na asserts that the Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA coro­n­avirus vac­cines are infring­ing on Moderna’s patents. What’s eye­brow-rais­ing in this law­suit is the time­frame of Moderna’s claims. The com­pa­ny is argu­ing that Pfizer’s vac­cine copied work Mod­er­na had already done on coro­n­avirus vac­cines involv­ing human tri­als going back to 2015 and 2016. Beyond that, Mod­er­na asserts the full-sequence coro­n­avirus spike pro­tein used in Pfizer’s vac­cine was devel­oped by Mod­er­na years before the pan­dem­ic.

Per­haps the biggest set of ques­tions that might be answered in this law­suit involve Moderna’s pos­si­ble col­lab­o­ra­tive role in the broad­er US-gov­ern­ment-fund­ed gain-of-func­tion research being lead by the Eco­HealthAl­liance in col­lab­o­ra­tion with labs around the world like Shi Zhengli’s lab at the Wuhan Insti­tute of Virol­o­gy (WIV) and Ralph Baric’s lab at UNC Chapel Hill. As we’ve seen, Ralph Bar­ic was work­ing on devel­op­ing coro­n­avirus ther­a­peu­tics back in 2017 using gain-of-func­tion-cre­at­ed coro­n­avirus­es in col­lab­o­ra­tion with Shi Zhengli’s lab at the WIV. And Bar­ic also helped test the Mod­er­na covid vac­cine in 2020. So was Mod­er­na – which was fund­ed by DARPA – at all involved in this oth­er NIH-fund­ed coro­n­avirus-relat­ed gain-of-func­tion work? The cir­cum­stan­tial evi­dence sure points in that direc­tion.

Above all, there’s the part of the law­suit claim­ing that Pfiz­er effec­tive­ly stole the full-sequence coro­n­avirus spike pro­tein sequence Mod­er­na had worked out years ear­li­er.

This is a con­fus­ing part of the law­suit since, as we’ve been told, it was the SARS-CoV­‑2 spike pro­tein sequence that was at the heart of the mRNA COVID vac­cine devel­oped in record-break­ing time back in Jan­u­ary of 2020.

What is Mod­er­na talk­ing about when claim­ing that it already devel­oped a coro­n­avirus spike pro­tein years ear­li­er? Recall how Mod­er­na was crit­i­cized back in 2020 over its deci­sion to file a patent in Feb 2020 for a “Beta­coro­n­avirus vac­cine” – a broad-spec­trum vac­cine designed for non-COVID coro­n­avirus­es – with­out acknowl­edg­ing the US gov­ern­ments role in that researchPfizer/BioNTech filed a patent for a sim­i­lar “uni­ver­sal coro­n­avirus vac­cine” back in June.

It appears that’s what Mod­er­na is refer­ring to when it claims to have devel­oped a coro­n­avirus spike pro­tein sequence years before the pan­dem­ic. That rais­es the obvi­ous ques­tion: was Mod­er­na part of the whole Eco­HealthAl­liance gain-of-func­tion research on coro­n­avirus­es back in their 2015–2016 peri­od?

Gain-of-func­tion research was tech­ni­cal­ly banned in the US from 2014 until the Trump admin­is­tra­tion lift­ed it in 2017. Recall, also, how Baric’s gain-of-func­tion work that was start­ed before the mora­to­ri­um was put into place was allowed to con­tin­ue under a spe­cial exemp­tion.

If Moderna’s coro­n­avirus vac­cine devel­op­ment involved the use of virus­es being gen­er­at­ed by Bar­ic under an exemp­tion to the gain-of-func­tion mora­to­ri­um, that would obvi­ous­ly be a very sen­si­tive area of research.

There’s anoth­er facet of this sto­ry to keep in mind: recall that fas­ci­nat­ing Sep­tem­ber 2016 STAT News arti­cle that described how Mod­er­na had shift­ed its focus from mRNA ther­a­peu­tics – which require numer­ous shots over years – to mRNA vac­cines. It was seen as as dis­ap­point­ment by indus­try observers and sign that Mod­er­na was run­ning into undis­closed set­backs involv­ing side effects trig­gered by the lipid nanopar­ti­cle (LNP) deliv­ery vehi­cle for the mRNA. But as we saw, Mod­er­na was insist­ing at the time that it was expe­ri­enc­ing no such set­backs. And yet observers were forced to take their word because the com­pa­ny was being so secre­tive and releas­ing almost no infor­ma­tion about its inter­nal tri­als.

There is no men­tion of coro­n­avirus-relat­ed research at all in that arti­cle, while there is men­tion of work on things like a Zika virus vac­cine.

Yet, in the new law­suit, Mod­er­na claims it suc­cess­ful­ly car­ried out human tri­als on a coro­n­avirus vac­cine as far back as 2015. It would seem that Moderna’s coro­n­avirus-relat­ed vac­cine research was being kept under wraps dur­ing this peri­od.

We have to ask if the extreme secre­cy around its work dur­ing this peri­od may have been dri­ven by the con­tro­ver­sial nature of devel­op­ing coro­n­avirus vac­cines using gain-of-func­tion coro­n­avirus­es gen­er­at­ed by the Eco­HealthAl­liance net­work. Cir­cum­stan­tial evi­dence points in that direc­tion. 

Mod­er­na is appar­ent­ly suing over patents it devel­oped dur­ing its most­ly-still-secret DARPA col­lab­o­ra­tion. Col­lab­o­ra­tion that might be direct­ly relat­ed to the most­ly-still-secret US-gov­ern­ment-financed inter­na­tion­al col­lab­o­ra­tion ded­i­cat­ed to mak­ing and study­ing nov­el coro­n­avirus­es. Law­suits have a ten­den­cy to unin­ten­tion­al­ly reveal secrets. Thereis clear­ly an abun­dance of secrets still wait­ing to be revealed about Moderna’s coro­n­avirus vac­cine research.

Again, we empha­size the fol­low­ing very inter­est­ing detail in Moderna’s com­plaint: the com­pa­ny is assert­ing that Pfiz­er and BioN­Tech copied Moderna’s full-length spike pro­tein for­mu­la­tion for a coro­n­avirus, which Mod­ern claims to have cre­at­ed years before the emer­gence of COVID-19.

Recall how the shar­ing of the genet­ic sequence of SARS-CoV­‑2 by Chi­nese researchers with the glob­al com­mu­ni­ty allowed for Mod­er­na to and its NIH col­lab­o­ra­tors to design the vac­cine in just two days with just that spike pro­tein sequence infor­ma­tion.

Once again, Mod­er­na is suing Pfiz­er over the alleged theft of a coro­n­avirus spike pro­tein sequence devel­oped years ear­li­er, we have to ask whether or not this part of the law­suit is relat­ed to the “uni­ver­sal coro­n­avirus” vac­cine Pfiz­er and BioN­Tech start­ed test­ing back in June.

Note, again, that Mod­er­na caught flack back in August of 2020 after it filed patents relat­ed to the coro­n­avirus vac­cine that didn’t dis­close the bil­lions in dol­lars in DARPA mon­ey, includ­ing DARPA involve­ment in the devel­op­ment of a broad spec­turm “Beta­coro­n­avirus” vac­cine that Mod­er­na had filed a patent for in Feb­ru­ary 2020.

That, again, returns us to ques­tions regard­ing Moderna’s involve­ment with the pre-pan­dem­ic gain-of-func­tion coro­n­avirus research car­ried out by the Eco­Health Alliance and col­lab­o­ra­tors like the WIV. Because as we’ve seen, the cre­ation of a broad-spec­trum coro­n­avirus vac­cine was part of the pre-pan­dem­ic work done by the Eco­HealthAl­liance, the WIV, and Ralph Baric’s lab at UNC Chapel Hill.

Was Mod­er­na involved in that broad-spec­trum coro­n­avirus vac­cine research? It appears to have been the case.

“Mod­er­na Sues Pfiz­er and BioN­Tech Over Covid Vac­cine” By Jen­ny Gross and Rebec­ca Rob­bins; The New York Times; 08/26/2022

The law­suit, filed Fri­day, claims that the com­pa­nies’ Covid vac­cine vio­lat­ed Moderna’s mRNA patents.

The vac­cine man­u­fac­tur­er Mod­er­na sued Pfiz­er and BioN­Tech on Fri­day, claim­ing that its rivals’ Covid-19 shot vio­lates its patents pro­tect­ing its ground­break­ing tech­nol­o­gy.

Mod­er­na said in a state­ment that Pfiz­er and BioN­Tech infringed on patents filed between 2010 and 2016 that cov­ered its mRNA tech­nol­o­gy. Mod­er­na, which is based in Cam­bridge, Mass., sued in U.S. Dis­trict Court in Mass­a­chu­setts and the Region­al Court of Düs­sel­dorf in Ger­many, where BioN­Tech is based.

Christo­pher Rid­ley, a spokesman for Mod­er­na, said the com­pa­ny did not have an esti­mate for the amount of dam­ages it was seek­ing.

Pfiz­er and its devel­op­ment part­ner BioN­Tech were “sur­prised by the lit­i­ga­tion,” said Jer­i­ca Pitts, a spokes­woman for Pfiz­er. She added that the com­pa­nies “remain con­fi­dent in our intel­lec­tu­al prop­er­ty sup­port­ing the Pfizer/BioNTech vac­cine and will vig­or­ous­ly defend against the alle­ga­tions of the law­suit.”

Mes­sen­ger RNA, or mRNA, is the genet­ic script that car­ries DNA instruc­tions to each cell’s pro­tein-mak­ing machin­ery and has been used in the pro­duc­tion of coro­n­avirus vac­cines.

“We are fil­ing these law­suits to pro­tect the inno­v­a­tive mRNA tech­nol­o­gy plat­form that we pio­neered, invest­ed bil­lions of dol­lars in cre­at­ing, and patent­ed dur­ing the decade pre­ced­ing the Covid-19 pan­dem­ic,” said Stéphane Ban­cel, Moderna’s chief exec­u­tive. “This foun­da­tion­al plat­form, which we began build­ing in 2010, along with our patent­ed work on coro­n­avirus­es in 2015 and 2016, enabled us to pro­duce a safe and high­ly effec­tive Covid-19 vac­cine in record time after the pan­dem­ic struck.”

Mod­er­na, which received close to $10 bil­lion in tax­pay­er fund­ing to devel­op the vac­cine, test it and pro­vide dos­es to the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment, had said in fall 2020 that it would not enforce its Covid-relat­ed patents while the pan­dem­ic con­tin­ued. But on March 7, the com­pa­ny said that said that it was updat­ing its pledge, since vac­cine sup­ply was no longer an issue out­side the poor­est coun­tries. It said it expect­ed man­u­fac­tur­ers out­side the 92 poor­est coun­tries to respect the company’s intel­lec­tu­al prop­er­ty. At the time, it also said that it was expand­ing its patent pledge to nev­er enforce Covid patents for 92 low- and mid­dle-income coun­tries.

Mod­er­na said on Fri­day that it was not seek­ing dam­ages for activ­i­ties before March 8 and that none of the patents relate to intel­lec­tu­al prop­er­ty gen­er­at­ed dur­ing Moderna’s col­lab­o­ra­tion with the Nation­al Insti­tutes of Health on Covid-19, which it said began only after patent­ed tech­nolo­gies were proven suc­cess­ful in 2015 and 2016.

Mod­er­na said that Pfiz­er copied two fea­tures of its patent­ed tech­nol­o­gy. First, Pfiz­er took four vac­cine can­di­dates into clin­i­cal test­ing, but ulti­mate­ly pro­ceed­ed with a vac­cine with the same mRNA tech­nol­o­gy as the Mod­er­na vac­cine. Mod­er­na said it was the first com­pa­ny to val­i­date this tech­nol­o­gy in human tri­als in 2015, and that nei­ther Pfiz­er nor BioN­Tech had its lev­el of expe­ri­ence in devel­op­ing mRNA vac­cines for infec­tious dis­eases.

Sec­ond, Mod­er­na claims that Pfiz­er and BioN­Tech copied its full-length spike pro­tein for­mu­la­tion for a coro­n­avirus, which Mod­er­na had cre­at­ed years before Covid-19 emerged. Coro­n­avirus­es refer to a large fam­i­ly of virus­es that cause mild to mod­er­ate upper res­pi­ra­to­ry tract ill­ness­es, accord­ing to the N.I.H. The more seri­ous ones include SARS, MERS and Covid-19.

Mod­er­na said it was not seek­ing to remove Pfiz­er and BioNTech’s vac­cines from the mar­ket, and was not ask­ing for an injunc­tion to pre­vent their future sale, giv­en the need for access to coro­n­avirus vac­cines. . . .

1b. An inter­est­ing and trou­bling sto­ry con­cerns the FDA’s “thumbs down” on the John­son & John­son vac­cine because of a blood-clot­ting dis­or­der that affects 3.25 recip­i­ents per mil­lion. There have been a total of nine deaths from the dis­or­der out of 18 mil­lion recip­i­ents of the vac­cine.

The mRNA vac­cines, by way of con­trast, pro­duce a seri­ous con­di­tion called myocardi­tis in strong, healthy adults. That strikes eleven in every one hun­dred thou­sand recip­i­ents.

One must won­der why this con­clu­sion was reached. Is there Big Phar­ma prof­it-mak­ing con­sid­er­a­tions at play here? Or is the read­i­ly-adapt­able mRNA tech­nol­o­gy to new organ­isms that might be craft­ed as part of a bio­log­i­cal war­fare pro­gram loom­ing in the back­ground of such a deci­sion?

“FDA lim­its use of John­son & Johnson’s Covid-19 vac­cine, cit­ing clot­ting risk” by Helen Bran­swell; STAT News; 05/05/2022

. . . . Peter Marks, the FDA’s vac­cines lead, told STAT the agency reached its deci­sion after a recent review of the data on the vac­cine revealed anoth­er per­son in this coun­try had died after receiv­ing it — the ninth such death — in the first quar­ter of the year. The vac­cine is made by J&J’s vac­cines divi­sion, Janssen.

“If we see deaths and there is an alter­na­tive vac­cine that is not asso­ci­at­ed with deaths but is asso­ci­at­ed with sim­i­lar effi­ca­cy … we felt it was time at this point to make a state­ment on the [product’s] fact sheet that this was not a first-line vac­cine,” said Marks, who is direc­tor of the FDA’s Cen­ter for Bio­log­ics Eval­u­a­tion and Research.

The clot­ting dis­or­der, called throm­bo­sis with throm­bo­cy­tope­nia or TTS, is rare, occur­ring at a rate of about 3.25 cas­es per mil­lion dos­es admin­is­tered. But the con­di­tion can be fatal or life-alter­ing if an indi­vid­ual sur­vives. With one death for every 2 mil­lion dos­es giv­en in this coun­try, the FDA decid­ed that is a risk most peo­ple don’t need to take, Marks said. . . .

. . . . He acknowl­edged the lat­est announce­ment won’t change much on the ground in the Unit­ed States, where few vac­ci­na­tion sites stock the J&J vac­cine at this point. But it could have impli­ca­tions abroad, where coun­tries still strug­gling to vac­ci­nate their pop­u­laces could be influ­enced by the U.S. deci­sion. . . .

———

2. An even more dis­turb­ing, per­haps relat­ed, arti­cle con­cerns sub­stan­tive indi­ca­tions that the much-maligned John­son & John­son vac­cine is more effec­tive than its mRNA com­peti­tors.

It may pro­vide bet­ter pro­tec­tion against the Omi­cron vari­ant.

” . . . . By now, all the vac­cines seem to be per­form­ing about equal­ly well against coro­n­avirus infec­tions; in fact, John­son & John­son appears to be hold­ing up slight­ly bet­ter. . . . Over­all, then, the John­son & John­son vac­cine appeared to be some­what more pro­tec­tive against infec­tion than the two alter­na­tives. . . . . . The J.&J. vac­cine may pro­duce anti­bod­ies that decline more slow­ly than those pro­duced by the oth­er vac­cines, some research sug­gests. Or those anti­bod­ies may become more sophis­ti­cat­ed over time, through a bio­log­i­cal phe­nom­e­non called affin­i­ty mat­u­ra­tion. . . . Per­haps, some researchers sug­gest, the vac­cine offered a more robust defense against the Omi­cron vari­ant, respon­si­ble for the huge increase in infec­tions over the past few months. And stud­ies have shown that the vac­cine trains oth­er parts of the immune sys­tem at least as well as the oth­er two vac­cines. . . .”

“As Virus Data Mounts, the J.&J. Vac­cine Holds Its Own” By Apoor­va Man­davil­li; The New York Times; 03/15/2022

Rough­ly 17 mil­lion Amer­i­cans received the John­son & John­son Covid vac­cine, only to be told lat­er that it was the least pro­tec­tive of the options avail­able in the Unit­ed States. But new data sug­gest that the vac­cine is now pre­vent­ing infec­tions, hos­pi­tal­iza­tions and deaths at least as well as the Pfiz­er-BioN­Tech and Mod­er­na vac­cines.

The rea­sons aren’t clear, and not all experts are con­vinced that the vac­cine has vin­di­cat­ed itself. But the accu­mu­lat­ing data nonethe­less offer con­sid­er­able reas­sur­ance to recip­i­ents of the vac­cine and, if con­firmed, have broad impli­ca­tions for its deploy­ment in parts of the world.

In Africa, for exam­ple, dis­tri­b­u­tion of a sin­gle-dose vac­cine that can be refrig­er­at­ed for months is by far the most prac­ti­cal option.

John­son & John­son has at least tem­porar­i­ly shut down the only plant mak­ing usable batch­es of the vac­cine. But the South Africa-based Aspen Phar­ma­care is gear­ing up to sup­ply large quan­ti­ties to the rest of the con­ti­nent. Only about 13 per­cent of Africans are ful­ly vac­ci­nat­ed, and only about 1 per­cent have received a boost­er dose. . . .

. . . . But the notion that the vac­cine is infe­ri­or has grown out­dat­ed, some experts said: More recent data sug­gest that it has more than held its own against its com­peti­tors.

“We’ve been aware that J.&J. has been kind of down­grad­ed in people’s minds,” Dr. Gail-Bekker said. But “it punch­es above its weight for a sin­gle-dose vac­cine.”

Until last June, the cumu­la­tive data from the C.D.C. showed that immu­niza­tion with the Mod­er­na vac­cine result­ed in the low­est rates of break­through infec­tions; those who got John­son & John­son saw the high­est rates, with Pfiz­er-BioN­Tech some­where in the mid­dle.

Dur­ing the sum­mer months, the gaps — par­tic­u­lar­ly between J.&J. and Pfiz­er — began to nar­row. By now, all the vac­cines seem to be per­form­ing about equal­ly well against coro­n­avirus infec­tions; in fact, John­son & John­son appears to be hold­ing up slight­ly bet­ter.

As of Jan. 22, the lat­est data avail­able, unvac­ci­nat­ed peo­ple were 3.2 times as like­ly to become infect­ed as those who received the sin­gle-dose John­son & John­son vac­cine; they were 2.8 times as like­ly to become infect­ed as those who received two dos­es of the Mod­er­na vac­cine and 2.4 times as like­ly as those with two dos­es of Pfiz­er-BioN­Tech. Over­all, then, the John­son & John­son vac­cine appeared to be some­what more pro­tec­tive against infec­tion than the two alter­na­tives. . . . . .

. . . . The find­ings indi­cate that the J.&J. vac­cine deserves a clos­er look, said Dr. Lar­ry Corey, an expert in vac­cine devel­op­ment at the Fred Hutchin­son Can­cer Research Cen­ter in Seat­tle.

“This vac­cine plat­form may have some sur­pris­ing char­ac­ter­is­tics that we hadn’t antic­i­pat­ed,” he said. The data “is inter­est­ing, provoca­tive, and we should spend more time under­stand­ing it.”

Dr. Corey said the results jibe with his expe­ri­ence in H.I.V. research with the ade­n­ovirus that forms the back­bone of the John­son & John­son vac­cine. “It has much longer dura­bil­i­ty than almost any oth­er plat­form that we’ve ever worked with,” he said.

Sci­en­tists are only begin­ning to guess why the vaccine’s pro­file is improv­ing with the pass­ing months.

Lev­els of anti­bod­ies sky­rock­et in the first few weeks after immu­niza­tion, but then rapid­ly wane. The J.&J. vac­cine may pro­duce anti­bod­ies that decline more slow­ly than those pro­duced by the oth­er vac­cines, some research sug­gests. Or those anti­bod­ies may become more sophis­ti­cat­ed over time, through a bio­log­i­cal phe­nom­e­non called affin­i­ty mat­u­ra­tion.

Per­haps, some researchers sug­gest, the vac­cine offered a more robust defense against the Omi­cron vari­ant, respon­si­ble for the huge increase in infec­tions over the past few months. And stud­ies have shown that the vac­cine trains oth­er parts of the immune sys­tem at least as well as the oth­er two vac­cines. . . .

3. Anoth­er stun­ning devel­op­ment con­cerns the FDA’s deci­sion to vet the next gen­er­a­tion of [mRNA] boost­ers with mouse tri­als, instead of human!

” . . . . ‘For the FDA to rely on mouse data is just bizarre, in my opin­ion,’ says John Moore, an immu­nol­o­gist at Weill Cor­nell Med­i­cine in New York. ‘Mouse data are not going to be pre­dic­tive in any way of what you would see in humans.’ . . . .”

WHY?

“What’s behind the FDA’s con­tro­ver­sial strat­e­gy for eval­u­at­ing new COVID boost­ers” by Rob Stein; npr.org; 8/18/2022.

The U.S. Food and Drug Admin­is­tra­tion is using a con­tro­ver­sial strat­e­gy to eval­u­ate the next gen­er­a­tion of COVID-19 boost­ers.

The approach is stir­ring debate as the agency works to make new, hope­ful­ly improved, boost­ers avail­able in Sep­tem­ber to help pre­vent severe dis­ease and save lives in the fall and win­ter.

For the first time, the FDA is plan­ning to base its deci­sion about whether to autho­rize new boost­ers on stud­ies involv­ing mice instead of humans. 

“For the FDA to rely on mouse data is just bizarre, in my opin­ion,” says John Moore, an immu­nol­o­gist at Weill Cor­nell Med­i­cine in New York. “Mouse data are not going to be pre­dic­tive in any way of what you would see in humans.” . . . .

But oth­ers defend the approach, argu­ing that the coun­try has had enough expe­ri­ence with the vac­cines at this point to be con­fi­dent the shots are safe and that there’s not enough time to wait for data from human stud­ies.

“We have 500 peo­ple a day dying of coro­n­avirus right now. Those num­bers sad­ly might very well rise in the fall and the win­ter. The ques­tion is: ‘Can we do some­thing bet­ter?’ ” says Dr. Ofer Levy, a pedi­atrics and infec­tious dis­ease researcher at Har­vard Med­ical School who also advis­es the FDA. “And I think the answer is: ‘We can, by imple­ment­ing this approach.’ ” . . .

. . . . But the big con­cern is the boost­ers may not work as well as the mouse data might sug­gest. Mouse exper­i­ments are noto­ri­ous­ly unre­li­able. . . .

. . . . “We need to make sure that we have sol­id immuno­genic­i­ty data in peo­ple to show that you have a dra­mat­i­cal­ly greater neu­tral­iz­ing anti­body response against BA.4, BA.5,” says Dr. Paul Offit of the Uni­ver­si­ty of Penn­syl­va­nia, who also advis­es the FDA. “I think any­thing short of that is not accept­able.” . . .

4. Peter Thiel favored “kneecap­ping the FDA” in order to bring Big Phar­ma’s prod­ucts to mar­ket soon­er, in full aware­ness of the col­lat­er­al dam­age that would result from this.

” . . . . For Food and Drug Admin­is­tra­tion com­mis­sion­er, he [Thiel] attempt­ed to nom­i­nate can­di­dates who shared his belief that the FDA’s main role—regarding tri­als for drugs—was unnec­es­sary. One of Thiel’s allies in this cru­sade, and his top pick to lead the FDA, was Bal­a­ji Srini­vasan, the Stan­ford com­put­er sci­ence lec­tur­er and cryp­tocur­ren­cy entre­pre­neur who’s invest­ed along­side Thiel in Cur­tis Yarvin’s com­pa­ny and shared Thiel’s views. . . . ‘For every thalido­mide,’ he tweet­ed, “many dead from slowed approvals.” . . . . Thiel had argued much the same. . . .”

Note that the FDA’s reg­u­la­to­ry “red light” on the use of thalido­mide saved the U.S. from the birth defects night­mare expe­ri­enced by Europe.

We note in that regard that Thiel comes from an “I.G.” back­ground, to coin a term. As not­ed in FTR #718, Thiel’s father was a chem­i­cal engi­neer from Frank­furt, the cap­i­tal of I.G.

The Con­trar­i­an by Max Chafkin; Pen­guin Press [HC]; Copy­right 2021 by Max Chafkin; ISBN 9781984878533; p9. 253–254.

. . . . For Food and Drug Admin­is­tra­tion com­mis­sion­er, he [Thiel] attempt­ed to nom­i­nate can­di­dates who shared his belief that the FDA’s main role—regarding tri­als for drugs—was unnec­es­sary.

The con­sen­sus view among drug devel­op­ers, even many in Sil­i­con Val­ley, has been that “you don’t want to put indi­vid­u­als at risk,” said Zach Wein­berg, the cofounder of Flat­iron Health, a Sil­i­con Val­ley-backed med­ical research firm that is now owned by the phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal giant Roche. “Peter Thiel’s view is that will slow things down. His whole game is if a few peo­ple get hurt and that cre­ates progress, he’s will­ing to take that trade.” 

One of Thiel’s allies in this cru­sade, and his top pick to lead the FDA, was Bal­a­ji Srini­vasan, the Stan­ford com­put­er sci­ence lec­tur­er and cryp­tocur­ren­cy entre­pre­neur who’s invest­ed along­side Thiel in Cur­tis Yarvin’s com­pa­ny and shared Thiel’s views. . . . 

 . . . . “For every thalido­mide,” he tweet­ed, “many dead from slowed approvals.” . . . .

Thiel had argued much the same. . . .

. . . . the agency’s [FDA] refusal in the ear­ly 1960’s to approve thalido­mide, a sleep­ing pill, is regard­ed as one of the great admin­is­tra­tive suc­cess sto­ries. In Europe, where a less-reg­u­lat­ed mar­ket allowed thalido­mide to be pre­scribed to preg­nant women, thou­sands of babies were born with­out ful­ly formed limbs. . . .

. . . . Thiel’s oth­er choice to run the FDA was Jim O’Neill, who’d run the Thiel Foun­da­tion and had since worked as an investor at Mithril, Ajay Royan’s ven­ture cap­i­tal firm . . . . He also believed in rolling back the FDA man­dates about drug effi­ca­cy. . . .

5. After the pan­dem­ic, Thiel seemed pleased at that event, main­tain­ing that it had pro­ject­ed us into the future. ” . . . . ‘COVID-19 cre­at­ed a shift. There used to be this feel­ing that the future was being held back some­how. Changes that should have tak­en place long ago did not come because there was resis­tance. Now the future is set free.’ He was, it seemed, wel­com­ing the pan­dem­ic as a chance to reset soci­ety accord­ing to his ideals and plans. . . .”

The Con­trar­i­an by Max Chafkin; Pen­guin Press [HC]; Copy­right 2021 by Max Chafkin; ISBN 9781984878533; p9. 327–328.

. . . . How could any­one devot­ed to life exten­sion not be moved by so many pre­ventable deaths? By late March more than 550,000 Amer­i­cans had died from Covid, mak­ing the pan­dem­ic dead­lier than U.S. casu­al­ties in World War I and World War II com­bined. The Unit­ed States has suf­fered one of the worst per-capi­ta mor­tal­i­ty rates in the world. How had those grim fig­ures not moved him to break with Trump or to at last spend more ambi­tious­ly to help? . . . .

. . . . Thiel spoke to Die Welt­woche, a Swiss news­pa­per whose edi­tor Roger Kop­pel is a mem­ber of the country’s nation­al-con­ser­v­a­tive People’s Par­ty. Dur­ing an inter­view with Kop­pel, Thiel char­ac­ter­ized the dis­ease as a men­tal pathol­o­gy rather than a phys­i­cal one. “I see it as a psy­cho­log­i­cal indi­ca­tor that peo­ple know deep down: There is no way back to the old nor­mal,” he said.

He con­tin­ued: “COVID-19 cre­at­ed a shift. There used to be this feel­ing that the future was being held back some­how. Changes that should have tak­en place long ago did not come because there was resis­tance. Now the future is set free.” He was, it seemed, wel­com­ing the pan­dem­ic as a chance to reset soci­ety accord­ing to his ideals and plans. . . .

6. In an alto­geth­er spec­u­la­tive ele­ment, we review dis­cus­sion of Nazi chem­i­cal giant I.G. Far­ben’s influ­ence in the phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal busi­ness, the pro­gram access­es infor­ma­tion about the tran­quil­iz­er thalido­mide. When pre­scribed for preg­nant women in the ear­ly 1960’s, it led to hor­ri­bly deformed babies. A new book claims that the drug was actu­al­ly invent­ed by the Nazis and test­ed in con­cen­tra­tion camps dur­ing World War II.

“Thalido­mide ‘Cre­at­ed by Nazis’ ” [TimesOn­line]; The Aus­tralian; 2/08/2009.

“The morn­ing sick­ness drug thalido­mide, which caused preg­nant women to give birth to babies with­out arms and legs, was first devel­oped by the Nazis, prob­a­bly as part of their chem­i­cal weapons pro­gramme, accord­ing to new research.

Two sep­a­rate aca­d­e­mics have revealed the dis­cov­ery of doc­u­ments indi­cat­ing that the drug did not orig­i­nate with Chemie Grunen­thal, the post-war Ger­man chem­i­cal firm, as has always been claimed.

If, as their research sug­gests, thalido­mide was first devel­oped by sci­en­tists work­ing in wartime Ger­many, it could have impli­ca­tions for the lia­bil­i­ty of the Ger­man gov­ern­ment. So far it has giv­en com­pen­sa­tion only to Ger­man vic­tims, although the drug was dis­trib­uted in 46 coun­tries.

Thou­sands of the drug’s vic­tims are still bat­tling for increased finan­cial aid to help them cope with its lega­cy. There are 457 thalido­miders remain­ing in the UK; 2,700 in Ger­many; and a total of up to 6,000 worldwide.s

Moth­ers pre­scribed it between its launch in 1957 and 1961, when it was removed from the mar­ket, gave birth to chil­dren who lacked prop­er arms, legs, hands and feet. Some had also suf­fered brain dam­age and oth­er dis­abil­i­ties.

Dr Mar­tin John­son, direc­tor of the Thalido­mide Trust which pro­vides help for sur­viv­ing vic­tims in the UK, has writ­ten a paper detail­ing evi­dence sug­gest­ing that the drug had been devel­oped before Grunen­thal secured a patent in 1954.

The com­pa­ny has always main­tained that thalido­mide was cre­at­ed by chance in 1953 by sci­en­tists who had tried to cre­ate an anti­his­t­a­mine but end­ed up with a tran­quil­liz­er.

John­son sus­pects that it was actu­al­ly first pro­duced as a pos­si­ble anti­dote to nerve tox­ins such as sarin, which was devel­oped by Otto Ambros, a Nazi sci­en­tist who joined Grunen­thal after the war.

‘It is now appear­ing increas­ing­ly like­ly that thalido­mide was the last war crime of the Nazis,’ said John­son.

One doc­u­ment unearthed by the Thalido­mide Trust shows that Grunen­thal appar­ent­ly pur­chased the trade name of the drug — Con­ter­gan — and there­fore prob­a­bly the sub­stance itself, from a French firm, Rhone-Poulenc, which was under Nazi con­trol dur­ing the war years.

A con­fi­den­tial let­ter sent from Astra, which held the Swedish licence to dis­trib­ute thalido­mide, to its Nor­we­gian sub­sidiary in 1958 states: ‘Unfor­tu­nate­ly we can’t use the name Con­ter­gan in the Scan­di­na­vian coun­tries, since Grunen­thal obtained the name exclu­sive­ly for the Ger­man mar­ket through an agree­ment with Rhone-Poulenc.’

From 1942 onwards Rhone-Poulenc reg­is­tered 14 sim­i­lar drugs, all end­ing with the same ‘ergan’ suf­fix, a char­ac­ter­is­tic unique to the firm. Many of the drugs shared prop­er­ties with thalido­mide, such as affect­ing the ner­vous sys­tem.”

7. Joe Biden’s pol­i­cy vis a vis Covid may well be eugeni­cist in its ori­en­ta­tion. Return­ing to “nor­mal,” in most respects, but allow­ing the virus to cir­cu­late, plac­ing seniors–no longer in the workforce–at risk

We have not­ed that Biden’s social poli­cies appear to be exten­sions of his nation­al secu­ri­ty pol­i­cy. He has stat­ed that com­pet­ing with Chi­na is a pri­or­i­ty.

In that regard, trim­ming expens­es, includ­ing the rel­a­tive­ly expen­sive social pro­grams need­ed to care for the elder­ly, is appar­ent­ly on the front burn­er. 

Bot­tom line: old folks don’t work.

” . . . . ‘And the ques­tion I have is, how much death are we OK with?’ she asks. ‘Have we decid­ed this is OK? And if so, why?’ . . . . Covid-19 has always been a dis­ease of the elder­ly, defined almost more by its age skew of mor­tal­i­ty than by any of its oth­er char­ac­ter­is­tics, with risk dou­bling rough­ly every eight years and octo­ge­nar­i­ans hun­dreds of times more at risk of death than young adults. . . .”

“Endem­ic Covid-19 Is Look­ing Bru­tal” by David Wal­lace-Wells; The New York Times; 7/24/2022.

. . . . More than 300 Amer­i­cans have been dying near­ly every day for months; the num­ber is today above 400, and grow­ing.

Right now, [Dr. Trevor] Bed­ford says, around 5 per­cent of the coun­try is get­ting infect­ed with the coro­n­avirus each month and he expects that pat­tern to large­ly con­tin­ue. What would that imply death-wise, I ask? As a ball­park esti­mate, he says, going for­ward we can expect that every year, around 50 per­cent of Amer­i­cans will be infect­ed and more than 100,000 will die. . . .

. . . . A hun­dred thou­sand deaths is more than the annu­al toll of any oth­er infec­tious dis­ease and would make Covid-19 a top-10 cause of death in the coun­try — a major and nov­el cause of wide­spread death cloud­ing the Amer­i­can hori­zon with anoth­er dark lay­er of mor­bid­i­ty we had nev­er known before. It’s a few mul­ti­ples of a typ­i­cal flu sea­son and more than die each year from dia­betes, pneu­mo­nia or kid­ney dis­ease. It is what this news­pa­per once called, in an immor­tal front-page ban­ner, “an incal­cu­la­ble loss.”

How do you cal­cu­late a loss 10 times as high? How can you reck­on with that lev­el of dying, each year, going for­ward? Accord­ing to Céline Gounder, an infec­tious dis­ease epi­demi­ol­o­gist and a senior fel­low at the Kaiser Fam­i­ly Foun­da­tion, that fig­ure is actu­al­ly the low end — the ball­park, she says, runs from 100,000 to 250,000. That’s not her esti­mate of this year’s toll but of the annu­al con­tin­u­ing mor­tal­i­ty bur­den rolling for­ward indef­i­nite­ly into the future. “And the ques­tion I have is, how much death are we OK with?” she asks. “Have we decid­ed this is OK? And if so, why?” . . . .

. . . . Covid-19 has always been a dis­ease of the elder­ly, defined almost more by its age skew of mor­tal­i­ty than by any of its oth­er char­ac­ter­is­tics, with risk dou­bling rough­ly every eight years and octo­ge­nar­i­ans hun­dreds of times more at risk of death than young adults. But in a time of wide­spread vac­ci­na­tion and almost uni­ver­sal infec­tion, that gap may well expand.

[Dr. Michael] Mina com­pares the build­ing of immu­ni­ty to the learn­ing of a lan­guage. “It’s a fact of the biol­o­gy of immu­ni­ty that it’s real­ly hard to build a brand-new mem­o­ry and keep it if you’re old,” he says. “And so I do think that for quite a while our elder­ly pop­u­la­tion is going to keep hav­ing real­ly big prob­lems because they just can’t retain these new mem­o­ries.” Peo­ple exposed today, who will become 80 years old in 25 years or so, won’t have the same prob­lem, Mina says, because they will have built their immune mem­o­ry at a younger age. . . .

8. Indica­tive of Biden’s cyn­i­cism on social and eco­nom­ic pol­i­cy is his selec­tion to serve on the Social Secu­ri­ty Admin­is­tra­tion:

” . . . . Defend­ers of Social Secu­ri­ty on Tues­day urged the U.S. Sen­ate to block Pres­i­dent Joe Biden’s lit­tle-noticed nom­i­na­tion of Andrew Big­gs — an Amer­i­can Enter­prise Insti­tute senior fel­low with a his­to­ry of sup­port­ing Social Secu­ri­ty pri­va­ti­za­tion — to serve on the inde­pen­dent and bipar­ti­san Social Secu­ri­ty Advi­so­ry Board. . . . Biden was vice pres­i­dent when for­mer Pres­i­dent Barack Oba­ma pro­posed a ‘grand bar­gain’ with the GOP that would have entailed cuts to Social Secu­ri­ty. Big­gs, too, has a long record of advo­cat­ing Social Secu­ri­ty cuts. As Cun­ning­ham-Cook wrote last month, ‘For years, Big­gs has been a vocal crit­ic of expand­ed Social Secu­ri­ty and work­ers’ right to a secure, sta­ble retire­ment free from the vagaries of the stock mar­ket.’. . .”

“Biden’s Nom­i­nee for Social Secu­ri­ty Board” by Jake John­son [Com­mon Dreams]; Con­sor­tium News; 7/6/2022.

The advo­ca­cy group Social Secu­ri­ty Works is urg­ing the Sen­ate to block Andrew Big­gs’ appoint­ment by high­light­ing his role in the George W. Bush administration’s failed attempt to pri­va­tize the New Deal pro­gram in 2005.

Defend­ers of Social Secu­ri­ty on Tues­day urged the U.S. Sen­ate to block Pres­i­dent Joe Biden’s lit­tle-noticed nom­i­na­tion of Andrew Big­gs — an Amer­i­can Enter­prise Insti­tute senior fel­low with a his­to­ry of sup­port­ing Social Secu­ri­ty pri­va­ti­za­tion — to serve on the inde­pen­dent and bipar­ti­san Social Secu­ri­ty Advi­so­ry Board.

Social Secu­ri­ty Works, a pro­gres­sive advo­ca­cy group, is lead­ing the charge against Big­gs, high­light­ing his role in the George W. Bush administration’s failed attempt to pri­va­tize the New Deal pro­gram in 2005. At the time, Big­gs worked on Social Secu­ri­ty as an asso­ciate direc­tor of Bush’s Nation­al Eco­nom­ic Coun­cil.

“Andrew Big­gs has advo­cat­ed for Social Secu­ri­ty cuts through­out his career. And now, he’s been nom­i­nat­ed to over­see Social Secu­ri­ty,” Social Secu­ri­ty Works tweet­ed on Tues­day.

The group, whose pres­i­dent cur­rent­ly serves on the Social Secu­ri­ty Advi­so­ry Board (SSAB), is also shar­ing a sam­ple call script for those who wish to con­tact their rep­re­sen­ta­tives about Big­gs.

“The Sen­ate can, and must, block this ter­ri­ble nom­i­na­tion,” the orga­ni­za­tion wrote. “Please call your sen­a­tors at 202–224-3121 and tell them to vote NO on Andrew Big­gs.”

The White House announced Big­gs’ nom­i­na­tion to the SSAB in May, a move that drew lit­tle notice at the time.

Last month, The Lever‘s Matthew Cun­ning­ham-Cook called atten­tion to the president’s pick and warned it sug­gests “there could soon be a coor­di­nat­ed push in Wash­ing­ton to cut the Social Secu­ri­ty pro­gram, which pro­vides retire­ment, dis­abil­i­ty, and sur­vivor ben­e­fits to 66 mil­lion Amer­i­cans.”

While Biden vowed on the cam­paign trail to back an expan­sion of Social Secu­ri­ty, he has pre­vi­ous­ly sup­port­ed cut­ting the program’s ben­e­fits. Biden was vice pres­i­dent when for­mer Pres­i­dent Barack Oba­ma pro­posed a “grand bar­gain” with the GOP that would have entailed cuts to Social Secu­ri­ty.

Big­gs, too, has a long record of advo­cat­ing Social Secu­ri­ty cuts. As Cun­ning­ham-Cook wrote last month, “For years, Big­gs has been a vocal crit­ic of expand­ed Social Secu­ri­ty and work­ers’ right to a secure, sta­ble retire­ment free from the vagaries of the stock mar­ket.”

“He has dis­missed the retire­ment cri­sis as a non-issue and as recent­ly as 2020 blamed prob­lems with the Social Secu­ri­ty sys­tem on ‘old­er Amer­i­cans’ game of chick­en,’” he added. “While the seat on the bipar­ti­san board is by tra­di­tion assigned to a Repub­li­can, Biden could have cho­sen a mod­er­ate can­di­date — or even leaned on prece­dent to avoid the nom­i­na­tion process alto­geth­er. For­mer Pres­i­dent Don­ald Trump rou­tine­ly refused to nom­i­nate Democ­rats for seats on boards and com­mis­sions.”

Sim­mer­ing out­rage over Big­gs’ nom­i­na­tion to serve on the SSAB, which was formed in 1994 to advise the pres­i­dent and Con­gress on Social Secu­ri­ty, comes as pro­gres­sives are demand­ing an expan­sion of the program’s mod­est ben­e­fits — while Repub­li­can law­mak­ers, per usu­al, eye cuts.

Last month, Sens. Bernie Sanders (I‑Vt.) and Eliz­a­beth War­ren (D‑Mass.) led the intro­duc­tion of the Social Secu­ri­ty Expan­sion Act, which would lift the cap on income sub­ject to the Social Secu­ri­ty pay­roll tax and boost the program’s annu­al ben­e­fits by $2,400.

“At a time when half of old­er Amer­i­cans have no retire­ment sav­ings and mil­lions of senior cit­i­zens are liv­ing in pover­ty, our job is not to cut Social Secu­ri­ty,” Sanders said at the time. “Our job must be to expand Social Secu­ri­ty so that every senior cit­i­zen in Amer­i­ca can retire with the dig­ni­ty they deserve and every per­son with a dis­abil­i­ty can live with the secu­ri­ty they need.”

Discussion

No comments for “FTR#1258 Pandemics, Inc., Part 8: Covid Update”

Post a comment