RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.city-journal.org/the-case-for-a-pandemic-early-warning-system

The lab-leak hypothesis for Covid-19’s origin, once a forbidden topic in the press and on social media, is now the subject of fierce debate among scientists and journalists. But the very possibility of a lab leak should be alarming, and not just retrospectively. A recent report based on documents from the National Institutes of Health reveals wide variation in how institutions respond to lab accidents involving dangerous pathogens. Regardless of whether the U.S.-funded Wuhan Institute of Virology released Covid-19, policymakers should change their attitudes toward this kind of research in the future.

What form should this rethink take? Some have called for a crackdown on “gain-of-function” research, in which an existing organism is modified to enhance a given feature. Others have advocated stricter safety standards for research funding or better training in labs that handle pathogens. Still others want independent oversight of especially high-risk research. All these proposals are worth serious consideration—but an under-discussed possibility would be to acquire better, earlier data on lab leaks. The current approach to detecting lab leaks is insufficiently proactive: if an incident happens, the world will know only if scientists and lab techs self-report it or if enough people develop symptoms. An early-warning system that uses large-scale genetic sequencing would strengthen security against lab leaks and other pathogenic threats.

In a way, the world was lucky that Covid-19 wasn’t worse. Though the disease killed perhaps 1 million Americans (and many more globally), its infection fatality ratio was quite low. Smallpox, on the other hand, killed around 10 percent of its victims, while untreated bubonic plague and Ebola kill around 30 percent. And novel pathogens with no known treatment have a non-zero chance of emerging every year. Industrial-scale animal farming, wet markets, and human encroachment onto animal habitats may increase the risk of new pathogens, which rapid intercontinental travel can spread around the world.

Of course, natural threats don’t tell the whole story. Pathogens engineered to be more dangerous—whether for benign or nefarious purposes—present another threat. In the 1980s, using biotechnology that would today be considered primitive, a Soviet bioweapons program developed antibiotic-resistant strains of anthrax and other diseases, estimating death counts in the hundreds of thousands with merely one successful city attack. In the future, technological development will make creating lethal diseases even easier: gene editing through CRISPR and its successors will improve; more predictive computer simulations will make lab work more efficient; and the proliferation of DNA-synthesis companies will reduce barriers to entry.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2022/11/the_gods_of_diversity_are_killing_the_golden_age_of_medicine.html

Those who came of age in the second half of the 20th century or later, have been blessed to witness a time of extraordinary medical progress. Now, though, thanks to academia’s mindless push for diversity, we are almost certainly on the precipice of a steep decline in the quality of medical care in America.

Beginning in the late 19th century, modern medicine brought us anesthetics and sophisticated germ theory that allowed safe surgeries, antibiotics, the understanding and treatment of chronic diseases, organ transplants, dramatically decreased maternal and child mortality, unimaginably successful treatments for cancer, vision-correcting surgery, and so much more. In the first world, the human life span roughly doubled compared to the lifespan people could expect just 150 years ago. It truly was a time of wonders and miracles.

As medicine grew more sophisticated, doctors’ standing in society increased. Medicine ceased to be an apprentice-type trade and became a high-cachet profession, with gratifying financial awards. By the middle of the 20th century and for several decades thereafter, medical schools were able to limit themselves to the best of the best from every college class. Sure, there were bad doctors, but even if they were bad, they were still smart. (Small consolation, of course, when you’re on the receiving end of malpractice.)

We conservatives knew that socialized medicine threatened all of this and we fought against it for decades. The moment the government takes over medicine, killing the profit motive, it begins rationing care. People have access to doctors; they just don’t have access to treatments that save or improve their lives.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-inflation-reduction-act-comes-for-medicare-ira-elderly-voters-payments-benefits-cuts-revenue-losses-subsidies-11669060307?mod=opinion_lead_pos6

President Biden has accused Republicans of scheming to cut Medicare. In fact it is his signature legislation, the Inflation Reduction Act, that will lead to benefit cuts and premium increases for seniors. Medicare’s popular drug-coverage program is headed for a painful amputation.

The private plans participating in Medicare’s prescription-drug program, known as Part D, currently draw on three sources of revenue to finance prescriptions: out-of-pocket payments from patients, premium payments made by plan members, and subsidies from the federal government. In 2025, under the Inflation Reduction Act, both government subsidies and out-of-pocket payments by patients are scheduled to be cut sharply. The difference will have to be made up by premiums. But the statute inhibits this third revenue source, which is also subsidized, from increasing more than 6%. That’s hardly enough to cover inflation, let alone compensate for the other two revenue losses.

We estimate that beginning in 2025, plan subsidies—specifically, the reinsurance subsidies for the beneficiaries with the most drug spending—will be cut $30 billion, out of revenue that currently totals about $110 billion. With $30 billion less to finance prescription benefits, something will have to give. Plans currently have far too little profit to span the chasm that the Inflation Reduction Act opens between expenses and revenue.

Existing plans have room to cut benefits, although the original Part D statute limits their ability to do so. As plans are under no obligation to take a loss, their other choice is to exit the market, which from the patient’s perspective means that all the benefits disappear. In essence, the Inflation Reduction Act statute may prohibit Part D plans from being economically viable, even if it doesn’t explicitly ban them.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-progressive-paradox-on-marijuana-new-york-weed-kathy-hochul-john-hickenlooper-11669072860?mod=opinion_lead_pos2

New York state’s Cannabis Control Board voted Monday to approve its first 36 licenses to run marijuana dispensaries. It’s another big step toward legal pot sales, though the black market isn’t struggling to meet demand, as every nose in Manhattan can attest. Meantime, the paradox in progressive attitudes toward marijuana continues to grow like skunk weed.

A study published last week in the journal Radiology finds that smokers who used marijuana (often in addition to tobacco), instead of tobacco alone, had higher rates of emphysema, airway inflammation, and other conditions. “There is a public perception that marijuana is safe and people think that it’s safer than cigarettes,” one radiologist told the Journal. “This study raises concerns that might not be true.”

Where might people have gotten the idea that marijuana is safe? To blame politicians for this would vastly overstate their persuasive powers. Yet it’s remarkable how liberal politicians have tried to take a rhetorical puff to fit in with the cultural cool kids. On April 20, which is cannabis culture slang, Twitter was a veritable haze.

“Happy 4/20 Colorado! You’re my best bud,” said Colorado Sen. John Hickenlooper.

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/stacey-lennox/2022/11/15/legal-complaint-takes-on-california-law-mandating-doctors-comply-with-covid-19-consensus-n1646080

A new California law signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom empowers the Medical Board of California to discipline physicians who “disseminate” information regarding COVID-19 that departs from the “contemporary scientific consensus.” The New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA), a nonpartisan, nonprofit civil rights group, filed a complaint and motion for a preliminary injunction in Hoeg, et al. v. Newsom, et al., asking the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California to prevent the law, AB 2098, from going into effect.

The NCLA represents five physicians licensed by the Medical Board of California (MBC), most of whom treat patients on a regular basis. Drs. Hoeg, Duriseti, Kheriaty, Mazolewski, and Khatibi allege Assembly Bill (AB) 2098, signed into law on September 30, 2022, violates their First Amendment rights to free speech and their Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process of law.

NCLA attorney Jenin Younes says the new law targets the doctor-patient relationship. The law also practices viewpoint discrimination and creates a severe chilling effect in direct violation of the First Amendment. AB 2098 subjects plaintiffs to discipline and negative professional consequences, including loss of license, for conveying non-consensus messages to their patients. It has already been used as a weapon to intimidate and punish doctors who dissent from mainstream views. Several plaintiffs have experienced threats on social media from doctors and individuals willing to use AB 2098 to take their licenses away.

According to Younes, in safeguarding Americans’ rights to free speech and expression, the First Amendment applies to individuals expressing majority opinions and minority views. The U.S. Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedents protect speech uttered in the context of the doctor-patient relationship, recognizing a state interest in free and open communication between doctors and patients. AB 2098 also deprives Plaintiffs’ patients of their First Amendment rights to receive advice and hear treatment options unfettered by professional discipline fears.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/19089/socialized-medicine

Claiming that conservatives are less compassionate because many basic needs are not offered for free can miss the point. Too often what is offered are words; what is actually ends up being delivered may be sorely lacking — as disillusioned citizens in places such as Venezuela and Cuba have found out the hard way.

Of course, one does not become a “better person” by voting for giveaways that are all too often fraudulent or semi-fraudulent — a bait-and-switch in which what is delivered ends up being far from what has been promised, if delivered at all. For many people, however, it might satisfy a need to be perceived as being on the side of the “good” — which social promises always are; why else would a public buy into them?

Over time, as governments began to separate themselves from religion, many responsibilities of the church became transferred to the state. The gradual progression of socialist and Marxist thought, meanwhile, further increased the divide, while at the same time expanding the remit of governmental reach into people’s daily lives.

Immigration, changes in the workplace, a massive increase in disability payments (along with what constitutes “disability”), the length of time people remain unemployed and an increasingly bloated bureaucracy have all contributed to breaking the back of an outdated system.

If your needs are immediate, the struggle for medical care is even more uphill: the NHS is now advising patients to consider private healthcare.

Then there is dental care. As long ago as 1952, the British state’s initial offer of “free” dental work (and visits to the optician) had to be dramatically reined-in: the reality of the economics was not adding up.

The high rate of taxation in Britain, with a top income tax rate of 45% (for those who earn more than £150,000) and an “ordinary” rate of 20%, has many wondering if their “national insurance” deductions could not be better spent on private care when needed. As things stand, the majority of people — those without chronic medical conditions — appear to be paying for the few — the same business model as for private insurance companies.

Taking into consideration the challenge of rampant illegal immigration, the divisive nature of “woke” ideology that pits citizens against one another, the criminalisation of speech that constitutes “hate crimes” law, the softly-softly approach to fundamentalist terrorism, as well “transgender” infiltration into women’s sports, locker rooms and restrooms, media race-baiting and so on, it seems we have a bit of a problem on our hands.

The over-loading of the NHS, which would be alarming enough on its own, is merely [with the ever-increasing number of immigrants] the icing on a hugely unappetising-looking cake. Indeed, the total cost of providing healthcare to visitors and immigrants alone, was estimated at two billion pounds per year — as far back as 2013.

To compound matters, when exceptions to the rules are made for certain residents — such as allowing men in polygamous marriages to claim for wives who do not even reside in the UK, the bitterness can only grow. To blame the inevitable backlash on “racism” or “xenophobia” might seem to many a ruse to silence dissent.

Year after year, as the population has grown, the inevitable demand for state aid has risen, stretching resources, while breeding bitter rivalry amongst those vying for help — be it healthcare, social housing or state benefits. The dynamic between altruism and gratitude, has been replaced it with an increasingly authoritarian-looking bureaucracy on the state’s part, coupled with what many might regard as a cynical sense of entitlement in those expecting help.

Far from seeming like a comforting “safety net”, welfare now feels more like a soul-crushing method of state-enslavement.

There may well be little doubt that the state has good cause to implement anti-social measures to counteract the anti-social behaviour of some of its dependents, but inevitably such action creates a paranoid, suspicious landscape entirely lacking in empathy.

Sadly, the “safety net” we have in the UK today bears little resemblance to what its benevolent pioneers envisioned. Perhaps suggestions could be offered how constructively to improve it.

https://pjmedia.com/culture/lincolnbrown/2022/11/07/a-minnesota-gender-clinic-touts-treating-three-year-olds-n1643797

“I can calculate the motion of heavenly bodies, but not the madness of people.” – Isaac Newton

I have on several occasions wondered on these pages just how far out the Left will get before it passes the point of no return and into a Twilight Zone of its own making. A place where nothing makes sense, no rules apply, and even the laws of nature itself are subject to the whims of people. A place where the departure from reality is so drastic and complete that there is little if any hope of a return.

While we may not be getting to that point as a nation or on a global level, at least not yet, there are pockets where a parallel universe has collided with ours and exchanged shards of reality. At least I hope that is the case because if it is not, humanity has taken another step toward becoming irredeemable.

According to The Post Millennial, Angela Kade Goepferd, the director of the Gender Health Program at Minnesota Children’s Hospital, holds firm to the conviction that some children as young as age three are capable of determining that they are transgender.

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/stacey-lennox/2022/11/11/first-lawsuit-filed-in-the-u-s-to-stop-medical-professionals-from-transing-the-kids-n1644944

The Center for American Liberty (CAL), founded by attorney Harmeet Dhillon, announced the first U.S. lawsuit against medical personnel for providing medical and surgical gender transition services. Providers who prescribed puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones and performed a double mastectomy on Chloe Cole when she was still a minor are named. Now, Cole is 18 years old and an outspoken detransitioner. She appears at rallies to end the medical and surgical gender transition of children.

On Thursday evening, Dhillon and Cole appeared on Tucker Carlson Tonight to announce the lawsuit. Cole explained how medical professionals treated her gender dysphoria and counseled her parents. Carlson explained how gender clinics that provide medical and surgical transition to children are starting to close. Vanderbilt University Medical Center suspended operations at its pediatric gender clinic after investigative journalism from Matt Walsh at The Daily Wire. In the U.K., the Tavistock gender clinic was closed after a lawsuit. Since the judgment, additional parents have filed lawsuits against the clinic. “Litigation stops mutilation,” Carlson emphasized.

Then, Carlson asked Cole why she was suing. She said, “It is a medical malpractice case. I want to hold the adults that put me in harm’s way accountable because, I mean, what happened to me is horrible. But also, it didn’t only happen to me. That’s the worst part.” As outspoken as Cole has been as a detransitioner, she knows the harassment and criticism she will face. You only need to look at her Twitter timeline or the comments on videos of her speaking to see the trans activists’ vitriol. Children are brave, strong, and celebrated when they come out as transgender. They get harassed, demeaned, and censored when they speak out about their regret or their journey back to living as their biological sex.

Chloe continued, “It’s happening to children all over the U.S., all over the West, and it’s spreading all over the world. I want to be able to create a precedent for other people who have been in my situation to find justice for themselves.” Cole told Carlson she started her transition at the age of 13. Carlson asked Cole if she believed the doctors when they told her she could become a boy. She said she did and that her parents believed them also.