RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.acsh.org/news/2021/06/10/covid-19-vaccines-will-not-be-enough-we-also-need-effective-treatments-15596

The COVID-19 vaccines have been nothing short of miraculous. Life is returning to normal in many places. But ACSH advisor Dr. Henry Miller argues that we will still need effective medical treatments for COVID-19.

COVID-19 vaccines are the miracle that has significantly suppressed the pandemic in a number of countries, including the United States, where the current seven-day moving averages of cases and deaths are at levels not seen since March of 2020.  With continued aggressive vaccination, we can further suppress the numbers – getting us closer to pre-pandemic “normality.”

However, for several reasons, vaccines alone won’t be the whole solution.

First, in spite of the overwhelming and growing evidence of the importance, safety, and efficacy of the vaccines, there remains a core of the population who will refuse them.  

Second, millions of Americans are taking immunosuppressive drugs — for cancer or autoimmune diseases, for example — that may attenuate the effect of the COVID-19 vaccines.  A study by researchers at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine of more than 650 organ recipients — who take drugs to suppress their immune system to prevent rejection of their transplanted organs – found that 46 percent had no antibody response after two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna vaccines.  In another study, a large group of academic researchers found that patients with conditions such as lupus, psoriasis and inflammatory bowel disease who were taking two types of drugs — glucocorticoids and B cell depleting agents — had a substantially impaired immune response to the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines.

Third, the proliferation of “variants of concern” – mutants of the original Wuhan strain of SARS-CoV-2 that are highly transmissible and may exhibit immune evasiveness in vaccinated subjects — in the future will likely compromise to some degree the efficacy of the currently available vaccines.  Increasing the likelihood of this outcome are the continuing significant outbreaks of COVID-19 in many of the world’s low- and middle-income countries, which provide opportunities for new, opportunistic mutants to emerge.

Fourth, in view of the above, the best-case scenario is probably that COVID-19 will not in the foreseeable future completely disappear but will become endemic like influenza virus and the coronaviruses that can cause the common cold. In order to save lives and modulate the severity of future COVID-19 infections, it will be critical to develop safe and effective treatments in addition to vaccines.

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2021/06/09/almost_overnight_standards_of_color-blind_merit_tumble_across_american_society_780262.html

A broad revolution is underway in the United States as traditional standards used to measure achievement and provide opportunity are being rejected by schools, corporations, and governments in favor of quotas based on race and gender.

On just his sixth day in office, President Biden signaled that the nation’s long held principle of equality for all had come to an end, signing an executive order declaring that “racial equity is not just an issue for any one department of government; it has to be the business of the whole of government” — equity referring to the idea that merely treating everybody the same is not enough, and that an equal outcome for all people has to be the goal.

Over the last few months, many Ivy League and flagship state universities have moved away from a seemingly neutral measure long used to assess applicants – standardized test scores – to give minorities a better shot at admissions.

In May, Hewlett-Packard, the technology company with 50,000 employees worldwide, decreed that by 2030 half of its leadership positions and more than 30% of its technicians and engineers have to be women and that the number of minorities should “meet or exceed” their representation in the tech industry workforce. 

That same month, United Airlines announced that half of the 5,000 pilots it would train at its proprietary flight school between now and 2030 will be women or people of color, with scholarships provided by United and JPMorgan Chase helping with tuition. There was nothing in the United announcement showing that there were enough qualified blacks and women in the pipeline so that a black/female quota of 2,500 new pilots could be filled, and nothing about what the company would do if there weren’t enough qualified candidates.

Delta Airlines, Ralph Lauren, and Wells Fargo are among other major American companies to announce hiring quotas recently as a way to redress racial imbalances, according to Bloomberg News. 

These are just some of the many “woke” initiatives embraced by many of the pillars of American society in the year since social justice protests erupted across the country in response to the murder of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer.

Supporters argue that racial preferences and quotas are necessary to end deeply entrenched disparities. Critics say that they are a new form of discrimination, no more justified than old forms that are widely rejected. And while the stated goal of affirmative action was to simply eliminate unfair discrimination, the equity movement is rooted in a far more expansive and pessimistic view of the United States as irredeemably white supremacist, a view meant to continually challenge American institutions and values.

The rapid transition from equality of treatment to equality of outcomes tests one of the basic post-civil rights principles of American life, namely that the same standards should be applied to all people. Once a measure is applied, not to the unique individual but to that individual’s group identity, the idea that there are neutral, common, universally applicable standards gives way to something else, something subjective and political, with different measures applied to different people, depending on their sex, race, or other characteristics.

The issue of standards, moreover, is not just a matter of values or fairness. With the United States falling behind other countries in math and science, most notably China, standards are matters of competitiveness and national security — even as the military, CIA and other federal agencies embrace equity.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/ilhan-omars-tired-islamophobia-act/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=article&utm_campaign=river&utm_content=top-bar-latest&utm_term=second

Every time Ilhan Omar says something incendiary and/or idiotic — which is quite often — the fallout unfolds in the same way.

First, Omar and her allies smear her critics. After a sad gaggle of Jewish House Democrats finally wrote a tepid letter asking the congresswoman to pretty please “clarify” her comments comparing Israel and the United States to the Taliban and Hamas, Omar took to Twitter to accuse them of using “islamophobic tropes.” Her spokesperson, Jeremy Slevin, claimed that the letter illustrated that “Islamophobia is a normalized part of American political discourse” — in particular, the contention that Omar’s likening of militants who target civilians to those who defend them gives “cover to terrorist groups.” Others, such as her colleague Cori Bush, demanded an end to “anti-Blackness and Islamophobia.”

Second, Omar plays the victim to chill speech. “This is the kind of incitement and hate that leads to real violence,” Omar noted, tweeting a recording of an odious racist threat that was left, presumably, in her voicemail. Of course, simply because there are terrible people in the world, doesn’t change Omar’s words. It is imperative, in fact, that we don’t let some nuts undercut our ability to freely express our political disagreements — which is what Omar is trying to do. And, if we are going to start holding politicians responsible for the actions of third parties, then Omar has a lot of answering to do for the spike in anti-Semitic violence last month.

Then again, her Democratic colleagues never accused Omar of blood libel or of hypnotizing the world for evil. They merely asked her to explain her own statement. It’s certainly not “Islamophobic” to seek clarification for why she believes the Taliban and the United States are morally comparable. It’s a simple question. Surely, Omar, who believes the U.S. was “founded by genocide” and built its power through “neocolonialism,” has some Marxist drivel to share on the topic. And if Omar can’t explain herself, perhaps a reporter will take a short break from the Marjorie Taylor-Greene beat to see what Nancy Pelosi thinks of the statement. But, whatever the case, being an African-American Muslim woman doesn’t give Omar dispensation from debate or immunity from criticism. At least, not yet.

http://The ‘Anti-Racist’ Who Wasn’t By Charles C. W. Cooke

A trendy progressive ideology buckles under the weight of its own paradoxes.

T oday’s edition of the Washington Post comes with the comforting news that the psychiatrist who told an audience at Yale’s medical school that “she fantasized about killing White people” was, in fact, simply expressing to the world how deeply she cares. In an April 6 lecture, prosaically titled “Psychopathic Problem of the White Mind,” Aruna Khilanani explained that she dreamed of “unloading a revolver into the head of any white person that got in my way, burying their body, and wiping my bloody hands as I walked away relatively guiltless with a bounce in my step, like I did the world a fu**ing favor.” Perhaps because they lacked the tools to interrogate and educate themselves, some observers responded rather negatively to these ideas. But, as Khilanani clarifies today, they have got her completely wrong: What she said was not the product of a demented, bigoted, Charles Manson–esque mind, but of a legitimate “frustration about minority mental health,” a desire to “have more serious conversations about race,” and, ultimately, love. Khilanani does what she does, she told the Post, “because I care.”

Well, that’s a relief.

It does not take an exquisitely trained mind to understand why the oft-trailed and much-coveted “Conversation about Race in America” never actually happens in earnest — and, indeed, why it is unlikely ever to happen in earnest. Thanks to the ever-shifting pseudo-scientific nonsense that underpins almost every contemporary “academic” framework, the plain words a given person uses when discussing race do not tend to matter much these days. What matters, instead, is how our self-appointed arbiters of taste wish those words to be perceived. Thus it is that any self-evidently racist comment made by a favored player is immediately justified in terms that would typically be reserved for an especially pretentious exhibit of modern art — “the intermittently blank canvas explores the tension between sound and electricity in an era of existential dread” — while the jokes, mainstream political opinions, unfortunate coincidences, and childhood indiscretions of the disfavored become crystallized into the permanent mark of the Klan. Who, in his right mind, would consent to talk on the record under these rules?

The erosion of public trust in the FBI is a big problem for the country — for both the rule of law and national security.

S tories such as the one Isaac Schorr reported Wednesday are a big part of why the FBI has lost so much of its good will on Capitol Hill and among the public.

It is not like some barroom blabbermouth called for the prosecution of former Trump officials and a number of congressional Republicans on the theory that they constitute the “command and control element” of a “terrorist group” that attacked the Capitol. Frank Figliuzzi was, for some of the Obama years, the FBI’s top counterintelligence official. And that was after he held other major supervisory positions, managing the work of hundreds of agents, particularly in Cleveland and Miami.

Figliuzzi knows he is mouthing Democratic Party political messaging that has no grounding in a rigorous analysis of evidence and applicable law — the kind of analysis the FBI wants Americans to believe it performs without grinding political axes. Yet he also knows that people who care what Frank Figliuzzi says care only because of his perceived authority as a former high-ranking FBI national-security official. His audience figures that Figliuzzi is an insider, publicly saying what the bureau is quietly thinking.

In reality, what he’s saying is bunk.

Federal prosecutors are a notoriously ambitious bunch. They well know that making cases against the former president, his aides, and pro-Trump congressional Republicans, especially terrorism cases, would thrill the Biden Justice Department. It would also please the FBI — not just the top echelon but rank-and-file agents who are not partisans, but who are well aware that over 100 cops were injured in the lawless melee at the Capitol. A prosecutor who could make such a case would be a star for life: invited to hold forth on the NBC news circuit even more often than Figliuzzi.

Figliuzzi is echoing Attorney General Merrick Garland, who told the Senate that the Capitol riot was the most “dangerous threat to democracy” he’s ever seen. For context, President Biden’s AG made that absurd claim in the course of decrying white supremacism as the nation’s “top domestic violent extremist threat.” (In Obama/Biden-speak, “violent extremist” means terrorism.) We are to believe that Trump supporters are neo-Nazis, more dangerous than Hamas, more dangerous than the Taliban, and — applying the standards of Democratic congresswoman Ilhan Omar — even more dangerous than the United States itself.

Prosecutors hear this stuff. They want nothing more than to make the case. If it were makable.

Government lawyers are also well aware that Democratic lawmakers, egged on by progressive legal scholars, larded their “Incitement of Insurrection” impeachment article with an allusion to the 14th Amendment — specifically, to Section 3, which potentially bars from holding federal office people who have “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the United States. The transparent point of this was to lay the groundwork for legal efforts to disqualify the 147 Republicans who supported the untenable Trump gambit to pressure Vice President Pence and Congress into rejecting the certified electoral votes of states whose election results Trump was contesting.

https://amgreatness.com/2021/06/09/this-isnt-your-fathers-left-wing-revolution/

Starry-eyed radicals in the 1960s and 1970s dreamed that they either were going to take over America or destroy it. 

One of their favorite psychodramatic mottos was “Change it or Lose it,” even as protests focused on drugs, music, race, class, sex, fashion—and almost anything and everything. 

Sixties radicals tutored America on long hair, wire-rim eyeglasses, and who was a drag, a square, a bummer, and who was hip, cool, groovy, mellow, and far out. Most of these silly revolutionaries were not unhinged Weathermen killers or SDS would-be Communists, but just adolescents along for the good-time ride.

With the end of the draft in 1972, the winding down of the Vietnam War, the oil embargoes, and the worsening economy, the ’60s revolution withered away. Cynics claimed the “revolution” was always mostly about middle-class students with long hair, kicking back during the peak of the postwar boom, indulging their appetites, and ensuring they would not end up in Vietnam. 

It is not even true that the ’60s at least ensured needed reform. The civil rights movement and equal rights for women and gays were already birthed before the hippies, as were folk songs, and early rock music. 

Instead, what the ’60s revolution did was accelerate these trends—but also radicalize, manipulate, and coarsen them. 

The grasping “yuppies” of the 1980s were the natural successors to let-it-all-hang-out hippies. The ’60s were at heart a narcissistic free-for-all when “freedom” often entailed self-indulgence and avoiding responsibility. 

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/06/a_peerreviewed_psychoanalytic_journal_publishes_a_grotesque_antiwhite_screed.html

Critical Race Theory reared its ugly head in the Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association when Donald Ross, a San Francisco-based psychoanalyst (and teacher) shared with the world the fact that “whiteness” is a “malignant, parasitic-like condition.” One of his colleagues was also good enough to offer an approving review in the same issue.

The American Psychoanalytic Association is a real organization, founded in 1911 and has over 3,000 members. It also publishes the peer-reviewed Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association (“JAPA”).

In its most recent edition, JAPA published a peer-reviewed article by Donald Moss, who is White. In 2017, Moss received the Elisabeth Young-Bruehl award for work against prejudice.

Moss is currently a teacher at the New York Psychoanalytic Institute and the San Francisco Center for Psychoanalysis. He works to “understand and dismantle structured forms of hatred– ‘hating in the first person plural’–racism, homophobia, misogyny and xenophobia.” (And yes, that quoted sentence is gibberish.)

You’ll find more gibberish in Moss’s JAPA article, entitled “On Having Whiteness.” However, gibberish or not, anyone can grasp the racial hatred. According to the abstract:

Whiteness is a condition one first acquires and then one has—a malignant, parasitic-like condition to which “white” people have a particular susceptibility. The condition is foundational, generating characteristic ways of being in one’s body, in one’s mind, and in one’s world. Parasitic Whiteness renders its hosts’ appetites voracious, insatiable, and perverse. These deformed appetites particularly target nonwhite peoples. Once established, these appetites are nearly impossible to eliminate. Effective treatment consists of a combination of psychic and social-historical interventions. Such interventions can reasonably aim only to reshape Whiteness’s infiltrated appetites—to reduce their intensity, redistribute their aims, and occasionally turn those aims toward the work of reparation. When remembered and represented, the ravages wreaked by the chronic condition can function either as warning (“never again”) or as temptation (“great again”). Memorialization alone, therefore, is no guarantee against regression. There is not yet a permanent cure

To appreciate how utterly vile and insane this is, substitute the words “Black” or “Jew” in place of White, and you’ll be reading something that would be perfectly at home in the Journal of the American Nazi Society or the Annals of the KKK. Moss’s affiliation happens to be with the “Green Gang,” which targets “hatred” toward the “natural world.” (Whites apparently aren’t natural.)

https://issuesinsights.com/2021/06/10/fauci-is-starting-to-look-guilty-guilty-guilty-on-gain-of-function/

As the “lab-leak” theory for COVID-19 gains increasing credibility, Dr. Anthony Fauci must answer for whether he had any role in supporting Chinese researchers who created this monster. So far, his answers aren’t exactly helping his case.

For those not following this story closely, it now appears likely that COVID-19 didn’t just happen in nature, but was the result of so-called “gain of function” research in a Wuhan lab, where scientists “spiked” a virus found in animals so it could infect humans. If true, the Chinese are directly responsible for the resulting pandemic’s massive economic and human cost.

Until just recently, the press and the “experts” – including Fauci – dismissed the lab-leak theory as a Trump-concocted conspiracy. Not anymore, and now there’s the question of Fauci’s involvement. What have we learned since? Nothing that exonerates him, that’s for sure. Here are the highlights:

Fauci’s Ever-Changing Story

Over the course of three weeks, Fauci has changed his tune three times when it comes to the question of whether he helped funnel taxpayer money to gain-of-function research.

When Sen. Rand Paul pressed Fauci on the question on May 11, he categorically denied it.

“The NIH has not ever, and does not now, fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute,” Fauci said.

Two weeks later, he told Sen. John Kennedy that he had no way of knowing whether the Chinese used grant money from the NIH for such studies.

Then last week Fauci dismissed the grant – which he said totaled $600,000 over five years – as insignificant.

“The Wuhan lab is a very large lab to the tune of hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars. The grant that we’re talking about was … an average of about $125,000 to $140,000 a year.”

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-deadly-results-of-defunding-the-police-11623259226?mod=opinion_lead_pos5

The Woodson Center family lost one of our own on Memorial Day. Makhi Buckly, the 19-year-old grandson of Carl Hardrick, one of our most faithful leaders in youth violence prevention, was fatally shot in Hartford, Conn. Makhi was a student athlete in his freshman year at American International College in Springfield, Mass. When Carl called to tell me the terrible news, his words broke my heart: “It’s my job to keep kids safe, but I can’t even protect my own grandson.”

Our grief is shared by hundreds of minority families that have lost children to senseless violence over the past year. In June 2020, 3-year-old Mekhi James was killed on his way home from a haircut, riding in the back seat of a car in Chicago. A week later, 10-year-old Lena Marie Nunez-Anaya was killed after a stray bullet came through the window of her Chicago apartment. In July 2020, 7-year-old Natalia Wallace was shot in the forehead as she played outside, also in Chicago. Eleven-year-old Davon McNeal was struck by a stray bullet shortly after a Fourth of July peace cookout organized by his mother in Washington. In April, 11-month-old Dior Harris was shot and killed in the back seat of a car in Syracuse, N.Y. Two other children who were riding in the same car were also wounded.

Over the past few years, the deaths of unarmed black people at police hands—including the murder of George Floyd —have rightly generated national outrage. But the number of unarmed blacks killed by police represents a fraction of those who are killed each day in our neighborhoods. Many of these victims are children. In 2020 nearly four children and teens were shot and killed each day in America on average. Yet the national press habitually ignores any victim who isn’t killed by the police, distorting our understanding of what is really going on.

The movement to “defund the police,” which rose to prominence after Floyd’s death, has actually gotten innocent black people killed. As police have pulled back, our neighborhoods have been left unprotected. Crime has skyrocketed. Major American cities saw a 33% increase in homicides last year as a pandemic swept across the country. Preliminary Federal Bureau of Investigation data show that the U.S. murder rate increased by 25% in 2020. Between Dec. 11, 2020, and March 28, 2021 (after the Minneapolis City Council unanimously approved a budget that shifted $8 million from the police department to other programs), murders in Minneapolis, where Floyd was killed, rose 46% compared with the same period the year before.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/06/woke-inquisitors-in-the-medical-world/

A recent ‘controversy’ reveals how politically correct ideology is harming health care.

Four hundred years ago, Italian astronomer Galileo was persecuted for advancing Copernicus’s theory that the earth and other planets rotate around the sun. This heliocentric theory violated the prevailing belief dating back to Aristotle and engrained in Christian theology that the sun and planets rotate around a stationary earth. Galileo was tried for heresy and placed under house arrest for the remainder of his life. Science would eventually vindicate Galileo.

Today’s scientists and physicians face a different orthodoxy that explains all disparate health outcomes as the result of structural or systemic racism. Doubters and those who investigate genetic and scientific alternative explanations face their own latter-day inquisition. Just ask Howard Bauchner, editor in chief of JAMA — the Journal of the American Medical Association — who was recently forced to resign. While the remaining JAMA editors offered fulsome praise in a farewell editorial citing his accomplishments, including a commitment to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, make no mistake: He was purged for a thoughtcrime.

Dr. Bauchner’s offense was that he presided over JAMA when it aired a podcast titled “Structural Racism for Doctors — What Is It?” in late February. The podcast featured two white physicians — JAMA deputy editor Ed Livingston and Mitchell Katz, an editor at JAMA Internal Medicine, president and CEO of New York City’s public-hospital system NYC Health + Hospitals, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. Dr. Katz described structural racism as societal policies or practices that perpetuate racial inequality, as opposed to individuals’ racist beliefs. Dr. Livingston wondered if “structural racism is an unfortunate term to describe a very real problem.” (emphasis added) He worried that people offended by being labeled racist would not address the societal barriers to equal opportunity. JAMA’s tweet promoting the podcast stated, “No physician is racist, so how can there be structural racism in health care? An explanation of the idea by doctors for doctors. . . .”