Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

Mike Lindell admits to hiding GOP official facing FBI probe in a “safe house”

The infamous pillow salesman-turned-2020 election conspiracy theorist Mike Lindell claimed to be harboring a Colorado election official, who is on the FBI’s radar for allegedly leaking confidential election information, in a “safe house.”

The MyPillow CEO made the admission during a broadcast on his FrankSpeech website Thursday night, claiming that Mesa County clerk Tina Peters was being secretly held somewhere in Texas — that is, until a member of his own cyber team leaked her apparent whereabouts.

The news of Lindell hiding Mesa County clerk Tina Peters comes on the heels of his “cyber symposium” in South Dakota, where Peters gave a speech claiming that her office had been raided.

Vice News reported Thursday that Peters is “accused of helping facilitate a leak of highly sensitive election data,” including passwords to confidential systems, stemming from her belief that the 2020 election had been stolen from Donald Trump. Peters didn’t return Salon’s numerous requests for comment on Friday. 


Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.


On Tuesday, the FBI announced a probe into Peters due to the initial leak, which yielded photos of the sensitive election materials to appear in right-wing conspiracy sites like The Gateway Pundit. Lindell admitted during a Friday evening Michigan speech that Peters was the one that took the “photos,” adding that “she was doing her job!” 

The FBI didn’t immediately return a Salon request for comment on Friday afternoon. 

The Denver Post reported that Peters was at the very center of a plot to leak confidential election information to far-right websites in an attempt to discredit election systems, and that she would no longer carry out the duties of her role while an investigation is carried out:

She also said Monday that Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters, a Republican, cannot be trusted to oversee the fall election. On Tuesday, Griswold announced that Mesa County Treasurer Sheila Reiner (the former county clerk) “will supervise all conduct related to elections,” and would be advised and assisted by a committee made up of state GOP Rep. Janice Rich of Mesa County, Ouray County Clerk and Recorder Michelle Nauer and former Secretary of State Bernie Buescher.

All of the investigations want to figure out how the passwords ended up online. The secretary of state’s office said Monday that it believes one photo of the equipment’s hard drives was taken on the evening of Sunday, May 23, and alleged Peters was present when it was taken.

On Wednesday, Lindell claimed to Vice News that Peters, a gold star mother and outspoken supporter of former President Donald Trump, is “worried about her safety. These people are ruthless.” Her concerns apparently stem from a fear of Dominion Voting Systems, the election technology company that has become a nexus for a number of conspiracy theories related to the 2020 election. Dominion has successfully sued several right-wing news outlets, and Lindell is currently mired in libel litigation over his repeated public statements — a number of them probably false — about the company.

According to Lindell, a member of his cyber security team, Josh Merritt, had recently leaked Peters’ location — a turn which came after a falling-out between the two men which began when Merritt publicly called Lindell’s alleged election data a “turd.”

“We were handed a turd,” Merritt told The Washington Times. “And I had to take that turd and turn it into a diamond. And that’s what I think we did.”

The pillow magnate went on to claim Thursday evening that as a result of the leak, Peters’ hotel door — in an undisclosed location — had been broken into. Lindell even shared a picture of a random hotel room door lock that appeared busted. 

(Frank Speech/Mike Lindell)

“Her hotel! They broke into her hotel, an hour before she was going on,” Lindell stated Friday night, referring to the alleged Thursday night hotel break-in. “These people are ruthless!”

Lindell didn’t respond to a request for comment after previously claiming on Steve Bannon’s “WarRoom: Pandemic” podcast that Salon had orchestrated a mass “Antifa” infiltration of his event. He had promised a detailed report with evidence to support the false claim that this reporter was aiding in an “Antifa” uprising, but such documents have yet to be made public.

“Right now, you have the best evidence in history, right now with the before and after of what this criminal organization Dominion did in conjunction with the Secretary of State in Colorado. They came in; they deleted logs from Dominion machines. Deleted logs!” Lindell said on Friday morning. “We have before and after.” 

Despite that claim, Lindell has yet to provide evidence backing any of his election claims. In fact, one high-profile cyber expert is seeking to collect the $5 million offered by the pillow CEO for proving his “packet captures” weren’t from the 2020 election. He also couldn’t deliver on his long-standing promise of bringing Dominion Voting machines to his event, either.

The former crack addict is facing a hefty slate of legal trouble over his increasingly bombastic claims — including a $1.3 billion lawsuit filed against Lindell by Dominion Voting Systems. More recently, an expert told Salon that if Lindell’s “data” were legitimate, he could be brought up on federal wiretapping charges over the manner he obtained the alleged records. 

FBI finds little evidence Jan. 6 insurrection was organized attack: report

The FBI has found little evidence that the Jan. 6 Capitol riot was a coordinated plot to reinstall Donald Trump as president, according to a report, potentially putting to rest months of speculation that far-right militias and white nationalist groups had prepared an organized assault on the nation’s capital.

According to Reuters, which interviewed four unnamed FBI officials familiar with the agency’s probe into the insurrection, there is scant evidence to suggest that far-right groups, Donald Trump, or any of the former president’s allies colluded to incite the unrest. 

“Ninety to ninety-five percent of these are one-off cases,” a former senior law enforcement official told Reuters. “Then you have five percent, maybe, of these militia groups that were more closely organized. But there was no grand scheme with Roger Stone and Alex Jones and all of these people to storm the Capitol and take hostages.”   

The officials did note that far-right groups – like the Oath Keepers, Proud Boys, and Three Percenters – may have collaborated in breaching the Capitol on the day of the riot. However, there appears to be no evidence of a coordinated plan around what would come after these groups made their way inside the building. 

The FBI acknowledged that, ahead of the riot, there was a modicum of planning by one Proud Boy leader, who encouraged the group to stockpile military-style equipment, like bulletproof vests, and instructed them to splinter off into groups while storming the Capitol. 


Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.


According to Reuters, over 170 people have been charged for assaulting or impeding a police officer during the Capitol riot. A total of over 500 people have been arrested in connection to the insurrection.

Back in late March, Michael Sherwin, the former acting U.S. attorney for Washington, D.C., told CBS’ “60 Minutes” that federal prosecutors were “trending toward” sedition charges, saying, “I believe the facts do support those charges. And I think that, as we go forward, more facts will support that.”

However, Reuters reported that there has been little to no talk among FBI officials of charging anybody with “seditious conspiracy.” The publication added that the agency is likely to steer clear of indicting anyone with racketeering charges, which are often used to break up criminal gangs that carry out organized violence.  

FBI officials also suggested that the agency has no reason for charging any one individual with orchestrating or masterminding the riot. This also appears to go against Sherwin’s testimony, in which the attorney claimed that Trump was the “unequivocal … magnet that brought the people to D.C.”

Several political commentators have casted doubt over Reuters’ report, emphasizing that the FBI is downplaying reams of evidence that suggest the riot was organized in advance of Jan. 6. 

National security expert Marcy Wheeler, for example, pointed out that multiple far-right groups are already facing conspiracy charges. 

“It is false to say (as that Reuters report did) that no group had a central role in organizing the insurrection,” Wheeler wrote on Twitter. “The Proud Boys did. And they explicitly were aiming to get ‘normies’ to behave like them.”

Alan Feuer, a legal reporter at the New York Times, echoed Wheeler. “Private communications in the FBI’s possession clearly show that leaders of the Proud Boys, for example, discussed on Jan. 5 and Jan. 6 their desire to ‘rile up the normies’ — which is to say, the ordinary people in the crowd that day,” Feuer tweeted

As of this month, 40 members of the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys have been indicted on conspiracy charges in connection to the riot.

Johnny Depp isn’t being boycotted — he’s a powerful man with options

For a man who claims to be a victim of Hollywood boycotting, Johnny Depp sure has been in the spotlight a lot these days. In a Sunday Times interview this week, Depp claimed outright he is being “boycotted by Hollywood,” specifically in light of his most recent film “Minamata” not yet receiving a release date in the U.S. 

The supposed “boycott” follows Depp’s 2016 divorce from actress Amber Heard, in which Heard accused him of domestic violence, calling him a “monster” and claiming he beat her, sliced his own finger to write messages to her in blood, and more. Heard provided photos and screenshots of text messages that seemed to corroborate her allegations. The couple eventually settled their case out of court, and Depp continues to deny Heard’s claims. 

As of Aug. 17, PEOPLE reports Depp has been permitted to move forward with a $50 million defamation lawsuit against Heard over her 2018 Washington post op ed, in which Heard describes surviving domestic violence without naming Depp. Heard asked for his lawsuit to be dismissed in 2019, citing a UK judgment that sided with a British tabloid that called Depp a “wife-beater” in Depp’s libel suit against the publication. But on Tuesday, a judge allowed Depp’s lawsuit to move forward.

Since 2016, Depp has faced consequences for the abuse allegations, including being dropped from his previous role in the Harry Potter film “Fantastic Beasts,” and losing the aforementioned libel lawsuit in the UK. Still, it’s hard to see him as the hapless victim of cancel culture he’s now posturing as. 

In 2016, Forbes estimated the actor’s net worth stands close to $50 million, which is quite a hefty sum to retire on, even if he were, indeed, being boycotted. His suit against the woman he allegedly assaulted and tormented, which could earn him as much as $50 million, has been given the green light this week. And then, of course, the star was just honored by two European film festivals this month. The Czech Karlovy Vary International Film Festival announced it would honor Depp, while the San Sebastian festival in Spain presented him with its Donostia Award to honor the actor’s “outstanding contributions to the film world.” 

Even if there are some in the American entertainment industry who may be understandably hesitant to work with a man who has been accused of horrific violence against an ex partner for optics’ sake, Depp’s seemingly untouched reputation in the film world of Europe reminds us that there will always be second chances and other opportunities for men like him — no matter how much they may publicly render themselves the victims of their own narratives. 

Depp is hardly the first disgraced, and allegedly abusive or otherwise problematic American artist to be embraced in Europe, joining the ranks of Roman Polanski, Woody Allen, and more recently, Kevin Spacey — notably all accused of child sexual abuse — in this market. Are the MeToo movement and its “boycotts” really ruining these men’s lives, as they and their defenders often claim? Or is feminist cultural backlash really just propelling them on to the next opportunity lined up for them elsewhere, in spaces that are less concerned with the treatment of women?

There will always be excuses for powerful men like Depp who face allegations of violence and abuse. The director of the San Sebastian film festival that honored Depp defended their choice by noting that he had “not been arrested, charged nor convicted of any form of assault or violence against women” — a stunningly ignorant statement to anyone even vaguely familiar with how the American criminal justice system has long dismissed or punished victims, and often aided and protected abusers.

The excuses for disregarding the accusations about Depp don’t stop with Spanish film festival directors. When he was sued in 2018 for allegedly punching a male set worker on a drunken tirade, the lawsuit was met with none of the same skepticism, disbelief and defensiveness that Heard faced for her claims of abuse. The double standard in our cultural reaction to the two allegations of abuse — one of the claims entailing gendered violence — is a jarring display of the power of rape culture and patriarchy in determining who is and isn’t accorded credibility and public trust.

Those who defend Depp’s “art” often rely on the tired argument that someone’s private behaviors — as if all allegations of abuse are as casual as “private behaviors” — and their work are somehow separable. But people who are accused of abuse can endanger those around them whether in private or at work. Abuse and misogyny can infect the art that artists create, and also make everyone they work with feel unsafe. 

Fellow creators in the entertainment industry may not choose to work with someone for any number of reasons — just ask the women and artists and creators of color who will never have the opportunities Depp has had. Allegations of domestic abuse are probably the most valid reason possible to choose not to work with someone. And still, despite this, Depp is one of many powerful men who have received second chances, new opportunities, and honors and recognition, even after being subject to accusations of sexual misconduct. Louis C.K. (who has admitted to his misconduct) is on a comedy tour, sarcastically posing in front of “SORRY” signs. Bill Cosby’s conviction for sexual assault was overturned last month, and he’s predictably trying to make a comeback. Chris Matthews was all over network TV in June, after departing MSNBC over sexual misconduct allegations. Jeffrey Toobin is back in his role at CNN after notoriously being caught masturbating on a Zoom call last year.

Still, Depp is the ultimate victim in the eyes of his fans. No matter how much he may whine and self-pityingly equate growing industry concerns about gender-based violence as a wrongful “boycott” against him, he continues to hold tremendous power. Over the course of the summer, legions of Johnny Depp fans engaged in a massive internet campaign push to have Heard removed from her role in the next “Aquaman” film. He remains the toast of the European film scene and stands to potentially make millions off of his ex-wife’s lawsuit over an op ed about surviving domestic abuse. 

Depp is, by all means, still a vastly powerful man — and that’s precisely why he takes perceived slights, like being denied an American release date for one of his films, so harshly. To hold so much power and face any amount of accountability is intolerable, or, in his own words, a literal “boycott.”

Scientists finally know what happened to Perseverance’s mysterious disappearing rock sample

NASA believes it knows why Perserverance’s first Mars rock sample went missing.

As Salon previously reported, earlier this month ​​scientists attempted to collect samples from the Red Planet and deposit them in one of the Perseverance rover’s 43 collection tubes. At first, everything appeared to be running smoothly: the rover drilled a tiny finger-size hole in the rock, and photos showed an obvious hole in said rock. But a follow-up analysis revealed that there were no rock samples in the tube.

What happened?

After analyzing data and photos from the rover for several days, NASA’s Perseverance team determined that the rock most likely crumbled into “small fragments.”

“It appears that the rock was not robust enough to produce a core,” Louise Jandura, chief engineer for the sampling system, wrote in a NASA blog post on Wednesday. “The material from the desired core is likely either in the bottom of the hole, in the cuttings pile, or some combination of both.”

Cue spooky music.

“Both the science and engineering teams believe that the uniqueness of this rock and its material properties are the dominant contributor to the difficulty in extracting a core from it,”  Jandura further explained. “Therefore, we will head to the next sampling location in South Seitah, the farthest point of this phase of our science campaign.”

Perseverance first selected a rock in Jezero Crater, a 28 mile-wide impact crater and former lake which, scientists believe, is an ideal place to look for evidence of ancient microbial life on Mars. But it turns out that that rock “did not cooperate this time,” Jandura said.

“It reminds me yet again of the nature of exploration,” Jandura said. “A specific result is never guaranteed no matter how much you prepare. Despite this result, science and engineering have progressed.”

Perseverance is a sample-return mission, meaning that Perseverance will collect and store Martian rock and soil samples, which will eventually be returned to Earth. Obviously, obtaining the sample is key to this mission, which is why NASA scientists experienced “a rollercoaster of emotions,” according to Jandura, when the sample wasn’t there.

Sample return missions are extremely rare due to their expense; indeed, there has never been a sample return mission from another planet. While the mission to return samples from Mars has yet to be fully planned, NASA scientists say that if all goes to plan we could have samples from Mars back on Earth by 2031.

Let’s hope they can obtain a sample in South Seitah next time around, in September.

“Based on rover and helicopter imaging to date, we will likely encounter sedimentary rocks there that we anticipate will align better with our Earth-based test experience,” Jandura said.


Want more health and science stories in your inbox? Subscribe to Salon’s weekly newsletter The Vulgar Scientist.


Texas GOP set to pass voting restrictions after Democrats break ranks and return to state

Texas Republicans are poised to pass new voting restrictions after three Democrats from the state House broke ranks with their fellow lawmakers who fled the state to block the chamber from being able to take up a vote on the measure. They were gone for 38 consecutive days.

Texas Democrats last month traveled to Washington D.C. to prevent the state House, which requires two-thirds of members be present in order to make quorum, from having enough members to conduct business just as the Republican majority was set to vote on a bill that voting advocates say would disproportionately suppress ballot access for voters of color and the disabled.

Republican House Speaker Dade Phelan earlier this month signed civil arrest warrants for the 52 House Democrats missing from the Capitol when the chamber began a special legislative session. Though dozens of Democrats have now returned to the state, no arrests have been made.

Some Democrats have slowly trickled back to the Capitol since leaving, but the House lacked a quorum until three Democrats in particular — Reps. Garnet Coleman, Ana Hernandez and Armando Walle — made a surprise return on Thursday night, paving the way for Republicans to advance the voting bill. The House GOP wasted no time referring the legislation, which was already approved by the state Senate, for a committee hearing on Saturday, according to the Texas Tribune.

“It’s been a very long summer. Been through a lot. I appreciate you all being here,” Phelan said. “It’s time to get back to the business of the people of Texas.”

The three Democrats said in a statement they were “proud of the heroic work” to block the bill and bring national attention to the issue.

“Our efforts were successful and served as the primary catalyst to push Congress to take action on federal voter protection legislation. Now, we continue the fight on the House Floor,” they said, adding that legislative action was necessary to combat the surge of Covid hospitalizations in the state.


Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.


Texas House Democratic Caucus Chair Chris Turner also said that Democrats “secured major victories” by derailing Republican Gov. Greg Abbott’s second special session, even though the chamber is now set to vote on the very bill that prompted the walkout. Abbott, who is up for reelection next year, has also loaded the agenda for the special session with other conservative issues like restrictions for transgender athletes, border security and critical race theory.

More than 40 Democrats are still on the lam and members of the group accused the three lawmakers of blindsiding them.

“This could have been shared with Caucus members beforehand,” tweeted state Rep. Donna Howard.

“[W]e were literally on caucus calls for 2 hours this morning and none of the defecting Democrats mentioned they were planning on helping the Republicans pass voter suppression bills,” wrote Rep. Ana-Maria Ramos.

Texas Democrats had largely returned to the state since their widely-cheered trip to D.C. to press Congress to advance federal voting rights legislation but have been “fearful” that they could be detained by state authorities, according to the New York Times. Some have even “bounced between locations” to avoid being brought back to the Capitol. The House sergeant-at-arms was deployed to deliver arrest warrants to members’ offices and even their homes.

“They came up to the door, rang the doorbell,” state Rep. Jon Rosenthal told the outlet. “Nobody answered so he folded it in half and stuck it in the doorjamb.”

Some Republicans even backed efforts by outside “vigilante” groups to offer rewards of up to $2,500 for information that leads to the arrest of the Democrats.

“If you know the whereabouts of a missing lawmaker, submit a tip,” House Elections Committee Chairman Briscoe Cain said in a TikTok video this week with a rifle tacked on the wall behind him.

Rep. Howard told the Times that she was more worried about “vigilante types” than the state police, adding that she has avoided leaving her “undisclosed location” except for quick grocery runs.

The Democratic group has held daily Zoom calls to discuss strategy but there has increasingly been acrimony between a majority of members who wanted to continue the walkout and those that wanted to come back.

“Every morning we have this exercise, this same four or five people who want to go back,” an unnamed member of the group told the outlet.

The defectors may have also been swayed by lobbying from Republicans.

“People have been burning up the phone wires for the last six weeks,” House Republican Caucus Chairman Jim Murphy told the Washington Post. “The effort never stopped.”

Coleman, who broke quorum but did not leave the state after having his leg amputated, told the Dallas Morning News that he returned because it was “the right thing to do.”

“I do feel that I contributed to this idea that you’ve got to burn something down in order to improve it,” he said. “I regret that.”

The House will now take up the voting bill passed in the Senate earlier this month despite a 15-hour filibuster from Democratic state Sen. Carol Alvarado. The bill would increase protections and access for partisan poll watchers, which has raised concerns about possible voter intimidation. The bill would also ban drive-through voting and 24-hour voting, which appears directly aimed at expanded ballot access in Harris County that officials testified were particularly popular with voters of color. The legislation would add an hour per day of early voting but restrict early voting hours and ban local election officials from sending unsolicited mail-in ballot applications.

“What do we want our democracy to look like?” Alvarado said during her marathon session. “Do we want access to our electoral process to be more difficult for people with disabilities, or do we want to remove barriers for them? For communities of color, do we want to defend the tremendous progress that we’ve made in civil rights and equality or chip away at their voting rights one Senate bill at a time?”

But her effort ultimately failed to prevent the bill from passing and House Democrats expressed dismay that their weeks-long ploy is expected to likewise fail to stop the legislation.

“Guess what the other defecting Democrats have accomplished by going back,” tweeted Rep. Ramos. “NOTHING!”

Rep. Michelle Beckley added: “This is how Texas Democrats lose elections.”

Can you get “long COVID” from a breakthrough infection? Here’s what we know

Early data from various states shows that COVID-19 breakthrough cases are becoming more common than they were earlier this summer. Whether that’s because of the ultra-contagious delta variant or because the populace is socializing more remains unclear.

While that doesn’t mean vaccinated people aren’t protected from the coronavirus — a large majority of hospitalizations and deaths are still among the unvaccinated — the realization that a vaccinated individual can still get and spread COVID-19 has left many among their ranks recalculating their own personal risks, especially in parts of the country where transmission rate are high.

Public health experts have special guidelines for those who contract a breakthrough COVID-19 case, meaning when a fully vaccinated person catches the coronavirus. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), when a vaccinated person tests positive they should self-isolate for 10 days. This means potentially missing work, school and other responsibilities.

In general, breakthrough cases are far less severe than “regular” COVID-19 cases that occur among the unvaccinated. In particular, those with breakthrough cases are far less likely to be hospitalized, although it does happen occasionally. Some counties, such as Douglas County in Oregon, actually track and report the vaccination status among their hospitalized COVID-19 patients; for instance, in their August 18, 2021 report, they noted that of 59 hospitalized COVID-19 patients, 51 were unvaccinated.

Still, the fear of contracting a breakthrough case is acute among many of the vaccinated, in part because of the risks of contracting COVID-19. Up to 10 percent of those who contract COVID-19 have long-term symptoms long after the virus has cleared their body, according to University of Alabama researchers. Patients have coined a term, “long Covid,” to describe symptoms from a COVID-19 infection that last for more than one month.

People who experience long Covid sometimes refer to themselves as “long-haulers.” Some long-haulers eventually experience full recoveries, while others do not. The long Covid symptoms patients report include (but aren’t limited to) fatigue, brain fog, confusion, shortness of breath, headaches and chest pain. Notably, not everyone who became a long-hauler had a severe infection or was hospitalized after their COVID-19 diagnosis.

Doctors’ current understanding of long Covid stems from pre-vaccine days. However, experts say it’s likely a concern among the vaccinated who fear contracting COVID-19. 

“I don’t think we know that it does happen yet because we’re still so early in the process of understanding what happens when people are infected despite vaccination,” said Dr. Dave O’Connor, a professor of virology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. “But biologically it’s hard to think of reasons why it won’t happen.”

O’Connor said that’s because in breakthrough infections — or what some infectious disease experts are now suggesting we call “infection despite vaccination” — high levels of viral genetic material appear in the upper respiratory tract. In fact, according to a study by scientists at the University of Oxford scientists, people who contract the delta variant after being fully vaccinated carry a similar amount of the coronavirus as those who are unvaccinated and get infected. What’s a little less clear, O’Connor said, “is what’s happening in the lower respiratory tract, or the lungs, and where most of the damage is being done by the virus.”

However, O’Connor said if infections despite vaccination follow the same trajectory as unvaccinated infections, it is likely a proportion of these individuals will go on to develop long COVID.


Want more health and science stories in your inbox? Subscribe to Salon’s weekly newsletter The Vulgar Scientist.


“But we don’t know that yet, we simply don’t have enough data from people who have had these infections despite vaccination,” O’Connor said. “First, it’ll probably come in anecdotes of people who were infected despite vaccination and then start reporting those long COVID symptoms — the fatigue, the brain fog, you know all the different constellation of symptoms that people have reported, and then eventually you’d expect this to be substantiated in larger cohort studies where researchers and doctors enroll individuals who self-report they’re having these symptoms, and then look for commonalities between them.”

Scientists like O’Connor don’t have definitive data on long Covid and breakthrough cases because, as O’Connor said, the data is still sparse. One recent study published in the New England Journal of Medicine of Israeli healthcare workers showed the potential risk of long Covid after an infection despite vaccination: 39 people out of 1,497 fully vaccinated healthcare workers got COVID-19. While most of the cases were mild or asymptomatic, 19 percent had persistent symptoms of prolonged loss of smell, persistent cough, fatigue, weakness, muscle pain, or labored breathing.

Notably, the study is a small sample size. However, as O’Connor suspected, similar anecdotal evidence is surfacing in the United States.

Heather Bury is a 43-year-old woman living in the Southwest suburbs of Chicago who received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine on April 4, 2021. Nearly a month later, she struggled with her typical seasonal allergies — but one day, these allergies felt a bit off.

“I started to feel run down, foggy-brained, and there was a cough,” Bury said. “Then right before I left work, the chest constriction started; I went to immediate care, where they prescribed an antibiotic, but strongly suggested I get a Covid test.”

Bury tested positive for COVID-19 on May 7, 2021; afterward, her symptoms worsened. Bury told Salon she felt like an “elephant” was sitting on her chest. On May 10, she was admitted to the emergency room, where she was told she had COVID-19 pneumonia in both lungs. Bury was discharged a week later, but still has “so many crazy lingering conditions” nearly three months later. Brain fog, exhaustion, concentration issues, having trouble finding words, migraines — “the list really seems endless,” Bury said.

Bury said her doctors have been extremely helpful during her recovery. But since she had a rare breakthrough case, she is “a trial and error patient,” as she described herself.

“They had never dealt with somebody who has had the vaccine,” Bury said. “They’re trying to help you, but they don’t know how to help you yet.”

According to the CDC, 8,054 people have had a severe COVID-19 breakthrough case that led to hospitalization, out of the more than 166 million people who have been vaccinated. Notably, 25% of those hospitalizations were reported asymptomatic or not related to COVID-19.

As we know from COVID-19 cases in unvaccinated people though, it’s not just those who have severe cases who experience long Covid. When asked what Dr. O’connor would tell people who are scared about the potential long-term effect of having long Covid after a breakthrough infection, O’Connor said, “I’m right there with them.”

“I’m vaccinated, and I most certainly do not want to get a breakthrough infection,” O’Connor said. “My concern isn’t so much that I’m going to be hospitalized — it’s that I’m worried that I would be in that sizable fraction of people who have long COVID symptoms.”

O’Connor added that vaccinated people won’t be living in uncertainty for too much longer.

“The truth is we just don’t have enough data right now to have clarity on how often long Covid will occur, and whether it’s going to be different in people who are previously vaccinated, compared to people who have not yet been vaccinated,” O’Connor said. “I expect that we’ll be getting more clarity on this over the next couple of months.”

Correction: A previous version of this article stated 39% of vaccinated healthcare workers had breakthrough infections. This is incorrect. The study stated 39 people (out of 1,497) had breakthrough infections.

Trump’s Capitol riot continues: Bomb threat proves GOP’s Big Lie is still a big danger

Earlier this month, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) circulated a memo warning that Donald Trump and his allies were stoking the threat of domestic terrorism by hyping the Big Lie. Trump was holding rallies earlier in the summer to keep his followers riled up with false claims that he is the “real” winner of the 2020 election and President Joe Biden only won through “fraud.” He also spent the summer hyping a fake “audit” of the votes in Arizona. Meanwhile, MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell, who has found a second career spending all of his money on being a fascist propagandist, was pushing the idea that he has his hands on some shocking evidence that would lead to Trump being “reinstated” as president on August 13. Both claims have gone up in smoke, but they nonetheless served their main purpose: feeding anger and frustration to the hardcore Trump base. That rage then has to go somewhere, which is why DHS was concerned.

“Some conspiracy theories associated with reinstating former President Trump have included calls for violence if desired outcomes are not realized,” the memo noted. Indeed, it’s hard to imagine that Trump and his allies are envisioning anything less. After all, part of Trump’s schtick these past few months has been to rewrite the failed insurrection he incited on January 6 as a noble act of patriotism and to paint the people who were arrested or even killed for their part as martyrs for the Trumpist cause. There’s no reason to do that other than wanting to see more of the same. 

Well, unsurprisingly, Trump just got his not-so-secret wish.

On Thursday, 49-year-old Floyd Ray Roseberry of Grover, North Carolina was arrested in Washington D.C. after making threats of a bombing that resulted in a five-hour standoff with police. As the Washington Post reports, during the standoff, “Roseberry delivered a tirade over a Facebook live video in which he assailed Biden and other Democrats, called for a revolt against the federal government and claimed there were other ‘patriots’ waiting in vehicles elsewhere in D.C.”

“The revolution is on, it’s here, it’s today,” he declared. 


Want more Amanda Marcotte on politics? Subscribe to her newsletter Standing Room Only.


There’s ample proof, of course, that Roseberry is a Trump enthusiast whose social media feed featured posts of him participating in “stop the steal” nonsense. He also posted videos about the Lindell-and-Trump-driven conspiracy theory that Trump was going to be “reinstated.” But one hardly needs all this evidence because anyone arguing in good faith already knows what’s going on here. Just as DHS warned, Trump and his allies have been encouraging violence all summer by hyping the Big Lie. Of course one of their followers heeded the call. 

As Chauncey DeVega has explained at Salon, this is a strategy known as “stochastic terrorism.” Propagandists stir up outrage and drop heavy hints with the hopes that followers will read between the lines and choose violence. Trump is a natural at this sort of thing, as expressing his wishes through implication is how he does business. “He doesn’t give you questions. He doesn’t give you orders,” Trump’s former lawyer, Michael Cohen explained in his 2019 House testimony. “He speaks in code.” Trump communicates, in other words, like a mob boss and has admitted that, “I did not make a statement that, ‘You have to do this or I’m not going to give you A.’ I wouldn’t do that.” 

To be clear, Trump’s code isn’t subtle. Holding out the dead Capitol insurrectionist Ashli Babbitt as a martyr and stating that the goals of the insurrectionists were good is about skirting, but not crossing, the line of openly calling for more terroristic violence to avoid criminal exposure for incitement. But keep up that patter of “woe to the noble insurrectionists” and “their cause is just” long enough and more people will pick up what is being put down. 

The ineptness of Roseberry’s attack isn’t surprising either.

By its nature, stochastic terrorism is scattershot and inefficient. The ringleaders can’t single out targets or describe detailed actions they’d like followers to take, as that opens them up to prosecution. So instead they drop hints and hope those self-directed people who are simply guessing at what to do get lucky and pull it off. It’s a process that inherently causes a lot of bumbling behavior. Even January 6 shows this. The rioters were given a concrete target, a concrete goal, and a concrete point in time — the Capitol Building, stop the electoral count, January 6 — and even then, once they overwhelmed police forces and took the Capitol, most of them stood around with no idea what to do next. 


Want more Amanda Marcotte on politics? Subscribe to her newsletter Standing Room Only.


But the sloppy nature of all this doesn’t change the fact that it’s incredibly effective at the major goal of radicalizing the Republican base. Polling shows that at least half of Republicans have embraced conspiracy theories that allow them to be supportive of the insurrection without coming right out and saying so. And nearly half come right out and agree with poll questions about staging violent revolution against the U.S. government. Indeed, it’s arguable that these bush-league terroristic efforts only aid the cause. It’s a lot easier for American conservatives to sympathize with terrorists if they aren’t having to face the images of violence and death that ensue from a competent terrorist attack. That’s why Ashli Babbitt is being held out as a martyr and not, say, Patrick Crusius, the accused shooter in the 2019 El Paso terrorist attack that killed 23 people. 

Unsurprising, then, that Rep. Mo Brooks, who is already in legal hot water for his part in inciting the January 6 insurrection, immediately moved to turn Roseberry into the latest martyr for the Big Lie cause. The Alabama Republican released a statement that, after some throat-clearing about how violence is bad, got to the real message. “I understand citizenry anger directed at dictatorial Socialism and its threat to liberty, freedom and the very fabric of American society,” the Republican wrote.

This kind of “violence is bad, but…” rhetoric is about recasting the perpetrators as victims, people whose violence was not their fault, because they were supposedly pushed too far — in this case, by American people using their legal right to vote to pick Biden over Trump. 

Right now, the main thing constraining Trumpist violence is a lack of concrete targets and goals. As I wrote yesterday, this explains why so many of the people Trump has riled up are turning their violent anger towards the COVID-19 culture war, which provides both people to lash out at and specific demands: an end to all mitigation measures so the pandemic can spread unchecked. (They really are a death cult!) Unfortunately, as elections draw nearer, plausible targets to take out Big Lie anger on will come into view, namely any entity or person tasked with conducting elections, as well as voters who are deemed “fraudulent,” usually because of race or ethnicity. So it’s important not to take the current flailing status of the Big Lie movement as a sign that they’re not dangerous. As long as Trump and his allies keep the incitement up, the threat is all too real. 

Republicans in Texas are trying to shift blame for COVID surge to Black people

Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, a Republican, blamed Black Texans for the country’s recent surge in COVID cases and hospitalizations.

“African Americans who have not been vaccinated” are “the biggest group in most states” driving the new surge in the coronavirus cases, Patrick said on a Thursday night Fox News broadcast with host Laura Ingraham. Patrick’s comments came after Ingraham asked the Texas official whether he thought lax Republican policies were enabling the spread of the virus. 

“Democrats like to blame Republicans on that,” Patrick answered. “Well, the biggest group in most states are African Americans who have not been vaccinated. The last time I checked, over 90 percent of them vote for Democrats in their major cities and major counties, so it’s up to the Democrats, just as it’s up to Republicans, to try to get as many people vaccinated.”

Patrick later defended people’s choice to remain unvaccinated, saying “that’s their individual right.”

“[The Democrats] are doing nothing for the African American community that has a significant, high number of unvaccinated people,” Patrick added. 

“TikTok videos. We’ve got a lot of TikTok videos,” Ingrahm responded, eliding any context.

The Lt. Governor’s comments drew immediate scorn online, with many critics suggesting his comments were blatantly racist. 

“The Lt. Governor’s statements are offensive and should not be ignored,” Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner wrote on Thursday. 

Political commentator Keith Olberman echoed: “Bluntly: @DanPatrick is this era’s Orville Faubus or Lester Maddox. May he burn in hell for it.”

“Lt. Gov. @DanPatrick is a lying racist,” tweeted Dr. Jorge A. Caballero, clinical instructor at the Stanford University School of Medicine. “We know this because [census] data shows that White Texans are responsible for twice as many cases as Black Texans, and there are 3 unvaccinated White Texans for every 1 unvaccinated Black Texan.”

According to the Texas Department of State Health Services, Black residents in the Lone Star State made up 16.4% of the state’s new cases and just 10.2% of deaths as of Aug. 13, as The Washington Post noted. In fact, the highest case rates are seen in the state’s White and Hispanic populations, who respectively account for 34.9 percent and 35.8 percent of all coronavirus cases in Texas. 

Patrick’s comments come amid a period of heightened partisan conflict in the state, with Texas’ Republican leadership attempting to wrest control over policies regarding vaccine and mask mandates. Republican Gov. Greg Abbott has been especially active on this front, fighting to ban mask mandates in school districts despite a sharp uptick in COVID cases amongst kids. 

On Tuesday, Abbot announced that he himself had contracted the disease – the very same day Texas requested five additional mortuary trailers to accommodate an expected wave of deaths.

Mike Richards is out as “Jeopardy!” host amid scandal … but we’re not rid of him yet

Well, that didn’t last long.

A mere 10 days after Mike Richards was named as the new host of “Jeopardy!” alongside actor Mayim Bialik, he announced he’s stepping down, according to the Hollywood Reporter. This decision follows an onslaught of pushback and protest after the Ringer reported he’d once hosted an offensive podcast, on which he regularly made sexist, racist and inappropriate comments.

In a statement to the “Jeopardy!” team on Friday, Richards wrote, “It pains me that these past incidents and comments have cast such a shadow on ‘Jeopardy!’ as we look to start a new chapter. As I mentioned last week, I was deeply honored to be asked to host the syndicated show and was thrilled by the opportunity to expand my role. 

“However, over the last several days it has become clear that moving forward as host would be too much of a distraction for our fans and not the right move for the show. As such, I will be stepping down as host effective immediately. As a result, we will be canceling production today.”

He continues:

SPT [Sony Pictures Television] will now resume the search for a permanent syndicated host. In the meantime, we will be bringing back guest hosts to continue production for the new season, details of which will be announced next week. I want to apologize to each of you for the unwanted negative attention that has come to ‘Jeopardy!’ over the last few weeks and for the confusion and delays this is now causing. I know I have a lot of work to do to regain your trust and confidence.”

Richards isn’t going anywhere though. According to The Wrap, he had already shot five episodes on Thursday, which Sony is reportedly still planning on airing.

Not only that, but he’s staying on behind the scenes . . . presumably to help pick the next host. In a statement of its own on Friday, Sony confirms Richards is stepping down as host, but continuing as the show’s executive producer. The network says it has resumed its search for a new host, even as filming for the next season is already underway. 

“We support Mike’s decision to step down as host. We were surprised this week to learn of Mike’s 2013/2014 podcast and the offensive language he used in the past,” Sony’s statement, obtained by the Hollywood Reporter, reads. “We have spoken with him about our concerns and our expectations moving forward. Mike has been with us for the last two years and has led the Jeopardy! team through the most challenging time the show has ever experienced. It is our hope that as EP he will continue to do so with professionalism and respect.”

Richards has been embroiled in scandal since it was first reported that he was the frontrunner to take on the host role full-time, after nearly a year of guest-hosts “auditioning” for the role. At first, fans were skeptical of Richards’ role both as a candidate to host “Jeopardy!” and an executive producer with a role in the search for a new host. 

Shortly after, old lawsuits against Richards alleging pregnancy discrimination and other workplace mistreatment during his time at “The Price is Right” resurfaced, which Richards brushed off as not reflecting “the reality of who I am or how we worked together on ‘The Price is Right.'” 

Then, on Wednesday evening, the Ringer released its report detailing how on Richards’ 2013-2014 podcast, he had called his female co-host derogatory names for being a model at a tech show, pressed her about whether she’d taken nude photos, made inappropriate comments about her friends’ bodies, and also made derogatory comments about Haiti and Jewish people’s noses. He also praised white, male game show hosts, solely for being white. 

Richards immediately apologized for his “insensitivity from nearly a decade ago” on Thursday morning. But as if passionate “Jeopardy!” fans hadn’t already up in arms over Richards’ not being LeVar Burton, the alarming podcast comments finally seemed to push things over the edge. “Is Mike Richards the next [Alex] Trebek?” one Twitter user posited. “Clearly no. But is he a fan favorite who will do a passable job hosting [‘Jeopardy!’]? Also no. Is he at least a good guy? Uhh, turns out no. OK but can we say he won this job fair & square? Unfortunately no we cannot say that either.”

As “Jeopardy!” resumes its search for Richards’ replacement, it certainly has options — and all better options than a man with Richards’ checkered past, like fan-favorite Burton and former “Jeopardy!” champ Ken Jennings, who drew higher ratings than any other guest host this season. Hopefully, whoever they choose, Sony will more thoroughly vet its next choice.

How to make pumpkin pie spice at home

Picture this: It’s the weekend and you’re baking a pie, not because you have company coming over, but just for fun. You’re wearing a thick sweater, thicker socks, and you turn on the oven. While that heats up, you gather ingredients: flour, sugareggspumpkin purée, and — oh no. You’re out of pumpkin pie spice. But don’t worry: We can fix this! You can easily make DIY pumpkin pie spice at home using other basic spice staples like cinnamon, ginger, nutmeg, and cloves. Ahead, we’re sharing a few pumpkin pie spice recipes for when you find yourself in a pinch.

* * *

What is pumpkin pie spice? 

Pumpkin pie spice is a cozy, earthy, mildly kicky American spice blend (that, just to be clear, contains absolutely no pumpkin). Even though it isn’t made with pumpkin, it’s a popular ingredient in pumpkin-based recipes like piesloavescheesecake, and more. It’s sold in small jars in the grocery store in the spice aisle, and while it has its moment in the spotlight during fall, you should be able to pretty easily find pumpkin pie spice year-round. So what is in pumpkin pie spice? Odds are, several of the components are already in your pantry. The ingredient list leans heavily on baking spices, such as cinnamon, nutmeg, cloves, and ginger, but the specifics depend on the brand. Let’s review a few for inspiration:

The biggest takeaway here is that cinnamon is the first ingredient in every single formula for pumpkin pie spice. Because ingredients are ordered by quantity (from largest to smallest), this tells us that cinnamon is pumpkin pie spice’s dominant flavor. But from there, it’s a free-for-all. So let’s have some fun. Ahead, you’ll find recipes for homemade pumpkin pie spice that are as good as store-bought.

* * *

How to make your DIY pumpkin pie spice 

As long as cinnamon is leading the band — with a few backup instruments like ginger, nutmeg, and cloves — pumpkin pie spice can be made with many different spices. What matters is that the blend tastes delicious to you. Here, we’ll share a few different versions, depending on what you’re baking (or how you’re feeling that day).

Note: You can absolutely scale up these recipes to keep a bigger jar in your pantry. As long as you are using fresh spices (check the expiration date), they will stay good for months. If you’re wondering if your jar of pumpkin pie spice has gone bad, give it a smell. If it’s still noticeably potent, that’s a sign it’s still fresh. However, if it doesn’t smell warm and spicy, it’s sadly not going to give your baked goods tons of flavor.

Classic Pumpkin Pie Spice

  • 4 tablespoons ground cinnamon
  • 1 tablespoon ground ginger
  • 1 1/2 teaspoons ground nutmeg
  • 1 1/4 teaspoon ground cloves

Everything-But-The-Kitchen-Sink Pumpkin Pie Spice 

  • 4 tablespoons ground cinnamon
  • 1 tablespoon ground ginger
  • 1 1/2 teaspoons ground cardamom
  • 1 1/2 teaspoons ground nutmeg
  • 1 1/4 teaspoon ground cloves
  • 1 teaspoon ground allspice
  • 1 teaspoon ground fennel seeds
  • 3/4 teaspoon ground star anise

Spicy Pumpkin Pie Spice 

  • 4 tablespoons ground cinnamon
  • 2 tablespoon ground ginger
  • 1 1/2 teaspoons ground nutmeg
  • 1 1/4 teaspoon ground cloves
  • 1 teaspoon freshly ground black pepper
  • 1/8 teaspoon ground cayenne

* * *

How to use pumpkin pie spice  

I’ll be the one to say it: Pumpkin pie spice’s name is holding it back. This blend is good for a heck of a lot more than pumpkin pie or pumpkin bread, so don’t let that jar go to waste. Here are some sweet and savory recipes to get started (for the ones that don’t call for pumpkin pie spice in the ingredient list, just add it to taste).

Add to any pumpkin recipe 

This shouldn’t come as a surprise, but pumpkin pie spice pairs quite well with pumpkin-based recipes. We’re talking pumpkin bread (Psst: we just published our test kitchen’s best version!), pumpkin cheesecakepumpkin cookiespumpkin browniespumpkin flan, and so much more.

Use as a substitute for cinnamon 

If a recipe calls for cinnamon and you want to up the ante, swap in an equal amount of pumpkin pie spice. It will just add notes of cloves, nutmeg, ginger, and pepper for a cozy depth of flavor.

Make fall and winter vegetables even cozier 

While pumpkin pie spice was made with dessert in mind, it’s just as valuable when it comes to dinner — especially with vegetables. Add homemade pumpkin pie spice to mashed sweet potatoes or sprinkled into the filling for our roasted vegetable enchiladas.

Spice up a crispy chicken crust

You’ve probably rubbed spices on a roast chicken or stirred some into the breading for chicken cutlets, yes? Let’s fall-ify that (the Spicy Pumpkin Pie Spice great here). The inclusion of freshly ground black pepper and cayenne pepper works well with savory dishes. We’ve shared a couple of our best ideas here, but experiment with your family-favorite recipes.

* * *

Our favorite pumpkin recipes 

Meta Given’s Pumpkin Pie 

Don’t let this pie’s classic good looks fool you. Its flavor is dialed up, thanks to a Genius step: caramelizing the pumpkin purée.

Pumpkin Pie Cobbler

“Because the pie crust is on the top rather than the bottom,” author Erin McDowell writes, “there’s no fear of soggy bottoms, and no need to par-bake.” Yahoo!

Pumpkin Pudding

Aka pumpkin pie without a crust. If the thought of making flaky pastry gives you goosebumps, this one’s for you — just don’t skimp on the whipped cream on top.

Pumpkin Sugar Pie

The secret to the top of your pumpkin pie never, ever cracking, even if leave it in the oven too long? Mix some flour into the filling.

Pumpkin Cream Pie

A cold, creamy take on pumpkin pie. This version has a gingery graham cracker crust, filled with spiced pumpkin pastry cream, and topped with a tangy sour-cream whipped cream.

Pumpkin Bread

“Pumpkin bread should be quick to come together, confident in pumpkin flavor, and moist as can be,” writes recipe developer Emma Laperruque. This recipe calls for both pumpkin pie spice and ground ginger for extra spiciness. Dark brown sugar introduces deeper caramelized notes that we’ll never say no to.

Pumpkin Cheesecake

This cheesecake recipe doesn’t specifically call for pumpkin pie spice, but rather all of the ingredients to make pumpkin pie spice (cinnamon, nutmeg, ginger, and cloves). Instead of using all four ingredients separately, just use an equal amount of pumpkin pie spice, which should amount to about 1 1/2 teaspoons . . . plus a pinch for good measure.

7 Instagram accounts for learning about tropical fruit

When you think about tropical fruit, pineapplecoconut and mango likely come to mind. These fruits are generally available in grocery stores throughout the U.S., but are usually imported from places like Mexico and Colombia. But if you live in South Florida, Southern California or Hawai’i, you’ll see these fruits, and so many more, growing locally. Atemoyablack sapote and sapodilla, for example, thrive in hot, humid climates and are relatively unknown in this country, outside the areas they are grown.

But in the regions where they grow, the bright, tangy, fragrant flavors of these tropical fruits are embraced fully. There are festivals in Hawai’i to celebrate breadfruit, a starchy fruit that can be used both unripe, similarly to potato, and when soft and ripe, in sweet preparations such as custard. While Florida’s official state fruit is the orange, the large Cuban population there is more partial to mamey sapote, a fruit that the magazine “Edible Orlando” describes as tasting like, “the best baked sweet potato you’ve ever eaten (except better), infused with mango and hints of almond extract.” And in Southern California, you are as likely to see dragon fruitprickly pears and star fruit in your morning breakfast fruit bowl as you are raspberries and blueberries.

We’ve recently expanded FoodPrint’s Seasonal Food Guide and Real Food Encyclopedia to include more of the fresh produce available in these regions. And while some are easy to eat and use in recipes, other tropical fruits — jackfruit for instance — require skill to properly open and cook. To learn more about these fruits and for recipe inspiration, we often turn to these expert cooks, bloggers and social media influencers. Do you have a favorite social media account focused on tropical seasonal eating that we forgot? DM us on IG to let us know!

Rare Fruit Council International

Miami’s Rare Fruit Council (@rarefruitmiami) is a non-profit that was established in 1995 to promote tropical fruits in South Florida. If you live in the area, you can attend monthly meetings at its Miami headquarters (or affiliate fruit clubs), which include speakers, plant swaps, tastings and potlucks. They also have plant sales at Miami’s botanical garden and a stand at a local farmers’ market. But those of us outside the sunny state can still ogle gorgeous fruit photos thanks to their Instagram account, which showcases information about rare cultivars, photos of plants in various stages of growth, and information about tropical fruits. Some Miami members recently visited Grimal Grove, a tropical fruit grove in the Florida Keys, where they got to harvest cacao.

https://www.instagram.com/p/B94Y-sLAcC_/

Craig Hepworth

Florida native Craig Hepworth named both his Instagram account and website Florida Fruit Geek, where he is dedicated to “celebrating the abundance, diversity, and health benefits of food that grows on trees.” His website is a wellspring of tropical fruit knowledge; he offers information on using scientific names, fruit growing guides, and how-to videos for fruit preparation. On his social media account, he shares photos and very detailed captions about produce he finds all over Florida, things like loquats, durian and mamey (which he describes as life changing). Many of the fruits he shares are very rare or plants he is growing himself, including the tamarillo fruit in the IG linked below, which Hepworth describes as tasting, “like you mixed flavors of tomato and melon, then sprinkled notes of berry taste into that mix.” He has recently been trying a new grafting technique to grow the tamarillo fruit; follow his account to see how he progresses.

https://www.instagram.com/p/CBYMTYqgHFY/

Mariana Velásquez

Mariana Velásquez, food stylist and author of the new cookbook “Colombiana,” doesn’t focus solely on tropical fruits on her Instagram account (@marianavelasquezv), but the native Colombian regularly features recipes and dishes that do. Some recent posts include a cheesecake topped with guava and blackberries; uchuva (also called cape gooseberry); and plantains and mangoes as part of a tropical fruit still life. Velásquez also has her own line of flowy kitchen aprons, including one that features oranges, inspired by citrus groves.

https://www.instagram.com/p/CQbn4X9Juwv/

April Rankin

LA-based food stylist April Rankin (@_april_rankin) is a regular at the city’s Santa Monica and Hollywood farmers’ markets, where she snaps gorgeous photos of what’s in season. While it’s not all tropical fruit on this account, you’ll find dragon fruit, loquats and passion fruit mixed in with her posts of other seasonal produce, recipes and selfies. While her captions are minimal, the photos are so pretty, if you are searching for some #tropicalfruitporn or a new phone wallpaper, this is the account for you.

https://www.instagram.com/p/Bmya_-DhdzZ/

Martha Cheng

As food editor of “Honolulu Magazine,” Martha Cheng eats a lot of great food, some of which she documents on her Instagram account (@marthacheng). But along with travel and surf photos, Cheng also shares plenty of information about the tropical fruit she eats her way through: different varieties of mango, grown on her backyard tree, or lychee from a local grocery store. A few months ago she showed off the amazing variety of bananas she got in a tasting box, like the sweet-and-tangy Mysore and pink-fleshed Iholena, all of which are unavailable outside of California, Florida and Hawai’i.

https://www.instagram.com/p/CJm4WRJjfmh/

Big Island Farmers

For more Hawai’i fruit love, follow @bigislandfarmers, an account and website that help support small farmers by showing local shoppers where to buy their produce. Even if you don’t live on the Big Island, following the account can be insightful, since they share information about and photos of different fruit varieties, along with specifics on farmers’ markets, stores and shopping news. One recent find on their page: a farmer showing off Hawai’i-grown coffee beans in their green stage before roasting.

https://www.instagram.com/p/CNnzEOtM4UA/

Breadfruit Institute

The Breadfruit Institute works within Hawaii”s National Tropical Botanical Garden to research and promote breadfruit cultivation, and is home to the world’s largest collection of breadfruit cultivars, with 150 different varieties. As we have previously reported, Diane Raggone, director of the Institute, calls it the “most ecological carbohydrate in the world,” as one breadfruit tree can produce 300 pounds of fruit annually and its strong root system helps strengthen the soil and store carbon. On their Instagram account (@breadfruit_institute), the Institute shares photos of their many different varieties, as well as other plants at the botanical garden, including rare bananas, star fruit, chiles and others. Following their account, you’ll also find tips for cleaning and cooking breadfruit and information about soil health.

https://www.instagram.com/p/CIRna5jj2fr/

Republicans split over Afghan refugees: Trump is now being led by the raging racism of his base

I don’t think most people fooled themselves into thinking that the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan was going to be a great moment of triumph for America. It would be an ignominious end no matter how the last chapter was written. And regardless of the execution, it was clear that the poor wartorn country was either in for years of civil war or a swift takeover by the oppressive Taliban. (The mere fact that the Trump administration had been negotiating directly with the Taliban directly gave credence to the notion that the latter outcome was likely.) Nonetheless, watching the chaotic scenes from Kabul that have been blanketing the airwaves for the past week has been heartbreaking. It’s hard to imagine that it could have gone much worse.

This was not unanticipated. I had personally been following this story as it unfolded last spring with a mix of confusion and disbelief:

Recent reports say the White House was “wary” of right-wing backlash if they agreed to open up the country to Afghan refugees, including those who helped the Americans over the past 20 years. If true, they were extremely foolish. Of course, there was going to be a right-wing backlash no matter what they did. You’d think all Democrats would have learned that by now. All the dithering achieved was allowing the right to hit them from all directions.

Some GOP officials (along with many Democrats and members of the press) are highly critical of Biden for failing to adequately prepare the evacuations. I assume some are sincerely concerned but it’s hard to imagine that the likes of Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Georgia Governor Brian Kemp or Arizona Governor Steve Ducey have been losing any sleep over the plight of Afghan refugees. (Funny, they had nothing to say when Trump dropped visas for the Afghan interpreters two years ago.) Since it’s something they can attack the Biden administration for botching, I don’t think it’s too cynical to assume they see the political advantage in preening before the public as being more moral and compassionate than the “comforter in chief” who promised to restore the soul of America.

I have to wonder how that’s going to go over with the GOP base, however, because some of their most important leaders have taken the opposite position.

Naturally, Tucker Carlson leads the pack, telling his rapt audience that any acceptance of Afghan refugees is just the latest chapter in the Democratic “Great Replacement” strategy to destroy the ethnic purity of America by polluting it with foreigners. He was echoed in that repulsive sentiment by youth leader Charlie Kirk who said:

What’s going on here is Joe Biden wants a couple hundred thousand more Ilhan Omars to come into America to change the body politic permanently. We’re playing checkers, and they’re playing chess.

The reptilian former Trump adviser Stephen Miller weighed in on this theme as well telling Fox News host Laura Ingraham, “resettling in America is not about solving a humanitarian crisis, it’s about accomplishing an ideological objective – to change America.”

Oh, the deviousness of Democrats having Republicans start a war that lasts for 20 years in order to eventually bring the refugees who helped them back home to displace all the Real Americans. They really are playing the long game.

Ingraham herself took a few minutes off from demonizing the “COVID infected migrants” at the southern border to ask why Americans should feel any obligation to people who helped American troops overseas in the first place. And then there are just the plain old appeals to grotesque racism from OAN news host and former Trump campaign staffer Steve Cortes:

https://twitter.com/CortesSteve/status/1427839604376444929

He responded to criticism of that tweet by saying, “I welcome the scorn of the credentialed ruling class … I stand for working-class citizens and take unpopular stands in defense of the Deplorables.”

Cortes was referring to the MAGA faithful who are no doubt looking for leadership from Trump himself rather than pale imitations like Cortes. But Trump has been somewhat flummoxed on this subject in these early days, which is unsurprising since he spent years promising to do exactly what Joe Biden has actually done and he hasn’t quite figured out how to attack him for it. At first, he seemed to be taking the part of the Afghan refugees, issuing a statement that said, “can anyone even imagine taking out our Military before evacuating civilians and others who have been good to out Country and who should be allowed to seek refuge?” But now he seems to have belatedly realized that he is out of step with his followers. He emailed the picture of the plane filled with Afghan refugees to his list, writing, “This plane should have been full of Americans. America First!”

Trump wants to criticize Biden for failing to properly plan for the evacuation while at the same time he must know that this goes against everything he has formerly advocated when it comes to refugees. After all, he didn’t have a thought for the Kurds he ruthlessly betrayed two years ago. And while everyone remembers that his first campaign was a disgusting assault on undocumented immigrants, it was equally hostile to Muslims, specifically refugees. He famously promised to ban all Muslims from entry (and actually tried to do it when he was elected.) And he specifically said that he would deport all recent Syrian refugees, most of whom were children and people over 60:

They’re going to be gone. They will go back. … I’ve said it before, in fact, and everyone hears what I say, including them, believe it or not,” Trump said of the refugees. “But if they’re here, they have to go back, because we cannot take a chance.

I predict that is where he will land again, fearmongering about Islamic terrorism, accusing the Biden administration of allowing jihadists to climb aboard those planes and come to America to kill us all in our beds. If there’s one thing he knows how to do, it’s play his greatest hits.

In any case, it is only a matter of time before he finds a way to wield the crude xenophobia that made him popular with the right-wing in the first place. The question is whether or not the rest of the GOP will follow him down that dark path. If history is any guide they’ll be toddling along behind him before too long. This will not be the last of it. 

Debate erupts (again) over women’s libido drugs

In the fall of 2016, sex therapist and researcher Leonore Tiefer shuttered the New View Campaign, an organization she had founded to combat what she refers to as “the medicalization of sex” — essentially, the pharmaceutical industry’s efforts to define variations in sexuality and sexual problems as medical issues requiring a drug fix.

For 16 years, the group had fought against industry’s involvement in sex research, including its push for a drug to boost women’s sex drives. New View hosted conferences and its members penned papers and testified before the United States Food and Drug Administration. The campaign was prominently featured in an 80-minute documentary called Orgasm Inc, and promoted a clever (if off-pitch) video advising women to “throw that pink pill away,” a reference to the female-libido drug flibanserin (Addyi), which was seeking FDA approval at the time.

New View counted some successes: The FDA didn’t approve an allegedly libido-boosting testosterone patch for women, on the grounds that the patch’s slim benefits didn’t outweigh its risks, and the FDA twice rejected flibanserin for the same reason. But in August 2015, the agency reversed itself and approved the so-called pink Viagra. “I felt we’d said everything we had to say,” said Tiefer of ending the campaign. Advocates predicted FDA approval would be sought for additional women’s libido drugs, but the group felt there was nothing they could do to stop it. “However many more drugs were going to come down the pike,” said Tiefer, “it was just going to be more of the same.”

Indeed, four years later all was quiet when the FDA approved bremelanotide (Vyleesi), a libido drug that women inject into their abdomen or thigh at least 45 minutes before sex. The study results had been decidedly unimpressive: Participants who received the drug didn’t report more satisfying sexual events than those getting a placebo shot, and they scored only slightly better on measures of desire. Further, four out of 10 women taking the drug reported that it made them nauseous.

“There really was no opposition in 2019,” said Tiefer, speaking for herself and others that had spoken out against flibanserin’s approval. “We all had pink Viagra fatigue of one sort or another.”

In March, the Journal of Sex Research published an analysis casting doubt on the methodology behind the two pivotal studies of bremelanotide. The study’s author, Glen Spielmans, a psychology professor at Metropolitan State University in Minnesota, accused industry-sponsored researchers of cherry-picking favorable findings. Reinvigorated by this new paper, Tiefer reached out to a few like-minded colleagues to “make a little noise.”

In explaining the rationale for approving female-libido drugs, the FDA often cites the “unmet medical need.” Yet researchers are fiercely divided over the question of just how many women lack libido and how best to help them. If you believe advertising for Vyleesi, American women suffer from an epidemic of insufficient horniness. More than 6 million premenopausal women — one in 10 — have low sexual desire, the website claims.

Research doesn’t support the notion that millions of women are sexually deficient, said Tiefer, whose long career includes more than three decades as an associate clinical professor of psychiatry at the New York University School of Medicine. “There is no standard of what is ‘normal sexual desire,'” she said, noting that desire varies widely and depends heavily on a woman’s personal situation and culture. After all, she points out, in the 19th and early 20th centuries some doctors diagnosed nymphomania in women deemed to enjoy sex too much.

Everyone I talked to agrees that losing the spark that once kindled enjoyable sex is a real and distressing problem. Some doctors told me that they were glad to have drug options that might help enflame a woman’s lost desire. But Tiefer said in all 40 years as a sex therapist, she has never had a patient complaining of low libido who did not also have physical, emotional, or relationship issues. “If you want to have a better sex life, read some books, and ask some questions, and talk to knowledgeable people,” she said. Just don’t think that a pill or shot will fix it.

* * *

In 2014, the FDA held a two-day meeting to gather perspectives on female sexual dysfunction from scientists and patients. Accounts of the event describe a sea of speakers and attendees wearing teal scarves signifying their association with the advocacy group Even the Score. Sprout Pharmaceuticals, the maker of flibanersin, helped fund the campaign, which enlisted women’s groups and even members of the U.S. Congress in lobbying the FDA to approve the drug on the grounds of gender parity. Men had 26 drugs to treat sexual dysfunction, the group decried, while women had none.

Those claims are misleading. To reach that inflated count, you would need to include both brand name and generic forms of a handful of erectile dysfunction drugs such as sildenafil (Viagra). Of course, these address ability not desire. The FDA has approved numerous forms of testosterone as a replacement therapy for men with low levels of the hormone; but not for treating sexual dysfunction.

Lost in the outrage over sexism was the reality that flibanserin, a failed antidepressant that causes drowsiness, also isn’t a great libido drug. Only about 10 percent more premenopausal women taking it report meaningful improvement compared to those who got a placebo, according to the FDA. And it carries a black box warning cautioning that combining it with alcohol or a long list of medications — including certain antibiotics, as well as drugs to treat yeast infections and high blood pressure — can lead to low blood pressure and fainting. Recently, the FDA announced that it was evaluating the need for regulatory action after a spike in reports of adverse reactions to the drug.

In commentary published in the New England Journal of Medicine, FDA scientists acknowledged the influence of women’s testimony at the 2014 meeting about how low desire affected “their sense of identity, emotional well-being, and relationships.” The authors noted that some members of an independent committee who recommended approval found it a difficult decision. In general, the FDA scientists wrote, those voting yes “acknowledged the small treatment effects and substantial safety concerns but considered the unmet medical need.”

The 2014 meeting also persuaded the FDA to change its criteria for whether a female libido drug works according to the agency’s 2016 guidance to industry. Drugmakers still had to demonstrate that women taking the drug improved their score on questions about sexual desire. But companies no longer had to show that women had more satisfying sexual events, just that they reported less distress — a switch would turn out to be crucial to the approval of bremelanotide.

In his analysis, Spielmans points out that researchers dropped sexually satisfying events as a primary measure of effectiveness in the bremelanotide trials after the studies were complete. Women in the bremelanotide group didn’t report having more good sex, so relying on those results could have sunk chances of approval. That’s only one of the ways the researchers — all of whom had ties to Palatin or AMAG Pharmaceuticals Inc., the company that licensed bremelanotide — failed to adhere to widely accepted guidelines, according to Spielmans. (According to a press release, Palatin and AMAG mutually terminated their license agreement for Vyleesi in January of last year.)

“The risk you run is that they are simply kind of slicing and dicing through the data until they find something that makes the drug look good,” he said.

To prevent that type of cherry picking, researchers are supposed to decide on the endpoints at the beginning of the study. To be fair, the FDA okayed the change in primary outcome measures based on the updated 2016 guidance. And there’s no evidence that anyone “peeked” at the results before changing the endpoints. Still, in its review of the bremelanotide data, the FDA notes that because, overall, women in the study didn’t report more sexually satisfying events, the negative findings for that measure may have been obvious even before analyzing the data to find out who got the drug and who got a placebo.

The research team’s rebuttal published in the Journal of Sex Research was indignant. Researchers said that they changed outcome measures with the FDA’s blessing prior to analyzing results. They also accused Spielmans, who has no research or clinical expertise in sexual medicine, of being out of his depth. (I contacted several of the researchers, all of whom either did not respond to my request for an interview or declined to talk to me.) Spielmans answered in the same journal that he was “disappointed” because the research team “failed to engage with the most pressing concerns raised in my re-analysis.”

* * *

It’s tricky business gauging a woman’s sexual desire. The bremelanotide trials asked women to tally sexually satisfying events (that includes masturbation and fun sexual activities with a partner) each month, but wound up prioritizing more subjective measures. For example, one of the primary endpoints on the bremelanotide trials is based on women’s answers to two questions about their sexual desire over the last month from a 19-item survey:

  • Over the past four weeks, how often did you feel sexual desire or interest? [Almost always or always; Most times (more than half the time); Sometimes (about half the time); A few times (less than half the time); or Almost never or never.]
  • Over the past four weeks, how would you rate your level (degree) of sexual desire or interest? [Very high; High; Moderate; Low; Very Low, or None at all.]

At the risk of oversharing, I have no idea how to answer those questions. Feeling sexual desire “less than half the time” results in a lower score. But what can I say? I work. We’re in a pandemic. My long-time husband (whom I love dearly) and I have been locked in pretty much 24-7 for a year and a half. Sparks don’t fly every time we pass in the kitchen.

To score high, you need to desire sex all, or nearly all, the time said Adriane Fugh-Berman, M.D., a professor of pharmacology and physiology at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C. “I show that slide in talks because I can usually get laugh from the audience by saying I don’t think this is consistent with having a job or being a full-time student,” she said. “Sexual desire all of the time? Like really?”

Even the FDA is somewhat incredulous of the ratings scale, stating in the 2016 guidance to drugmakers: “it’s unclear whether women experiencing sexual desire all or most of the time would identify this as a benefit, or whether this could represent a different concern to women.”

Still, the agency approved bremelanotide based, in part, on study results showing that women who injected themselves with the drug scored an average of 0.3 points higher on a 6-point scale of desire than the placebo group. The treatment group also scored about 0.3 points better on a 4-point scale measuring how bothered they were by low sexual desire.

The way we attempt to measure sexual dysfunction is heavily influenced by the pharmaceutical industry, said Fugh-Berman, who is an outspoken critic of pharmaceutical marketing practices and medication overuse. So, too, is our notion of the prevalence of the problem, she said. For example, the source of an oft-cited statistic that nearly half of American women are beset by some form of sexual dysfunction is a survey from 1999. As Undark reported in 2016, two of the three researchers were linked to drug companies and other scientists have questioned the methodology. “The so-called epidemic of female sexual dysfunction is a lie,” said Fugh-Berman.

Maureen Whelihan, a gynecologist in Greenacres, Florida who specializes in sexual medicine, also doesn’t take much stock in the questionnaires used in clinical trials. In practice, she may use short screeners to check for anxiety, depression, and how satisfied a woman is with her sex life. Then she dives into a conversation with patients about how to address their concerns. Sexual dysfunction is a complex problem that is often intertwined with mood disorders, but along with diet, exercise, and counseling, female-libido drugs can also play a role in treatment, she told me: “I’m always a believer of an approach that really includes all parts.”

If women do have a vast unmet need to boost libido, the available medications apparently aren’t filling it. Shortly after the FDA approved flibanserin, Valeant Pharmaceuticals (now Bausch Health Companies) bought Sprout for $1 billion. After two years of dismal flibanserin sales, and facing a lawsuit, Valeant sold the company to a group of former Sprout shareholders in exchange for a small royalty on future sales. Sales have since increased with doctors writing more than 27,000 prescriptions for the drug so far this year compared to only about 6,000 prescriptions in 2018, according to the health analytics company IQVIA. Still, that would treat only a fraction of the women Sprout claims suffer from low desire. “In fact, there was not this groundswell of women clamoring for this drug,” said Fugh-Berman. “That was a public relations fiction.”

In the third quarter of 2021, Palatin reported netting only about $89,000 from sales of Vyleesi.

Whelihan routinely prescribes flibanserin, she said, although most patients don’t wind up taking it long term. She has offered to prescribe bremelanotide, but when women hear that it’s a shot that frequently causes nausea, most want no part of it, she said: “It went across sort of like a lead balloon.”

As for Tiefer, she’s still looking for ways to “make noise” about female libido drugs, through journal articles and editorials as well as talking to journalists like me. At this point, she’s not expecting to have much impact on the FDA’s decision making. “The goal is to raise the public’s awareness that these drugs are promoted by interested, profit-oriented parties,” she said, “and that the consumer, the patient, needs to be smart and not duped.”

This article was originally published on Undark. Read the original article.

Rush to boosters sparks confusion, differing recommendations

When the Food and Drug Administration announced last week that a third dose of Moderna or Pfizer-BioNTech covid-19 vaccine may boost the immunity of some people who are immunocompromised, officials repeated their stance that fully vaccinated, healthy people do not need another dose.

With this caveat: “The FDA is actively engaged in a science-based, rigorous process with our federal partners to consider whether an additional dose may be needed in the future,” said acting FDA Commissioner Dr. Janet Woodcock.

But the Biden administration reportedly said this week that most Americans will need a booster. And a White House press conference slated for 11 a.m. Wednesday was expected to address boosters.

Meanwhile, doctors and researchers caution that the public needs to stick to the advice of the FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Those federal agencies “are doing their very best to ensure maximum protection and safety,” said Dr. Cody Meissner, a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases who sits on the FDA’s vaccine advisory panel. “People have to be very careful about statements that come from Big Pharma. They have a very different goal.”

Dr. Sadiya Khan, an epidemiologist and cardiologist at Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine, said that taking any medication has risks and that adding an additional dose of vaccine might cause unnecessary side effects. “What we need is data,” she said.

So what do we know about whether healthy, fully vaccinated people should get a booster? Here are answers to seven key questions.

1. What evidence are vaccine makers giving federal regulators to support the idea that an additional shot is needed?

It’s unclear how the booster may be authorized by regulators. On Tuesday, FDA spokesperson Abby Capobianco said federal agencies are reviewing laboratory and clinical trial data as well as data from the real world. Some data will come from specific pharmaceutical companies, but the agency’s analysis “does not rely on those data exclusively,” she said.

The companies, for their part, are racing to produce data. On Monday, Pfizer and BioNTech submitted initial but promising results from a phase 1 study of the safety and immune response from a booster dose given at least six months after the second dose. Late-stage trial results that evaluate the effectiveness of a third dose are “expected shortly,” Pfizer spokesperson Jerica Pitts confirmed this week.

Moderna President Stephen Hoge said during his company’s earnings call this month that a third dose is “likely to be necessary” this fall because of the highly contagious delta variant. Moderna spokesperson Ray Jordan said Tuesday the company is in talks with regulators but hasn’t provided an estimated timeline.

Johnson & Johnson, whose vaccine is administered in a single shot, hopes to share results soon from a late-stage clinical trial studying the safety and efficacy of a two-dose regimen in 30,000 adults. The study is looking at “potential incremental benefits” with a second dose, company spokesperson Richard Ferreira wrote in a Tuesday email.

2. Why might healthy people not need a booster yet?

Dr. Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and an adviser to the National Institutes of Health and FDA, said current federal guidance does not recommend a booster and there’s no “science-based” reason to get an additional shot at this time — even after receiving the J&J vaccine.

The current mRNA vaccines work by inducing a certain level of neutralizing, virus-specific antibodies with the first dose. Then the second dose brings on an exponential increase in the measurable level of specific neutralizing antibodies — and, more important, there’s evidence that the second dose of mRNA vaccine also gives cellular immunity, Offit said.

“That predicts relatively longer-term protection against severe critical disease,” he said. A single dose of the J&J vaccine — which uses a different technology, called an adenovirus vector — has been shown to provide the equivalent response to the second dose of an mRNA vaccine, he said.

3. How do the three vaccines authorized in the U.S. compare?

A recent preprint — a paper that has not been peer-reviewed — from the Mayo Clinic suggests that the Moderna vaccine may be more protective against the delta variant than the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. However, that research is based on examining the vaccination history of thousands of people who got covid, rather than a direct comparison of the vaccines, said Dr. Catherine Blish, a specialist in infectious diseases at Stanford Medicine.

“I would be hesitant to alter any practices or change behavior in any way based on that data,” she said.

The Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines are administered differently, which could factor into how much mRNA the body receives to code into protein, said Dr. Monica Gandhi, a specialist in infectious diseases at the University of California-San Francisco. Moderna’s dosing is two shots of 100 micrograms delivered four weeks apart, while the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine’s two 30-microgram doses are delivered three weeks apart.

At the end of July, Pfizer and BioNTech announced findings that four to six months after a second dose their vaccine’s efficacy dropped from a peak of 96% to about 84%. With its own data of fading efficacy, the Israeli government launched a vaccination campaign this month encouraging more than 1 million residents over age 50 to get a third shot.

As for J&J’s one-shot vaccine, there’s no evidence that recipients are being hospitalized with breakthrough infections at a higher rate than if they had received other vaccines, said Dr. Amesh Adalja, a specialist in infectious diseases at Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security.

4. Could a booster harm a healthy, fully vaccinated person?

It’s unclear. Offit said he believes a booster is safe and may well become important — but “it’s just not where we should be in this country right now.” The best defense against delta and other variants, he said, is to first vaccinate as many people as possible.

Others, though, said the available research signaled that caution is warranted. During a media briefing reported by Reuters last month, Jay Butler, the CDC’s deputy director for infectious diseases, said the agency was “keenly interested in knowing whether or not a third dose may be associated with any higher risk of adverse reactions, particularly some of those more severe — although very rare — side effects.”

The CDC did not respond to questions this week about its stance on potential risks. There have been reports of blood clots and allergic reactions after regular dosing. Khan, at Northwestern, said she is also concerned about reports of myocarditis, inflammation of the heart — which is more common after the second shot than the first. She said it’s not clear that the benefit of taking a booster would outweigh the risk for young, healthy people.

5. Would a booster limit a vaccinated person’s ability to spread the virus?

Dr. William Moss, a professor of epidemiology at Johns Hopkins’ Bloomberg School of Public Health, explained that the immune protection conferred by vaccines operates along a spectrum, from severely limiting initial virus replication to preventing widespread virus dissemination and replication within our bodies.

“Booster doses, by increasing antibody levels and enhancing other components of our immune responses, make it more likely virus replication will be rapidly prevented,” Moss said. “This then makes it less likely a vaccinated individual will be able to transmit the virus.”

Moss also said there are potential benefits to combinations of vaccines like those being administered in San Francisco and some European countries. German Chancellor Angela Merkel boosted her adenovirus-vectored AstraZeneca shot with Moderna in June.

Another possible step for pharmaceutical companies is to reformulate their covid vaccines to more closely match newer variants. Pfizer has announced it could do so within 100 days of the discovery of a variant.

Hopefully, the regulatory process could be expedited for such reformulated vaccines, said Moss, who works within Johns Hopkins’ International Vaccine Access Center.

6. Would we have to pay for the booster dose, or would it be free, like the previous shots?

It is expected to be free. According to Pfizer and the White House, the federal government purchased an additional 200 million doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine for inoculating children under 12 and for possible boosters.

7. Is there a future in which we take an annual covid shot?

Dr. Vincent Rajkumar, a hematologist at the Mayo Clinic who studies cancers involving the immune system, said a year ago he believed immune responses to covid may be similar to those of the measles, which create “a very long memory that protects us.”

Then covid mutated. “India changed everything for me,” he said, referring to its massive second wave after delta was discovered. Many of those who were infected had already had covid, he said.

Rajkumar now believes “we might need annual boosters — and it would be nice if such boosters can be combined with the flu vaccine.”

To Trumpers, “critical race theory” is as bad as the Taliban — and they’re not kidding

The Trump-controlled Republican Party, other American neofascists and the white right more generally are continuing their attack on the bogeyman and moral panic known as “critical race theory.”

As I explained in an earlier essay for Salon the white right’s fictive version of critical race theory has little if any substantive relationship to the specialized academic approach to the study of social inequality described with the same term. As I wrote, the right’s version of critical race theory is “a type of racial bogeyman or psychological projection, a function of white racial paranoia about the ‘browning of America’ and the threat of ‘white genocide'”:

As the truism holds, history is written by the victors. To that end, in dozens of states across the country, the white right is engaging in an Orwellian campaign of rewriting school curricula to prevent the teaching of “critical race theory” — which in practice means stopping any serious engagement with America’s real and often uncomfortable history of racism and white supremacy.

The white right’s campaign against the teaching of real American history involves actual thoughtcrimes.

The mainstream news media has largely moved on from this white supremacist attack on the country’s educational institutions — and by implication, an assault on truth and reality itself. This is another example of a much larger problem with the mainstream news media in America: As an institution it is less interested in the truth and doing the work of pro-democracy journalism than in chasing the next shiny, horrible object and controversy. In turn, the American people en masse take their cues about what is “important” from the news media and other “opinion leaders” and agenda-setters.

Consequently, many Americans now view the white right’s attacks on “critical race theory” as just another controversy among the country’s political elites, rather than as part of a larger anti-democratic and white supremacist movement that poses an existential threat to society.

While the news media and the American people are distracted as their very limited attention spans are drawn to other things, the white right continues to amass victories in its war against multiracial democracy and the truth.

As part of a larger nationwide campaign including states such as Florida and Texas, a Pennsylvania school board voted this week to ban “critical race theory” and the “1619 Project” and replace them with something called “patriotic education.”

In Tennessee, the state now proposes to levy fines, beginning at $1 million, on school districts where a teacher “willingly violates” prohibitions on discussing white privilege, racism or sexism in class.

Republicans recently introduced a bill in the Senate that would ban the use of federal monies for teaching what the Hill describes as “‘divisive concepts’ such as critical race theory.” The Protect Equality and Civics Education Act was sponsored by Sens. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., Kevin Cramer, R-N.D., and Mike Braun, R-Ind. “The story of our nation is under attack as the radical left continues to attempt to rewrite American history and categorize our citizens into an oppressor and oppressed class,” Rubio said in a statement.

The white right’s attempts to purge “critical race theory” (and those who study and teach it) are not peaceful. As with other moral panics, there is the emotional and financial violence and other harm inflicted on those deemed to represent a “threat.”

To that point, teachers and other educators will lose their jobs for committing thoughtcrimes because they dare to teach the truth about American history and its implications for the present. Educators who are committed to teaching America’s real history are also experiencing fear and intimidation from being monitored in their classrooms as a pretext for firing them or inflicting other types of harm.

The white right’s attacks on “critical race theory” are already escalating to include both explicit and implied threats of physical violence. A recent fundraising email from Donald Trump Jr. on behalf of the “1776 Project PAC” offers an ominous preview of the terrorism and other political violence that is being encouraged against those who dare to teach and study “critical race theory.” 

Trump Jr. begins by addressing a “Fellow Patriot”:

There are people out there in the far-off corners of the world who hate everything that the United States of America stands for — and they have made it their life’s work to destroy our country.

But they’re not who I’m worried about.

I’m worried about the people right here in our own backyards who share the same hatred for our country as the terrorists hiding in the caves of Afghanistan. 

Because when President Lincoln said “America will never be destroyed from the outside … if we lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves” he was RIGHT.

The most dangerous threats to our republic aren’t hiding in caves — they’re hiding in plain sight in our K-12 classrooms.

 They’re training the next generation to hate our country, hate our freedom and hate our Constitution.

 Because they know the generation taught to hate our country from kindergarten to college will be the one that destroys it, and surrenders us to socialism once and for all.

The Radical Left has been quietly taking over local schoolboards one community at a time — using their legions of teachers and radical union operatives as foot-soldiers to overhaul our education system right under our noses. …

They’ve put Marxists in classrooms across the country teaching children not how to think but what to think. They tell students that if they’re white, that they’re evil racists responsible for slavery, and if they’re black, that they’re helpless victims that will never accomplish anything.

Of course these claims are absurd lies. But they still must be directly, explicitly, and clearly exposed and refuted.

Those still in a state of willful denial about the existential dangers of Trumpism and American neofascism cling to a belief that it is all so “ridiculous” — and therefore not a real threat. Too many Americans desperately hold on to these self-soothing delusions even after the nightmare of the Age of Trump. Such people close their eyes when confronted by danger because, like children, they hope that such bad things will somehow magically disappear.

Donald Trump’s followers are not “patriots.” They are committed to a fascist movement that seeks to overthrow American democracy and replace it with a right-wing personality cult and white supremacist authoritarian regime.

Likewise, America’s teachers and educators are not the “most dangerous threats to our republic.” As the Department of Homeland Security and other law enforcement agencies have repeatedly warned, the greatest threat to the United States are white supremacist terrorists — which at the moment means Trump’s loyalists and other cult members.

In an age of gangster capitalism, charter schools and the outsized and toxic influence of the right wing on the country’s educational system, “Marxists” have most certainly not taken over America’s classrooms.

Educators committed to teaching the truth about America’s past and present are not instructing young people to “hate our country, hate our freedom, and hate our Constitution.” In reality, those teachers are the real patriots, helping their students to become good citizens who reject authoritarianism and other anti-democratic values.

America’s teachers are not the Taliban. Specifically, those educators at the college level and beyond who apply and teach the actual academic critical framework of critical race theory are not killing or torturing people deemed to be insufficiently religious. They do not live in caves, or reject modernity and science in favor of religious fundamentalism and other anti-rational forms of thinking. They are also not forcing women into a state of de facto bondage and subjugation where they are denied human rights and viewed as the property of men.

Donald Trump Jr.’s fundraising email for the 1776 Project PAC is not a version of stochastic terrorism. It is something worse and more dangerous. That email is an explicit encouragement to engage in acts of right-wing terrorism and other violence against “the enemy.” The encouragement is working: Public opinion polls and other research have shown that a large percentage of Republicans and other self-identified Trump supporters and “conservatives” increasingly view political violence as an acceptable means of winning, holding and expanding political power.

How does this work? Today’s “conservative” movement is highly effective at creating, manipulating and directing the fears of their public, where the goal is to keep the latter in a state of constant fear. The Taliban’s reconquest of Afghanistan is only the most recent and therefore most convenient way of keeping the right-wing public in a constant state of fear arousal.

A central part of this manipulation involves a focus on death anxieties and other existential fears felt by many white Americans about being “deleted,” “canceled,” “replaced” or otherwise made obsolete in a more diverse American society.

As seen with the Trump Jr. fundraising email, the “Taliban” signify dangerous Islamic terrorists who can be used as proxies for other anxieties about race, identity and power being experienced by “real,” “traditional” and “patriotic” White America.

Moreover, the Trump Jr. email’s suggestion that “critical race theory” is somehow associated with Islamic fundamentalism, the Taliban and Muslims who want to destroy “Christian civilization” is an act of projection. In the United States, it is white right-wing Christian nationalists who long to overthrow secular multiracial democracy. On a fundamental level, those groups have more in common with the Taliban than they are willing to admit.

The Trump-controlled Republican Party and larger neofascist movement hold a competitive advantage over liberals and progressives. The brains and political personalities of conservatives and other right-wing authoritarians are primed for an emotional response to political and social issues that privileges yes-or-no binary thinking and what is known as “negativity bias.” Conservatives and other right-wing authoritarians are also more likely than progressives and liberals to reject members of the “out group” and others deemed to be the Other.

Trumpism, like other fascist movements, has weaponized these traits.

On Thursday, one of the Trump movement’s acolyte-terrorists apparently followed through on the Great Leader’s commands. A man allegedly journeyed to Washington with the intention of forcing President Biden to resign, driving a vehicle that he claimed contained large amounts of explosive materials.  

CNN reports that the man was 49-year-old Floyd Ray Roseberry of Grover, North Carolina, who has “a history of supporting former President Donald Trump and who has said ‘all Democrats need to step down.'” 

U.S. Capitol Police have said that no bomb was found in Roseberry’s truck, but did live-stream a Facebook video from the scene, “holding a canister that he said was a bomb and speaking about a ‘revolution.'” The Daily Beast has also reported that Roseberry appeared to be trying to speak directly to President Biden during his rambling live-stream.

Reportedly, the last video Roseberry posted on social media featured Donald Trump Jr. ranting about the failures of democracy, conspiracy theories about Hunter Biden, and proclaiming that he and his father were “victims” of a plot to smear their good names. 

The Trump movement is growing and tending a type of fascist garden, full of vines and tree limbs bearing poisoned fruit. Trump’s cult followers eat the fruit eagerly and cannot be sated. It only makes them stronger and more determined to overthrow American democracy, and even to kill and die for their leader, in the belief that such behavior will make them immortal heroes and great patriots.

There will be more blood as the Age of Trump extends its power and pull over the United States. This is not a question of “if” or “when” or “at some point.” We are well past the point when America’s news media and other public voices should stop talking about the danger as if it were far away or hypothetical. Such evasion is a gross disservice to the public. American fascist violence is here and now and escalating.

Fox News host Mark Levin’s bestseller “American Marxism”: A work of staggering ignorance

Fox News host Mark Levin’s new book, “American Marxism,” has reached the No. 1 spot on the New York Times bestseller list for hardcover nonfiction. But there appears to be a problem. Levin, best known as a right-wing radio host able to fly into a rage at any moment, has made repeated substantial errors when speaking and writing about the supposed topic of his book.

“American Marxism” largely concerns the supposed influence of post-Marxist European intellectuals in shaping the American left. Levin isn’t the first right-wing commentator to identify German émigrés like Theodor W. Adorno, Max Horkheimer, Erich Fromm and Herbert Marcuse as the source of a nefarious tendency in American life they often call “cultural Marxism.” Those figures are collectively described as belonging to the “Frankfurt School” (although the term is somewhat ambiguous).

But it’s not clear whether Levin has actually read his own book, let alone the sources he claims to identify. He has repeatedly described the Frankfurt School as the “Franklin School” — perhaps confusing it with the Franklin Mint, a venerable purveyor of “gifts and collectibles” — and has said it originated in Berlin. (As you might have surmised, the Frankfurt School actually began in the German city of Frankfurt.) 

A quick consultation with the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, a peer-reviewed resource, reveals this information: 

The Frankfurt School, known more appropriately as Critical Theory, is a philosophical and sociological movement spread across many universities around the world. It was originally located at the Institute for Social Research (Institut für Sozialforschung), an attached institute at the Goethe University in Frankfurt, Germany. The Institute was founded in 1923 thanks to a donation by Felix Weil with the aim of developing Marxist studies in Germany. After 1933, the Nazis forced its closure, and the Institute was moved to the United States where it found hospitality at Columbia University in New York City.

This easily available online resource has not prevented Levin from mischaracterizing the history of the Frankfurt School in numerous appearances on Fox News.

In a July appearance on Fox News, Levin cited the titles of several influential works by Marcuse with reasonable accuracy, including “Counterrevolution and Revolt,” “One-Dimensional Man” and “An Essay on Liberation” (which Levin called “An Essay of Liberation”). Then he went on to say:

This was very important to the New Left movement in the 1960s, the riots, the anti-war movement, and he’s the Big Daddy behind critical theory. That whole Franklin School I just talked about. This is the founding father of that movement. More on that later.

It would not be accurate to describe Marcuse as the “founding father” of the Frankfurt School, especially since he became much more famous in America in the 1960s than he had ever been in Germany. He also can’t be considered the founding father of the Franklin School, since that does not exist. (According to Wikipedia, the Franklin Mint was founded in 1964 in Wawa, Pennsylvania, by Joseph Segel, who was also the founder of QVC. Not a whole lot of overlap there either.)

That wasn’t simply a misstatement because Levin repeated the same thing in another Fox News appearance last month, an interview with Pete Hegseth. Explaining the supposed connection between the Frankfurt School and “critical race theory” (another thesis raised by other, slightly better-informed right-wing commentators), Levin said:

And so race is beautiful to exploit in this country, given our history, given the battles we have from the Civil War all the way up, and so, they developed this theory, Stanford Law School, Harvard Law School, a guy by the name of Derrick Bell and he stole it or modified it from a Marxist by the name of Marcuse who came out of Berlin, the so-called Franklin School, and they developed critical theory, which started in our law schools.

Indeed, Levin has evidently made the same mistake in his bestselling book, as CUNY philosophy grad student Sam Hoadley-Brill identified on Twitter. Levin (inaccurately and incoherently) credits Marcuse with “hatching the Critical Theory ideology from which the racial, gender and other Critical Theory-based movements were launched in America,” and calls him “a German-born Hegelian-Marxist ideologue of the Franklin School of political theorists.”

We may hope that whenever Levin takes a break from attempting to boycott goods and services he does not understand, he will correct the record with regard to the Frankfurt School. (And perhaps also the Franklin Mint, which has no known connections to Hegelian or Marxist ideology.) 

When not making massive blunders on subjects where he claims expertise, Levin has recently made allegations that employees at big-box stores and book retailers, including Target and Barnes & Noble, are surreptitiously attempting to kneecap sales of his book by refusing to stock it on shelves.


Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.


This seems implausible on its face, since “American Marxism,” howlers and all, is topping the bestseller charts and has sold more than 400,000 copies.

A Fox News spokesperson didn’t return a Salon request for comment on this story. Mark Levin could not be reached for comment on this occasion, although he has offered comments to this reporter in the past.

Update (08/26/2021): A Simon and Schuster spokesperson confirmed to Salon that a correction had been issued to the book and “will appear in future printings.”

After the fall of Kabul, mainstream media erases the real lessons

Corporate media coverage of the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan and the collapse of the country’s U.S.-backed government has offered audiences more mystification than illumination. I looked at editorials in five major U.S. dailies following the Taliban’s retaking of Kabul: the Boston Globe, Los Angeles Times, New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Washington Post. The editorial boards of these papers consistently trivialized South Asian lives, erased U.S. responsibility for lethal violence, and made untenable assertions about Washington’s supposedly righteous motives in the war.

Uncounted civilian cost

NYT: The Tragedy of Afghanistan

The New York Times (8/15/21) ran the next best thing to a photo of a helicopter taking off from the Kabul embassy roof: a photo of a helicopter flying over the embassy roof.

The editorials evince a callous indifference to the toll of the war on civilians in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where the war has also been fought. The New York Times (8/15/21) referred to “at least 2,448 American service members’ lives lost in Afghanistan,” and to “Afghan casualties so huge — 60,000 killed since 2001, by one estimate — that the government kept them a secret.” The link makes clear that the authors are talking about deaths among Afghan police and soldiers. Yet, as of April, more than 71,000 civilians — over 47,000 Afghans and more than 24,000 Pakistanis — have been directly killed in the U.S.-initiated war.

The Boston Globe’s piece (8/16/21) described “two decades of the United States propping up Afghan forces to keep the Taliban at bay at the cost of more than $2 trillion and more than 2,400 lost military service members.” Tens of thousands of dead Afghan and Pakistani civilians evidently aren’t significant enough to factor into “the cost” of the war.

“The war in Afghanistan took the lives of more than 2,400 American troops,” said the Los Angeles Times editorial (8/16/21), which went on to add, “For decades to come, America will be paying the medical bills of veterans suffering from the emotional and physical toll of their trauma and injuries.” The authors ignored dead, wounded and psychologically scarred South Asian civilians, though the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) logged 3,524 civilian injuries in the first half of 2021 alone, and 5,785 in 2020.

The Wall Street Journal (8/15/218/16/21), meanwhile, didn’t mention any deaths that took place during the war.

“Some 66,000 Afghan fighters have given their lives in this war during the past 20 years, alongside 2,448 U.S. service members,” the Washington Post (8/16/21) pointed out, declining to spare a word for noncombatants. U.S. troops, the article assured readers, “endured very modest casualties, since 2014,” without noting that the U.S. inflicted a great many on Afghan civilians in that period: For instance, a 2019 Human Rights Watch report noted that, in the first six months of that year, the U.S. and its partners in what was then the Afghan government killed more civilians than the Taliban did.

Forever war > withdrawal

WaPo: The debacle in Afghanistan is the worst kind: Avoidable

The “Afghan debacle” was “avoidable,” the Washington Post (8/16/21) argued, if only Biden had been willing to commit to an indefinite military occupation.

Two of the editorials were clear that they would prefer continuous U.S. war against Afghanistan to withdrawal. The Washington Post (8/16/21) claimed that

a small U.S. and allied military presence — capable of working with Afghan forces to deny power to the Taliban and its Al Qaeda terrorist allies, while diplomats and nongovernmental organizations nurtured a fledgling civil society — not only would have been affordable, but also could have paid for itself in U.S. security and global credibility.

Costs such as the harm the “U.S. and allied military presence” does to Afghans did not enter into the Post’s accounting for “affordability.” No explanation is offered as to why Afghans should endure the lack of “security” entailed in “U.S. and allied” bombs falling on their heads. Nor did the authors clarify why the U.S.’s “global credibility” is a higher priority than, say, stopping the U.S. from killing Afghan children, as it did last October.

The Wall Street Journal (8/15/21) professed concern for the “thousands of translators, their families, and other officials who are in peril from Taliban rule and didn’t get out in time,” and said that what it sees as the impending “murder of these innocents” will be a “stain on the Biden presidency.” Yet the authors argued that the U.S. should continue bombing Afghanistan indefinitely, asserting that

Afghans were willing to fight and take casualties with the support of the U.S. and its NATO allies, especially airpower. A few thousand troops and contractors could have done the job and prevented this rout.

Over the course of the war, that airpower tended to mean the mass death of Afghan civilians: In 2019, for example, U.S. airstrikes killed 546 of them (Washington Post, 9/4/21). In advocating the continued American bombing of Afghanistan to stop the “murder of these innocents,” the authors are calling for the “murder of … innocents,” just by the U.S. rather than the Taliban.

The “American dream”

LAT: The Afghan government's collapse is tragic. It was also inevitable

The Los Angeles Times (8/16/21) praised the U.S.’s “noble hopes to build a multiparty democracy,” insisting that “the people of Afghanistan were failed by their leaders.”

The New York Times’ editorial board (8/15/21) gushed about the purity of U.S. values, saying that the Taliban’s return to power is

unutterably tragic. Tragic because the American dream of being the “indispensable nation” in shaping a world where the values of civil rights, women’s empowerment and religious tolerance rule proved to be just that: a dream.

The editors did nothing to explain how they square their view that the U.S. “dream” entails worldwide “civil rights” and “women’s empowerment” with the U.S. carrying out torture in Afghanistan or its propensity for killing Afghan women (Guardian, 7/11/08).

The board went on:

How [the war] evolved into a two-decade nation-building project in which as many as 140,000 troops under American command were deployed at one time is a story of mission creep and hubris, but also of the enduring American faith in the values of freedom and democracy.

That faith in “freedom” was manifest by such practices as training warlords who killed and abused civilians, and propping up an Afghan state that included officials who sexually assaulted children — actions that U.S. troops were told to ignore, as the New York Times (9/21/15) itself reported.

Similarly, the Los Angeles Times (8/16/21) claimed that

the U.S. and its Western allies had noble hopes to build a multiparty democracy — with respect for the rights of women and minorities, an independent judiciary and a new constitution — but nation-building was not an appropriate goal.

It’s anyone’s guess how the paper reconciles the U.S. and its partners’ “noble hopes” for such things as “respect for the rights of women” with the U.S. working with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to finance and arm extremely conservative forces in Afghanistan, so as to undermine progressives in the country while strengthening reactionary elements, a history (described in Robert Dreyfuss’ book “Devil’s Game“) that all the editorials obscure.

Swallowing official justifications

WSJ: Biden's Afghanistan Surrender

The Wall Street Journal (8/15/21) argued that “Mr. Trump’s withdrawal deadline was a mistake, but Mr. Biden could have maneuvered around it” — meaning he could have ignored it.

Indeed, the editorials suffered from a basic failure to question the official justifications offered for the war and occupation. The New York Times editorial board (8/15/21) wrote that

the war in Afghanistan began in response by the United States and its NATO allies to the attacks of September 11, 2001, as an operation to deny Al Qaeda sanctuary in a country run by the Taliban.

There’s no place in that narrative for the fact that eight days into the war, in October 2001, the Taliban offered to discuss turning over Osama bin Laden (Guardian, 10/14/01). The Journal characterized the Taliban as “the jihadists the U.S. toppled 20 years ago for sheltering Osama bin Laden.” But it was in mid-November 2001 (Guardian, 11/17/01) that the U.S. toppled the Taliban, a month after they had said they were willing to talk about extraditing bin Laden.

In the same vein, the Los Angeles Times editorial (8/16/21) said that

after the U.S. ousted the Taliban — which had hosted the Al Qaeda terrorist network and refused to turn over terrorists such as Osama bin Laden — the George W. Bush administration expanded the goals of the mission in ways that in hindsight were never realistic.

This phrasing implies that the U.S. overthrew the Taliban because they “refused to turn over terrorists such as Osama bin Laden.” However, in addition to the Taliban signaling that it could be open to extraditing the al-Qaida leader in October 2001, according to a former head of Saudi intelligence (Los Angeles Times, 11/4/01), the Taliban said in 1998 that it would hand over bin Laden to Saudi Arabia, the U.S.’s close ally; the Saudi intelligence official says the Taliban backed off after the U.S. fired cruise missiles at an apparent bin Laden camp in Afghanistan and a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan, following attacks on U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania attributed to al-Qaida.

The outlets thus failed to inform their readers that, had the U.S. pursued negotiations for bin Laden’s extradition, Afghans may have been spared 20 years of devastating war. That U.S. planners might have drawn up their Afghanistan policies with a view to the country’s vast resource wealth and strategic position — and there’s evidence that they did (In These Times, 8/1/18) — is not a perspective that the editorials opted to share with their readers. Neither is the idea that the U.S. doesn’t have the right to decide who governs other countries.

Engineering forgetfulness about America’s Afghan war, if left unchallenged, will make it easier to wage the next one.

An alternative that could keep immigrants out of detention — and transform U.S. immigration system

“It’s solidarity, not charity,” said Grace Kindeke, who helps people recently released from immigration detention with housing, food, legal and health services in her community of Concord, New Hampshire.

Immigrants come to the United States looking for safety and stability. But instead, many find confusion navigating the complexity of the immigration system, said Kindeke, who works with the nonprofit American Friends Service Committee.

Language barriers, limited cash and the federal government’s reliance on detention can prevent recently arrived migrants from getting a lawyer, understanding their legal obligations and settling into a new community, especially if they’re dealing with trauma, Kindeke said.

In her experience, immigrants are highly motivated to comply with government requirements, as long as they understand what’s being asked of them and have the basics to get by.

Hundreds of community groups are currently providing services, and most are ready to expand, according to a nationwide survey by the American Immigration Council. But they’re still waiting on support from the new president.

When Joe Biden entered the White House six months ago, he promised to shift money out of immigration enforcement and reinvest in community case management services that “enable migrants to live in dignity and safety while awaiting their court hearings.”

The president’s plan was to support community groups, like Kindeke’s, and facilitate access to doctor visits, school enrollment for children and other social services that help migrants meet their legal obligations without the need to detain them.

“The cost of supporting immigrants is a lot less than the cost of incarcerating them or even the cost of the tech that is used to monitor and surveil them,” said Kindeke.

But so far, Biden’s administration and the Democrat-led Congress are funneling the lion’s share of taxpayer money for “alternatives to detention” into an existing for-profit surveillance program — while spending little on community services.

Nonetheless, the U.S. government is making an important shift, advocates told Capital & Main. This year, Biden’s administration will test a new method for distributing money to community groups already providing help. If the government learns from past pitfalls and promising international models, the new approach could help transform the country’s immigration system, advocates said.

“An important shift”

Progressive lawmakers like Representative Ayanna Pressley are joining advocates in calling on Biden and congressional colleagues to “divert billions in immigration enforcement funding to humane programs that help our communities without hurting them.”

But the U.S. government’s recent budget plans expand detention and surveillance — which have an established infrastructure and support from powerful government and corporate interests — rather than shifting significant resources into community-run services, Capital & Main has found.

Congress recently gave Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the country’s largest law enforcement agency, a big boost for its two-decade-old “alternatives to detention” program.

ICE got $440 million for “alternatives” in the 2021 budget year ending next month. This includes an $85 million increase to expand privately run surveillance, and $25 million to fund community groups providing case management services. The Biden administration is asking Congress to keep funding steady in the upcoming budget year.

Getting that money in the right hands will be challenging, advocates said. For decades, the U.S. government has been building up the infrastructure to detain tens of thousands of immigrants on any given day. There is no equivalent infrastructure for case management, said Randy Capps, who directs U.S. research at the Migration Policy Institute.

“ICE tends to deal with it institutionally as an all or nothing. Either you detain or you catch and release,” Capps said. As a law enforcement agency, ICE doesn’t have the experience, training or mindset to provide social services, he added.

In the past, when Congress has given ICE money for alternatives, the agency has hired private prison companies and rarely referred people in its custody for outside services.

This time around, the U.S. government will try a new approach.

Congress set aside $5 million for a Department of Homeland Security watchdog agency, the Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, to test a method for distributing grants directly to local community groups and nonprofits.

DHS declined to answer Capital & Main’s questions but said it “is currently developing this pilot program, and an official launch date is pending. We will provide information on the program and how it will be administered once it’s launched.”

The congressional budget bills say the pilot project will be modeled after a longstandingFederal Emergency Management Agency program that uses a national board to divvy out funds to humanitarian groups, including some helping migrants in the southern border states of Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas. The Biden administration also recently asked FEMA to help process child migrants arriving at the border.

Congress expects for the new pilot program to include legal and cultural orientation, social services like mental health care and help reintegrating for those deported.

“That feels like an important shift,” said Katharina Obser, a senior policy adviser for the Women’s Refugee Commission’s Migrant Rights and Justice program. But “given the limited funding that it has and the little information that we have about it right now, I think it really remains to be seen whether that program is going to be set up for success,” Obser said.

Some advocates are concerned that although this new program won’t be run by ICE, it is still under the purview of an enforcement-minded department.

“We need to remove resources away from the bloated DHS budget and into alternative places,” said Layla Razavi, the deputy executive director of the California volunteer group Freedom for Immigrants.

Agencies like the Office of Refugee Resettlement and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services are better equipped to provide assistance to migrants, Razavi said.

Looking at the budgets for the next two years, the Defund Hate Coalition, a network of advocacy groups, said it is “extremely disappointed” that Congress is not planning significant cuts to immigration enforcement.

“Imagine what you could do with that money in creating welcoming centers and in funding [alternative to detention] programs and staffing them with social workers and trauma specialists and health care professionals and asylum officers,” said Vicki Gaubeca, who directs the Southern Border Communities Coalition, a member of Defund Hate.

One service already has widespread public support: government-funded attorneys for immigrants. In 2022, Biden is asking Congress to invest $15 million in pro bono legal representation for families and vulnerable individuals, as well as $23 million for Department of Justice legal orientation programs. Currently, there are two such programs already operating, the Unaccompanied Children’s Program and the National Qualified Representative Program, which advocates say could be models for expansion.

Past pilot “successes” 

With the Biden administration testing a new way of funding community-run services for immigrants, advocates told Capital & Main that lessons learned from the U.S. government’s past attempts, international studies and community experiences can help avoid pitfalls.

The U.S. government has tried collaborating with community groups several times over the years to guide immigrants through the legal process. The programs measured effectiveness by compliance, such as ensuring that immigrants attend their court hearings and obey deportation orders. By those metrics, the government deemed its past pilot projects successful. But advocates say this enforcement-minded approach is less effective than providing services, as the government is now attempting to do.

“Programs that are designed to help people navigate — rather than to scare them or track their movements — make the system fairer for the people going through it,” said Caitlin Bellis, an attorney with the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild. Case management approaches are “less intrusive into [immigrants’] lives and let them maintain and make ties with community.”

Even without services, people released from immigration detention overwhelmingly attend their hearings, especially if they have an attorney, according to an American Immigration Council analysis of government data. Studies show that offering legal representation and other help to migrants incentivizes them to stay in regular contact, attend court hearings and comply with government orders, even if that means being deported.

This has been true for decades. As early as 1997, the U.S. government hired the nonprofit Vera Institute for Justice to pilot a community supervision program for ICE’s predecessor, the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Vera’s evaluation showed that almost all participants attended their hearings and complied with court rulings.

“Reducing reliance on detention would allow the U.S. government to treat each immigrant more fairly and humanely, save taxpayer money, and successfully maintain compliance with court proceedings,” according to a Vera factsheet.

From 2012 to 2015, the faith-based group Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Services ran several more pilot programs that screened vulnerable people for release from detention and helped families find housing and legal services. Again, participants almost always showed up in court.

“This isn’t about catch and release. This is about needing to make sure that people are set up to succeed in the immigration process,” said Obser, who has researched past U.S. government attempts to test community case management.

When ICE tried case management, the agency couldn’t let go of its enforcement mindset or focus on immigrants’ needs, Obser said.

Just before Barack Obama left office, his administration launched the Family Case Management Program, which hired private prison giant GEO Group to track asylum-seeking families as their cases wound through the courts. ICE’s metrics showed the program effectively ensured participants showed up for their check-ins and court hearings. The pilot program did not provide resources like housing, schooling or job placement.

The Trump administration cut the program short in 2017.

At the time, ICE said that although Family Case Management was cheaper than detention, it was still more expensive than the agency’s privately run electronic monitoring system. The agency also said the program wasn’t achieving enough deportations, which it considered a key measure of success. Many of the case management participants hadn’t yet gotten a court ruling because immigration courts prioritize the cases of detainees.

Obser believes the program “was ended for political reasons.”

The Trump administration shut down case management for migrant families just as it was introducing its controversial zero tolerance and family separation policies.

“These supports actually address the root issues”

With the U.S. government faltering over the years on case management and continuing to increase detention, many community groups told Capital & Main that they’ve had to tailor their services to the traumas and challenges of post-release. Now, as Biden’s administration looks to support communities, they hope the government will learn from their on-the-ground experience and decades of studies.

Razavi of Freedom for Immigrants said her group previously helped recently arrived asylum seekers and longtime U.S. residents alike through a pilot sponsorship program. They helped track notices to appear, organized translation and interpretation services at court hearings and kept ICE updated about address changes, which are frequent for people recently released. They’ve also worked with local groups that provide food, shelter and bus fare to people released from detention, and they are launching a pilot project to provide mental health support.

All of these services are currently volunteer and donation driven, but could fit the scope of the government’s new investment model.

It’s cheaper, more humane and effective to guide immigrants through the legal process than it is to arrest and detain them, according to decades of international studies and guidance from rights organizations like the United Nations.

Globally, more than 60 countries have tested alternatives to detention, according to a studyby the International Detention Coalition, a network of hundreds of groups advocating to reduce immigration detention. Case management was the most successful alternative the researchers found for maintaining compliance while improving the health and wellbeing of participants.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, many countries have also been spurred by public health and economic concerns to release migrants from detention and keep track of them in different ways. The United Nations is encouraging governments to embrace that momentumand make alternatives to detention the norm.

“These supports actually address the root issues that folks are finding themselves falling into that make it so that they’re not able to comply,” said Kindeke. “Immigrants need the same types of support systems that any other human being living in the United States or any other country needs.”

Copyright 2021 Capital & Main

Biden administration threatens to claw back federal cash if AZ’s ban on mask mandates goes through

On Thursday, KGUN reported that the Biden administration is threatening to take back $163 million in federal grants to Arizona if Republican Gov. Doug Ducey follows through with a plan to distribute it only to school districts that do not impose mask mandates.

“The Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education and the Treasury Department are backing up Congressman Raul Grijalva’s opinion that Governor Ducey may be breaking the law with his plan to stop school districts from imposing mask mandates,” reported Craig Smith. “Treasury says if he doesn’t reverse course the Federal Government may force Arizona to give back the grant money.”

Grijalva argued to Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona in a letter that Ducey’s plan subverts the intent of federal funds marked to help schools reopen safely with minimal COVID-19 spread — and that he wants the Education and Justice Departments to make a formal ruling on whether Ducey’s plan is illegal.

This report comes as the Biden administration is moving to crack down on Republican-controlled state governments that have declared war on public health officials for imposing COVID-19 safety measures.

When Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) threatened to revoke the salaries of school superintendents who defy his executive order banning mask mandates, the Biden administration announced they could pay these superintendents directly and go around the governor. Several counties in Florida are moving forward with some form of mask requirements, including Miami-Dade and Broward Counties, two large, urban counties in the southern part of the state.

Tucker Carlson: Backlash against unvaccinated equivalent to racist lynch mobs

After a year of Fox News pushing debunked conspiracy theories about masks and vaccines, host Tucker Carlson is complaining about the backlash against people who are still refusing to get vaccinated.

More than 70 percent of eligible Americans have received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine — but many vaccinated people have been lashing out at the unvaccinated, whom they say are causing hospital shortages in red states.

In response, the anti-vaxxers have complained about being ostracized for helping the pandemic spread.

On Thursday night, Carlson likened the backlash against anti-science conservatives to lynchings.

“Unfortunately, the entire country is being manipulated by highly clever, ruthless people who are harnessing the worst qualities in human nature,” the Fox personality said, alleging some grand conspiracy.

“You know, lynchings have happened throughout history — not just simply in this country, but in all countries — because there’s something in people that wants to turn on the unpopular kid and beat him to death — that’s like, who we are, it’s the ugliest part of who we are,” said the Fox host, perhaps revealing more about his bullying nature than the mindset of scientists promoting public health measures to save lives.

“And if you have ruthless leaders who are willing to exploit that for their own gain — and we do — then they end up turning the population against itself,” said the infamously divisive Fox News personality.

“Vaccinated, unvaccinated — white, Black. These divisions, which we didn’t recognize a year ago are now defining our lives,” he said, apparently denying there were racial divisions in America prior to the pandemic.

“And we’re being used. I mean, that’s the truth, if you want to subdue people, divide them and that’s exactly what they’re doing,” Carlson said, in a way that once again may have revealed more about his own approach to government and public health measures.

Facebook purges accounts linked to anti-vax “disinformation dozen”: report

On Thursday, CNN reported that Facebook has announced action against an infamous group of pages known as the “disinformation dozen” by restricting and locking dozens of accounts and groups associated with them.

The “disinformation dozen” are a group of 12 people who, according to a study conducted earlier this year, are responsible for 73 percent of all anti-vaccine propaganda spreading on Facebook.

“In making the announcement, Monika Bickert, vice president of content policy at Facebook, pushed back against the narrative that the twelve accounts were primarily responsible for the spread of vaccine misinformation, writing that focusing on them ‘misses the forest for the trees,'” reported Oliver Darcy. “But, Bickert said, ‘Any amount of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation that violates our policies is too much by our standards — and we have removed over three dozen Pages, groups and Facebook or Instagram accounts linked to these 12 people, including at least one linked to each of the 12 people, for violating our policies.'”

Among the “disinformation dozen” are Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has pushed anti-vaccine falsehoods for years; Dr. Joseph Mercola, a Florida-based osteopathic physician and top purveyor of alternative and supplement-based health remedies; and Dr. Sherri Tenpenny, who attracted national attention after telling a group of Ohio lawmakers that vaccines turn people into magnets.

Facebook has frequently been criticized for a lack of initiative in removing disinformation from its social network. In recent weeks, the company has sought to crack down, including removing a Russia-based anti-vax propaganda network. Some anti-vax activists, however, are going underground, using code words to continue to spread falsehoods and evade content moderation.

The war against COVID-19 was fought with weapons developed to battle HIV

Harvard immunologist Dr. Bruce Walker first heard whispers of the coming pandemic while teaching a course on HIV to MIT undergraduates in South Africa. One of his students, who had recently returned from visiting family in the Chinese city of Wuhan, recounted the state of affairs in grisly detail.

As the student relayed, she had been “getting text messages from her parents saying that something really drastic is going on there,” Walker recalled to Salon.

At the same time, one of his student’s phones began blowing up. It belonged to Diana Brainard, at that time the senior vice president for emerging pathogens at the pharmaceutical company Gilead, and one of Walker’s guests in the course. She was getting phone calls from experts asking her to release a drug called Remdesivir, to see if it would work against this new kind of pneumonia that appeared to be due to a novel coronavirus.

These were Walker’s first hints that his life was about to radically change. And though the COVID-19 pandemic wasn’t caused by the HIV virus, Walker knew his research could be of great use. A year and a half later, it turns out he was right: the COVID-19 vaccines, among other novel coronavirus treatments, owe a great debt to years of HIV research. 

The versatility of HIV research in its larger applications to medical science is not widely known. Yet there is a glut of research into virology stemming from the intense effort, spanning decades, to try to unlock the mysteries of the human immunodeficiency virus — an effort that spans many different subfields within medicine. Hence, the decades-long fight against HIV has yielded numerous insights into fighting other diseases, and creating treatments for other conditions.

In the early days of COVID-19, the first step in defeating the virus was finding its weakness. Here, too, previous HIV research was useful. According to Dr. Michael Farzan, chair of immunology and microbiology at the Scripps Research Institute, because researchers had a “deep understanding of why HIV is a hard vaccine to make,” and understood that, in contrast, SARS-CoV-2 would be an “an easy vaccine to make.”

“Both viruses use a very similar kind of protein that you’ve seen many times,” Farzan told Salon. “SARS-CoV-2 and HIV both have a glycoprotein that they use to enter cells, and that is the primary target of these vaccines. There are very strong similarities between the entry processes of these two viruses, and several other kinds of viruses including the flu, but there are also some very clear distinctions that make SARS-CoV-2 but not HIV vulnerable to vaccines that we are using now.”

In the case of his own research, Farzan was able to help identify an important feature related to the ACE2 receptor for SARS-CoV-1, or SARS, as that virus is known. ACE2 receptors are specific proteins that allows coronavirus to infect human cell; they exist in SARS-CoV-2, or the novel coronavirus, too. 

“The unique property is the thing that binds the receptor, not on the receptor,” Farzan explained. “In the case of SARS, it is independently folded and exposed and prominent. In the case of HIV, the part that binds the receptor is sort of embedded in a canyon that antibodies can’t get access to.”

The fight against HIV also helped scientists develop mRNA vaccines, which were used by companies like Pfizer and Moderna to create effective inoculations against COVID-19. These vaccines use synthetic RNA molecules to train cells to produce proteins similar to those in the pathogens (disease-causing microorganisms) that you are meant to be inoculated against; this is in contrast to traditional vaccine platforms, which use a weakened or dead sample or part of the pathogen itself. 

As Farzan told Salon, these vaccines are “just one of the silver linings of the COVID-19 pandemic, the manner in which that was propelled forward.”


Want more health and science stories in your inbox? Subscribe to Salon’s weekly newsletter The Vulgar Scientist.


It also helped that the decades of virology research for fighting AIDS had left the government with vaccines that could immediately be repurposed to develop medicines against COVID-19. 

Dr. William Haseltine, a biologist renowned for his work in confronting the HIV/AIDS epidemic, as well as the chair and president of the global health think tank Access Health International, noted that “a number of different technologies were pioneered in efforts to develop HIV vaccines.” “In addition,” he added, “national and international vaccine clinical trial networks were constructed and operational. All were important for rapid development, testing and analysis of the safety and efficacy of COVID vaccines.”

Scientists would also be able to test these vaccines on thousands of people with remarkable speed because the international network had already been created by HIV researchers. Likewise, officials found a system in place to quickly approve programs for developing new drugs — all because HIV researchers had insisted that the state have the capacity to move quickly in the event that any serious manmade or natural disease suddenly swept through the masses.

There is a long history of research against disease research helping scientists in unexpected ways that predates the emergence of HIV.

“Just as cancer research facilitated rapid understanding of HIV, HIV has facilitated rapid progress on COVID-19 and finding treatments for COVID-19,” Haseltine told Salon. As he explained, Richard Nixon made the fateful decision as president to fund anti-cancer programs that explored the possibility of the disease being caused by a virus. Years of ensuing research eventually helped scientists figure out how to treat victims of HIV, the virus behind the AIDS epidemic. Just as a direct line could be drawn between the anti-cancer programs of the 1970s and the anti-AIDS researchers in the 1980s, so too did many of those scientists move on to fight SARS-CoV-1, colloquially known as “SARS,” when that virus hit the world in 2003.

Inevitably, then, many of those same experts were asked to study SARS-CoV-2, the novel coronavirus that causes COVID-19, in 2020.

“The result was very rapid progress,” Haseltine explained. Notably, Dr. Anthony Fauci, President Joe Biden’s chief medical adviser, spent much of his career researching HIV. 

If there is a primary lesson in the fact that our war against COVID-19 has been fought with weapons developed in the battle against HIV, it is that we can never predict when, where or how a new disease will emerge — or what previous research might be used to fight it. The work against these menaces never stops, even when we aren’t paying attention to them — and that is how, in the cases of the viruses HIV and SARS-CoV-2, the war against one provided weapons for the fight against the other.

“By working so hard against a nearly impossible vaccine to make, we developed incredible tools and insight that made a rapid COVID-19 vaccine possible,” Farzan told Salon by email. Reflecting on how the HIV and SARS-CoV-2 viruses “couldn’t be more different in their vulnerability to a vaccine,” he added that while SARS-CoV-2’s emphasis on efficient transmission makes it vulnerable to our immune responses, “HIV-1 is specialized in hunkering down in the face of a vigorous immune attack, and ‘knows’ our immune systems better than we do.”

With more funding and research, it is entirely possible that one day that will no longer be true of HIV, just as it is becoming increasingly untrue of SARS-CoV-2.

Alarming comments Mike Richards made that have resurfaced continue to cast a shadow over “Jeopardy!”

Nearly a week after “Jeopardy!” announced executive producer Mike Richards and actress Mayim Bialik would be the show’s new hosts, alarming comments made by Richards have been unearthed. On the podcast, “The Randumb Show,” which Richards hosted from 2013 to 2014, the Ringer reports he regularly made a number of sexist and concerning comments about women’s bodies, along with anti-Semitic, racist and classist comments.

[UPDATE: As of Friday, Aug. 31, Mike Richards has been fired from “Jeopardy!” in the capacity of executive producer, 11 days after he stepped down as host.]

In 2014, amid an iCloud hack that exposed several female celebrities’ nude photos, Richards pressed his female co-host, Beth Triffon, about whether she’d taken nude photos of herself. The report shares some audio of the dialogues in question but not in all instances.

“Answer it right now to your fans,” Richards tells Triffon. “Have you?” Triffon responds that she hasn’t, but Richards insists, “Yes you have.” When Triffon says that she’s taken “cute pictures of myself,” Richards asks, “Like boobie pictures?” 

The Ringer also reports that in one episode, when a guest brought up big noses, Richards chimed in speaking in pig Latin: “Ix-nay on the ose-nay,” and, “She’s not an ew-Jay.” 

The report also alleges that Richards made disparaging comments about Triffon’s sexuality when she brought up her work as a model at CES, an annual technology trade show. He also allegedly said Triffon’s friends looked “fat” for wearing one-piece swimsuits in a photo of them at the lake, and joked about giving her roommate a “smack.”

In another episode, Richards reportedly responds to Triffon’s complaints about problems in her apartment by saying, “Does Beth live, like, in Haiti? Doesn’t it sound like that? Like, the urine smell, the woman in the muumuu, the stray cats.”

Richards also reportedly praised “the average white-guy host,” saying, “I cheer for him to succeed because I feel like through his success, I could have some success hosting,” he added. Of “American Idol” host Ryan Seacrest, Richards said, “He’s actually made the world a safer place for what I like to call the ‘skinny White host.’ “

While “Jeopardy!” hasn’t commented on Ringer’s report, Richards has shared a statement apologizing for the podcast to Entertainment Weekly. The statement reads, “It is humbling to confront a terribly embarrassing moment of misjudgment, thoughtlessness, and insensitivity from nearly a decade ago. Looking back now, there is no excuse, of course, for the comments I made on this podcast and I am deeply sorry.”

According to Richards, he intended for “The Randumb Show” to be “a series of irreverent conversations between longtime friends,” but “my attempts to be funny and provocative were not acceptable.” He’s since removed the podcast from the internet. 

Late Thursday, the Anti-Defamation League tweeted out a call for an investigation: “New Jeopardy! host Mike Richards’ disparaging remarks about Jews, women & Asians are no laughing matter. Stereotyping is an entry point to hate and his apology lacks acknowledgment of its harm. This reported pattern warrants an investigation.”

The added scandal of Richards allegedly making these disparaging and insensitive comments on his podcast follows weeks of controversy over previous lawsuits against Richards while he hosted “The Price is Right.” One of the lawsuits alleges Richards retaliated against a pregnant worker on the show, while the other comes from a model on the show who says she was wrongfully terminated and routinely berated and humiliated by Richards and other producers.

The revelations from Richards’ old podcast raise a number of questions, including, among others, what an adult man was doing speaking pig Latin. But “Jeopardy!” has stood by Richards through the past controversies, and seems likely to support him through this. Still, all of the scrutiny and controversy attached to Richards certainly leaves a dark cloud hanging over the beloved trivia show, as it begins filming new episodes this week — and it’s a dark cloud that certainly wasn’t hanging over the show when the late, great Alex Trebek was host.

Fox News issues company-wide policy requiring employees to disclose vaccine status

Fox News – whose guests and hosts have for months railed against vaccine mandates and sowed doubt over the importance of public health precautions – has issued an update to its COVID protocols requiring all of its employees to disclose their vaccination status. 

According to an internal memo first obtained by Adweek, the network is asking all of its employees to submit their vaccination status through its HR system “Workday,” citing the need “for space planning and contact tracing purposes in conjunction with DCD/state city health and safety guidelines.”

“All employees must enter their status no later than today, August 17th, by close of business,” Fox News Media chief executive Suzanne Scott wrote in a memo. The company, she added, is also “requiring employees to wear a mask in small, confined spaces with limited opportunities for social distancing and where there are multiple employees, including control rooms.”

The memo further notes that masks are optional for vaccinated employees, though they are nevertheless “strongly encouraged in public areas throughout the building.”


Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.


Back in June, Fox News had told its employees that declaring themselves vaccinated would earn them a “FOX Clearpass,” Newsweek noted, which reportedly allows staffers to work without a mask or social distancing. Unvaccinated staffers, meanwhile, had to undergo a “WorkCare Daily Screen.”

The revelation sheds light on the apparently wide rift between the conservative channel’s internal policies and the rhetoric of its most strident personalities.

Over the past several months, Fox News has repeatedly castigated “vaccine passports” – which allow Americans access into certain businesses and events on the basis of their vaccination status – as a step toward American authoritarianism.

Tucker Carlson, perhaps the network’s premier purveyor of vaccine skepticism, once claimed that asking for someone’s vaccination status is a “super vulgar personal question,” likening it to asking what someone’s favorite sex position is. 

Carlson has also compared workplace vaccine mandates to forced sterilization and called for “civil disobedience” against mask mandates, suggesting that child mask mandates constitute child abuse.

“As for forcing children to wear masks outside, that should be illegal,” he said in an April broadcast. “Your response when you see children wearing masks as they play should be no different from your response to seeing someone beat a kid in Walmart. Call the police immediately, contact child protective services. Keep calling until someone arrives. “What you’re looking at is abuse, it’s child abuse, and you are morally obligated to attempt to prevent it.”

On Thursday, a Media Matters analysis found that “57% of Fox News’ coronavirus vaccine segments from June 28 through July 11 included statements that undercut immunization efforts.” 

By late July, however, a number of Fox hosts had done a slight about-face on vaccines following a White House report that the Biden administration had reached out to the channel asking it to tone down its rhetoric.