Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

Mike Pence and Benjamin Netanyahu pushed Donald Trump to bomb Iran after losing the election: rpt

Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley was reportedly worried that Donald Trump might declare war on Iran as part of a last-ditch attempt to overturn his election loss, according to a New Yorker report on Thursday. 

Miley was “engaged in an alarmed effort to ensure that Trump did not embark on a military conflict with Iran as part of his quixotic campaign to overturn the results of the 2020 election and remain in power,” journalist Susan B. Glasser wrote. “Trump had a circle of Iran hawks around him and was close with the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu,” she continued, “who was also urging the Administration to act against Iran after it was clear that Trump had lost the election.”

The report stems from a forthcoming book by Glasser and her husband, New York Times reporter Peter Baker. It echoes bombshell allegations in another forthcoming book by two Washington Post reporters. 

According to Glasser, the former president had floated the idea of engaging militarily with Iran on a number of occasions during his final months in the presidency. His proposals, the book’s authors wrote, reflected Trump’s seeming willingness “to do anything to stay in power.”

During one meeting in which the president was not present, Milley pressed former Vice President Mike Pence on “why they were so intent on attacking [Iran].”

Pence reportedly answered: “Because they are evil.”

In another episode, after weeks of the former president “pushing for a missile strike in response to various provocations against U.S. interests in the region” following his election loss, Milley told Trump point-blank: “If you do this, you’re gonna have a f—ing war.”

By early January, it appeared, Trump had been successfully subdued when former National Security Adviser Robert O’Brien and former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo both told the former president in a White House meeting that they were against military action. Walking Trump through the potential pros and cons of a military engagement, Pompeo and O’Brien told the former president that “too late to hit them.”

Last month, the New York Times revealed that in early 2020 Netanyahu had given the former president a “hit list” of Iranian targets for him to consider. One of these targets, a suspected nuclear production plant, was in fact the very factory that the U.S. attacked with a drone strike in June.

U.S. tensions with Iran – already simmering under former President Obama – were significantly exacerbated during the Trump administration. On top of withdrawing from the Iranian nuclear deal back in 2018, Trump applied severe sanctions on the country, which have proven to be crippling to Iran’s economy. In January of 2020, Trump also ordered the assassination of Iran’s top general, Qassem Soleimani – a move that nearly engaged the U.S. in a full-fledged war.

Joe Manchin, Green New Deal critic, made nearly $500K last year from coal lobby: report

Sen. Joe Manchin on Wednesday night expressed concerns about the climate action proposed in the Democratic Party’s $3.5 trillion reconciliation package. What the conservative Democrat didn’t mention is that he profits—to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars annually—from selling coal to power plants in his home state of West Virginia.

Moments after President Joe Biden met with Senate Democrats to discuss the party’s newly unveiled framework for infrastructure and social welfare spending, Manchin told CNN that he is “very, very disturbed” by the inclusion of climate provisions that he believes would spell the end for dirty energy extraction in the U.S.

Progressives “have the climate portion in here, and I’m concerned about that,” said Manchin. “Because if they’re eliminating fossils, and I’m finding out there’s a lot of language in places they’re eliminating fossils, which is very, very disturbing, because if you’re sticking your head in the sand, and saying that fossil [fuel] has to be eliminated in America, and they want to get rid of it, and thinking that’s going to clean up the global climate, it won’t clean it up [at] all. If anything, it would be worse.”

In response, investigative reporter Alex Kotch, who characterized Manchin’s comments as “Fox News-level climate change denial,” accused the lawmaker of “lying to us about climate change to protect his annual profits and the wealth of his family.”

That was a reference to recent reporting in Sludge, which revealed that:

Manchin earns hundreds of thousands of dollars each year through coal sales to power plants that supply Edison Electric Institute member companies. His family company, Enersystems, is a contractor of American Bituminous Power Partners (AmBit), a coal power plant located near Grant Town, W.V. that provides energy to Monogahela Power Company, according to documents from the West Virginia Public Services Commission (PSC). Also known as Mon Power, the electric company is a subsidiary of energy giant FirstEnergy and an EEI member.

Manchin founded the coal brokerage Enersystems in 1988 and helped run the company, handing control to his son Joseph upon being elected West Virginia secretary of state in 2000 and reportedly moving his holdings into a blind trust between 2005 and 2010. In Manchin’s most recent financial disclosure, covering the fiscal year 2020, he reports that his non-public shares of Enersystems, a “contract services and material provider for utility plants,” are worth between $1 million and $5 million, and sent him an income of $492,000. His total income from the company since joining the Senate is more than $4.5 million.

While Manchin on Wednesday compared moving rapidly toward an energy system based entirely on renewables to “sticking your head in the sand” and even made the baseless claim that doing so could make global warming “worse,” the International Energy Agency warned in May that averting the most catastrophic effects of the climate emergency depends on keeping fossil fuels in the ground and shutting down the world’s existing oil, gas, and coal operations as quickly as possible.

The West Virginia Democrat is currently spearheading a bipartisan energy bill that would prevent the U.S. from doing its fair share to limit the rise in the average global temperature to 1.5°C above preindustrial levels. According to progressive critics, the Manchin-led Energy Infrastructure Act proposes spending 70 times more on dirty than clean energy and diverts attention from the need to immediately slash heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions by promoting unproven carbon capture and storage technologies.

Given its razor-thin Senate majority, the Democratic caucus must convince Manchin and other conservative Democrats to back the reconciliation bill if it has any chance of passing with a simple-majority vote, a task likely to prove difficult.

In a recently leaked video, an ExxonMobil lobbyist identified Manchin and other so-called “moderates” as key to the fossil fuel corporation’s strategy of undermining legislative efforts to reduce carbon pollution.

As the leaked Exxon exposé made clear, Manchin isn’t the only federal lawmaker who poses a threat to decarbonization. According to Sludge, “Members of Congress had $93 million invested in fossil fuel industry stocks as of December 2019.”

Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.), who on Thursday introduced the Green New Deal for Public Schools Act, issued a warning to those who remain opposed to addressing the climate crisis with the urgency that scientists and justice advocates have said is necessary, even as extreme weather-linked disasters are increasing in frequency, duration, and intensity.

“History will remember this moment,” Bowman told the Washington Post.

“You have parts of the country that are reaching 118 degrees, parts of the country have never been that hot, recent storms on the East Coast, massive flood and destruction of property—I mean, climate change is here, and it’s real,” said Bowman. “I encourage my colleagues to be on the right side of history.”

“This about their legacy, and all of our legacies,” he added. “How do we respond to the climate crisis that’s right in front of us? History will tell the story of who answered that question correctly.”

Trump’s generals weren’t the only ones: Did Mike Pence fear a coup too?

Back in 2016, candidate Donald Trump made it very clear that as president he would not hesitate to order the military to torture prisoners. On March 3rd of that year, in a presidential primary debate, Fox News anchor Brett Baier noted that over 100 foreign policy experts had signed an open letter refusing to support him because his “expansive use of torture” is inexcusable, declaring that the military would refuse because they have been trained to refuse illegal orders.

Baier asked Trump, “so what would you do, as commander-in-chief, if the U.S. military refused to carry out those orders?”

“They won’t refuse,” Trump arrogantly replied. “They’re not going to refuse me. Believe me.”

He went on to rant about terrorists “chopping off heads” and how he would go beyond waterboarding, ending with this:

And — and — and — I’m a leader. I’m a leader. I’ve always been a leader. I’ve never had any problem leading people. If I say do it, they’re going to do it. That’s what leadership is all about.

He walked back his comment the next day with a perfunctory statement promising not to give an illegal order but it was clear that he was utterly ignorant of the president’s constitutional limits and saw himself as a would-be dictator. And throughout his presidency, he said over and over again that he had the power to do anything he chose, parroting what one of his flunkies told him about “Article II” of the constitution:

Nobody took him very seriously, to be sure, because it was ridiculous. And with the exception of regularly firing members of his administration, until the final year of his term, he tended to push the boundaries of his power mostly by breaking long-standing norms and corruptly abusing his office for political and financial gain which he did frequently. But as he faced re-election in the midst of the COVID pandemic, which he had no idea how to handle, and the humiliating prospect of losing re-election (along with the legal protections the office gave him) it’s clear that the people around him started to get worried that he was going to use his very robust and clearly delineated powers as Commander in Chief for political purposes.

It was perfectly legitimate for him to disagree with the Pentagon about policy and direct them to follow his orders despite their resistance. But he began to delve into areas of military justice and discipline, following the advice of Fox News pundits who convinced him that accused and convicted war criminals were being persecuted for doing the kind of dirty work Trump had advocated in his 2016 campaign. He intervened in one trial and pardoned some others. When the Navy tried to keep one of the accused from retaining his Navy Seal designation, Trump insisted he be allowed to keep it and the Navy Secretary was fired when he protested the interference.

In June of 2020, Trump was incensed by the George Floyd protests and was demanding that the active-duty military intervene to quell them. And it was at this point, according to several new books about the final year of the Trump administration, that the Joint Chiefs of Staff started to get nervous, particularly its chairman, General Mark Milley, who had been involved in the notorious clearing of Lafayette Square that culminated in Trump’s infamous photo-op with a Bible. Milley eventually publicly apologized for allowing himself to be used as a political prop. What we didn’t know until now was that the discussions that happened around those protests awakened the Pentagon leadership that Trump was becoming unhinged. As the presidential campaign heated up and they saw that he was setting the table to call the election illegitimate if he lost and contest the results regardless of the circumstances, they became alarmed. When Trump fired Esper the day after the election and installed some of his most notorious henchmen in the Pentagon, it’s safe to say that the top levels of the military’s hair were collectively on fire.

According to the latest book by Philip Rucker and Carol Leonnig called “I Alone Can Fix It,” as the surreal post-election period dragged on with the administration refusing to cooperate in the transition and Trump becoming more and more desperate, Milley and the others apparently saw the potential for street clashes between Trump’s “brownshirts” (as he called them) and police leading to Trump declaring an insurrection and demanding the use of the active-duty military to step in. He seems to have feared this is what would lead to a “Reichstag Fire” moment in which Trump would somehow attempt to stay in power. He and the senior brass even put together a sort of “Saturday Night Massacre” style plan to resign one by one should Trump attempt it. They were all spooked by what they were seeing.

Clearly Milley has been cooperating with all these authors and has portrayed himself as a hero who saved the Republic which does seem overblown. And it’s very unnerving to see a general in this position, working with others to thwart the will of the civilian leadership. That is NOT how it’s supposed to work. In fact, it’s yet another very important norm that seems to have been broken and it’s a very important one. But Trump’s behavior in the post-election period has been insane by any measure and while he was still in office, he was listening to people like Michael Flynn who was telling him that he could declare martial law and the military could seize the voting machines and run new elections, so there is no doubt we are lucky this didn’t turn out a lot worse than it did.

And it wasn’t just Milley and brass who were paranoid about what was happening. In “I Alone Can Fix It” a chilling anecdote shows that Vice President Mike Pence was just as nervous.

On January 6th, his Secret Service detail wanted to drive him off the Capitol grounds and he refused saying to his top agent Tim Giebels, “I’m not getting in the car, Tim. I trust you, Tim, but you’re not driving the car. If I get in that vehicle, you guys are taking off. I’m not getting in the car.” The book goes on to describe the man in charge of the Secret Service’s movements telling Pence’s national security adviser, Gen. Keith Kellogg, they planned to move Pence to Joint Base Andrews. Kellogg told him not to do it saying, “he’s got a job to do. I know you guys too well. You’ll fly him to Alaska if you have a chance. Don’t do it.”

There are a number of ways to interpret that but MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace said on Thursday, “someone familiar with this reporting tells me that Pence feared a conspiracy. He feared that the Secret Service would aid Trump in his ultimate aims that day.” Considering everything that had been going on, all of which Pence was no doubt aware, that would not have been a ridiculous suspicion. After all, if they could have gotten Pence out of town they would have thwarted the certification of the electoral college vote at least for that day. Who knows what would have followed? (And what does this say about the Secret Service?)

We all saw a lot of this as it unfolded in real-time. And we certainly suspected that this sort of thing was happening behind the scenes. These accounts, no matter how self-serving they might be, show that whatever suspicions anyone had were more than justified. 

Biden is caught in the middle of polarizing abortion politics

It took five months for the Biden administration to make a substantive policy change to advance abortion rights. And even that change was buried in a 61-page regulation setting rules for 2022’s Affordable Care Act enrollment.

The policy would reverse a Trump administration rule requiring insurers that cover abortion to send separate bills for that coverage. Abortion opponents had hoped the extra paperwork would persuade insurers to stop offering the coverage.

But the new administration’s effort also highlights the frustrations abortion-rights advocates have with the slow pace of change from a president they strongly supported — and who courted their votes. “Biden will work to codify Roe v. Wade, and his Justice Department will do everything in its power to stop the rash of state laws that so blatantly violate Roe v. Wade,” said his campaign platform.

The late-June action was technically Biden’s second move on reproductive rights. Following a recent custom in which presidents taking office from the opposite party have reversed each other’s abortion policies, Biden in January gave an initial nod to that campaign promise. He issued an executive order that overturned the so-called Mexico City policy that prohibited U.S. funding of foreign organizations that perform abortions or even lobby for looser abortion laws. It also instructed the Department of Health and Human Services to rewrite a Trump regulation that has effectively shut Planned Parenthood out of the federal family planning program, Title X.

But those Title X changes haven’t happened yet, nor has the administration formally moved to undo rules that make it easier for employers to opt out of the ACA mandate to provide no-cost contraception. Also so far unchanged are Trump administration modifications to Medicaid guidance that allow states to ban Planned Parenthood from Medicaid. And abortion rights supporters’ concerns are growing after the Supreme Court accepted a Mississippi case that could significantly weaken or even overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 ruling that legalized abortion nationwide.

In fact, to the consternation of reproductive rights advocates, Biden has apparently not even uttered the word “abortion” as president. A website is keeping track.

None of that, however, has stopped abortion opponents from painting the president and his administration as pro-abortion crusaders. “Once a supporter of policies that protect the lives of the unborn and their mothers, President Biden today caters to the most extreme voices within his party,” said a statement from the Susan B. Anthony List in May. The statement was in response to Biden’s keeping a campaign pledge to submit a budget calling for Congress to eliminate the Hyde Amendment, which for years has forbidden most federal abortion funding, particularly affecting low-income women in the Medicaid health program. It’s named after former Republican Rep. Henry Hyde of Illinois.

It’s true that Biden, a practicing Roman Catholic whose stance is criticized by many U.S. bishops, used to be much less supportive of abortion than he is today. But abortion moderates are a disappearing species in both political parties.

As recently as the 1990s, Democrats and Republicans jointly led “pro-life” and “pro-choice” caucuses in Congress. In 1991 an estimated third of Democrats in the U.S. House voted with anti-abortion advocates. A smaller but still significant minority of Republican House members voted with abortion-rights backers. The Senate was similarly divided. The divisions through the ’90s helped explain why Democrats, even when they controlled both houses of Congress and the White House, were unable to eliminate the Hyde Amendment or codify abortion rights (they tried both).

Since then, though, both parties have retreated more firmly to their respective corners on reproductive health. Despite some complaints, the 2020 Democratic platform calls for repealing the Hyde Amendment, and the 2016 GOP platform (there was no formal platform in 2020) asserts that “the unborn child has a fundamental right to life which cannot be infringed.” Anti-abortion Democrats in each chamber of Congress can be counted on one hand, as can Republican abortion-rights supporters.

The shift clearly has a lot to do with the replacement of Democratic conservatives in the South — many of whom opposed abortion — with Republicans. Along with that came redistricting, which has created more reliably red and blue districts. In a heavily Democratic or Republican district, politicians out of alignment with the majority of their party on issues such as abortion are more likely to draw primary opposition and less likely to raise money from activists.

But it’s not just Democrats who are retreating from the middle of the abortion debate. In 1992, the Senate approved a bill by an overwhelming margin that would specifically allow federal funding of research on fetal tissue left over from elective abortions. Among the Republicans who voted for that measure who are still in the Senate are current Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa).

By the time the issue returned to the political agenda in 2015, McConnell and Grassley had changed their positions.

Abortion will remain front and center for both parties as the Supreme Court prepares to review a Mississippi law that bans the procedure after 15 weeks and allows no exceptions for cases of rape or incest.

But Democrats will be tested most immediately. Progressives are determined to vote to eliminate the Hyde Amendment. Yet direct federal abortion funding makes even some abortion-rights backers squeamish, as Biden was until 2020 when, under some duress, he promised to sign the repeal if it came to his desk. As always, abortion remains a political high wire.

HealthBent, a regular feature of Kaiser Health News, offers insight and analysis of policies and politics from KHN’s chief Washington correspondent, Julie Rovner, who has covered health care for more than 30 years.

The history of animal-based medicine in China

Liz P.Y. Chee vividly remembers the first time she visited a bear farm. It was 2009, and Chee, who was working for a Singapore-based animal welfare group, flew to Laos to tour a Chinese-owned facility. The animals Chee saw “were hardly recognizable as bears,” she later wrote, “because they had rubbed most of their fur off against the bars of the cages and had grown very long toenails through disuse of their feet.”

As at countless other bear farms across China and Southeast Asia, the bears there were being held for their bile. Bear bile — which is either “milked” through a catheter permanently inserted into the animals’ gall bladders or extracted by stabbing large needles into the animals’ abdomens — is popularly prescribed across the region to treat a host of ailments, including, most recently, Covid-19. It is also marketed as an all-around health tonic. Although there is a growing animal welfare and anti-bear farming movement in China, the industry remains powerful.

Seeing the suffering bears made Chee wonder about the cultural and historical forces that brought the animals there — a question that propelled her to conduct exhaustive research on animal medicalization in China. In “Mao’s Bestiary: Medicinal Animals and Modern China,” she details her findings, many of which are distilled from sources never before published in English. Chee, who is now a research fellow and lecturer at the National University of Singapore, also found that, until now, even scholars in China have dedicated scant attention to the history of animal-based medicine, despite the controversy associated with the topic today.

“If Chinese medicine retains an Achilles’ heel in the present century, it is the widespread perception that it is contributing to a holocaust among wild creatures,” Chee writes, “and in so doing supporting a global criminal enterprise” of animal poaching and trafficking. Moreover, she adds, such medicines are often condemned “as being as ineffective as they are unethical,” even by some Chinese physicians. Many of these products are medically useless at best, Chee writes, and in some cases, actually harmful.

Defenders of animal-based Chinese medicine often point to the practice’s 2,000-plus year history. In “Mao’s Bestiary,” however, Chee shows that the roots establishing the use of most animals as ingredients in medicine are not as deeply planted in China’s culture as many believe. Instead, the industry as it exists now was purposefully developed, expanded, and promoted over the last century. Today, it is more closely linked to politics and profit than to ancient culture and tradition. This revelation has important implications for both species conservation and for public health, Chee argues, because it leaves room for “possibilities of choice and change.”

Chee focuses on the evolution of animal-based medicine throughout the tumultuous period of modern China’s formation, from the 1950s through the 1980s. These decades encompassed the early years of the People’s Republic of China, Mao’s Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution and, finally, Deng Xiaoping’s reforms.

While animal-derived medicines do have a long history in China, Chee found that their use in the past was nowhere near the “startlingly abundant” level they are at today. Around 400 animals were cited in the 16th century “Compendium of Materia Medica,” for example, whereas more than 2,300 are listed today in pharmacopeias.

Many newly medicalized species exist only on distant continents, such as jaguars in South and Central America. Nor is China’s use of animals in traditional medicine solely based on Chinese innovation, Chee found; ideas, approaches, and technologies from the Soviet Union, North Korea, Japan, and the Western world all heavily influenced the industry’s development. So while animal-based products may still “hold the aura of tradition,” Chee writes, in fact, most are the products of a profit-driven expansion.

Efforts to abolish traditional medicine and replace it with a science-based approach, primarily inspired by Japan, began in the 1920s and continued through the early days of a Communist government that was racing to build an industrialized economy. While researchers acknowledged that some especially efficacious Chinese herbs were worth investigating to find their active ingredients, animal-based remedies were “initially undervalued and underdeveloped” by the new regime as it worked to build up its pharmaceutical sector, Chee writes.

Traditional doctors pushed back on the attempt to phase out their industry, however, and argued that the synergistic effects of the plant, animal, and mineral ingredients of their practice were too complex to be nailed down in a lab. To appease both groups, the state-owned drug-making sector decided that doctors trained in Chinese and Western medicine should learn from each other, “scientizing” Chinese medicine and seeking new innovations from tradition.

“To learn from the Soviet Union” was also a popular phrase in China at this time. Following the example set by the USSR, China was especially interested in creating its own pharmaceuticals from local ingredients to become self-sufficient. Soviet interest in animal-based folk medicine and the USSR’s own practice of farming deer for medicinal ingredients soon “provided modern and scientific sanction for the Chinese fascination with faunal drugs,” Chee writes.

During the Great Leap Forward’s period of rapid industrialization, “animals as well as plants were swept up in this nationwide project,” Chee continues. China expanded its export of high-end medicinal products like deer antler, rhino horn, and tiger bone, especially to Chinese expatriates. To meet steep quotas, authorities promoted the creation of “laboratory farms” for scaling up production. Entrepreneurs at these farms were also encouraged to find more uses for existing animal parts, and to engineer additional uses for new parts and species.

“Once a medicinal animal was farmed, there was pressure or incentive to justify the use of all of its parts, regardless of previous traditions that had often been quite selective as to which part should actually be taken as medicine, and for what purpose,” Chee writes. Medicine farms popped up for a host of additional species, including geckos, ground beetles, scorpions, snakes, and seahorses.

Wildlife farming also began being presented as something benefiting conservation because it allegedly spared wild animals from being hunted. In fact, it usually had the opposite effect by stimulating the market and relying on hunters to replenish farm stocks, Chee notes. While she does not delve deeply into the impact this has had on animal populations within and outside China, many sources today argue that demand for traditional medicine all but emptied the country’s forests of tigers, pangolins, and other highly sought after species.

During the purges and upheavals of the Cultural Revolution, the export of luxury medicines such as rhino horn were scaled up to generate much-needed revenue. Back home, however, a stark lack of medical care and supplies inspired an emphasis on “miracle cures” derived from cheaper, more common animals.

Chicken blood therapy — “the direct injection of chicken blood (from live chickens) into human bodies” — was representative of this time, Chee writes. The doctor who founded the treatment claimed chicken blood therapy could cure more than 100 conditions, and it was heavily promoted throughout the country, becoming “emblematic of economical grassroots innovations” and “the very expression of ‘red medicine,'” Chee writes.

This practice started to be phased out in 1968 when news surfaced of people dying after being injected with chicken blood. But similar remedies soon took its place, including ones that used goose or duck blood, lizard eggs, or toad heads. These new remedies were marketed as magic-like cures for serious and otherwise untreatable conditions, including cancer — “an attribute that has become standard in the marketing of many animal-based drugs today,” Chee writes.

After Deng came to power in 1978, wildlife farming and animal-based medicine “became even more popular as part of the official policy to enrich farmers,” Chee continues. The government-supported bear bile industry — which was originally inspired by facilities in North Korea and continues to flourish today — was one major result of this period, as was the proliferation of tiger farms.

Policy shifts also had significant ramifications for the regulation of Chinese medicine, and its impact on consumers and the environment. The forestry ministry was “given decision-making power over wild medicinal animals,” Chee writes, “and would essentially manage China’s forests as extraction sites.” Meanwhile, the health ministry only had full regulatory control of patented drugs, so companies selling animal-based medicines could bypass health or efficacy regulations and make extravagant, unchallenged claims about their products’ curative value.

Chinese medicine has become globalized over the last three decades, and animal-based products have “continued to play a central, if increasingly problematic, role,” Chee writes. The industry is assailed in the international media for its role in driving species declines, and clashes regularly occur within China between proponents of animal-based medicines and those who value wildlife and conservation. “Many middle-class Chinese, both on the mainland and in the diaspora, and within Chinese medicine itself, have been on the front lines in the battle to save endangered species from poaching and consumption,” Chee points out.

“Mao’s Bestiary” went to press in the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic, and Chee writes in the introduction that the likely link between Covid-19’s emergence and wild animals fundamentally changes the debate by making wildlife use a global public health issue.

Yet despite the undeniable threats posed by zoonotic diseases, animal-based traditional medicine remains an “immensely profitable, and thus politically influential” force in China, she continues. As evidence, Chinese authorities not only did not ban animal-based medicine during the pandemic, but actually promoted remedies containing bear bile for treating Covid-19.

As for shaping the industry’s future to mitigate the dangers for both wildlife and humans, Chee looks not to officials but to Chinese consumers, who can choose to boycott animal-based medicines. There is a large and growing animal welfare movement in China, so this could be more than just a pipe dream. “Whether they will reinvent the pharmacology of Chinese medicine as a practice less reliant on animals, endangered or otherwise,” she concludes, “remains a vital question.”

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

Donald Trump’s military coup didn’t (quite) happen — but it was much closer than we knew

Ever more damning revelations about Donald Trump’s regime began first as a trickle, then became a persistent leak, eventually a torrent and are now seemingly a tsunami.

For more than four years, many prominent public voices continued to deny that Trump led a neofascist movement that posed an existential threat to American democracy. Too many Americans, to protect themselves from trauma or to evade personal responsibility for their inaction or indifference or passivity, have also consistently denied the dangers of Trumpism.

Even after Trump’s attempted coup and his followers’ attack on the U.S. Capitol, public opinion polls suggest that tens of millions of Americans would prefer to throw the horrors of Trumpism and the events of that day down the memory well

That will not save them from the reality of what has happened, and is still happening, as Trumpism, the Jim Crow Republican Party and the white right escalate their assault on American democracy and freedom.

The proverbial flood waters are getting higher with each set of new “revelations” about the last days of the Trump regime.   

On Wednesday, CNN published excerpts from “I Alone Can Fix It: Donald J. Trump’s Catastrophic Final Year,” the forthcoming book by Washington Post reporters Carol D. Leonnig and Philip Rucker. A lengthier excerpt followed in the Post on Thursday. CNN’s explosive report focused on the possibility that Trump contemplated a military coup:

The top US military officer, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Mark Milley, was so shaken that then-President Donald Trump and his allies might attempt a coup or take other dangerous or illegal measures after the November election that Milley and other top officials informally planned for different ways to stop Trump, according to excerpts of an upcoming book obtained by CNN.

The book, from Pulitzer Prize-winning Washington Post reporters Carol Leonnig and Philip Rucker, describes how Milley and the other Joint Chiefs discussed a plan to resign, one-by-one, rather than carry out orders from Trump that they considered to be illegal, dangerous or ill-advised.

“It was a kind of Saturday Night Massacre in reverse,” Leonnig and Rucker write. …

Milley felt “growing concerns,” the report continues, that Trump had placed loyalists in positions of power after the November 2020 election, replacing both Defense Secretary Mark Esper and Attorney General William Barr. He feared these personnel moves “were the sign of something sinister to come”:

Milley spoke to friends, lawmakers and colleagues about the threat of a coup, and the Joint Chiefs chairman felt he had to be “on guard” for what might come.

“They may try, but they’re not going to f**king succeed,” Milley told his deputies, according to the authors. “You can’t do this without the military. You can’t do this without the CIA and the FBI. We’re the guys with the guns.”

In the days leading up to January 6, Leonnig and Rucker write, Milley was worried about Trump’s call to action. “Milley told his staff that he believed Trump was stoking unrest, possibly in hopes of an excuse to invoke the Insurrection Act and call out the military.”

Milley viewed Trump as “the classic authoritarian leader with nothing to lose,” the authors write, and he saw parallels between Adolf Hitler’s rhetoric as a victim and savior and Trump’s false claims of election fraud.

“This is a Reichstag moment,” Milley told aides, according to the book. “The gospel of the Führer.”

Ahead of a November pro-Trump “Million MAGA March” to protest the election results, Milley told aides he feared it “could be the modern American equivalent of ‘brownshirts in the streets,'” referring to the pro-Nazi militia that fueled Hitler’s rise to power.

CNN’s report also suggests that after the events of Jan. 6, Milley feared an attack on the presidential inauguration, telling senior military and law enforcement leaders: “Here’s the deal, guys: These guys are Nazis, they’re boogaloo boys, they’re Proud Boys. These are the same people we fought in World War II. We’re going to put a ring of steel around this city and the Nazis aren’t getting in.”

Those public voices, myself included, who spent the last five or so years warning the American people about the dire threat embodied by Trump and his movement, were frequently dismissed as hysterical, or as suffering from “Trump derangement syndrome.” At this point, almost every such warning and prediction about the Trump regime has been proven correct.  

The hope-peddlers, stenographers of current events, professional centrists and other “mainstream” voices who remain more invested in maintaining a veneer of “normalcy” than in telling the truth have yet to publicly apologize or make amends. Such acts of contrition and humility will likely never come. That’s one big reason among many why the mainstream media has lost so much of its public trust and legitimacy.  

As author and commentator Jared Yates Sexton wrote on Twitter this week, “Weird how we were all telling you Trump was going to try a coup and everyone was like that’s reactionary and unreasonable and hysterical and now it’s clear the entire military thought so and people still aren’t going to listen.”

Elizabeth Mika, psychotherapist and contributor to the bestselling book “The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump,” also used Twitter to reflect on these latest revelations:

He can’t possibly win, they said. He is just a clown, they said. Every politico is narcissistic, they said. He will have good advisors, they said. People around him will contain him, they said. Our institutions will hold, they said. It can’t happen here, they said …

“I Alone Can Fix It” describes a nightmare scenario — one that does not bode well for the future of the country’s democracy. America’s military leaders at the highest level were preparing to actively defend the country from an outlaw president, his Republican co-conspirators and their neofascist followers. It’s entirely possible that American democracy was saved on that occasion by Gen. Milley and his colleagues who put the good of the country over loyalty to Donald Trump and his confederates.

But this sets a dangerous precedent for civilian rule, when the possibility arises that military leaders refuse a president’s orders and are seen by the public as defenders of democracy — and in the worst-case scenario as a type of Praetorian guard, able to defy or overthrow elected leaders at a whim. Any “democracy” where such decisions become normalized — and are welcomed by the public — is in practice an autocracy, or eventually a military dictatorship.

America’s political institutions did not “hold” in the face of the Trump regime’s many assaults. If anything, Donald Trump’s attempt to overthrow American democracy was sabotaged by his own incompetence and stopped by a few courageous individuals.

As prominent never-Trumper Tom Nichols warned on Twitter, these revelations should serve as a “reminder that American institutions were not designed to deal with a sociopath backed by a sizable vote in Congress.”

In the end, mass resignations by America’s military leaders and high-ranking civilian Pentagon officials might not have been enough to stop Trump’s coup or prevent the establishment or creation of an authoritarian regime. Trump loyalists in the military and across the national security state might have deployed their own forces, the military might have splintered into factions and the country could have descended into civil war.

In all likelihood, most Americans would have done nothing in response if Trump had ordered troops into the streets to nullify the 2020 presidential election — and his millions of followers, of course, would have celebrated.

Many questions remain.

Where is the truth commission tasked with exposing the many crimes of the Trump regime and its allies? Where is the broad investigation by the Department of Justice into the Trump regime’s numerous crimes? What will Joe Biden do in response to these new revelations. How deeply complicit were leaders of the Republican Party in plotting or planning a coup? How can America’s political institutions be improved or restructured in order to protect the country from the next would-be authoritarian leader?

And what else will we learn that we do not yet know? 

Whatever the answers to these questions, one thing is certain: if there are no severe consequences for the Trump regime’s ongoing assault on American democracy, or for its other crimes, that will offer both permission and a blueprint for future fascists and other types of demagogues. They will learn from the Trump regime’s tactical and strategic errors, and will not repeat them.

CPAC’s Dallas conference was a carnival of extremists and conspiracy theorists

Last weekend’s Conservative Political Action Conference gathering in Dallas was often strange and sometimes outright deranged. Far-right Proud Boys served as “personal security” to various participants, while members of the Oath Keepers threatened journalists (this reporter included). White nationalists, both overt and slightly more subtle, seemed to be everywhere. No conspiracy theories were too far-fetched for the CPAC crowd, which was tangibly excited to hear from Sunday’s keynote speaker, a certain disgraced and twice-impeached former president of the United States. 

On Friday evening, Salon was first to spot Stewart Rhodes, founder of the Oath Keepers militia group, who was not pleased to be asked why he was attending the CPAC gathering while being under FBI investigation for his alleged role in the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. Over the course of the weekend, Salon identified other allies of Rhodes at the conference, some of whom repeatedly harassed this reporter, both in public and otherwise. 

The Proud Boys organization — also linked to Jan. 6, as well as many other less noteworthy instances of street violence — was also in attendance, offering its services to conference-goers as “personal security.” Two members of the Proud Boys, George (Asher) Meza and Alexander John Bouzakis, agreed to speak with Salon and admitted to being on the Capitol grounds on Jan. 6, although both said they did not enter the building. They said that numerous CPAC attendees approached them over the course of the weekend to “thank them.” 

“The Proud Boys offer security for anyone who needs security, and that’s what we’re doing here,” Meza said. Both explained that they were especially valuable in a security role because they could take “additional steps” not available to the Dallas Police Department. 

White nationalist youth guru Nicholas Fuentes, along with members of his “groyper army,” also appeared at the gathering over the weekend. Fuentes and his followers are seen as too extreme even by many members of the Trump movement, and are not welcomed at Charlie Kirk’s Turning Point USA conferences, for instance. Ahead of CPAC, Fuentes suggested on Twitter that a “physical” altercation with security at CPAC Dallas might ensue, which left conference staff on edge going into the weekend. (In the event, Fuentes was not involved in any significant confrontations.) 

Many advocates of many different conspiracy theories made their way into the event, including those hawking QAnon-themed merchandise, which has generally been banned from Trump’s official rallies. 

At one booth, a whole range of QAnon T-shirts were on display, and by Sunday, the day Trump spoke to the juiced-up crowd, many attendees could be seen wearing them.  

Will Sommer, a reporter for the Daily Beast and author of an upcoming book on the QAnon movement, “Trust the Plan,” told Salon the prevalence of QAnon merchandise makes clear how far the conspiracy theory has penetrated the so-called conservative mainstream. 

“I think it’s surprising to see something as bizarre as QAnon at CPAC, whose organizers usually work pretty hard to gatekeep what counts as ‘acceptable’ conservatism,” Sommer said. “On the other hand, it makes sense that we’re seeing Q shirts pop up at CPAC right as QAnon increasingly makes its way into the party.” He pointed out that Rep. Louie Gohmert, a Texas Republican, and former Texas GOP chairman Allen West — now a candidate for governor — appeared at a QAnon convention in Dallas just two months ago. 

Among the most imaginative conspiracy theories visible in Dallas was one presenting a plan to reinstate Donald Trump as president “in days, not years.” This was the brainchild of CPAC attendee Robert Antonellis, who also appears to be the author of self-published books entitled “Culture War Cracked” and “Fortress Harvard.” At the conference, he was handing out flashcard-sized pamphlets that outlined a “7-pt. plan to restore Donald J. Trump.” 

Antonellis told Salon that many conference-goers had taken a “liking” to his message, and that he had handed out more than 400 of the pamphlets. His theory is difficult to summarize, but proposes that Trump will return to the White House very shortly thanks to the exposure of a satanic pedophile cabal, the revelation that the 9/11 terrorist attacks were a “false flag” operation, and something having to do with Martin Luther King Jr.

American Conservative Union chairman Matt Schlapp, who oversees operations at CPAC, told Salon on Sunday that it was not realistic to prevent far-right extremists or apparently deranged conspiracy theorists from attending his conference.

“You want me to go through every person who buys a ticket to CPAC and check every post like Mark Zuckerberg does and try to cancel as many people as possible?” Schlapp asked rhetorically. “I’m not in that movement; I’m in the other movement. I’m in the movement of freedom and First Amendment rights, and a part of the First Amendment is you can believe things that are obnoxious.”  

Asked whether he was aware that members of the Proud Boys were in attendance, Schlapp suggested that Salon was misinformed, saying, “I don’t think that’s right.” He then argued that members of the right-wing fringe have the “freedom” to attend as long as they buy tickets and do not break the law.

“You’re trying to characterize the people at this conference as somehow not being good, decent Americans,” Schlapp said. “You are doing them a disservice. Don’t smear them.” He claimed that 99.9% of conference attendees have nothing to do with extremist elements, but concluded, “I cannot be responsible for people that go online, purchase a ticket and use their credit card.”

Bernie Sanders has forged a remarkable bond with Joe Biden — is that a good thing?

So far, most of the Biden presidency has been predictable. Its foreign policy includes bloated Pentagon spending and timeworn declarations that the United States should again “lead the world” and “sit at the head of the table.” Many corporate influence peddlers have settled into jobs in upper reaches of the executive branch. The new administration has only taken baby steps toward student debt relief or progressive taxation. On health care, the White House keeps protecting the interests of insurance companies while rebuffing public opinion that favors Medicare for All.

And yet — Joe Biden is no longer on the narrow corporate road that he traveled during five decades in politics.

President Biden’s recent moves to curtail monopolies have stunned many observers who — extrapolating from his 36-year record in the Senate — logically assumed he would do little to challenge corporate power. Overall, Biden has moved leftward on economic policies, while Sen. Bernie Sanders — who says that “the Biden of today is not what I or others would have expected” decades ago — has gained major clout that extends into the Oval Office.

This month has seen a spate of news stories about Sanders’ new political leverage, not only as chair of the Senate Budget Committee but also due to his close working relationship with Biden. Under the headline “Vermont’s Longtime Outsider Has Become a Trusted Voice in the Biden White House,” CNN summed it up: “The Biden-Sanders connection is not a love story; it’s more a marriage of convenience. But as Biden pushes an unprecedented progressive White House agenda, it’s crucial.” Sanders told the network that Biden “wants to be a champion of working families, and I admire that and respect that.”

But if Biden is pushing “an unprecedented progressive White House agenda,” it’s a high jump over a low bar. Leaving aside Lyndon Johnson’s short-lived Great Society program that was smothered by Vietnam War spending, no White House agendas since the 1940s really merit the term “progressive.” And the current president hardly passes as “a champion of working families” unless he’s graded on an unduly lenient curve.

One danger of Sanders’ tight political embrace of Biden is that “progressive” standards will be redefined downward. Another danger is that Biden’s international policies and conformity to militarism will be further swept off the table of public debate.

For instance, targeting VenezuelaIranCuba and other disfavored nations, Biden continues to impose sanctions that are killing many thousands of people each month, with children especially vulnerable. A truly progressive president would not do such a thing. 

Meanwhile, despite strong efforts by Sanders, some other lawmakers and many human-rights activists, Biden is still abetting Saudi Arabia’s warfare in Yemen that continues to cause the world’s worst humanitarian disaster. “While he is a welcome change from the incompetence, venality, and cruelty of the Trump administration,” epidemiologist Aisha Jumaan and attorney Charles Pierson wrote days ago, “Biden has continued the Obama and Trump administrations’ support for the Saudi-led war on Yemen.” A truly progressive president would not do such a thing.

And then there’s the enormous U.S. military budget, already bloated during the Trump years, which Biden has opted to raise. A truly progressive president would not do such a thing.

There is political and moral peril ahead to the extent that Bernie Sanders, or others who oppose such policies, feel compelled to tamp down denunciations of them in hopes of reaping progressive results by bonding with Biden rather than antagonizing him. 

In the aftermath of his two presidential campaigns, which achieved huge political paradigm shifts, Sanders is now in a unique position. Sanders already influenced a leftward shift in the Democratic Party through his time on the campaign trail in 2016 and 2020,” Bloomberg News reported last week. “Biden has embraced a series of progressive priorities, including an expanded child tax credit and subsidies for clean energy, and made an attempt at increasing the national minimum wage earlier this year.”

Sanders routinely combines his zeal for the art of the morally imperative with the art of the possible. So, four months ago, he helped push the American Rescue Plan through the Senate and onto Biden’s desk for signing. It resulted in upward of 160 million direct cash payments to individuals, but did not boost the minimum wage. Sanders commented: “Was it everything we wanted? No. Was it a major step for the working class of this country. You bet it was.”

His approach has been similar this week in the midst of negotiations for a multi-trillion-dollar budget plan. After a private White House meeting with Biden that Sanders called a “very good discussion,” the senator told reporters: “He knows and I know that we’re seeing an economy where the very, very rich are getting richer while working families are struggling.” 

For genuine progressives, the Sanders-Biden bond is positive to the extent that it helps sway the president’s policies leftward — but negative to the extent that it restrains Sanders, and others in his extended orbit, from publicly confronting Biden about policies that are antithetical to the values that the Bernie 2020 campaign embodied. Today, Sanders’ role is appreciably and necessarily different than the needed roles of grassroots movements that have inspired and been inspired by him.

Progressives cannot and should not be satisfied with the policies of the Biden presidency. Yet breakthrough achievements should not be denied. 

At the end of last week, Public Citizen president Robert Weissman sent out a mass email hailing big news about Biden’s executive order on monopolies. Noting that Biden had “tasked agencies throughout his administration with helping to level the playing field for consumers, workers, and small businesses,” Weissman declared: “Joe Biden just took the most significant action any president has taken in generations to confront the menace of corporate monopolies.”

An exaggeration? Hyperbolic? I wondered. So, I asked a leading progressive economist, Dean Baker. 

I think the enthusiasm is warranted,” Baker replied. “Biden laid out pretty much everything that he could do in terms of executive action. In many cases, everything will depend on the implementation, and also what the courts will buy.” The executive order’s provisions will be legally contested. “But some of these items are a really big deal. In the case of imported prescription drugs, you could easily be talking about [saving] $100 billion a year and if they push hard, possibly as much as $200 billion a year. That comes to more than $600 per person every year.”

Baker added that Biden’s recent appointment of Lina Kahn as chair of the Federal Trade Commission “was a really big deal — she is probably the foremost progressive antitrust scholar in the country.”

Overall, what the Biden administration is doing runs the gamut from very good to very awful. Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders, an extraordinary politician who has always worked in tandem with progressive movements, has landed in an exceptional position to shape history. He recently told an interviewer, “As somebody who wrote a book called ‘Outsider in the House,’ yes, it is a strange experience to be having that kind of influence that we have now.”

As Sanders continues to navigate that “strange experience,” one of the realms where he excels is public communication. It was aptly summarized a few days ago by Nathan J. Robinson, who wrote that Sanders “is always on message, always trying to make sure the press has to talk about what he wants them to talk about. … Bernie has his flaws and made serious mistakes in both of his presidential campaigns, but he is very good at politics despite his marginal position. If he goes on a talk show, he will be discussing wealth inequality or the future of democracy. … Staying relentlessly on message — and thinking about what topics we want to spend our finite resources and time talking about — is critical to having an effective, persuasive left.”

An effective, persuasive left cannot be sustained by any leader, no matter how inspiring or brilliant. With the future at stake, what’s ultimately possible — as the Bernie 2020 motto insisted — is not about him. It’s about us.

Why Missouri is ground zero for new COVID surge: “We are going to see a lot of people die”

According to National Public Radio, 67% of U.S.-based adults were at least partially vaccinated for COVID-19 following the Fourth of July. President Joe Biden hopes to see that number increase, but anti-vaxxer attitudes are more common in red states than in blue states — some of which have COVID-19 vaccination rates that are higher than the national average. Missouri is a red state, and Washington Post reporter Fenit Nirappil examines Springfield, Missouri’s battle with COVID-19 in an article published this week.

According to Nirappil, the delta variant of COVID-19 has been hitting Springfield hard. Nirappil reports, “Springfield, a city of 170,000 nestled in the Ozarks, has become a cautionary tale for how the more transmissible delta variant, now estimated to account for half of all new cases nationwide, can ravage poorly vaccinated communities and return them to the darkest days of the pandemic.”

Data from the Mayo Clinic shows how much COVID-19 vaccination rates can vary from state to state. According to Mayo, 71% of Massachusetts residents have been at least partially vaccinated for COVID-19; in Missouri, it’s only 46%. Vermont’s rate of at least partial vaccination is 74%, according to Mayo. Massachusetts and Vermont are both blue states with moderate Republican governors.

“Experts fear that the surge in Springfield, known as the birthplace of Bass Pro Shops and Andy’s Frozen Custard, is a harbinger of tensions to come as people play down the pandemic and refuse to get vaccinated even in the face of overwhelmed hospitals and preventable death,” Nirappil warns. “Instead of unifying the community, the surge has hardened divisions, unleashing anger from health care workers fed up with vaccine misinformation and exposing deep antipathy toward the public health establishment.”

Greene County, which includes Springfield, has a low vaccination rate.

“The Springfield-Greene County Health Department has prioritized vaccination in a county where only 35% of residents are fully vaccinated, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,” Nirappil explains. “Rates are even lower for people in their 20s and 30s. But new daily vaccinations have largely stayed flat through June despite the outbreak’s toll, and health officials are battling false theories that the vaccines are somehow responsible for a surge in hospitalizations almost exclusively affecting the unvaccinated.”

And while as of yet, deaths reported in the state from the virus remain low, the number of new cases has accelerated in recent weeks.

Howard Jarvis, emergency room medical director at CoxHealth South Hospital in Springfield, told the Post that COVID-19 remains a major threat in his part of Missouri.

“I’m seeing some people in their 30s and 40s that don’t have underlying health conditions, and they are very ill with this,” Jarvis warned “And sometimes, they’re not so ill that they have to be admitted. They may be back in three or five days and do need to be admitted.”

CoxHealth Chief Executive Steve Edwards has grown fed up with anti-vaxxer attitudes. On July 1, Edwards bluntly tweeted:

Katie Towns, acting director for the Springfield-Greene County Health Department, told the Washington Post, “It’s a sad reality that we are facing. I don’t think we are coming out of it anytime soon. We are going to see more people get really sick. We are going to see a lot of people die.”

Trump blasts former aides in bizarre statement, saying they’re “made of garbage”

In his seventh statement of the day, shared by spokeswoman Liz Harrington on Twitter, former president Donald Trump on Thursday afternoon appeared to take aim at associates who’ve given interviews to authors of several new damning books about his administration.

“Nobody had ever heard of some of these people that worked for me in D.C.,” Trump wrote. “All of a sudden, the Fake News starts calling them. Some of them — by no means all — felt emboldened, brave, and for the first time in their lives, they feel like ‘something special,’ not the losers that they are — and they talk, talk, talk!

“Many say I am the greatest star-maker of all time,” Trump added. “But some of the stars I produced are actually made of garbage.”

Here’s how Twitter reacted.

Murdoch-backed Fox News corporate PAC donates to Sen. Joe Manchin’s campaign

A corporate political action committee for the parent company of Fox News, funded partially by the Murdoch family, donated to the 2024 re-election campaign of Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin, campaign filings show.

A staunch moderate, Manchin’s vote is pivotal in the evenly-divided chamber — and the West Virginia senator has for much of the year used his position to stymie legislation on a number of liberal priorities, instead committing himself to a bipartisan approach criticized roundly within Democratic circles in Washington. In particular, progressives have been hammering Manchin over his support for the filibuster, a major procedural hurdle standing in the way of the legislative agenda favored by President Joe Biden and the vast majority of a currently Democratic-controlled Congress.

The $1,500 donation on June 27 appears to be the first to Manchin from the Fox Corp. PAC, which according to the watchdog organization Open Secrets is funded largely by right-wing media mogul Rupert Murdoch and his son, Fox Corp. CEO Lachlan Murdoch, as well as other executives at the Fox Corporation. Manchin raised more than $1.4 million during the second quarter of this year, the filings show.

Manchin also received donations from a number of large corporations, including Pfizer, Johnson and Johnson, T-Mobile, At&T/Warner Media, Honeywell and FedEx.

The Murdoch-backed donation comes as Manchin is under increasing siege by a variety of right-wing groups, including a high-profile pressure campaign by the Koch network’s Americans for Prosperity and the Heritage Foundation’s advocacy arm, Heritage Action. 

It’s a battle that the interest groups appear top be winning: Manchin, a former supporter of filibuster reform and co-sponsor of voting-rights legislation, has come out against both Senate Democrats’ attempts to kill the filibuster and another sweeping voter-rights bill, called the For the People Act, intended to counter a spate of extremely restrictive state-level election laws being enacted by Republicans across the country. 

Manchin even penned a biting critique of the measure in the Charleston Gazette-Mail last month, which echoed talking points from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce — just months after the right-leaning organization resumed its own donations to the West Virginia Democrat.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., even went so far as to suggest during an appearance on MSNBC last month that Manchin’s opposition to the For the People Act, which polls extremely highly among his constituents, may really concern measures aimed at cracking down on lobbyists and dark money.  

“This is probably just as much a part of Joe Manchin’s calculus than anything else,” Ocasio-Cortez said. “You look at the Koch brothers and you look at organizations like the Heritage Foundation and conservative lobby groups that are doing a victory lap … over the fact that Manchin refuses to change on the filibuster. And I think that these two things are very closely intertwined.”

Why vaccines sometimes have bad side effects

On Monday, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) updated the label on the Johnson & Johnson vaccine to account for the possibility, however remote, that patients could develop a rare neurological condition called Guillain-Barré syndrome. This is not the crisis that some might believe it to be: The FDA was unable to definitively establish whether the vaccine itself causes the condition,  and the odds of getting the disease from a COVID-19 vaccine are less than getting it from SARS-CoV-2, the virus which causes COVID-19.

Even so, scientists who want to get as many people vaccinated as possible still acknowledge the need to be forthright about the possibility of vaccine side effects. Public trust in science faces something of a minor crisis, as evinced by the number of Americans who believe in pseudoscientific conspiracy theories about vaccines; to that end, transparency about vaccines and their side effects are crucial to building public trust. 

“How to communicate about the vaccines is a real dilemma,” Michael Bang Petersen, professor of political science at Aarhus BSS, Aarhus University, told SciTechDaily. “Politicians have a desire to stop the pandemic as quickly as possible, and this may give them an incentive to tone down the negative sides of the vaccines in order to vaccinate as many people as possible.”

Yet vaccine hesitancy may derive, in part, from a basic science literacy problem. Few Americans know the immunological reasons that vaccines might cause side effects. Indeed, immunology is not a topic taught in primary or secondary schools — at least not in detail — in the United States.

Although vaccines sometimes have serious side effects like swelling of the face and throat, difficulty breathing, dizziness and weakness, rashes or increased heartbeat, the symptoms are usually more mild: pain and swelling where the shot was administered, fatigue, aching muscles and joints, chills and feverishness.

So why do these things happen? A vaccine’s function is to provide your immune system with a helping hand as it goes about its business protecting you from pathogens (any microorganism, such as a bacterium or virus, that causes disease). Think of your immune system like a symphony orchestra: Different instruments have to be used to make everything work harmoniously. Leukocytes (better known as white blood cells) directly attack the pathogens by devouring them (phagocytes) or recording important information about them so the body will be on guard in the future, as well as helping destroy them (lymphocytes). There are two types of lymphocytes, B lymphocytes that identify pathogens and T lymphocytes that take them down. The B lymphocytes have a critical job here, as they create antibodies to recognize antigens (foreign substances) when they are detected.


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


This is where vaccines come into play. Their job is to help your lymphocytes recognize potential pathogens in a way that won’t put you in danger. They train the immune system to recognize pathogens by introducing either a weakened or dead version of the pathogen or (in the case of mRNA vaccines) a synthetic strand of RNA that will help the cells produce proteins similar to those on the pathogen.

This is critical to understanding the origin of vaccine side effects. As Jonathan Jarry M.sc. wrote for McGill University, the immune system is wondrously complex, which means that there are many variables which play a role in how a vaccine is received by the body.

“Our immune system is a little bit like those massive battle sequences in the ‘Lord of the Rings’ movies: impressive in scope and involving innumerable agents all performing different functions,” Jarry explained. For instance, the immune system releases a molecule after a vaccination known as a vasodilator, which inflates local blood vessels and can cause swelling and redness near the injection site. If other molecules released after a vaccination interact with the central nervous system, they can tell the brain to constrict blood vessels and produce heat internally, leading to chills.

The composition of the vaccine itself is also critically important. Different vaccines have varying amounts of the pathogen in question, and use different adjuvants, or molecules included to stimulate immune responses. These can play a role in how individual bodies react to the vaccines, as does the site of the injection (muscle injections usually cause fewer side effects than injections into subcutaneous fat). That means oftentimes, side effects are a result of reactions to adjuvants, not the deactivated virus in the vaccine itself.

Because vaccines have to be manufactured in sterile and carefully monitored conditions, any laxness or error on the manufacturers’ part can cause side effects. The state of mind of the person receiving the injection are also influential: If you are more stressed, you are more likely to experience an adverse response due to stress hormones or by simply freaking yourself out.

There is a lot that we don’t know about vaccine side effects, however, for the simple reason that it can be very tricky to prove that a given medical problem was caused by a vaccine. Often there aren’t specific biomarkers to check for that can ascertain whether a vaccine caused a given problem. What’s more, because adverse reactions can happen within days or weeks of the vaccination itself, it is often guesswork as to whether a given problem was actually caused by the vaccine.

Fortunately, pharmaceutical companies don’t want you to experience side effects any more than you do, and as such clinical trials are put in place to protect consumers. These clinical trials occur in phases, although phases are really considered to be separate trials of their own. Scientists do not jump from developing a vaccine to administering it; they are extremely careful, every step of the way, to test their vaccines on groups of patients to make sure they are safe and effective. Phase I involves a small group of people to determine if it is safe and induces a detectable immune response, researchers move to Phase II, which expands the study to include people from groups who particularly need the vaccine, such as people who are elderly or sick. Phases III and IV further expand the group once the first two phases have revealed a sufficient degree of safety. They often include thousands of participants and last until a vaccine is released to the public.

Despite these safety measures, there have been a handful of major tragedies linked to vaccines. In 1955 the government quickly approved a polio vaccine which then accidentally mass produced a version that included live versions of the polio virus instead of inactivated ones. This fiasco became known as the Cutter Incident, leaving several hundred children paralyzed and roughly 10 dead. Then there was the batch of polio vaccines that were contaminated with simian virus 40 (SV40), which originates in monkeys, because the scientists would grow the virus on tissues from rhesus macaques. This had an effect on between 10 percent and 30 percent of the polio vaccines distributed between 1955 and 1963.

These occasions are few and far between, and even if the Johnson & Johnson vaccine is proved to have caused the side effects that raised alarms, it is still very unlikely there will be a fiasco anywhere comparable to the Cutter Incident. Scientific authorities are not trying to discourage people from being vaccinated, but urging a nuanced approach to the subject. The risks of not getting vaccinated are far, far, far greater than the risks of being vaccinated.

Matt Gaetz used campaign cash to pay Roger Stone — and Jeffrey Epstein’s lawyer

The second quarter campaign finance reports filed by Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) were made public on Thursday.

Gaetz, who is reportedly being investigated for child sex trafficking, spent $25,000 campaign funds on “legal consulting.”

“Gaetz’s latest filing shows that he paid the sum to attorney Marc Fernich, who lists among his ‘notable clients‘ the accused child sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, Mexican drug kingpin Joaquin ‘El Chapo’ Guzman Loera, and convicted crime family boss John ‘Junior’ Gotti,” Business Insider reports.

That was not the only expenditure that appears related to the Republican’s scandals. Gaetz also paid $25,0000 to the law firm Zuckerman Spaeder, LLP. And he paid $825,000 to Harlan Hill’s Logan Circle Group, which has been leading damage control following the child sex trafficking reports.

ABC News reporter Will Steakin noted that Gaetz paid $20,000 to an LLC linked to Roger Stone.

In April, The Daily Beast reported that Gaetz wingman Joel Greenberg wrote a confession letter to Stone in an effort to receive a pardon from then-President Donald Trump.

“On more than one occasion, this individual was involved in sexual activities with several of the other girls, the congressman from Florida’s 1st Congressional District and myself,” Greenberg wrote. “From time to time, gas money or gifts, rent or partial tuition payments were made to several of these girls, including the individual who was not yet 18. I did see the acts occur firsthand and Venmo transactions, Cash App or other payments were made to these girls on behalf of the Congressman.”

Greenberg reportedly offered Stone $250,000 in Bitcoin to obtain a pardon. The pair were not pardoned and Greenberg pleaded guilty to six criminal counts — sex trafficking of a child, production of a false document, aggravated identity theft, wire fraud, stalking and conspiracy to commit an offense against the U.S.

Pentagon: US military trained Colombian soldiers arrested in assassination of Haitian president

Some of the former Colombian soldiers arrested following the assassination of Haitian President Jovenel Moïse received training from the U.S. military, a Pentagon spokesman told The Washington Post Thursday.

Police in Port-au-Prince arrested two Haitian-Americans and at least 17 Colombian nationals after gunmen who falsely announced themselves as members of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency stormed the president’s home last week, reports said, killing him and injuring his wife.

Colombian officials said that most of the men had previously served in the country’s military, including two who were killed by Haitian authorities.

The Pentagon on Wednesday acknowledged that some of the former Colombian soldiers also received training from the U.S. military, though it’s unclear how many.

“A review of our training databases indicates that a small number of the Colombian individuals detained as part of this investigation had participated in past U.S. military training and education programs, while serving as active members of the Colombian Military Forces,” Defense Department spokesman Lt. Col. Ken Hoffman told the Post.

The U.S. military frequently provides training to troops in Latin America, and intelligence agencies have partnered with Colombian forces on covert operations in the country. The U.S. has also provided billions to Colombia to combat drug trafficking and rebel groups. Lawmakers earlier this year called for the U.S. to stop providing weapons to Colombian security forces after they were used to kill protesters in demonstrations during the pandemic.

Many former Colombian soldiers trained by the U.S. have been hired to fight in overseas wars, including in Middle Eastern countries like Yemen.

“The recruitment of Colombian soldiers to go to other parts of the world as mercenaries is an issue that has existed for a long time, because there is no law that prohibits it,” Gen. Luis Fernando Navarro, the top commander of Colombia’s military forces, told reporters after the assassination. “There are a significant number of Colombian soldiers in Dubai, for example.”

Hoffman told the Post that the U.S. military training is intended to promote “respect for human rights, compliance with the rule of law and militaries subordinate to democratically elected civilian leadership.”

But Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., who authored a law requiring U.S. military assistance to be withheld from security forces that have committed human rights abuses, said the revelation shows that foreign military training can have unintended consequences.

“This illustrates that while we want our training of foreign armies to build professionalism and respect for human rights, the training is only as good as the institution itself,” he told the Post. “The Colombian army, which we have supported for 20 years, has a long history of targeting civilians, violating the laws of war and not being accountable. There has been a cultural problem within that institution.”

The DEA also previously said that one of the Haitian-Americans arrested in the plot was a former agency informant, while stressing that the DEA was not involved in the attack. One of the men also reportedly worked briefly for a company that provided security for the Canadian Embassy in Haiti. That same suspect launched a nonprofit in Florida ostensibly focused on humanitarian efforts in Haiti. Colombian police also identified 19 plane tickets used by some of the Colombians allegedly involved in the plot that were bought with a credit card registered in Miami.

Haitian authorities have since arrested Christian Emmanuel Sanon, an American doctor and pastor who frequently traveled between Florida and Haiti. Officials allege that Sanon played a role in hiring the assassins in a bid to replace Moïse as president.

The FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Colombian government are assisting the investigation in Haiti, where the attack has triggered unrest in a country already reeling from years of instability.

Interim Haitian Prime Minister Claude Joseph called for U.S. military assistance to help contain the situation on the ground, though the Biden administration said it currently has no plans to provide military assistance.

“I dispatched a high-level expert delegation to assess the situation and to determine where the United States can offer our support,” President Joe Biden said Monday, adding that “the people of Haiti deserve peace and security, and Haiti’s political leaders need to come together for the good of their country.”

“Never Have I Ever” returns smarter, funnier and at the mercy of its hormones more than ever

“Never Have I Have Ever” is for the girls who never saw themselves in any John Hughes movie. We know the filmmaker didn’t overlook our existence on purpose. “Sixteen Candles,” “Pretty in Pink” and “The Breakfast Club” were made to be universally appealing. They are, in the way that most TV shows and movies about American teens tend to be – meaning, they present whiteness as the default for Americanness and expect non-white teenagers to relate.  

Mindy Kaling is an obvious John Hughes fan, and that affection shows up in the all-American misadventures of Devi Vishwakumar (Maitreyi Ramakrishnan) an outspoken ultra-nerd operating from the same set of unrealistic expectations about dating and sex whirling inside the brains of all the virginal uncool.

Like a lot of kids her age, Devi is at the mercy of her hormones. She’s overachieving, but also moody and prone to say and do things in the moment that she regrets later. Part of the reason for this is to avoid grieving the death of the father who doted upon her, Mohan (Sendhil Ramamurthy). But she’s also a little bit crazy in lust with Paxton Hall-Yoshida (Darren Barnet) the hottest boy at Sherman Oaks High. Naturally that leads her to fall for her one-time nemesis Ben Gross (Jaren Lewison), with whom she makes out mere minutes after spreading her father’s ashes in the ocean.

The second season of the show picks up right at that moment, which means Devi hasn’t engaged in very much emotional growth. She’s still entertainingly self-centered, and that’s fantastic because the show wouldn’t work half as well if she leveled out.

Her new round of selfishness informs a cascade of bad decisions that come after her lip lock with Ben, touched off by Paxton realizing that Devi could be more to him that the brainy friend who helps him with his homework. Imagine John McEnroe’s color commentary on this dream scenario of two amorous bees circling a socially insecure wallflower. Actually, you don’ have to imagine that, since McEnroe returns in the new season.

“Never Have I Ever,” already an outstanding comedy, manages to be even better in its sophomore run. Everything about the show is more confident – the physical comedy is goofier, Devi’s dingbat logic is more outlandish, and McEnroe’s narration easily flows with the action. It’s also among the most naturalistic depictions of an inclusive high school student body on television that neither strains to call attention to that, nor ignores its characters’ cultural backgrounds.  

Devi’s life is a starting point for this approach. Kaling and showrunner Lang Fisher never downplay what it’s like for as a child of Indian immigrants to grow up in a place where few people look like them, eat their food or participate in their holiday celebrations. Devi actually navigates a mixture of emotions about it during the first season, confronting it anew when another Indian teenager, Aneesa (Megan Suri) transfers to her high school and is demonstrably cooler and fits in better than she does.

Aneesa’s kindness and sincerity also take Devi by surprise, to the point that she isn’t sure what to do with her. Their tender new friendship is one of this new season’s stronger storylines in the way that it tests our affection for our girl, even as she’s being pulled in other directions.

Most of Devi’s hijinks are the product of the uncertainty constantly shadowing her – she still has a deep well of unprocessed grief to empty that her therapist (Niecy Nash) asks her to take on more directly this season as her bad choices pile up and bury Devi. And a lot of them splash onto her pals Fabiola (Lee Rodriguez) and Eleanor (Ramona Young), each of whom is also figuring out who they are and what they want, too.

The second season’s real strength is its maturation into a heartfelt multigenerational romantic comedy, further developing Dev’s mother Nalini (Poorna Jagannathan) and cousin Kamala (Richa Moorjani)  and their stories. Kamala’s absolute lack of concern or awareness of her hotness is a recurring comedy stream for Devi, but our expanded view into Nalini’s interiority is particularly refreshing.

Until now, most of what we know about about Devi’s mother is filtered through the teen’s point of view, painting her as little more than disapproving and hard driving. These new episodes also remind us that Nalini is mourning Mohan’s loss and dealing with it in the only way she knows how, which is to continue managing her dermatology practice and contemplate returning to India.

Heretofore Nalini operates from a place of certainty, with every move dictated by tradition. But just as Kamala starts to question the path her family and culture lay out for her, embracing her anger and agency when she’s subjected to a sexist workplace, so does Nalini. Additional outside perspective from a flashier fellow dermatologist who works in the same building as Nalini, Dr. Chris Jackson (Common) invites Jagannathan to play with her character’s vulnerability and allow her to also desire more than the world expects of her.

As ever “Never Have I Ever” is firmly Ramakrishnan’s show, and this alone is reason enough to treasure it. The actor’s sweet grin and sensitive portrayal of clumsy insecurity make us invest in seeing her win, especially in the cases when that victory happens to be a hard-learned lesson.

But the show’s universal appeal rests in the audience’s shared conviction that Devi is actually cool, in that way adults recognize but kids her own age are too clueless to understand.

Earlier when I used the term girls. I meant it to refers to women of all ages – not  in a patronizing way, but as an acknowledgment that a part of us never lets go of our adolescent awkwardness. This is true regardless of where and how we grow up. We’ve all been some version of Devi, can empathize with her stumbles and heartbreak; we understand why her sorrow makes her angrier, her moods cause her behavior to grow wilder and her ambition increases her cockiness. It’s all part of the process of Devi coming her own, following in the vein of this series.

Season 2 of “Never Have I Ever” is now streaming on Netflix.

These are the best substitutes for cardamom, hands down

Cardamom is a powerful, extra-special spice that can add warmth to savory and sweet dishes alike, from challah and roast poultry, to blondieshot chocolatesnickerdoodles, and rice pudding. “Think about creative ways to use cardamom and make it a go-to spice. It can be a substitute for cinnamon, rather than the other way around,” says Angel Anderson, owner of The Spice Suite in Washington D.C. Ahead, learn all about what makes cardamom unique — and, should you ever run out, the best spice substitutes to use in its place.

What is cardamom?

Cardamom is a spice that adds warmth to sweet and savory dishes. There are two types of cardamom seeds that you’ll find in a grocery store or spice shop — green cardamom and black cardamom. Green cardamom is the type that home cooks and bakers are more likely familiar with, but both varieties of this expensive spice have a place in savory and sweet dishes. Because it can be pricey to buy both whole and ground cardamom (Anderson notes that it’s the third most expensive spice in the world), you’re more likely to come across recipes that call for green cardamom, so that’s the best variety to have on hand. “Even if you’re not a baker, you can add ground green cardamom to French toastpancakes, or biscuits — things that most people make all the time — when you’re tired of cinnamon,” she adds.

“Cardamom is in the ginger family, so it has similar flavor properties. A little bit of it can be really soft and beautiful, but too much of it can become too tangy and spicy,” says Anderson. Black cardamom has a smoky, hearty flavor and is entirely different from green cardamom. While Anderson rarely uses green cardamom in savory meat or seafood dishes, she feels these types of dishes are exactly where black cardamom shines. Black cardamom pods are also a bit larger in size than green cardamom pods.

Substitutes for cardamom

If you’re baking a fall dessert or mulled apple cider that calls for cardamom, again, the recipe is most likely referring to green cardamom. So when we’re talking about which spices work as a substitute for cardamom, that’s the variety we’re referring to. What you’re trying to replicate when using a cardamom substitute is that cozy, earthy flavor that smells the way a warm, tight hug feels. The best replacements for ground cardamom are spices that have that same aroma and flavor, such as allspice, cinnamon, and nutmeg. Anderson specifically recommends using a mix of cinnamon and ginger as a cardamom substitute: “Cardamom has a complex flavor, so it’s hard to create an exact match, but combining equal amounts of cinnamon and ginger will mimic that flavor.” If a recipe calls for two teaspoons of ground cardamom, simply combine one teaspoon of cinnamon and one teaspoon of ginger as a substitute.

As for substituting whole cardamom, Anderson says whole nutmeg will give you the same warmth.

Whole vs. ground cardamom

Whole cardamom seeds are used just like cinnamon sticksstar anise, or whole nutmeg; they’re generally added to a liquid like a drink, soup, or sauce to infuse a dish with flavor and then are removed before serving. The powder form is a much more intense flavor and a little bit really does go a long way. The benefit of using whole spices of any variety is that they stay more pungent for a longer period of time. Once you grind the spice, like most others in your pantry, it starts to lose its flavor and aroma.

Why make pasta chips when pasta exists?

OK, by this point, y’all must know the drill: someone on TikTok does something weird with pasta, people endlessly riff on the original, the internet reacts, and then, well, I write about it. It’s happened before and, trust me, it’ll happen again.

Just last week, the newest pasta craze took off on TikTok. Is it as weird as honeycomb pasta or pasta served straight on the kitchen counter? Who’s to say. What this new take on pasta does promise is a bowl of crispy, crunchy pasta . . . chips? That’s what they’re being called at least.

Let’s rewind. It all started back in April when TikTok user Emily Chan (@bostonfoodgram) took a semi-cooked bowl of farfalle pasta, tossed it with onion and garlic powders, parmesan, and olive oil before slipping the whole affair into her air fryer. What emerged was a tray of slightly browned, lightly crisped pieces of pasta. Is this what Italians mean when they say al dente? She served them on a dish alongside a dipping bowl of marinara sauce.

From there, the recipe only picked up steam. Joanne Molinaro, aka The Korean Vegan, made a version with ramyeon. Evan Martin (@theflavors) gamed the system and used lasagna sheets. (Wouldn’t this qualify as pasta cracker instead?) Jake Cohen hopped on the trend, making a version that could best be described as top-only baked ziti. For his rendition he baked a sheet pan of cooked rigatoni until lightly browned, topped it with marinara, ricotta, and pesto, before tossing it all back in the oven. This recipe, he claims, is “not for the faint of jaw.”

I obviously had to put pasta chips to the test. For the sake of variability and in the name of unfettered scientific experimentation, I decided to try with three pasta varietals: spaghetti, fusilli and tiny penne. The directions, at their most basic, are relatively simple, so I thought for my first foray into the world of pasta chip-making, I’d keep it classic and forgo extra sauce or seasoning. I boiled the three different shapes until they were each almost cooked. Then I tossed them into a bowl with some olive oil, a few shakes of freshly grated cheese, salt, and the requisite spices.

Now, because I don’t have an air fryer, I had to use an oven instead. To approximate the effects of an air fryer, I used the convection setting and made sure to move the pasta around so it was evenly toasted on all sides. When it seemed somewhat ready I took out the chips and let them cool. And here, reader, is where it all went downhill. Of all the TikTok “recipes” that I’ve tried (which is many, as it’s my job), I have to say this is my absolute least favorite.

I really hate to be a Debbie Downer, and I like to give every trend a fair chance, but this one for me was a bit beyond the pale. Pasta is special for the way it bounces ever so lightly in your mouth with each bite, the way it wears a sauce like a glossy jacket, and the way it stacks (or swirls!) around your fork. Pasta chips strip the experience of eating pasta of all that makes it good. Instead, you’re left with a plate of crunchy pieces of dry and lightly oiled pasta that crackle between your teeth. Now, crunch is good. Crunch is great, even! But let’s leave that to the real chips, why don’t we?

Pasta with a deep red tomato sauce may be one of the most sensual foods around, but pasta chips are like a trip to the dentist. In fact, that’s what I think I need after finishing a plate of them.

Anthony Bourdain “Roadrunner” documentary filmmaker: “His flaws were also his superpowers”

Anthony Bourdain knew himself a little too well. The late beloved chef, author and world traveler was often quoted toward the end of his life talking about how he might die — sometimes laughing while he did so. Some found his sentiments macabre, but others may have chalked them up to Bourdain’s big personality and penchant for getting laughs and making his companions feel intimately like family. 

Academy Award-winning documentarian Morgan Neville shows both sides of Bourdain in his new film, “Roadrunner: A Film About Anthony Bourdain,” which chronicles how he went from being chef at an obscure New York restaurant to one of the most notorious and beloved figures in the food world and beyond. The film is the culmination of a long and challenging project, one in which quite a few of the interview subjects said they would never speak about Bourdain again publicly.

Neville pored through hundreds of hours of collected footage from years of Bourdain’s television work, carefully homing in on the pathos and emotional unrest that Bourdain wrestled with, even as he had tremendous success. The result is a loving portrait of a complicated, troubled and admirable man, who his longtime creative partner Lydia Tenaglia described as an “unmuscled James Bond” on camera.

Neville appeared on “Salon Talks” to discuss making the film, one he hoped that “Tony” would’ve seen himself reflected honestly in. You can watch the interview with Neville here or read a transcript of the Q&A below.

The following conversation has been lightly edited for length and clarity.

You’ve profiled so many beloved and iconic figures in your career. Bourdain is described in the film as a control freak, a physically irrepressible, wild, impetuous, sometimes cruel, but also very loving father and having had that experience later in life. So what got you interested in chronicling his life?

I think really in the beginning it was that, I always felt like in a way, he was a bit of a fellow traveler to what I was doing. Looking at my films over my career, I’ve realized I’ve made films about culture. I’m interested in the people and the things that help us to find other people and define ourselves. So that can be food or it can be music or art or film. Those are things that I’ve always been really attracted to.

And I feel like, what he was doing with his show was basically helping us understand and dimensionalize people on the far side of the planet. And kind of understanding that they sit around the dinner table and talk about their hopes and dreams and all those kinds of things, which sounds very lofty and I’m sure Tony would have cringed at some of it, but that’s exactly what he was trying to do. That’s what I think he was doing with the show at its best. So there was that part of it that I always just thought he was somebody fighting the good fight.

And the other part of it was I just had questions. He’s a complicated person, deeply complicated person who was slightly different in different situations and had many different facets to him. And then of course the suicide just was inexplicable to me. And so when the idea came up to make this film, I just in my gut, I was like, yeah, I feel like that’s a journey I want to go on. It was not an easy journey. I learned a lot making the film. I also got to spend a lot of time with Tony making the film if you can imagine how much footage we got to go through, thousands and thousands of hours. There’s a lot that was great and pleasurable about making the film too. And a lot that was challenging and painful about making the film, but in a way I feel like that’s what I signed up for when I became a documentarian.

The story is told really artfully and you made an interesting choice to begin with the end, right? You said the hardest part of the film was talking to people from his life, many of whom hadn’t processed what had happened. And these interviews were hands down the most difficult ones you’ve ever done for a film. Why was that?

Well, we started doing these interviews probably a year and a half after he had died, and a lot of people in his life literally hadn’t talked to other people about their real feelings about it. And even the husband and wife team, Chris [Collins] and Lydia [Tenaglia], who were his partners in all television for 20 years, they had never talked to each other in a deep way about their own feelings. And they told me that they were talking to me before they talked to their husband or wife about it because it’s a lot to burden somebody with. “Let me just emotionally unload –” particularly in the wake of a suicide where there are so many complicated emotions of not only grief and sorrow, but shame and guilt, all of these things that suicide brings out that are totally unfair, but they’re always there too.

So yeah, it was hard. And I think even as I was making the film, even sometimes during the interviews, I could see people changing and coming to terms with things or thinking about things. And certainly up into the conversations I’m having this week with people in the film, just seeing how people are processing and growing and working through the stages of whatever they need to work through to deal with it.

What was your first impression of Anthony? Though you never met him, but from watching all this footage?

I mean, I knew him like the public knew him, I had read “Kitchen Confidential” and “Medium Raw.” I’d watch the show in the Middle East. I liked him as a person and as a character and I liked what he was doing, but then really trying to kind of unpack, who, what was making him tick. I mean, part of it is this part of me going in to making any film. I go in with as little agenda as possible. My only agenda in the beginning is to understand. “Tell me what you think. I’ll read everything. I’ll talk to everybody.” And then I can start to formulate what I think are the ideas and what the story is.

And I think with Tony, I mean, he was so complicated, but one of the things I came to realize was in many ways, his flaws were also his superpowers. He was a recovering heroin addict and cocaine addict, and had written about all that in “Kitchen Confidential.” I mean, that was on the table from before he was famous. And so everybody knew that, but so often he would talk about his own mistakes or foibles or preconceptions, or going to a place and being like, “God, I thought this and I was totally wrong.” I think that’s part of why people trusted him. And he also had this boyish enthusiasm about everything, and that was something many of his friends talked about. They talk about what a romantic he was or that he could be like a little boy.

And so when you fall in love, it’s like the first time and when you eat something, that’s like the first time you tasted it, or when you traveled the first time, there’s something that’s just kind of, full of, “aah,” and excitement. But the flip side of that is when you’re 60, maybe being a little jaded is a good thing, that maybe it helps you actually understand what’s emotionally important in your life and prioritizing them in a way.

He got this tattoo in his, maybe he was 59 when he got it, that said in ancient Greek, on his arm, “I am certain of nothing.” And that sounds great to be open-minded, to be non-judgemental. But the more I thought about it, the more I thought that was kind of sad that, if you’re 60 and you’re certain of nothing, then that means you’re doubting things that you shouldn’t be doubting. Like the love of the people around you, or the love of a family, or things that are very important. And I think that Tony was always kind of stuck with this idea that him being the seeker and him being curious and being non-judgemental, these are all good things, but there’s a certain point where if you do them too much, they become bad things. And I don’t think he could ever find a boundary between any of these things, his creative work, his personal life, anything, they were always in a big soup together that he could never parse in any way.

I feel like Anthony might’ve been described as neurodiverse, that hyperfocus common to ADD and the restlessness and the perfectionism and the lack of patience with the way things are. And about an hour and 18 minutes into your film, once he speaks to a therapist, right? And yet nobody else you interviewed seemed to touch on this idea as an explanation that might have given him some comfort about, understanding who he was and finding a place for that. But even he knew he was manic. Did this stick out to you at all?

Yeah. We talk about addiction a lot and a lot of people do talk about that in the film. Which is more a by-product of a lot of these other kind of personality traits he had, which was definitely a kind of an OCD-ness, anxiety, depression. I mean, he had a range of things, and he was never diagnosed as bipolar, but he certainly was exhibiting bipolar-type traits. And he even talks about it, “I’m manic, I’m really up, and then I’m really down.” Chris says in our documentary that the kind of ups and downs of Tony became much higher and much lower. Somebody who [dies by] suicide, often has underlying mental health issues. And Tony, as we mentioned in the film, just started going to therapy for the first time as an adult, just weeks before he died. And I don’t think really got to do any of the heavy work, but I think it meant that he was starting to realize that he actually had to do something, that some things were not going right and that he had to make a change.

But as other people say, here’s somebody who was a heroin addict and never went to rehab and still drank. It’s somebody who, in many ways kind of papered over a lot of the problems by substituting new structures for himself. I think part of why he was such a good chef and I think it was even, I would say he was even more of a good chef at running a kitchen in terms of being efficient.

He was the most on-time person anybody has ever met. He was always 15 minutes early for anything ever. The crew said he was always 15 minutes early. That’s why in the beginning we had this clip of him waiting for the fish man, and he said, “that’s why chefs are all drunks, because the world doesn’t work like our kitchens.” And I feel like in the kitchen, he created this regimen. He was able to through his sense of responsibility and his kind of workaholism to make this his new addiction. It’s like, “Okay, I’m just going to work incredibly hard.” And that’ll be the regimen that will keep me from all these other bad habits, but still that doesn’t really address the underlying problems there all along. And I think those were always kind of waiting in the wings for him. And I think he felt that in a way too.

It’s clear that Anthony had a great sense of irony, which came through to me. And I wonder what he would have made of your take on him and his life?

I think when I started the film, one of the first things I was thinking is, I wanted to make a film like he would like, and certainly that he recognized himself in. And I spent a lot of time searching out every song he ever mentioned and watching all the movies he loved and reading or rereading the books that influenced him. Really trying to get into his head in terms of his taste and everything else.

But I realized pretty early on that there’s part of the story that Tony had no insight on. There’s part of the story that he wouldn’t have liked necessarily which is his blindness to both the love that people were giving him and his inability to feel it. And the grief that he left by the decision to kill himself. I mean, these are very uncomfortable things. And I think at a certain point I was thinking, I had to honor the people I came to know in making the film who were all there picking up the pieces in the wake of his death. And so the film I think tries to do both. I like to think that at the end of the day, Tony loved brutal honesty and as uncomfortable as it would have been for him, I think he would have respected how honest we were about it.

What would you like people to come away with from your film?

One thing is when I started making the film and I’d say to somebody I was working on a film about Anthony Bourdain, often the reaction I would get was just a heavy sigh, of like “aah.” “I haven’t been able to watch his show since he died.” And these kinds of feelings of just people not knowing how to think about him because there’s no way to make sense of kind of how he killed himself. And so it’s just a lot easier to not think about it or not think about him. I hope this film helps people get to the other side of that, or start to get to the other side of that, which is remembering him as a whole person. Thinking about him, that he could be dark and funny and smart, and brilliant. And that those are worth remembering too, like trying to get to put things into context, so people can at least start to process what he meant and get beyond. Get beyond that place where I think people are, a lot of people are just stuck. And I think the film, hopefully it’s cathartic in that way.

I know you’re out promoting the film. It’s coming out July 16th in theaters. Will it be on digital anywhere?

Yeah, I think eventually in the fall, I think it’s on CNN and some point thereafter, it will be on HBO Max. Which is where “Parts Unknown” lives. So it felt appropriate that the documentary and his show would be on the same platform, but it’s going to be over a period of months. And it opens on July 16th and then a few weeks later it’ll be available on things like iTunes and Amazon and other play platforms.

Roadrunner: A Film About Anthony Bourdain” premieres in theaters on July 16 and will be available on CNN and HBO Max later in 2021. 

Democrats are finally paying attention to Trump’s Arizona audit: House opens probe into Cyber Ninjas

Congressional Democrats tasked with leading the House Oversight and Reform Committee have launched a probe into the Arizona “audit” firm “Cyber Ninjas.” The group conducted the hotly contested review of Maricopa County’s ballots following the 2020 election. 

In a Wednesday letter, Democratic Reps. Carolyn Maloney, the committee chair, and Rep. Jamie Raskin requested documents and communications from Cyber Ninjas CEO Doug Logan stemming from the company’s invasive audit that rendered voting machines useless in the state. The letter cites Logan over his firm’s “lack of election audit experience,” their “reported mismanagement of the audit in Maricopa County,” and the CEO’s “own bias and history of embracing conspiracy theories related to the election.”

Logan, first caught headlines after a series of pro-Trump conspiracy theories were found posted to his social media channels, which the letter cites. “The parallels between the statistical analysis of Venezuela and this year’s election are astonishing,” Logan penned on social media back in December.

“The Committee is seeking to determine whether the privately funded audit conducted by your company in Arizona protects the right to vote or is instead an effort to promote baseless conspiracy theories, undermine confidence in America’s elections, and reverse the result of a free and fair election for partisan gain,” Maloney and Raskin outlined in the nine-page letter. “The Committee is particularly concerned that your company’s actions could undermine the integrity of federal elections and interfere with Americans’ constitutional right to cast their ballot freely and to have their votes counted without partisan interference.”

Far-right Arizona congressman Paul Gosar, a fellow House Oversight committee member, following the letter, suggested on Twitter that the audit was making Democrats “worried” due to its alleged effectiveness. “Now congressional Democrats are trying to insert themselves into a state election issue. They seem very worried about something,” he stated.

The House committee has set a July 28th deadline for Logan and his Cyber Ninja technology firm to turn over the requested documents. Numerous Salon requests for comment to Logan and the digital security firm on if they plan to cooperate with the demands to turn over documents went un-retuned. 

In late June, a series of Republicans in the state began backing away from the audit. Conservative talk-show host Mike Broomhead told CNN anchor Pamela Brown the GOP-led audit had “lost focus on being fair and unbiased.” Republican Maricopa County recorder Stephen Richer remarked, “The Arizona Senate boarded this train without knowledge of where it was going, and I don’t think it’s going to a good place.” 

The audit, which has since concluded, additionally took a wild turn in June after the large quantities of voter data was transported to a “secret” lab in Montana to be “forensically evaluated” by a third-party firm. 

“If I was going to do a coup …”: Trump offers bizarre denial of report his generals feared a coup

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Mark Milley was reportedly so concerned Donald Trump might mount a violent coup against his own election loss last year that Milley discussed informal plans to put Trump down with several generals. 

The revelation, described in a forthcoming book obtained by CNN, details a number of exchanges between Milley and his colleagues in which they all weighed their own resignations over concerns that Trump’s orders could be dangerous and/or illegal. 

Milley, the book describes, was reportedly “on guard” for whatever uprising might take place ahead of Biden’s inauguration, fearing that Trump’s grandiose and baseless theory of election fraud might fuel “a Reichstag moment.”

“They may try, but they’re not going to f—— succeed,” Milley told his deputies. “You can’t do this without the military. You can’t do this without the CIA and the FBI. We’re the guys with the guns.”  

At one point, the general called Trump’s Big Lie “the gospel of the Fuhrer.” 

Ahead of November’s “Million MAGA March” – where thousands of Trump supporters gathered in D.C. to protest the results of the 2020 election – Milley apparently told his aides that the demonstration “could be the modern American equivalent of ‘brownshirts in the streets.'”

Milley was specifically worried that the former was intentionally inciting violence as a pretense for invoking the Insurrection Act, which could have unilaterally allowed Trump to deploy the military to forcibly stop the election certification process on January 6. 

Trump, the general said in private, “the classic authoritarian leader with nothing to lose.”

The latest exchanges were detailed in the upcoming book, “I Alone Can Fix It: Donald J. Trump’s Catastrophic Final Year,” by Washington Post reporters Carol Leonnig and Philip Rucker, who said they interviewed 140 anonymous sources for insider knowledge into Trump’s presidency, not to mention Trump himself. 

The book largely portrays Milley as one of the lone defenders of institutional democracy during the final months of the former administration, saddled with doubts and anxieties despite his breadth of experience. 

“This is all real, man,” an old friend of Milley’s told the general. “You are one of the few guys who are standing between us and some really bad stuff.”

At one point, Milley allegedly called up former Gen. H.R. McMaster, Trump’s national security advisor, for words of advice. “What the f— am I dealing with?” Milley asked.

“You’re dealing with some of the weirdest s— ever,” McMaster responded. 

Following the insurrection on January 6, the book alleges, Milley, former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, and then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo all held a conference call to ensure there would be no more tumult during the transition period.

“The general theme of these calls was, come hell or high water, there will be a peaceful transfer of power on January twentieth,” a senior official told the book’s authors. “We’ve got an aircraft, our landing gear is stuck, we’ve got one engine, and we’re out of fuel. We’ve got to land this bad boy.”

In response to the revelations, Trump put out a lengthy statement on Thursday claiming that he “never threatened” or “spoke about” a coup. 

“Sorry to inform you,” the former president expressed, “but an Election is my form of ‘coup,’ and if I was going to do a coup, one of the last people I would want to do it with is General Mark Milley.”

Last summer, Milley was castigated for walking alongside Trump during his notorious photo-op at St. John’s Church. It was on Trump’s way to this photo-op that protesters were forcibly cleared from Lafayette Square by police using chemical irritants, rubber bullets, and shields. (It has since been disputed by the inspector general of the Interior Department that protesters were cleared to make way for Trump.)

More recently, Milley has been subject to scorn from the right over his support of teaching critical race theory to servicemembers. Their scorn comes amid allegations that white supremacy and far-right extremism is rife within the ranks.

Former Pence aide slams Texas Republicans’ voter suppression bill as a shameless “grift”

One of the worst nightmares of the Republican National Committee is that Texas will someday become a swing state or even a blue state. In order to prevent that from happening, Gov. Greg Abbott and the Republican majority in the state legislature have been aggressively pushing a voter suppression bill. Never Trump conservative and El Paso native Olivia Troye, who now heads the Republican Accountability Project, slams that bill in an article published by The Bulwark on July 15 — stressing that it isn’t about “election integrity,” but is shameless “grift” on the part of the Texas GOP.

Troye has no problem with Texas being conservative, but she considers herself a “John McCain Republican” and has been a blistering critic of Trumpism. And Troye, who worked in former Vice President Mike Pence’s office before rebelling over then-President Donald Trump’s COVID-19 response and endorsing Joe Biden in the 2020 election, obviously believes that Texas Republicans should win based on ideas — not suppressing votes via Texas House Bill 3 or Texas Senate Bill 1.

“From the governor’s mansion down to the statehouse floor, the Republican push for these unnecessary, bad-faith bills is a three-layer grift,” Troye warns. “At the first level of the grift, SB 1 and HB 3 are all rooted in the Big Lie that Donald Trump won the 2020 election. Republicans are channeling Elmer Fudd, searching for voter fraud that doesn’t exist.”

Troye goes on to say that “the second layer of the grift emanates from the governor’s mansion.”

“Greg Abbott’s political aspirations are no secret,” Troye writes. “He’s prepared for a tough reelection campaign by cobbling together a $55 million war chest, in part by adding $19 million in the last ten days of June alone — just after he announced he would call the legislature into special session to consider, among other measures, SB 1 and HB 3.”

According to Troye, the “third grift” of SB1/HB3 “serves Texan legislators like Bryan Hughes, the Republican state senator who has led the charge for ‘election integrity’ in Austin and authored SB 1.”

Troye explains, “Formulating bad policy to solve nonexistent problems is a surefire way to ward off a challenge from the right. It’s red meat for a ruby-red base, and by helping legislators like Hughes serve it up, Abbott can win allies. But while SB 1 and HB 3 may be effective for campaigning and feeding the frenzy of Fox News, they have the unusual distinction of being politically costly — at least, potentially so — and bad policy.”

Politically, Texas is a complex state. Although Texas is light red, it isn’t deep red like Wyoming, Idaho, Nebraska, Alabama or Mississippi. In 2020, Trump defeated now-President Joe Biden by 6% in Texas compared to 30% in Idaho and 43% in Wyoming. Moreover, Democrat Beto O’Rourke narrowly lost to Sen. Ted Cruz in Texas’ 2018 U.S. Senate race.

Democrats are still struggling in statewide races in Texas, but not as badly as they did during the 1990s or 2000s. And if Democrats can greatly increase voter turnout in Democrat-friendly urban centers like Houston, Austin, Dallas, El Paso and San Antonio, it will not be good news for the Republican Party.

Troye, who voted for Biden, believes that Republicans should win in Texas by having good ideas — not making it harder to vote.

“The Lone Star State’s absentee voting laws are already among the strictest in the country,” Troye observes. “SB 1 and HB 3 even ban the use of drop boxes, a tried and tested practice that helped many Americans vote at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. Republicans in Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and elsewhere are watching. They are preparing their next salvo of attacks on the electoral process and are gearing up for grifts of their own. Are we ready?”

Of course the GOP is spreading COVID-19 for political gain — it’s been their playbook for decades

After months of sliding downwards, COVID-19 transmission rates are now beginning to creep back up. The reasons for the backslide given in the media are often biological — lots of talk about how the delta variant is more contagious, for instance — but this surge was much more political. From the moment that President Joe Biden stepped into the White House, Republican leaders have understood that he will be blamed if the pandemic isn’t brought under control. And so they’ve set out to sabotage his efforts by encouraging their followers to risk their own health and reject getting vaccines in an effort to get the COVID-19 numbers up. 

The GOP’s pro-virus campaign has been wildly successful.

While 86% of Democrats have been vaccinated, only 45% of Republicans have gotten a shot. Nearly all of the currently unvaccinated Republicans flat-out refuse to do it ever. So COVID-19 is quickly becoming a regional disease, with hotspots concentrated in deeply Republican areas of the country. And while the delta variant is more contagious, the main reason it’s spreading is because of low vaccination rates, as 99.7% of new cases have been among the unvaccinated

I’ve been writing about this Republican scheming to use the bodies of their own people as disease vectors for months, but only in recent days has the mainstream media started to wake up to this grim reality.

On CNN on Wednesday, Erin Burnett played a supercut featuring Republican leaders like Rep. Lauren Boebert of Colorado screeching “don’t come knocking on my door with your Fauci ouchie” and Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin falsely suggeting the shot kills people. On the same day, another CNN anchor, Chris Cuomo, got angry with Republican Rep. Michael Burgess of Texas for being “OK with this kind of jackassery that has absolutely led to a deficiency among Republican people in this country taking the vaccine.” There’s been a lot of attention paid to Republicans shutting down vaccine outreach to young people in Tennessee. The Washington Post released a video showing that Republicans who supported the vaccine while Donald Trump was in office immediately switched to dissing the shot the second the president was a Democrat:

Why did it take so long for the mainstream media to admit that Republican leaders are intentionally encouraging infection? As has happened repeatedly in the past, it comes back to a reluctance to accept that Republicans really are as bad as they seem. It was just plain easier to imagine that those who said that Republicans were pro-virus are merely #resistance hysterics until the numbers made the truth undeniable. 


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


But that Republicans really are terrible enough to spread disease for political gain is unsurprising to those who have been paying attention to the sexual health wars. For decades, Republicans have done everything they can to discourage preventive sexual health care, including cutting off access to birth control and condoms and lying about the usefulness of various methods. The claim was that this was all justified to promote “abstinence,” but the result, time and again, was just more disease and unwanted child-bearing. 

Megan Carpentier at Dame Magazine took a deep dive on Wednesday on the Republican war on a vaccine for HPV, a sexually transmitted virus that causes many kinds of cancer, most notably cervical cancer. Pressuring parents to forgo this vaccine for their kids has been wildly successful at keeping preventable cancer rates high, Carpentier writes, as “the American Cancer Society predicts that 14,480 people will be diagnosed with invasive cervical cancer in 2021″ and “more than 4,000 people will die from cervical cancer this year.”

Republicans happily promote policies to kill these people because they think it serves their political interests. Spinning their followers up about the supposed evils of women’s sexual freedom has been the bread and butter of right-wing politics for decades: These women’s lives are being sacrificed for conservative propaganda. 

It’s the same story with all other sexually transmitted infections, especially HIV, which conservatives have long exploited to stigmatize LGBTQ people. And the same story with unwanted pregnancy and childbirth, which is useful to conservatives who want to demagogue about how girls today are a bunch of sluts and feminism is the reason. They need people to get sick and get pregnant against their will, so, with great deliberation, Republicans embraced policies and rhetoric designed to get people to forgo simple prevention measures. They slash funding for sexual health care every chance they get, often redirecting it to groups that will lie to people about the efficacy of contraception. In public schools, health classes across the country have long been forced to distribute anti-contraception propaganda. When the Affordable Care Act included copay-free coverage for contraception — a measure that, as predicted, reduced unintended pregnancy and abortion rates — Republicans lost their minds with rage. And they will lie and lie and lie about the supposed dangers of contraception and other preventive care. 


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


Trump’s vice president, Mike Pence, was deeply invested in the spread-disease-and-despair agenda, back when the targets were mostly women and LGBTQ people. In 2002, as a congressman from Indiana, Pence gave an interview where he falsely claimed that “condoms are a very, very poor protection against sexually transmitted diseases.” Later, when Pence was governor of Indiana, he gutted the HIV prevention systems in the state. When this predictably led to a surge in HIV transmissions, Pence fought against every effort to curb the infection rate, ensuring that the virus spread for months before he reluctantly did anything about it. 

Republicans justify this anti-prevention stance by claiming they promote sexual abstinence. The goal itself is unworthy — the government should not be in the business of pushing anti-sex religious dogma on the public — but, as Pence’s experience in Indiana shows, it doesn’t even work. All anti-prevention policies do is lead people to have unprotected sex. Abstinence-only programs in high schools are linked with higher teen pregnancy rates. Cutting contraception funding doesn’t lead to women forgoing sex, but it does lead to a surge in unintended childbirth. And, as Carpentier’s piece shows, replacing life-saving prevention tools like condoms and HPV vaccines with a “just say no” lecture leads to people dying

Republicans know this. They have seen the studies. They, like Pence, watched over and over as undermining prevention measures just leads to more disease and unwanted pregnancy. They just keep doing it anyway. After a certain point, it becomes hard to deny that they simply don’t care if people are suffering. On the contrary, sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies serve the GOP agenda, because all that misery can be exploited for propaganda about the supposed evils of modernity, feminism, and gay rights. Republicans have a long history of hurting people’s health to serve a larger political agenda. So of course they were well-prepared to exploit the COVID-19 pandemic and encourage disease transmission for political gain. Anyone who watched Republican responses to sexually transmitted infections and unplanned pregnancy knows this playbook well. The only thing that’s changed now is that they’re doing it to their own people.

Intelligence security experts react to bombshell new Trump-Putin allegations with skepticism

Russian President Vladimir Putin personally signed off on a spy operation designed to bolster Donald Trump’s candidacy in the 2016 election, hoping that a “mentally unstable” president would undermine American democracy, according to what The Guardian reports are leaked Kremlin documents. Some top international security experts in the U.S. reacted to the report, however, with cautious skepticism

A key meeting, the materials suggest, took place on January 22, 2016 involving Putin, Kremlin chiefs, and various senior ministers. During the meeting, Putin and his officials explicitly agreed to try and install Trump on the grounds that doing so would engender “social turmoil” in the U.S. Kremlin leaders apparently regarded Trump as an “impulsive, mentally unstable and unbalanced individual who suffers from an inferiority complex” and thus the “most promising candidate.” A Trump presidency, they concluded, would “definitely lead to the destabilization of the U.S.’s sociopolitical system.” Recall, in 2019, Russian state TV described Trump as the “agent” and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov as the “puppet master.” 

The documents also suggest that Trump himself may have visited Russia for unspecified reasons.

Putin’s press secretary, Dmitri Peskov, disputed the veracity of the leak on Thursday, calling allegations that Russian leaders held the aforementioned meeting “a great pulp fiction.”

The documents have not yet been verified by official sources and some experts in the U.S., like the former director of Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency under Trump, Chris Krebs, are already doubting the documents authenticity.

According to the Guardian, there is little room for doubt as to whether the January 2016 meeting was held. While an official Russian press release indicated that the meeting was geared toward the economy and Moldova, the leaked documents indicate it specifically addressed concerns regarding U.S. sanctions against Moscow. 

In fact, just two weeks earlier, a meeting was convened wherein Russian senior official Vladimir distributed a brief document of recommendation on how to combat what they viewed as aggressive economic actions from Washington. The paper adduced a “deepening political gulf between left and right”, America’s “media-information” environment, and a burgeoning sentiment of anti-establishment under the Obama administration. 

While the paper did not explicitly name 2016 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, it did propose injecting “media viruses” that might conceivably alter the political consciousness of the American public. 

To carry these proposals out, the leaked materials indicate, each spy agency was tasked with different objectives. Putin also set up an additional interdepartmental commission which tackled a “special part” of the operation. 

Putin, for his part, has repeatedly denied any allegations of Russian meddling in the 2016 election despite a growing body of evidence to the contrary. 

Back in 2018, The Department of Justice indicted 12 Russian intelligence officers for carrying out a hacking operation against the Democratic National Committee – an operation which led to the leak of thousands of confidential documents that may have damaged Clinton’s candidacy. In 2020, U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee concluded after a federal investigation that Putin himself ordered the hacking operation. There is also strong evidence that Russia coordinated a social media misinformation campaign designed to turn American voters against Clinton.

New research finds J&J vaccine has muscle against Covid’s delta variant

In the past two weeks, many medical experts started to question whether the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, which is administered in a single dose, would be as effective as the two-dose Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna vaccine in protecting against the new, highly transmissible delta variant that is poised to become the dominant strain in the U.S.

The reason for their doubts were studies showing that the J&J vaccine was less effective at preventing disease than the other two vaccines and also less protective against variants. In recent days, several scientists and even members of the public who originally got J&J decided to get a “booster dose” of an mRNA vaccine, Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna, to bolster their immune systems.

But data released Thursday night by Johnson & Johnson showed that the vaccine remains highly protective against the delta variant and immunity may be long-lasting.

“Those who got J&J should be less worried than they may have been before about delta,” said Dr. David Diemert, a professor of medicine at George Washington University who was not involved in J&J’s research. “It is reassuring.”

The Food and Drug Administration granted the J&J vaccine emergency use authorization in February on the heels of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines. After a 10-day pause in April, triggered when the vaccine was found to be associated with rare but severe blood clots, distribution resumed. About 12 million Americans have received it so far.

Experts say the delta variant, first identified in India, is 40% to 60% more transmissible than other variants, meaning that unvaccinated people can more easily catch covid-19 and that those who have been vaccinated face a higher risk of breakthrough infections. The delta variant has also been associated with greater disease severity than other variants. In the U.S., it now accounts for about 25% of covid cases.

The Johnson & Johnson data released Thursday offered the first window into how well the J&J shot holds up against the delta variant.

“We believe that our vaccine offers durable protection against COVID-19 and elicits neutralizing activity against the Delta variant,” Dr. Paul Stoffels, chief scientific officer at Johnson & Johnson, said in a press release.

The data comes from two small-sample preprint studies, which have not yet been peer reviewed and were both conducted in laboratories.

One of the new studies showed that the J&J vaccine continued to produce a high number of antibodies in the presence of the delta variant. And the number was actually higher than what recent data had shown for antibody levels against the beta variant (first identified in South Africa).

The second study showed that the J&J vaccine’s immune response lasted at least eight months and that some types of immune cells increased over time. This immune response was found to provide protection even against the delta variant and other variants of concern.

This builds onto research from J&J’s clinical trial before its vaccine received authorization from the FDA. In that study, the vaccine was found to be 72% effective at preventing severe and moderate disease in the U.S. Part of the trial was also conducted in South Africa and Brazil, where variants were circulating as the vaccine was being tested. Those results were slightly lower than in the U.S. trials — 57% in South Africa and 66% in Latin American nations — but, overall, those percentages confirm a high degree of protection.

Still, those percentages were lower than what Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna had reported in their trials — 95% and 94% effectiveness, respectively, at preventing symptomatic disease. Recent data suggests the two vaccines also protect against the delta variant.

That means that, while there is now some evidence that J&J is protective against the delta variant, its overall efficacy is still lower than that of Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna, said John Moore, a professor of microbiology and immunology at the Weill Cornell Medical College in New York.

“I don’t think anything has changed about that,” said Moore. He had previously told KHN he thought J&J should be a two-dose vaccine, since it provides less protection than Pfizer and Moderna.

He also pointed out that, if you look closely at one of the new J&J studies, a single person did elect to get an mRNA dose after receiving J&J, which strongly boosted that person’s antibody response.

“That is just a one-off result,” said Moore. “But it is consistent with emerging data.”

Indeed, data from studies in the United Kingdom shows that following a single dose of the Oxford-AstraZeneca shot with a Pfizer-BioNTech shot offered an immunity boost. (The Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine, authorized for use in the U.K. but not the U.S., operates through a similar mechanism as J&J, although two doses are required.)

Experts, though, also maintain that all the covid vaccines authorized for emergency use in the U.S. are very effective, especially compared with other types of vaccines. Flu vaccines have been found to have an average of 33% to 61% effectiveness, depending on the strain they protect against.

Still, Moore said those who got J&J should not pursue booster shots on their own but instead wait for guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and FDA.

“If and when FDA and CDC approve a change in policy, then it looks to me entirely appropriate to consider using the mRNAs as a boost for J&J,” said Moore.

In a statement, the FDA said that J&J remains a single-dose shot and that no data is available yet on its interchangeability with other covid vaccines. The CDC said the agency is continuing “to monitor and evaluate COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness.”

Diemert said the data from J&J’s studies supports his view that at this time a booster shot isn’t necessary for those who got J&J.

“Now that we have data that is encouraging that the vaccine might be protective against delta and that the duration of protection is a thing, those two together are encouraging that a booster might not be needed,” said Diemert.

Dr. Robert Wachter, chair of the Department of Medicine at the University of California-San Francisco, said he doesn’t think an mRNA booster is necessary either — but he would still caution those who got J&J to be a bit more careful than those who received Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna.

“The main difference would be definitely masking indoors (unless certain that everybody was vaccinated), whereas for mRNA vax recipient, I see that as more elective,” Wachter wrote in an email.

As for those who got J&J and have already gotten an mRNA booster shot? For some, the new findings come as a relief.

“These results are great news. I don’t find them surprising, but they are some of the data that was missing when I decided to take an mRNA booster,” said Jason Gallagher, a clinical pharmacy specialist in infectious diseases at Temple University Hospital in Philadelphia.

He got a dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine after receiving the J&J vaccine because he was concerned about a U.K. study that indicated one dose of the Oxford-AstraZeneca or Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was much less effective against the delta variant than two doses.

Gallagher said he might not have gotten a booster if the J&J results had been available a month ago, but he doesn’t regret his decision.

“This is an immunologic study suggesting that the vaccine will work against the delta variant, not a clinical study describing whether it did. I’m looking forward to learning more about that,” said Gallagher.

For those who are still considering getting an mRNA booster, it’s important to know that vaccine sites may ask whether you have already been vaccinated against covid. These sites have been instructed to administer vaccines according to CDC and FDA guidelines and have not been authorized to give additional shots to those who have already received a complete vaccine regimen.

Experts also emphasized that the best way to protect against the highly transmissible delta variant is to achieve a high vaccination rate across the U.S. When more people are vaccinated, the amount of circulating virus is reduced, which means everyone is better protected, including those who got the J&J shot.

Almost 67% of U.S. adults have received at least one vaccine dose, but only 47% of the total population is fully vaccinated. Rates of vaccination also vary widely by state. In other words, location has a lot to do with risk. Several Southeastern and Midwestern states, for instance, have less than 55% of their population vaccinated, meaning the delta variant could more easily sweep through those areas.

“All of the evidence on our currently authorized vaccines in the U.S. suggests they remain highly effective against preventing severe disease even against the variants,” said Dr. William Moss, executive director of the International Vaccine Access Center at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore.