What Happens When Patients Learn About Their Alzheimer's Status?

 Learning about a positive amyloid-PET result was associated with psychological changes among people with subjective cognitive decline, but those changes did not reach a threshold for clinical concern.

In the prospective AMYPAD consortium study, people who received news about a positive amyloid scan showed small increases in distress, anxiety, or depression scores compared with peers who learned they had negative scans, reported Daniele Altomare, PhD, of the University of Geneva in Switzerland, and co-authors in JAMA Network Openopens in a new tab or window.

Elevated brain amyloid deposition is considered the strongest risk factor

opens in a new tab or window for Alzheimer's disease, Altomare and co-authors noted. Study participants were 105 individuals with subjective cognitive decline, defined as having at least 5 years of bothersome cognitive problems despite assessments not showing cognitive impairment.

"Delivering bad news to cognitively unimpaired patients could be one of the most challenging tasks physicians have to face in their clinical practice," the authors wrote. "Therefore, it is crucial to highlight that disclosing a positive amyloid-PET result was not associated with a clinically relevant psychological change."

However, the knowledge of elevated amyloid was not benign, Jason Karlawish, MD, of the Penn Memory Center at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, pointed out in an accompanying editorialopens in a new tab or window.

"It was associated with increases of scores on the Impact of Events Scale [IES-R], a measure of the distress precipitated by witnessing a traumatic event," Karlawish observed. "Persons endorsed a host of behaviors and moods, such as feeling preoccupied or distracted with the information and seeking to avoid the topic."

Altomare's group reported that disclosure-related distress scores were higher in amyloid-positive patients, with a higher median IES-R total score of 10 vs 0 for amyloid-negative patients (scores of at least 33 indicate probable presence of post-traumatic stress disorder). IES-R avoidance scores were 0 vs 0, intrusion scores were 0.50 vs 0, and hyperarousal scores were 0.33 vs 0 (all P<0.001), respectively.

Among amyloid-positive patients, higher education was significantly associated with lower disclosure-related distress. The presence of a study partner was also associated with higher disclosure-related distress.

"Alzheimer's disease affects one brain and at least two minds: the patient and their caregiver," Karlawish emphasized. Learning about the presence of an Alzheimer's disease biomarker should begin with having sufficient space and chairs in the examination room for at least two people, he added.

"There, they should meet with a variety of clinicians, such as social workers, skilled in talking about the things that make a life well lived," he wrote. "These conversations could guide patients and their caregivers to think about who to share results with and how to plan for their futures."

The AMYPAD study

opens in a new tab or window included patients from five European memory clinics who were recruited from April 2018 to October 2020. Of 105 participants with subjective cognitive decline, 27 were assessed as amyloid-positive and 78 as amyloid-negative.

The cohort had a median age of 69 years, and 56% were men. Median education was 15 years. No significant differences were seen in sociodemographic or clinical features between amyloid-positive and amyloid-negative patients. Study outcomes were assessed at baseline and after disclosure; some participants also had data collected at 13 months.

No observed differences emerged between amyloid-positive and amyloid-negative patients in median Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale (HADS) score changes from baseline to disclosure.

Main limitations included the study's lack of long-term follow-up, which "prevents us from alleging that the disclosure of a positive amyloid-PET does not cause significant psychological risk in the long term," Altomare and co-authors acknowledged.

Disclosures

The AMYPAD project is funded by the EU-EFPIA Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking.

Altomare reported no disclosures. Co-authors reported numerous relationships with industry and others.

Karlawish reported receiving grants from Biogen, Lilly, and Eisai.

Primary Source

JAMA Network Open

Source Reference: opens in a new tab or windowCaprioglio C, et al "Analysis of psychological symptoms following disclosure of amyloid–positron emission tomography imaging results to adults with subjective cognitive decline" JAMA Netw Open 2023; DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.50921.

Secondary Source

JAMA Network Open

Source Reference: opens in a new tab or windowKarlawish J "Clinical practice in the Alzheimer biomarker era -- drugs for the brain and care for the mind" JAMA Netw Open 2023; DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.50938.

https://www.medpagetoday.com/neurology/alzheimersdisease/102642

Does Dr. Fauci still work at the NIH?

 Dr. Anthony Fauci had told the New York Times in August that he would retire from 54 years of government service by the end of the year to “pursue the next chapter” of his career.

But according to sources at the NIH, he may still be a federal employee.

Once source close to the matter told me that the White House made the decision to keep Dr. Fauci employed by the government in order to keep his security detail of U.S. Marshals. The former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) has received death threats, including one that was believed to be an intercepted plot to harm him.

While it is unclear if Dr. Fauci still works at NIH, the only thing that is clear is that there is little transparency as to when his last day was, or will be, on the government payroll. And, if he is still a federal employee, his job description and salary are unknown. Fauci’s 2021 salary was listed at $456,000.

The NIAID media office has not responded to my inquiry about whether he was still a federal employee. Dr. Fauci’s name is still active in an internal directory of NIH employees, which staff tell me is normally kept up to date.

In reviewing Fauci’s statements about his last day, it appears he may have never actually said he was leaving government by the end of the year (2022), but instead that he was ‘stepping down.’ The New York Times wrote late last month that December 31, 2022 was his “last day as a federal employee,” but Dr. Fauci himself simply referred to his moving on to his ‘next phase.’ “While I am moving on from my current positions, I am not retiring” he said in an August 22, 2022 statement, adding “After more than 50 years of government service, I plan to pursue the next phase of my career.” Conversely, he has also said that in his ‘next chapter’ he’d like to do things that he can’t do in government.

Some staff at NIH are simply frustrated by the idea that the 82-year-old former NIAID director is part of an inside network of legacy government players that are ‘taken care of’ by each other. If Dr. Fauci is still “on the books” it would be in line with a pattern of older NIH scientists being shuffled around government at the end of their career.

NIAID’s most recent chief of viral diseases, 85-year-old Dr. Bernard Moss, who just stepped down from his leadership role, still works at the agency. And Dr. John E. Bennett, who will turn 90 this year, also still works at NIAID as an infectious disease scientist. I am one of many doctors who believes that both of these scientists had meaningful contributions to medicine, but keeping an old guard in power crowds out fresh new ideas.

Last year, Dr. Francis Collins (age 72) stepped down from his role as NIH director and soon after was named co-head of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. Dr. Collins is also still working in a lab at the NIH after serving as director of the agency for 12 years. Drs. Collins and Fauci had a famous email exchange in which Dr. Collins called for a swift and devastating take down of a proposal by Dr. Jay Bhattacharya and other prominent scientists to keep schools open and use a targeted protection strategy to Covid restrictions. A new batch of Twitter files to be released this week are expected to shed more light on their censorship efforts.

There may be a strong argument for keeping Dr. Fauci on payroll as the only way to legally provide him taxpayer-funded security. But the agency’s pattern of shuffling legacy scientists around at the end of their careers may not be the best stewardship of scarce research dollars.

 “The old guys never leave,” one younger NIH scientist told me. Senior scientists staying in their leadership roles for decades also prevents upward mobility of younger doctors, the scientist pointed out.

While I have had disagreements with Dr. Fauci on medical science and public policy, there is nothing criminal about Dr. Fauci staying on as a federal employee after stepping down as the director of NIAID. In fact, it may be a legitimate way for ensure his safety with a security detail. But given the tremendous distrust in health officials right now, it would be good for the public to have some transparency and clarity about who carries clout at NIAID today and what taxpayers are paying for.

Marty Makary MD, MPH is a professor at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and author of the New York Times bestselling books Unaccountable and The Price We Pay.

https://sensiblemed.substack.com/p/does-dr-fauci-still-work-at-the-nih

U.S. says Pfizer's bivalent COVID shot may be linked to stroke in older adults

 

U.S. drugmaker Pfizer Inc and German partner BioNTech's updated COVID-19 shot could be linked to a type of brain stroke in older adults, according to preliminary data analyzed by U.S. health authorities.

Citing one of many vaccine safety databases of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), health officials said on Friday that people 65 and older were more likely to have an ischemic stroke 21 days after receiving the Pfizer/BioNTech bivalent shot, compared with days 22-44.

An ischemic stroke, also known as brain ischemia, is caused by blockages in arteries that carry blood to the brain.

The safety concern requires more investigation and "it is very unlikely that it represents a true clinical risk", the authorities said.

Pfizer and BioNTech said in a statement that they have been made aware of limited reports of ischemic strokes in people 65 and older following vaccination with their updated shot.

"Neither Pfizer and BioNTech nor the CDC or the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have observed similar findings across numerous other monitoring systems in the U.S. and globally and there is no evidence to conclude that ischemic stroke is associated with the use of the companies' COVID-19 vaccines," Pfizer added.

This safety concern has not been identified with Moderna's bivalent shot and both the CDC and FDA continue to recommend that everyone aged 6 months and older stay up-to-date with their COVID-19 vaccination.

Pfizer/BioNtech and Moderna's bivalent shots, which target both the original coronavirus and Omicron sub-variants, have been authorized for use in children 6 months and older.

https://www.marketscreener.com/quote/stock/MODERNA-INC-47437573/news/U-S-says-Pfizer-s-bivalent-COVID-shot-may-be-linked-to-stroke-in-older-adults-42731299/

Biden taps problem-solver Bob Bauer as personal lawyer in document probe

 

President Joe Biden is turning to a longtime Democratic problem-solver, lawyer Bob Bauer, to manage his response to a U.S. special counsel's investigation into his handling of classified material after the discovery of documents at his private office and home.

Bauer will serve as Biden's personal lawyer during a probe by U.S. Special Counsel Robert Hur, a former U.S. attorney in Maryland who was tapped by Attorney General Merrick Garland on Thursday to examine whether classified documents had been improperly removed or retained.

A spokesperson for Bauer confirmed that he is representing Biden but declined further comment. The White House has said the documents were "inadvertently misplaced" and that it is cooperating fully but has declined to respond to detailed questions on the investigation.

The pick shows Biden circling the wagons, relying on a trusted inner circle that has guided much of his recent political career to beat back political and legal fallout from the investigation, which comes as he weighs running for re-election in 2024.

Republicans, who now control the House of Representatives, are eager to paint Biden's administration as scandal-plagued as former President Donald Trump, who has announced his 2024 candidacy, faces investigations and lawsuits over classified documents, election fraud and tax payment.

Biden had turned to Bauer, now a law professor at New York University, for help in deciding whether to seek the presidency in 2020. Bauer subsequently served as a senior adviser to Biden's campaign, leading an army of lawyers who monitored voting access and fought off legal challenges from Trump, Biden's Republican opponent. Bauer also played the role of Trump in Biden's debate preparation.

Bauer won praise for managing the rocky period from the election to the announcement of a victor four days later and then through the presidential transition, when Trump refused to concede defeat and pursued novel and unsuccessful legal challenges to prevent Biden from taking office.

Bauer has long been a fixture in Democratic legal circles, representing both of President Barack Obama's presidential campaigns and serving as Obama's White House counsel from 2009 to 2011. While working as the Obama campaign's general counsel in 2008, Bauer helped vet Biden as Obama's pick for vice president.

In those years, he also became close with Biden and supported his efforts to consider a 2016 bid for the presidency even as others in the administration favored former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the eventual Democratic nominee.

Biden, grieving the 2015 death of his son Beau, ultimately declined to run in 2016 after consultation with a small group including Bauer. Clinton lost to Trump, and Biden mounted a bid four years later.

Gray-bearded and scholarly in mien, Bauer spent nearly his entire career at the law firm Perkins Coie, starting the firm's influential political law practice. Firms like Perkins collect millions of dollars in billable hours from the warring U.S. political parties during election season.

"He looks and has the temperament of the college professor and he's a hard-as-nails litigator and strategist," NYU law professor Samuel Issacharoff, who worked under Bauer on both Obama campaigns, told Reuters in 2020.

Bauer retired from Perkins Coie in 2018 to focus on his teaching, but continued representing some clients in an individual capacity.

He is married to Anita Dunn, another Biden confidant and senior White House adviser. Dunn is a key architect of Biden's communications strategy who has helped with personnel decisions and crafting a message to counter Republican opponents.

Bauer will now work with White House lawyers as Biden responds to the special counsel's investigation. Documents with classified markings were found both at Biden's personal office at a Washington think tank and in a garage at his Delaware home in recent months.

https://www.marketscreener.com/news/latest/Biden-taps-problem-solver-Bob-Bauer-as-personal-lawyer-in-document-probe--42731835/

GOP-Led House Launches Probe Into Biden's "Absurd & Disgraceful" Botched Afghan Withdrawal

 The Republican-led House has launched a formal probe into the Biden administration's chaotic and deadly Afghanistan troop withdrawal operation and evacuation of August 2021, which is to be complete with issuing subpoenas for US officials to undergo depositions, in order to gain a clear picture of what happened and the botched decision-making. This as there's still yet to be any level of accountability for officials that oversaw the disaster.

The Hill reports Friday, "Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas), the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee who served as its ranking member previously, said the Biden administration has so far refused to hand over documents but that he is now formally requesting compliance as chair of the panel."

McCaul blasted the White House, saying "It is absurd and disgraceful that the Biden administration has repeatedly denied our longstanding oversight requests and continues to withhold information related to the withdrawal."

"In the event of continued noncompliance, the Committee will use the authorities available to it to enforce these requests as necessary, including through a compulsory process," he added.

A Thursday letter to Secretary of State Antony Blinken demanded the handing over of relevant intelligence assessments, and internal agency documents, as well as any communications with either the Afghan government or Taliban that occurred in the lead-up to and during the withdrawal.

It was among the most disastrous withdrawals from a foreign conflict theatre of US troops in American history, which closed a 20-year long. increasingly unpopular occupation. At the time, widespread comparisons were made with the April 1979 fall of Saigon and its images of American helicopters landing on the rooftop of the US embassy to evacuate desperate personnel and their families.

13 US troops died as a result of a terror attack targeting a gate at Kabul international airport. Additionally about 170 Afghans died, as they had been crowded up against the gate that US Marines were manning.

Other countries, notably China and Russia widely mocked the US and Pentagon for its handling of the Afghanistan pullout...

The world also witnessed shocking scenes of two Afghans falling to their deaths after they sought to grab a hold of the undercarriage of a departing US Air Force C-17, after Kabul airport security broke down and huge crowds swarmed the runways. The body of another Afghan was found in the aircraft's landing gear upon landing.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/gop-led-house-opens-probe-bidens-absurd-disgraceful-botched-afghan-withdrawal

Yes, Virginia, There Is A Deep State... And It's Worse Than You Think

 by William Anderson via The Mises Institute,

Mention the term “deep state” in polite company and most likely no one will want to speak to you the rest of the evening. The deep state is what Wikipedia calls “discredited,” something reeking of conspiracies, false accusations, and the substitution of fantasy for the truth.

After the FBI raided Donald Trump’s home in Florida, Trump alluded to “deep state” actions, which brought predictable ridicule from the mainstream media. Trump was speaking conspiratorially, and if one follows the mainstream media these days, the only conspiracies are on the right. (You know, like the one in which the unarmed, ragtag January 6 rioters nearly overthrew the US government.)

After the recent revelations about how Twitter worked to hide the story of the infamous Hunter Biden laptop, Trump attributed the secrecy to a plot by the “deep state.” However, while the facts of the story really are outrageous, I don’t believe it was as much a secret conspiracy as a case of people being able to engage in certain actions with no political consequences.

Furthermore, journalist Matt Taibbi’s stunning revelations regarding FBI and CIA agents’ outright interference in the 2020 election via Twitter on the pretense that Russian operatives were spreading disinformation has further exposed both the involvement of federal law enforcement agents in partisan activities and the sad fact that those agents need not worry about being held accountable - especially if they are engaged in a “progressive” cause.

The Standard Deep State Narrative

One does not have to believe in a single conspiracy (not even about the 9/11 attacks) to understand that there really is what we can call a deep state. Indeed, what we might call the real deep state has nothing to do with conspiracies, secret meetings, and the like. Instead, this deep state operates in the open and in broad daylight, and that makes the deep state narrative an even greater threat than the secret cabal narrative.

When I was a young adult, I read a novel by two anticommunist journalists called The Spike, in which a young, liberal, and crusading journalist uncovers a nest of Soviet agents embedded in the US government. The journalist’s story on the affair, however, is spiked by his employer (a Washington Post–like paper), but the protagonist manages to get the story out elsewhere. The result is that a compromised president is brought down and the federal government is able to ferret out the Soviet agents.

Thus, in a dramatic moment, a motivated journalist and political allies expose the equivalent of the “deep state” and the US government makes a rightward turn. The deep state goes away.

The Hard Truth

Unfortunately, no novelist can write out our present deep state because that would be a bridge too far. The reason is that our present deep state simply is the executive branch of government, which has been written into our laws and our courts, and this branch has taken over much of the role originally assigned to the judicial wing of government, that of interpreting the laws.

The real power of the modern state is in its civil service, which is composed of employees of all the federal departments and agencies—employees who hardly are neutral ideologically and politically, employees who are protected by civil service laws and by unions. When progressive regimes such as the Biden and Obama administrations occupy the West Wing and Congress, the federal courts become almost irrelevant. The president and his political appointees govern by executive orders, which, not surprisingly, the allegedly neutral government employees enthusiastically support.

Much of modern lawmaking is by executive order, with many orders not even having to square with the statutes underlying them, something that has gone on for a long time. For example, when President Franklin Roosevelt seized private gold holdings in 1933, he based his executive order upon the 1917 Trading with the Enemy Act. When President Biden announced student loan forgiveness, he based his order on the 9/11 Heroes Act, stretching that law and its obvious intent to the point that it was unrecognizable.

While not all executive orders have the effect of Executive Order 6102, they nonetheless involve the executive branch of the US government assuming powers that well may violate the Constitution yet are carried out without a worry that any outside agency—including the US Supreme Court—will intervene. (Yes, the courts so far have slapped down Biden’s student loan forgiveness scheme, but the litigation process is not complete, and the courts can be unpredictable.)

All-Powerful Bureaucracy Has Progressive Support

One would think that educated Americans would blanch at the prospect of federal agencies making policies independent of congressional or court oversight, but the opposite is true, especially when federal agents pursue progressive policies. For example, when the Supreme Court placed some legal fences around the Environmental Protection Agency’s powers to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, the progressive establishment exploded in anger.

For example, the New York Times, which carries the progressive standard, declared that the court had placed American lives in danger:

Regulatory agencies staffed by experts are the best available mechanism for a representative democracy to make decisions in areas of technical complexity. The E.P.A. is the entity that Congress relies upon to figure out how clean the air should be, and how to get there. Asserting that it lacks the power to perform its basic responsibilities is simply sabotage.

Governance by “experts” has been the progressive mantra for more than a century, the idea being that so-called experts embedded deep in government should be free to make whatever decisions they believe best to govern the rest of us. The assumption of the editors of the NYT is that the “experts” always (or at least usually) know what is best for everyone else and how to achieve those important social and economic ends.

Likewise, the revelations that the FBI and CIA were coercing social media companies to censor anything that contradicted certain progressive narratives coming from Washington, DC, should have been banner headlines everywhere and the lead story on the evening news. Instead, mainstream progressive journalists attacked Matt Taibbi, or like David French, they downplayed the seriousness of what happened and made excuses for federal agents.

(French argued that the only real question was whether federal agents had “violated the First Amendment” and that anything else was not fit for discussion. And, yes, he concluded that those agents probably had not violated the Constitution.)

Conclusion

We are not speaking of secret conspiracies in which nefarious actions are carried out in the darkness. These things are carried out in daylight, complete with the names of the characters involved, yet people who raise serious questions about the legality of these actions, let alone the question of right and wrong, are excoriated and ignored by our institutional gatekeepers.

That is why I say that this version of the deep state is much worse than whatever the authors of The Spike might have believed to exist. The people involved do what they darn well please, all the while claiming they are the soul of democracy, and many Americans seem to either believe them or no longer care.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/yes-virginia-there-deep-state-and-its-worse-you-think

Dystopian Roots Of California's COVID-19 Misinformation Law

 by Douglas Eckenrood via The Epoch Times,

It is late 2024, and the special agent in charge of the COVID Misinformation Compliance Task Force begins her daily brief by disseminating a list of the days’ five targets to her team of ten sworn peace officers on special assignment from local law enforcement agencies.

The team reviews the targets’ criminal histories and firearm ownership records, takes note of logistical concerns, and employs a host of social media and “not to be mentioned” electronic data gathering tools. Warrants are confirmed and onsite surveillance is initiated, providing real-time information to the incoming arrest team.

he law enforcement team exits their vehicles at a safe distance and approaches the suspect’s location with caution. As the team makes its approach, verbal commands are given to the women and children entering and exiting the pediatric clinic to clear a path in front of the office door and vacate the area immediately.

After the team enters, clerical and medical staff are ordered to take seats and provide their doctor’s location. The doctor is located in the hallway between patient rooms, placed in restraints, searched for weapons, and immediately taken to the transport vehicle idling outside.

Witnesses state they could hear the doctor protesting loudly, “My license appeal is still under review!”

Could This Happen?

Of course you’re asking, “What the heck is this guy talking about?” Please, allow me to explain. Using the same perfect pitch that George Orwell used to author “1984,” the California State Senate authored another piece of legislation that summoned the intertwined spirits of Josef Mengele and Joseph Goebbels. As you may already know, the current Sacramento political lineup is the gift that keeps on giving.

Governor Newsom signed Assembly Bill 2098 on Sept. 30, 2022, and it became state law effective Jan. 1. The bill, titled “Physicians and surgeons: unprofessional conduct,” adds the following section to California’s Business and Professions Code:

2270. (a) It shall constitute unprofessional conduct for a physician and surgeon to disseminate misinformation or disinformation related to COVID-19, including false or misleading information regarding the nature and risks of the virus, its prevention and treatment; and the development, safety, and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines.

It defines misinformation as “false information that is contradicted by contemporary scientific consensus contrary to the standard of care.”

In a nutshell, if you are a doctor who deviates from the established CDC talking points or even attempts to assess and advise their patient as an individual, you may be guilty of COVID misinformation and thus be guilty of unprofessional conduct.

What are the potential penalties? Well, let’s just say that the student loan forgiveness plan won’t be helping you, as the $10,000 forgiveness limit won’t even cover the lab fees you incurred with your now worthless medical degree.

The Medical Board of California has been imbued with expanded authority to investigate, review, and refer for disposition to the State Attorney General’s Health Quality Enforcement Section’s office, complaints against “COVID misinformation.” The outcome of this completely vaporous virtue-signaling trope may include having your medical license pulled by the state, as well as exposure to fees and other sanctions. Don’t forget that this assault on the pursuit of the truth came out of a change in business code!

I hear you saying, “What’s this have to do with the dystopian scene above?”

Ah, good reader! Yes, what happens if you don’t comply and continue to practice medicine anyway?

Business and Professions Code 2052 nicely dovetails into the above by making this an arrestable offense with with the potential of a year in county jail.

I cannot possibly know the percentage of doctors who will either submit to a CCP-style tyranny or adopt skillful wordplay like 15th century astronomers wrestling with heliocentric revelations that the dominant church of their day forbid. But I can predict the number will not be zero.

What Consensus?

Obviously I am not a doctor, but I do have a memory and do archive the articles I read, especially when I’m making medical decisions. I generally review the same sources that AB 2098 references when regarding consensus, for example the American Medical Association. The only consistencies I’ve seen surrounding COVID-19 and the “vaccine” are the consistent inconsistencies. Wait a week and it will change.

Remember the “protect grandma and get the jab” mantras? Or “do your part for herd immunity?” Now we learn that mRNA vaccination doesn’t accomplish either, and the new goal is “reduce severe illness and hospitalization.” I won’t mention some of the latest data regarding that claim, but it doesn’t look good. And I won’t speak more on the issue of defining the undefinable, because I run the risk of losing focus on the real problem. Sacramento power-hungry politicians have pulled off the ultimate gaslighting. We have been debating the way government is going to intercede in our lives rather than focusing on the fact that they don’t have the authority to do so.

The inherent desire for government to give itself additional authority is one of the reasons our Constitution and Bill of Rights were constructed the way they were. The founders made individual liberty the underpinning of much of their writing and have warned future generations to protect it at all costs.

Public Health Overreach

Unfortunately, the California Legislatures’ penchant to rely on questionable medical “consensus” is nothing new. During the 1920s, California adopted “model laws,” in which law enforcement conducted the proactive arrest of women suspected to have sexually transmitted diseases—all in the name of public health. Literal law enforcement sweeps, arrests, and forced gynecological exams would happen with no probable cause needed.

California relied on the U.S. Attorney General’s published opinion that these proactive public health efforts were constitutional and that the public’s interest trumped individual liberty. One of the reasons that this unbelievable and sick overreach is even known is that during a particular morality sweep, of the 22 women arrested and inspected that day, two of the arrestees were sisters, one of whom was Margaret Hennessy. The wife of a Standard Oil manager, she was recovering from influenza and was out for some fresh air with her sister, which was a common practice in that day.

Mrs. Hennessy had the courage to go to the news media and let her outrage be known, which should be an example to all of us. California’s “morality policy” using public heath concerns to expand the power to investigate, detain, and arrest individuals was illegal then and is still illegal now.

The first step in combating authoritarian overreach is not debating what or why they are doing something. It’s making the government identify where their authority to impose a mandate or new law comes from and then impose the constitutional test. You already know the answer, don’t you? They don’t have the authority to do what they are doing.

Since 1850, California has suffered through innumerable attempts to exceed its own constitutional authority, not to mention the Constitution of the United States. Historically, we seem to work things out and get as close to what’s right as possible. However, I’m afraid that much of today’s public has forgotten what freedom looks like and is suffering from Stockholm Syndrome.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/dystopian-roots-californias-covid-19-misinformation-law