Search This Blog

Tuesday, February 14, 2023

Hazmat spill on Arizona highway spurs evacuation, shelter-in-place orders

 A crash involving a commercial truck tractor pulling a box trailer in Arizona has caused a hazmat spill that has shut down part of a highway and required residents nearby to evacuate or shelter in place. 

The Arizona Department of Public Safety said in a tweet just past 7 p.m. ET that it was investigating the spill on Interstate 10 in Tucson. It said in a post on its website that the truck tractor, which was carrying liquid nitric acid, was leaking hazardous material. 

The website post said unified command, which is made up of the state public health department and the Tucson police and fire departments, have evacuated residents within a half-mile perimeter of the spill and told residents within a mile of the crash to shelter in place. 

Officials closed the highway in both directions as a result and have warned that local residents should expect an “extensive” closure. They said motorists should find other routes and the public should avoid the area. 

The spill comes after a train derailment near the town of East Palestine, Ohio, earlier this week caused boxcars to burst into flames and allow hazardous chemicals to escape into the air. Officials conducted a “controlled release” of the chemicals to avoid an even more hazardous explosion. 

The odors from the chemicals have largely scattered, but some reportedly are remaining near streams.

https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/3858633-hazmat-spill-on-arizona-highway-spurs-evacuation-shelter-in-place-orders/

Philippines’ Marcos Summons Chinese Envoy After Laser Incident

 Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. has summoned China’s ambassador to express his “serious concern” after a Chinese ship aimed a military-grade laser at a Philippine vessel in the South China Sea.

The Philippine coast guard on Monday said a Chinese coast guard ship directed a green laser light twice toward a Philippine vessel while it was on a resupply mission near Second Thomas Shoal in the South China Sea on Feb. 6, causing “temporary blindness” to the crew.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-02-15/philippines-marcos-summons-chinese-envoy-after-laser-incident

US Warns It Will Defend Philippines After China Deploys Laser At Sea

 The Biden administration has denounced the actions of China's military after a new significant incident involving the Philippine and Chinese Coast Guards. It happened on Feb.6, but has only this week been revealed.

State Department spokesman Ned Price in a Tuesday briefing blasted China’s "provocative and unsafe" interference aimed at disrupting Philippine vessels' "lawful operations" in the South China Sea. "More broadly, the PRC’s dangerous operational behavior directly threatens regional peace and stability, infringes upon freedom of navigation in the South China Sea as guaranteed under international law, and undermines the rules-based international order," Price said

Specifically, the allegation is that a Chinese Coast Guard ship used a laser device to "temporarily blind" the crew of the rival Philippine ship, according to the US, citing its Philippine ally.

The US said it happened in an area where Beijing has "no lawful maritime claims" as it occurred as the Philippine Coast Guard (PCG) sailed around Second Thomas Shoal. 

That's when, according to an official PCG statement

The Chinese ship illuminated the green laser light twice toward the BRP MALAPASCUA, causing temporary blindness to her crew at the bridge. The Chinese vessel also made dangerous maneuvers by approaching about 150 yards from the vessel's starboard quarter.

The PCG further called it "a blatant disregard for, and a clear violation of, Philippine sovereign rights."

The State Dept.'s Price agreed, saying "The United States stands with our Philippine allies in upholding the rules-based international maritime order and reaffirms an armed attack on Philippine armed forces, public vessels, or aircraft, including those of the Coast Guard in the South China Sea, would invoke U.S. mutual defense commitments," while referencing a 1951 mutual defense treaty. 

It's certainly not the first time the US made such a pledge; however, clearly Beijing is challenging the US stance with such brazen provocations in the South China Sea, especially when disputed territory is at play. 

Beijing has acknowledged the incident, but blamed the Philippine Coast Guard for entering claimed Chinese waters...

Last summer Secretary of State Antony Blinken pledged and spelled out: "We also reaffirm that an armed attack on Philippine armed forces, public vessels, or aircraft in the South China Sea would invoke US mutual defense commitments under Article IV of the 1951 US-Philippines Mutual Defense Treaty."

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/us-warns-it-will-defend-philippines-after-china-deploys-laser-sea

Medicare Advantage Ads in Your Patient Portal? CMS Says They Shouldn't Be There

 When John Heafield opened his electronic health record (EHR) portal in November to check for reports from his doctors, he was shocked and offended.

There at the top of his inbox was a messageopens in a new tab or window suggesting he should enroll in a Medicare Advantage plan. "Review your 2023 Medicare Advantage coverage options," it said. The annual enrollment period began Oct. 15.

For a second, he thought his doctors might be suggesting he enroll, which he felt would be highly inappropriate. But as he read through, he realized the message came from FollowMyHealth (FMH), the company that operates the EHR portal for his North Carolina-based health system. It said he should click on a link to get his "personal code, powered by our partner, eHealth, a licensed independent insurance agency."

Automatically, the code would "securely share your prescriptions and doctors with our partner, eHealth." It would also allow him to see "Medicare Advantage plans that may have your doctors in their network and may cover your prescriptions at the most affordable price."

Heafield, 74, who deliberately rejected Medicare Advantage out of concerns about its significant downsides, opting instead for traditional Medicare and a supplement plan, suspected something was very wrong. If not flatly illegal, he said, it was morally wrong to solicit MA enrollment through his health portal.

"I felt they were using the trusted platform of my healthcare provider without, I suspect, the consent or knowledge of my provider," the Asheville retiree told MedPage Today. After asking some of his doctors in the Mountain Area Health Education Center (MAHECopens in a new tab or window) network whether they knew or approved of this solicitation, his suspicions were confirmed. They knew nothing about it, they told him, and were dismayed by the practice.

"Being a paid supplier of patient portal services places FMH in a quasi-fiduciary relationship," Heafield said. "It should not take advantage of the trust ... to promote its own independent interests."

Medicare Disapproves

MedPage Today sent the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services screen shots of the communications Heafield received, and asked about the appropriateness of FollowMyHealth's use of such messages to solicit Medicare Advantage enrollees.

"An organization/company should not engage a patient through their health care plan patient communication portal with a purpose to market to or solicit enrollment into a Medicare Advantage (MA) plan," an agency spokesperson said in responseopens in a new tab or window. She referenced an Oct. 19 memoopens in a new tab or window on best practices sent to MA and Part D plan sponsors, including third-party marketing organizations.

The agency did not answer questions about what actions it has taken or plans to take to prevent FollowMyHealth, eHealth, or any other entity from using an EHR patient portal to recruit Medicare Advantage enrollees.

Kathi Petersen, a spokeswoman for MAHEC, said in a statement

opens in a new tab or window to MedPage Today that although her rural, non-profit medical center "did not send the messages in question nor did we know these particular messages were being sent by FMH, we regret the negative experience this gentleman had and appreciate that he brought his concerns to our attention. By no means does MAHEC wish to imply that these third-party messages are an endorsement of such products."

Petersen said that when a patient enrolls in the FMH platform, the patient has the option to agree to receive or to opt-out of receiving these third-party messages and can do so at any time.

But that's easier said than done, Heafield said, adding that viewing these kinds of ads is "opt-in by default." And, he said, "providing the ability to opt-out does not excuse FMH's misleading presentation. The issue is FMH giving the impression that MA plans are endorsed by my provider."

Heafield emphasized he wasn't criticizing MAHEC, which he sees as more of a victim in the situation than a perpetrator.

FMH Responds

FMH is a significant player in the patient portal market. One sourceopens in a new tab or window posted that its EHR portal programs are used by "more than 300 companies" while another analysisopens in a new tab or window estimates the number at 145.

Asked why FMH was sending messages recruiting enrollment in MA plans through patients' health information portals, Angela Whitehead Smith, associate general counsel for Veradigm (formerly Allscripts), which operates FollowMyHealth, sent a lengthy responseopens in a new tab or window. She said the portal's messages "clearly indicate that FollowMyHealth PHR [personal health record] is not communicating on behalf of the individual's provider or the federal government."

But such a disclaimer was not mentioned either in the portal message Heafield received or in a separate letteropens in a new tab or window eHealth and FollowMyHealth sent to eligible beneficiaries, including Heafield, by mail.

The message sent to portal recipients, in particular, said only that "FollowMyHealth is not directly affiliated with your doctor," perhaps leaving some portal users with the impression that doctors could be indirectly affiliated.

Smith also said the FMH PHR is regulated by the Federal Trade Commission and is not a PHR offered by an entity covered by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), in part, because "it is not a 'view' into a provider's electronic health record."

When MedPage Today sent Smith a link to its own websiteopens in a new tab or window, which boasts FMH is HIPAA-compliant, Smith respondedopens in a new tab or window differently.

"The description we provided initially was specific to our FollowMyHealth PHR since you'd asked about eHealth. As mentioned, the PHR is an account which is managed by the consumer and thus regulated by the Federal Trade Commission."

"We also have a FollowMyHealth portal licensed to health care organizations. The data for the portal is owned by the health care organization and is 100% separate from FMH PHR data. Portal data is covered under the BAA agreement we have with the health care organization and is subject to HIPAA." (BAA refers to a business associate agreementopens in a new tab or window.)

Smith did not answer the question about why FMH used its EHR patient portal -- which patients think is supposed to contain information from their doctors -- to sell Medicare Advantage plans to seniors who may not understand that clicking on the provided code would electronically transfer personal health information such as their prescription drugs to an unknown insurance agent.

Must Patient Portals Be HIPAA Compliant?

Deven McGraw, who was the deputy director for health information privacy in the Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Civil Rights during the Obama administration and is currently an attorney who specializes in HIPAA, said whether the patient portal is a HIPAA-covered entity and a "business associate" depends on the details.

The fact that the health system paid for it and offered it to patients as a way to communicate with their providers is only one factor. Other factorsopens in a new tab or window, such as how much control the patient has in selecting what health data he wishes to see or transmit within it, also need to be considered, she said.

It's an extremely complicated issue that's hard to parse without knowing "deeper details" of how the platform functions and who controls it, she said.

McGraw added that MAHEC's claim that it didn't know about the Medicare Advantage ads suggests "that the health system doesn't control what goes into the portal. Rather, the company (FollowMyHealth) controls it, and may have more of an independent relationship with the patient."

Heafield searched the internet and found health portal websites saying that PHRs are indeed requiredopens in a new tab or window to be HIPAA compliant.

But even if it's true that FMH does not have to comply with HIPAA, Heafield said, "CMS or the FTC should require PHR portal providers to disclose to patients that, upon enrolling, their health data is no longer covered by HIPAA. They should also warn when I 'Compose a Secure Message,' that messages to and from providers are not covered by HIPAA. I wonder if providers know this? Perhaps providers could contractually require a PHR portal to adhere to HIPAA rules?"

McGraw said that disclosure might have been in the portal's terms of service, which users seldom read. "That's not surprising because they were probably hidden and lengthy."

As a partner of FMH, eHealth spokesman Doug Dalrymple also respondedopens in a new tab or window to a request for a response.

"For more than 25 years, eHealth's mission has been to make it easier for health insurance shoppers to find, compare, and enroll in affordable plans that provide the right coverage for them, based on the beneficiary's stated needs, access to their prescription drugs, and their preferred medical care providers," he wrote.

He added that the 'Personal Code' reference "is a commonly used technology that allows eHealth to extend its free-of-cost services to customers through a de-identified process that preserves the anonymity and security of their personal information until, and unless, the consumer actively takes steps to enroll in a Medicare plan offered through eHealth."

"If the beneficiary does not proceed with the application, eHealth never learns the identity of the individual associated with the code, and the de-identified consumer information is not retained or shared in any way. Processes like this, designed to protect the privacy of beneficiaries, are commonly used in telephonic and in-person enrollments in the market at large."

CMS Cracks Down on MA Advertising

CMS leaders have become increasingly concernedopens in a new tab or window with deceptive, dishonest, and confusing Medicare Advantage advertisements and other marketing tactics. The agency acknowledged receiving more than 39,000 complaints about such tactics in 2021 alone, more than double what it received the prior year.

In its October 19 memo, CMS said secret shoppers "have discovered that some agents were not complying with current regulation and unduly pressuring beneficiaries, as well as failing to provide accurate or enough information to assist a beneficiary in making an informed enrollment decision."

CMS is now monitoring phone conversations between beneficiaries and insurance brokers or other marketing organizations and reviewing marketing materials in an effort to prevent beneficiaries from enrolling in plans that they don't understand, don't include their doctors, or don't meet their needs.

Last year, CMS published a 53-page listopens in a new tab or window of marketing guidelines for these plans. In addition, a lengthy proposed ruleopens in a new tab or window from December 27 will, if finalized, prohibit marketing materials from mentioning extra benefits, such as dental, vision, or hearing services or "low or zero dollar premiums" without mentioning the name of the specific plan that offers them.

All too often, the rule reads, "these advertisements do not identify which product(s), plan(s), or specific plan(s) benefits are being advertised, but rather act as a lead generator to obtain beneficiary contact information. When a beneficiary calls, returns a flyer, or clicks on a link on a web page, the advertising entity ... may be able to obtain a beneficiary's contact information, which is then used by that entity for unlimited future calls or for providing that information to other entities."

The message Heafield received included no reference to a specific plan.

Heafield sees marketing efforts like FMH's problematic because they fail to require Medicare Advantage plans to disclose potential downsides, "such as limited provider choices, limited geographic coverage, a gatekeeper who may delay or deny treatment, higher co-pays or co-insurance, and the possible inability to leave the provider and return to traditional Medicare with a supplement."

He said he wishes CMS would require such disclosures in plan marketing materials.

"There's precedent, after all," he said. "TV drug ads often mention that their drug might cause death or other enumerated negative outcomes. Why shouldn't Medicare Advantage plans be required to do the same?"

https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/103096

Atropine Eyedrops Reduce Incidence of Nearsightedness Out to 2 Years

 Nightly use of 0.05% atropine eyedrops in kids led to a significantly lower incidence of myopia at 2 years, and a lower percentage with fast myopic shift, a randomized trial from Hong Kong showed.

Among children ages 4 to 9 with no myopia, the 2-year cumulative incidence of myopia in the 0.05% atropine group was 28.4%, as compared with 45.9% in a group that received a 0.01% dose of atropine (P=0.005) and 53.0% in a placebo group (P<0.001), reported Jason Yam, MPH, of the Chinese University of Hong Kong and Hong Kong Eye Hospital, and colleagues.

The percentages of participants with fast myopic shift at 2 years were 25.0% compared with 45.1% (P=0.001) and 53.9% (P<0.001), respectively, they detailed in JAMA

opens in a new tab or window.

"Low-concentration atropine eyedrops are effective in reducing myopia progression, have been widely adopted in Asia, and are being further evaluated in randomized trials in many countries," Yam and colleagues wrote, noting, however, that studies of 0.01% atropine "have produced inconsistent findings."

"Of note, whether atropine treatment is effective in delaying myopia onset remains unknown," they added. "A retrospective study suggested that low-concentration atropine should be helpful for delaying myopia onset. However, randomized trials are needed to provide robust evidence on efficacy and safety."

In the current study, known as LAMP2, there was no significant difference between the 0.01% atropine and placebo groups at 2 years in myopia incidence (difference 7.1%, P=0.27) or percentage of participants with fast myopic shift (difference 8.8%, P=0.17).

In an email to MedPage Today, Yam wrote that "before our research, the only established way to delay myopia onset [was] to increase outdoor time, and ... the efficacy is quite modest."

"Early-onset myopia is associated with high myopia later in life, and myopia is irreversible once developed," he continued. "High myopia is associated with eye complications due to eyeball elongation. These blinding complications include myopic macular degeneration, retinal detachment, glaucoma, and cataract."

"Our study therefore provided evidence for atropine being an additional prevention strategy for delaying myopia onset beyond increasing time spent outdoors. While lifestyle modifications to increase time outdoors should be advocated for all children, low-concentration atropine could be a pharmacological intervention considered for children at high risk of developing into myopia," he concluded.

As for secondary outcomes, multiple comparisons showed that 0.05% atropine decreased spherical equivalent myopic shift and axial length elongation significantly more than 0.01% atropine (P<0.001 for both) and placebo (P<0.001 for both) at 2 years. The difference between the 0.01% atropine and placebo groups did not reach statistical significance at this time.

"The LAMP2 study provides the strongest evidence to date that daily administration of 0.05% atropine delays the onset of myopia and meaningfully adds to the evidence that refractive error change and eye growth can be slowed, even before myopia onset," wrote David Berntsen, OD, PhD, of the University of Houston in Texas, and Jeffrey Walline, OD, PhD, of Ohio State University in Columbus, in an accompanying editorialopens in a new tab or window. "However, the evidence presented does not yet warrant a change in the standard care of children because we do not yet know the long-term effects of delaying the onset of myopia with low-concentration atropine."

"Ultimately, the implementation of vision screenings that include determining a child's prescription will likely be needed to identify children most likely to become myopic who may benefit from low-concentration atropine," they added. "Additional randomized studies are needed to replicate these findings and to answer questions regarding the long-term outcomes."

For this double-masked study, which was conducted at the Chinese University of Hong Kong Eye Centre from July 2017 to June 2022, Yam and colleagues randomized 474 children ages 4 to 9 without myopia (cycloplegic spherical equivalent between +1.00 D to 0.00 D and astigmatism less than -1.00 D) in a 1:1:1 ratio to 0.05% atropine, 0.01% atropine, or placebo (n=155). Ultimately, 353 completed the trial.

Myopia was defined as a cycloplegic spherical equivalent of at least -0.50 D in either eye, and fast myopic shift was defined as a spherical equivalent myopic shift of at least 1.00 D.

The most common adverse event -- photophobia -- was reported by 12.9% of participants in the 0.05% atropine group, 18.9% in the 0.01% atropine group, and 12.2% in the placebo group in the second year.

Limitations of the study included potential unmasking of participants due to atropine-induced mydriasis and cycloplegia. Additionally, all participants were Chinese, meaning that generalizability to other populations may be limited.

Furthermore, the duration of the study did not allow for measuring of the final myopic state of participants, who are currently in their third year of follow-up, Yam and colleagues noted. The total intended follow-up duration is 6 years to evaluate longer-term effects.

Disclosures

This study was supported by the General Research Fund of the Research Grants Council in Hong Kong, the Collaborative Research Fund of the Health and Medical Research Fund in Hong Kong, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Chinese University of Hong Kong, the Innovation and Technology Fund, the UBS Optimus Foundation, the Centaline Myopia Fund, the CUHK Jockey Club Children's Eye Care Programme, and the CUHK Jockey Club Myopia Prevention Programme.

Yam and a number of co-authors reported applying for a patent for 0.05% low-concentration atropine eyedrops for delaying myopia onset.

Berntsen reported receiving grants from the National Eye Institute, nonfinancial support from Bausch + Lomb, and personal fees from Visioneering Technologies outside the submitted work. Walline reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health and nonfinancial support from Bausch + Lomb outside the submitted work.

Primary Source

JAMA

Source Reference: opens in a new tab or windowYam JC, et al "Effect of low-concentration atropine eyedrops vs placebo on myopia incidence in children" JAMA 2023; DOI: 10.1001/jama.2022.24162.

Secondary Source

JAMA

Source Reference: opens in a new tab or windowBerntsen DA, Walline JJ "Delaying the onset of nearsightedness" JAMA 2023; DOI: 10.1001/jama.2022.24386.


https://www.medpagetoday.com/pediatrics/generalpediatrics/103097

Proposed User Instructions for OTC Narcan Has FDA Concerned

 Ahead of an advisory committee meeting, FDA staff highlighted ongoing concerns about labeling for what could possibly be the first naloxone (Narcan) product approved for over-the-counter (OTC) use, labeling it "essential" in the emergency setting of an overdose.

At a joint meetingopens in a new tab or window of the Nonprescription Drug Advisory Committee and Anesthetic and Analgesic Drug Products Advisory Committee on Wednesday, Emergent BioSolutions will present data and newly developed labeling for an OTC form of its nasal naloxone spray, which is already approved in prescription form. Advisors will be asked whether the risk-benefit profile supports the single-dose product's nonprescription use, or whether further data are needed.

The new instructions are aimed to quickly inform individuals without any healthcare training how to properly administer the emergency treatment, but FDA reviewers cited various issues, ranging from user errors like dialing 911 first (rather than administering a dose) to the possibility that each blister packaging may need to contain instructions as well, should users discard the box.

"We start with the assumption that the product may be in the hands of a naive user," FDA staff wrote in a briefing documentopens in a new tab or window released ahead of the meeting. "The design of the entire user interface plays an important role in how effective the product is at reversing opioid-induced respiratory depression and preventing death and other serious outcomes."

Since the proposed nonprescription version of the drug-device combo is "identical" to the prescription version in many ways, agency reviewers emphasized that the efficacy of naloxone "did not need to be reestablished," but more consideration would be needed to update the drug fact label (DFL) and packaging to prepare it for use by individuals without healthcare training.\

"[I]t is unknown how access and availability of naloxone may shift with the switch from prescription to nonprescription status, but it is anticipated that a nonprescription status will remove one barrier to treatment for a life-threatening condition," FDA staff wrote.

The FDA has been heavily involved in the development of new labeling for OTC naloxone.

"In order to encourage naloxone applicants to enter the nonprescription market and to accelerate development of nonprescription naloxone, FDA took the unprecedented approach to study, develop, test, and validate a model naloxone [DFL]," according to agency staff.

Emergent Biosolutions utilized FDA's model, and supporting data for the application includes two studies on the potential efficacy of the DFL and package labeling in describing the proper use of the nasal spray.

In a label comprehension study, researchers evaluated the efficacy of labeling in describing the primary steps for using naloxone, including primary endpoints of identifying a potential overdose, administering a dose of the medication, and calling 911. Three additional primary endpoints included a combination of successfully completing the steps in order, repeating the steps if necessary, and staying with the patient until emergency personnel arrive. Among the eight primary endpoints, six of the prespecified thresholds were met or exceeded by the participants, according to the briefing document. Both of the primary endpoints not met involved step 3: "Call 911 immediately."

In a human factor validation study, 71 untrained adults and adolescents ages 15 and older were provided a "mock" OTC naloxone package, which contained two separately packaged drug-device products. Participants were asked to demonstrate how to administer the naloxone using the DFL instructions available on the packaging. The study revealed several errors in the participants' administration of naloxone, including starting with the wrong side of the packaging or spending additional time trying to find the next step of the instructions.

FDA is requesting that the advisory committees review proposed changes to the DFL and packaging, including whether to add a set of instructions within each product's blister package.

The prescription version of the single-dose nasal spray (which contains 4 mg of naloxone hydrochloride in 0.1 mL aqueous solution) was approved in 2015opens in a new tab or window for emergency situations involving suspected opioid overdose. While injection products are also available, these nasal products constitute 96.5% of the market.

Despite the widespread availability of prescription naloxone, healthcare professionals have continued to call for even greater accessibility

opens in a new tab or window to address the rise in overdose deaths. And FDA staff said the availability of OTC naloxoneopens in a new tab or window would "increase naloxone use because it would allow consumers concerned about potential stigma of opioid dependency to buy the product without hesitation or embarrassment of interacting with a pharmacist."

https://www.medpagetoday.com/publichealthpolicy/opioids/103111

In Sudden Narrative Shift, Pentagon Admits Mystery Objects 'Probably' Private Craft Not Spying

 Edward Snowden called it (and so did we)... just a day ago, as we reported: NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden says the hysteria over UFOs being shot down over America and Canada is a distraction from Seymour Hersh’s story about the U.S. being responsible for blowing up the Nord Stream pipelines.

Less than 24 hours later, on Tuesday, Bloomberg reports that "The US government has assessed that three unidentified objects downed since last Friday were likely for commercial use and not foreign intelligence gathering."

A 24/7 hyped news cycle, with breathless US defense official press briefings and reporters asking about aliens and UFOs, and just like that... the public is casually informed they were probably just "balloons tied to some commercial or benign purpose."

National Security Council spokesman John Kirby said Tuesday: "Given what we’ve been able to ascertain thus far, the intelligence community’s considering, again, as a leading explanation, that these could just be balloons tied to some commercial or benign purpose."

Additionally, coming off the alleged Chinese 'spy' balloon shootdown off South Carolina on Feb.4 - which started this sensational trend of Pentagon jets taking potshots at floating unknown small objects in skies over North America with Sidewinder missiles that cost the taxpaying public $400,000 a pop, Kirby admitted: 

"We haven’t seen any indication or anything that points specifically to the idea that these three objects were part of the People’s Republic of China’s spy balloon program, or that they were definitively involved in external intelligence collection efforts,” Kirby said.

And what's more, with the "China balloon threat" new read scare over American skies narrative now apparently being walked back, the Pentagon says it may never know with certainty, as Axios reports further of Kirby's briefing

  • Asked whether there was a possibility that the debris would never be recovered, Kirby acknowledged that it was a "difficult question" but said, "we’re taking this day by day and doing the best we can to try to locate the debris and then develop a plan to recover it.”
  • "We haven’t seen any indication or anything that points specifically to the idea that these three objects were part of the People’s Republic of China’s spy balloon program, or that they were definitively involved in external intelligence collection efforts,” Kirby said.
  • The objects did not appear to have been operated by the U.S. government, per Kirby.

He also underscored that no individual or entity has yet come forward to identify themselves as owners or operators of the objects.

But the Pentagon has stuck by its assertions that the objects remained a threat to civilian aviation and so had to be dealt with.

All of this raises an important question: maybe China was right all along?