Jan. 6 footage shows Capitol cops escorting QAnon Shaman to Senate floor

 

New Capitol Riot footage shows that police escorted Jacob Chansley to the Senate floor.AP

Newly revealed surveillance footage from Jan. 6, 2021, shows two Capitol police officers escorting Jacob Chansley, the be-horned so-called “QAnon Shaman” who has come to symbolize the riot, through the halls of the Capitol and to the very door of the US Senate.

The footage aired on Tucker Carlson’s Fox News show Monday night shows the officers closely following Chansley as he wanders the corridors of the Capitol, bare-chested and wearing face paint and a luxuriant fur hat with Viking horns.

“Virtually every moment of his time inside the Capitol was caught on tape,” says Carlson, who was granted exclusive access by Speaker Kevin McCarthy to 40,000 hours of surveillance footage from that day inside and around the Capitol, which has never been seen before by the public.

“The tapes show the Capitol police never stopped Jacob Chansley. They helped him. They acted as his tour guides.”

Jacob Chansley has since been dubbed as the “QAnon Shaman.”

AP

In the footage officers are seen walking Chansley past seven other police officers milling around outside the Senate chamber.

REUTERS

At one point, the officers are seen walking Chansley past seven other police officers milling around outside the Senate chamber, who barely give him a second look.

Then they escort him to various entrances of the chamber which appear to be locked. Eventually they help him open a door, and he enters the chamber.

Chansley, a 33-year-old naval veteran from Arizona, has been jailed for almost four years for “obstructing an official proceeding.”

In a jailhouse interview played by Carlson he says: “The one very serious regret that I have [is] believing that when we were waved in by police officers that it was acceptable.

1of5

The video shows Chansley being led around by Capitol security.

AP

Chansley has been in jail for almost four years.

AP

Advertisement

AP

Advertisement

”In a statement the Capitol police suggest that one of the officers with Chansley was trying to “de-escalate” the situation because he was outnumbered.

But that does not explain why Chansley, who was unarmed, was able to walk past seven more officers without being apprehended.

“Not one of them even tried to slow him down,” says Carlson.

He “understood that the Capitol police were his allies. . . . If he was in the act of committing such a grave crime, why didn’t the officers standing right next to him place him under arrest?”

Chansley has become a defacto face of the Capitol Riot.

AP

And yet in the narrative formed that day by the Democrats and much of the media, “Jacob Chansley became the face of January 6, a dangerous conspiracy theorist dressed in an outlandish costume who led the violent insurrection to overthrow America’s democracy,” says Carlson.

McCarthy has been criticized for releasing the footage to Carlson who plans to air five stories based on the footage over two nights which he says “demolishes” the Democratic narrative of January 6.

As well as Chansley’s story, Carlson will air footage which he says debunks the claim that Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick was murdered by rioters.

Other accusations against Republicans which were promoted by the heavily partisan January 6 committee are shown in a strikingly different light by footage to be aired by Carlson, including viral video of Senator Josh Hawley running away from rioters on the day which appears to have been taken out of context.

Claims that Congressman Brian Loudermilk of Georgia guided “insurrectionists” around the Capitol to help them disrupt Senate proceedings contrast with footage of him showing constituents around the next-door Raeburn building the previous evening.

“Taken as a whole, the video record does not support the claim that January 6 was an insurrection,” says Carlson.

Reportedly, Carlson will air footage which he says debunks the claim that Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick was murdered by rioters.

AP

In fact, it demolishes that claim, and that’s exactly why the Democratic Party and its allies in the media stopped you from seeing it.

“By controlling the images you were allowed to view from January 6, they controlled how the public understood that day. They could lie about what happened and you would never know the difference. Those lies had a purpose. They created a pretext for a federal crackdown on opponents of the uniparty in Washington.”

Democratic lawmakers such as Rep. Jamie Raskin have warned that Carlson poses a “serious security risk” and have accused the Fox News host of being a “pro-Putin, pro-Orban, pro-autocrat propagandist.”

“There’s thousands of hours of footage that are out there already,” Raskin told MSNBC. “But the reason all of it wasn’t released is precisely because it lays out floor design, it lays out evacuation routes, it lays out where the vice president went, it lays out where the senior members of Congress were evacuated, and so on.”

Carlson’s team say their footage has been vetted by congressional authorities to ensure it does not pose a security risk.

They further point out that the January 6 committee aired footage of the evacuation routes of VP Mike Pence and Hawley.

Having failed to stop the release of the footage last week, Rep. Adam Schiff criticized Carlson in a tweet as “a weak, weak man.”

https://nypost.com/2023/03/06/jan-6-footage-shows-cops-bringing-qanon-shaman-to-senate-floor/

Can Artificial Intelligence Chat Bots Help Prevent Suicide?

 I'm Art Caplan. I'm at the Division of Medical Ethics at New York University Grossman School of Medicine.

Can you use a robot or an algorithm to treat and prevent suicide? What role should these new intelligent programs and algorithms, like ChatGPT, which has emerged as something that people are using to write articles and for many other purposes online — play in mental health?

This issue came up recently in a very important way when one of the social media platforms called Discord, which has subgroups with common interests — some of whom are there because they have problems with mental illness or they feel suicidal — offered to work with a platform called Coco, which was experimenting with an artificial intelligence chat bot that could interact with people online and, in a way, provide them support, counseling, or help for their suicide ideation or mental illness problems.

I think this is not yet ready for prime time, and I think there are some really serious ethical issues that we have to pay attention to before we assign, if you will, robots using artificial intelligence to become our mental health care providers, or for that matter, to be our primary care providers.

The platform basically said they were going to take people—and there might be research involved, but they weren't very clear about it—and dump them into a group where they interact with a suicide hotline experimental program, and another group who receive the standard human response, as I understand it. In any event, it's clearly an attempt to refine the program and do research.

Right away, there's trouble because the level of consent for someone with a mental illness or who has suicidal ideation has to be extremely high. You don't want them given over to a program that they don't understand is not a human being at the other end. They always have to understand who's giving them care.

Worse, the programs haven't been certified or signed off on by specialty groups, psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, or mental health providers. Nobody's vetted these programs as being adequate to care for someone who's vulnerable.

Yes, it may be important to experiment and to refine artificial intelligence so that it could reasonably respond to a person with a mental illness problem, including suicide, depression, or whatever it might be. You have to exercise extraordinary care in recruiting such people to research intended to refine and perfect the programs. I don't think that happened in this case.

On the research side, I have a large amount of ethical heartburn with asking people, with vague consent, to try and perfect the program when they're vulnerable and when they're at risk. Moreover, let's say they have a program that some company is going to deploy, and it's cheaper to use artificial intelligence to handle a mental health inquiry to provide support, and maybe it can do a pretty good job. I'm not saying that a robot using an artificial algorithm will never be involved in the provision of health care, but you have to be sure that the fact that it's a robot or artificial intelligence is disclosed to anybody who's going to use it. You have to make sure that it's been protected with proper privacy and confidentiality security so that no one can hack their way into it. You have to make sure that no one's reselling any information about these people — the pharmaceutical companies or anybody else.

As I said, you have to make sure that it's been vetted, not only by the company that makes it or the people who have conflicts of interest in trying to push these programs forward, but also by professional societies with the expertise to say, yes, that looks like it's offering reasonable responses, reasonable advice, and reasonable support.

Is there a future for artificial intelligence in medicine as providers of care? Yes, I suspect there is. Like it or not, we're probably going to see some forms of artificial intelligence start to interact with patients and, at least initially, guide their care.

We're not ready yet. We haven't vetted these programs adequately, we're not really sure about liability and malpractice if they don't do what they're supposed to do, and we haven't set out clear standards for disclosure and consent.

Until we get the ethical infrastructure for robot medicine, I don't think we're ready for prime time.

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/987192

Which Nonopioid Meds Are Best for Easing Acute Low Back Pain?

 Muscle relaxants and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) effectively improved symptoms of acute low back pain after 1 week of treatment, based on data from more than 3000 individuals.

Acute low back pain (LBP) remains a common cause of disability worldwide, with a high socioeconomic burden, write Alice Baroncini, MD, of RWTH University Hospital, Aachen, Germany, and colleagues.

In an analysis published in the Journal of Orthopaedic Research, a team of investigators from Germany examined which nonopioid drugs are best for treating LBP.

The researchers identified 18 studies totaling 3478 patients with acute low back pain of less than 12 weeks' duration. They selected studies that only investigated the lumbar spine, and studies involving opioids were excluded. The mean age of the patients across all the studies was 42.5 years, and 54% were women. The mean duration of symptoms before treatment was 15.1 days.

Overall, muscle relaxants and NSAIDs demonstrated effectiveness in reducing pain and disability for acute LBP patients after about 1 week of use.

In addition, studies of a combination of NSAIDs and paracetamol (also known as acetaminophen) showed a greater improvement than NSAIDs alone, but paracetamol/acetaminophen alone had no significant impact on LBP.

Most patients with acute LBP experience spontaneous recovery and reduction of symptoms, thus the real impact of most medications is uncertain, the researchers write in their discussion. The lack of a placebo effect in the selected studies reinforces the hypothesis that nonopioid medications improve LBP symptoms, they say.

However, "While this work only focuses on the pharmacological management of acute LBP, it is fundamental to highlight that the use of drugs should always be a second-line strategy once other nonpharmacological, noninvasive therapies have proved to be insufficient," the researchers write.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the inability to distinguish among different NSAID classes, the inability to conduct a subanalysis of the best drug or treatment protocol for a given drug class, and the short follow-up period for the included studies, the researchers note.

More research is needed to address the effects of different drugs on LBP recurrence, they add.

However, the results support the current opinion that NSAIDs can be effectively used for LBP, strengthened by the large number of studies and relatively low risk of bias, the researchers conclude.

Study Supports Opioid Alternatives

The current study addresses a common cause of morbidity among patients and highlights alternatives to opioid analgesics for its management, Suman Pal, MBBS, a specialist in hospital medicine at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, said in an interview.

Pal said he was not surprised by the results. "The findings of the study mirror prior studies," he said. "However, the lack of benefit of paracetamol alone needs to be highlighted as important to clinical practice."

A key message for clinicians is the role of NSAIDs in LBP, Pal told Medscape. "NSAIDs, either alone or in combination with paracetamol or myorelaxants, can be effective therapy for select patients with acute LBP." However, "Further research is needed to better identify which patients would derive most benefit from this approach," he said.

Other research needs include more evidence to better understand the appropriate duration of therapy, given the potential for adverse effects with chronic NSAID use, Pal said.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and Pal have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

J Orthop Res. Published online February 22, 2023. Full text

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/988968

FDA Considers Lifting Prescription Requirement for Birth Control

 The FDA is actively gathering ideas for how to safely allow some prescription-only products, like birth control and erectile dysfunction medications, to be sold over the counter.

The potential rule changes could be finalized by October, Roll Call reported. 

Drugmakers would need to take extra steps to ensure safety of their products by users. For example, users may have to participate in a brief phone call or take a survey online or in a store. The extra steps would help prevent people from using products if they are at high risk for side effects or because they take medications that could interact dangerously with the new OTC products.

"I don't know that anyone really knows what it will look like, because I think it's going to be product specific," Marcia Howard, PhD, vice president of regulatory and scientific affairs at the Consumer Healthcare Products Association, told Roll Call.

Currently, the FDA is gathering ideas from manufacturers as well as from safety advocates. According to Roll Call, other options for safeguards could include using electronic health records to identify whether someone meets OTC eligibility requirements or making users watch educational videos prior to acquiring a product.

In July, the drugmaker HRA Pharma announced it had submitted an application to the FDA to make its birth control product, called Opill, available over the counter. The company said in October it expects a decision from the FDA this spring.

Sources:

Roll Call: "FDA could widen path for OTC birth control, statins."

HRA Pharma: "Perrigo's HRA Pharma Submits Application to FDA for First-Ever OTC Birth Control Pill," "Perrigo Receives Notification of Postponement for Joint FDA Advisory Committee to Review Opill® Daily Oral Contraceptive for Over-The-Counter (OTC) Use."

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/989132

High CV Risk Factor Burden in Young Adults a 'Smoldering' Crisis

 New data show a high and rising burden of most cardiovascular (CV) risk factors among young adults aged 20 to 44 years in the United States.

In this age group, over the past 10 years, there has been an increase in the prevalence of diabetes and obesity, no improvement in the prevalence of hypertension, and a decrease in the prevalence of hyperlipidemia.

Dr Rishi Wadhera

Yet medical treatment rates for CV risk factors are "surprisingly" low among young adults, study investigator Rishi Wadhera, MD, with Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School in Boston, told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.

The findings are "extremely concerning. We're witnessing a smoldering public health crisis. The onset of these risk factors earlier in life is associated with a higher lifetime risk of heart disease and potentially life-threatening," Wadhera added.

The study was presented March 5 at the American College of Cardiology (ACC) Scientific Session/World Congress of Cardiology (WCC) 2023 and was simultaneously published in JAMA.

The burden of CV risk factors among young adults is "unacceptably high and increasing," write the co-authors of a JAMA editorial.

"The time is now for aggressive preventive measures in young adults. Without immediate action there will continue to be a rise in heart disease and the burden it places on patients, families, and communities," say Norrina Allen, PhD, and John Wilkins, MD, with the University of Chicago Feinberg School of Medicine.

Preventing a Tsunami of Heart Disease

The findings stem from a cross-sectional study of 12,294 US adults aged 20 to 44 years (mean age, 32; 51% women) who participated in National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) cycles for 2009–2010 to 2017–March 2020.

Overall, the prevalence of hypertension was 9.3% in 2009–2010 and increased to 11.5% in 2017–2020. The prevalence of diabetes rose from 3.0% to 4.1%, and the prevalence of obesity rose from 32.7% to 40.9%. The prevalence of hyperlipidemia decreased from 40.5% to 36.1%.

Black adults consistently had high rates of hypertension during the study period ― 16.2% in 2009–2010 and 20.1% in 2017–2020 ― and significant increases in hypertension occurred among Mexican American adults (from 6.5% to 9.5%) and other Hispanic adults (from 4.4% to 10.5%), while Mexican American adults had a significant uptick in diabetes (from 4.3% to 7.5%).

Equally concerning, said Wadhera, only about 55% of young adults with hypertension were receiving antihypertensive medication, and just 1 in 2 young adults with diabetes were receiving treatment. "These low rates were driven, in part, by many young adults not being aware of their diagnosis," he noted.

The NHANES data also show that the percentage of young adults who were treated for hypertension and who achieved blood pressure control did not change significantly over the study period (65.0% in 2009–2010 and 74.8% in 2017–2020). Blood sugar control among young adults being treated for diabetes remained suboptimal throughout the study period (45.5% in 2009–2010 and 56.6% in 2017–2020).

"The fact that blood pressure control and glycemic control are so poor is really worrisome," Jeffrey Berger, MD, director of the Center for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease at NYU Langone Heart, who wasn't involved in the study, told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.

"Even in the lipid control, while it did get a little bit better, it's still only around 30% to 40%. So, I think we have ways to go as a society," Berger noted.

Double Down on Screening

Wadhera said, "We need to double down on efforts to screen for and treat cardiovascular risk factors like high blood pressure and diabetes in young adults. We need to intensify clinical and public health interventions focused on primordial and primary prevention in young adults now so that we can avoid a tsunami of cardiovascular disease in the long term.

"It's critically important that young adults speak with their healthcare provider about whether ― and when ― they should undergo screening for high blood pressure, diabetes, and high cholesterol," Wadhera added.

Berger said one problem is that younger people often have a "superman or superwoman" view and don't comprehend that they are at risk for some of these conditions. Studies such as this "reinforce the idea that it's never too young to be checked out."

As a cardiologist who specializes in cardiovascular prevention, Berger said he sometimes hears patients say things like, "I don't ever want to need a cardiologist," or "I hope I never need a cardiologist."

"My response is, 'There are many different types of cardiologists,' and I think it would really be helpful for many people to see a prevention-focused cardiologist way before they have problems," he told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.

"As a system, medicine has become very good at treating patients with different diseases. I think we need to get better in terms of preventing some of these problems," Berger added.

In their editorial, Allen and Wilkins say the "foundation of cardiovascular health begins early in life. These worsening trends in risk factors highlight the importance of focusing on prevention in adolescence and young adulthood in order to promote cardiovascular health across the lifetime."

The study was funded by a grant from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Wadhera has served as a consultant for Abbott and CVS Health. Wilkins has received personal fees from 3M. Berger has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

American College of Cardiology (ACC) Scientific Session/World Congress of Cardiology (WCC) 2023: Abstract 1044-09.

JAMA. Published online March 5, 2023. Full text, Editorial

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/989133

Adial: Update on Regulatory Strategy for AD04 for Treatment of Alcohol Use Disorder

 Company to pursue path toward U.S. and European approvals; Type C meeting with FDA confirmed for Q2 2023; plans in place to meet with multiple European regulatory authorities

Adial in discussions with potential pharma partners

Conference call to be held at 8:15 a.m. EST tomorrow

The Company will host a conference call at 8:15 a.m. Eastern Time tomorrow, March 7, 2023, to provide an update on its regulatory and partnering strategy for the United States and Europe. The company will also present and discuss the findings from its subgroup analysis of ONWARD data.

A live audio webcast of the conference call and accompanying slide presentation may be accessed at https://www.webcaster4.com/Webcast/Page/2463/47766, or on the investor relations section of the company’s website at https://www.adial.com/news-events/. The conference call will also be available via telephone by dialing toll-free +1 888-506-0062 for U.S. callers or +1 973-528-0011 for international callers and entering access code 737117. Participants that dial into the call may obtain the accompanying slides on the investor relations section of the Company’s website at https://www.adial.com/news-events/.

A webcast replay will be available on the investor relations section of the company’s website at https://www.adial.com/news-events/ through March 7, 2024. A telephone replay of the call will be available approximately one hour following the call, through March 21, 2023, and can be accessed by dialing 877-481-4010 for U.S. callers or +1 919-882-2331 for international callers and entering access code 47766.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/adial-pharmaceuticals-provides-regulatory-strategy-211900556.html

Cara Therapeutics Misses

 Cara Therapeutics (NASDAQ:CARA) reported Q4 EPS of ($0.56), $0.24 worse than the analyst estimate of ($0.32). Revenue for the quarter came in at $3.3 million versus the consensus estimate of $14.54 million.

https://www.investing.com/news/cara-therapeutics-misses-q4-eps-by-24c-432SI-3023291