Search This Blog

Tuesday, July 4, 2023

The danger of treating doctors like saints

 The idea that doctors are saints is relatively new. For much of the 19th century, they were held in pretty low regard by the general public. Some were seen as social climbers — men using their medical training to get closer to wealthy patrons and pay their way into the middle classes — others as grifters, selling useless pills and nostrums to desperate patients. William Hogarth, in the late 18th century, and James Gillray in the early 19th, showed little mercy towards doctors, making a mockery of medicine in their satirical cartoons.

The 21st century narrative couldn’t be more different. To mark the National Health Service’s 70th birthday, in 2018, Nicklaus Thomas-Symonds wrote a new preface to his biography of its architect, the Labour MP Aneurin Bevan. Like most contemporary paeans to the NHS, Thomas-Symonds’ lavishes praise on its staff, both past and present. “Those who work in our National Health Service have made it what it is today,” he wrote, “and we should always thank them for their remarkable commitment to public service, often carried out in the most difficult of circumstances.”

This view of the NHS, which turns 75 this week, is even more pervasive now than it was then. During the pandemic, politicians, journalists, and patients commended the devotion of doctors with such regularity that it became cliché. Most discussions of healthcare in the UK present NHS workers as heroes, or at the very least unusually committed to their jobs. The recent news that doctors will be taking industrial action this month has been framed by the sympathetic press as a difficult decision made in the interest of patients’ safety. Supporters on social media argue that the medical profession is driven not by personal greed, but by its unwavering commitment to the British public. In February, Jeremy Corbyn repeated a familiar claim: “Doctors devote their lives to the needs of others.” Medicine is not like other professions, the story goes; working for the NHS is different from any other job. Unlike the rest of us, they don’t do it for the money, they do it because they care.

All this seems complimentary. The people praising NHS doctors are sincere, often expressing gratitude for care they’ve personally received. But the insistence that doctors are saints actually does a lot of damage. Not only does it harm medics themselves, it also does a disservice to patients.

The origin of the myth lies in the 19th century, when doctors launched something of a PR campaign to give their image a dramatic makeover. They marketed themselves as different from the quacks with whom they were competing for patients in a busy medical marketplace. Trainee physicians were reminded perpetually that the medical “calling” was very different from that of other professions. In 1890, Governor J. Proctor Knott issued the doctoral address to the graduating class at the Kentucky School of Medicine: “No other calling,” he said, “demands a more absolute self-negation than the one you have chosen. No other vocation — not even the sacred ministration of religion itself — requires a more constant exercise of the higher faculties of the human mind, or a more earnest devotion of the purer and nobler attributes of the human soul.”

By the end of the century, medical organisations had begun to describe their work using the romantic language of heroism. In 1900, surgeon Frederick Treves spoke at the annual meeting of the BMA, using military rhetoric to describe his profession: “So as one great surgeon after another drops out of the ranks his place is rapidly and imperceptibly filled, and the advancing line goes on with the still same solid and unbroken front.”

Despite these efforts, the poor reputation of doctors survived into the 20th century. In 1937, A. J. Cronin published his novel The Citadel — an attack on self-serving healthcare professions. He particularly targeted those at the top of the medical hierarchy, the “grandees” whose driving concern was money, and who encouraged illnesses in their “wealthy, idle, hypochondriac, and mostly female patients”. The Citadel was an extraordinary success, selling over 150,000 copies in its first few months. Clearly, it struck a chord with the British public.

Just over a decade later, on 5 July 1948, the NHS was founded. It did a huge amount for the medical profession’s reputation, though not initially. The BMA was one of the most vociferous opponents of the proposed NHS, not wanting medics to be relegated to the status of “salaried” workers. “The medical profession is,” declared the BMA, “opposed to any form of service which leads directly or indirectly to the profession as a whole becoming full-time salaried servants of the State.” Nye Bevan had to “stuff their mouths with gold” to get them on board: he allowed consultants to continue taking on private patients as well as NHS ones.

The mythical status of the NHS we recognise today didn’t emerge until later, in the early Seventies — in part due to the decade’s economic and political pressures, which prompted people to campaign in defence of the welfare state in ways they hadn’t felt they needed to before. The myth was also a product of subtle but deliberate NHS propaganda, in the form of TV hospital dramasnurse recruitment films, and medical romance fiction.

As the health service grew in popularity, the public image of medics also slowly improved. But in 1978, their freshly-minted reputation was put to the test, when NHS doctors first went on strike over pay and working conditions. Indeed, some doctors were opposed to their colleagues taking industrial action, because they thought it compromised their high-minded principles. A consultant surgeon wrote in 1976: “Doctors have to decide whether medicine is to remain a profession with ethics or to become an industry with strictly regulated hours of work.” He criticised the strikes by arguing that the withdrawal of services would “make nonsense eventually of any idea of vocation”, which was “over and above job satisfaction”. That same year, another consultant wrote to the government to argue against industrial action, which had “immediately put the doctors on a par with the trade unions and other workers”. These ideas are still around. In 2016, the Telegraph argued against industrial action by junior doctors because their “vocation in life” is “to care”. Imagine saying the same thing of the striking civil servants.

Then again, it does make sense for healthcare professionals to think of themselves in these terms. Many medics really do feel a sense of devotion to their profession and to their patients. They do often take an oath. And if doctors couldn’t cling onto the idea of exceptionalism, would any of them stay in the job? During the height of the pandemic, doctors and nurses were working impossible hours, under extreme pressures, and the very real risk of serious illness or death loomed over them. One in ten health workers in England during the pandemic had suicidal thoughts. There is still a palpable crisis of wellbeing among NHS staff, pay has stagnated, and the number of doctors fleeing the UK in search of better jobs elsewhere has sky-rocketed. And Rishi Sunak’s plan to boost the workforce, announced on Friday, seems squeamish of acknowledging the true challenges to retention. Is it any wonder that doctors try to find meaning in a romantic ideal of their work, rather than just focusing on the day-to-day drudgery and dehumanisation that so often characterises employment in the NHS?

But politicians who characterise doctors as saints often do so to deny their right to industrial action. They don’t need better pay or working conditions, or so the argument goes, because their jobs are so meaningful. Members of the public who buy into the myth, even if they are well-meaning, obscure the bleak state of the NHS. During the pandemic, we clapped for health workers because there was little else we could offer them. You could text CLAP to 70507 to donate £5 to NHS charities, knowing that the service itself was inadequately funded. The public was unable to provide the NHS staff with the protective equipment they so desperately needed — but it could tell them they were heroes.

Doctors cannot live on saintliness alone. Poor pay and conditions means it is often hard for medics to stay professional — let alone heroic. How can you devote yourself to patients, or even show them compassion, when you can only speak to them for seven minutes at a time? In 2022, 51 million GP appointments lasted less than five minutes. 94% of NHS doctors surveyed said short appointment times put patients at risk and one in three GPs admitted they have failed to properly diagnose patients due to time constraints.

We also need to recognise that some doctors are bad at their jobs, no matter how much time and money they’re given — just as some teachers and civil servants are also no good. But the medical profession’s glowing reputation makes it hard to confront this fact. While doctors are frequently targets of abuse, sometimes they treat their patients poorly. Not all doctors are competent, and their vaunted position in today’s society can make it a lot harder for patients to have their complaints heard, for abuses to be taken seriously, and lasting improvements to be made. In 2013, the NHS Ombudsman found that patients were often “too frightened to complain” about problems with their care.

Doctors are just people. If we just thought of them not as heroes but simply as skilled professionals doing their jobs — sometimes well, sometimes not so well, sometimes in impossible circumstances — we could level out the power dynamic between them and patients, making it easier for the latter to get their voices heard. Doctors, too, would be better equipped to advocate for themselves. And the NHS as a whole might be forced to stop falling back on the myths of medicine’s heroism, stop relying on its workforce’s goodwill, and reckon with the radical reforms needed to make the service fit for purpose in its 75th year. Some doctors might be reluctant to let go of their romantic ideals. But surely a slight drop in social status is a price worth paying for a comfortable working life?

https://unherd.com/2023/07/the-danger-of-treating-doctors-like-saints/

Erectile Dysfunction Is Now So Common Men Can Get Remedies Over The Counter

 Men might soon no longer need a prescription to access medicines for erectile dysfunction (ED).

The data on how many men suffer from erectile dysfunction vary, but the Massachusetts Male Aging Study found 52 percent of men aged 40-70 suffer from some form of ED, and “complete impotence tripled from 5 to 15%” from age 40 to 70.

While more than half of men aged 40 to 70 suffer from ED, a growing number of young men are struggling. Research published 10 years ago in the Journal of Sexual Medicine found more than a quarter of men under 40 face new-onset ED.

In June, the Food and Drug Administration approved a new medication to treat erectile dysfunction for over-the-counter sales in the United States. Produced by the British pharmaceutical company Futura Medical, Eroxon is a topical gel designed “to work within 10 minutes.”

According to the company website, Eroxon works by cooling the skin to stimulate nerve endings. A recovering warming effect continues to catalyze stimulation, increasing blood flow to the male sex organ.

“The gel broadens options for men with erectile dysfunction, adding to the array of prescription drugs, surgical treatments, and devices on the market,” The New York Times reported. “But the gel is still not a cure, said Kenia Pedrosa Nunes, an associate professor at the Florida Institute of Technology who has studied the condition. ‘We are far away from that,’ she said.”

While Eroxon has been approved for marketing in the United States, it remains an open question of when the gel will be available. Data from clinical trials also remains unpublished, and the company website includes just four sentences under possible side effects:

Side-effects are minimal in males and their partners. A very low level of a penile burning sensation was noted in clinical studies. One female noted vaginal irritation; it was not clear whether this was related to the use of Eroxon StimGel. Some other minor side-effects were noted in the clinical studies such as low incidence of headache.

Few, however, seem willing to drill down to how we got to a point where soaring demand for erectile dysfunction medications has led to casual over-the-counter treatments.

Erectile dysfunction is frequently a symptom of poor lifestyle habits ranging from diet, drug and alcohol use, or stress. All of the above can also tank testosterone levels, wherein low testosterone is often a primary driver of erectile dysfunction. Porn consumption has also been associated with ED.

Falling testosterone levels in men are the underlying crisis nobody’s talking about, probably because it has to do with the death of masculinity and the proliferation of confused adolescent males who’ve grown up to believe they’re women. Many featured in Tucker Carlson’s “End of Men” documentary point the finger over falling testosterone levels on endocrine-disrupting chemicals contaminating the environment.

A generation with low testosterone is simultaneously confronted with a crisis in fertility, obesity, and motivation while men fall behind women in the 21st century, as outlined in Richard Reeves’ book, “Of Boys and Men.”

Dr. Keith Nichols, a certified member of the American Academy on Endocrinology and CEO of Tier 1 Health and Wellness in east Tennessee, told The Federalist in January, “[We’re seeing] increased morbidity across the board with low testosterone.”

Testosterone replacement therapy has been shown to be an effective treatment for erectile dysfunction. A new blockbuster study last month is recalibrating what we understand about the risks associated with testosterone supplements.

In a study of more than 5,000 patients, researchers found testosterone replacement therapy did not raise an individual’s risk of experiencing a heart attack. The conclusion contradicts a previous finding from a smaller trial more than 10 years ago that raised concerns over the link between testosterone supplements and cardiac events.

https://thefederalist.com/2023/07/01/erectile-dysfunction-is-now-so-common-men-can-get-remedies-over-the-counter/

Top Fauci Adviser Wanted to Hide Emails From the Public, Documents Show

 A top adviser to Dr. Anthony Fauci sought to shield his emails from the public, a newly disclosed document shows.

Dr. David Morens, a longtime official at the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH’s) National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), told a group of scientists that he used his personal email because he did not want his messages to be released under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

“As you know, I try to always communicate on gmail because my NIH email is FOIA’d constantly,” Morens wrote to Dr. Peter Daszak and others on Sept. 9, 2021. He also wrote, “Stuff sent to my gmail gets to my phone, but not my NIH computer.”

Morens said he would delete any emails he did not want to see published by the media.

The emails were first obtained by the U.S. House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic and first reported by The Intercept.

“Unless there’s much more to the story than is reflected here, this looks like a pretty brazen effort to avoid public records requirements,” Michael Chamberlain, director of Protect the Public’s Trust, told The Epoch Times via email.

“Transparency is one of the primary expectations that Americans have of their public servants. The American public’s trust in its government is already at dangerously low levels and if officials are deliberately and audaciously attempting to evade their obligations and hide their activities, it’s bound to become even worse,” Chamberlain added.

Morens, the NIH, and the NIAID did not respond to requests for comment.

Morens also wrote that his Gmail account had been hacked, meaning he might have to use his work email for the time being.

Epoch Times Photo
Dr. David Morens in a file image. (NIH via The Epoch Times)

Worked for Fauci

Morens has worked since 1988 as a senior adviser to the NIAID director, who until late 2022 was Fauci.

Morens was writing to a group including Kristian Anderson of Scripps Research, Dr. Robert Garry of Tulane University, and Edward Holmes, a professor at the University of Sydney.

The NIAID funded risky experiments at a laboratory in Wuhan, China, where the first COVID-19 cases were detected in 2019. Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance funneled the money to the lab.

Emails that have been released under FOIA show that Fauci and other top U.S. officials scrambled shortly after the pandemic started to address the idea that COVID-19 originated in the same lab they funded, referencing a paper from Chinese scientists that found a virus they were experimenting with was 96 percent similar to COVID-19. The emails showed that Fauci participated in a call that included Andersen, Garry, and Holmes.

That trio soon published a paper that claimed to show COVID-19 “is not a laboratory construct nor a purposefully manipulated virus.” Fauci prompted the drafting of the paper, according to other disclosed emails. Fauci has not denied he was involved.

Morens, meanwhile, coauthored a May 2020 paper with Daszak that said “since 1999, China’s numerous live-animal markets have arguably led to three important epidemics and now, a pandemic, although the ultimate origins of pandemics can rarely be known with certainty.” Morens also called Daszak “the smartest guy in the room with respect to these coronaviruses.”

Epoch Times Photo
This aerial view shows the P4 laboratory (L) on the campus of the Wuhan Institute of Virology in Wuhan in China’s central Hubei Province on May 13, 2020. (Hector Retamal/AFP via Getty Images)

Instruction From Fauci

In another message, Morens revealed Fauci instructed him to speak to the press about the origins of COVID-19.

“For many months, I have not been approved to talk about ‘origins’ on the record. But today, to my total surprise, my boss Tony actually ASKED me to speak to the National Geographic on the record about origins,” Morens wrote on July 29, 2021.

“I interpret this to mean that our government is lightening up but that Tony doesn’t want his fingerprints on origin stories,” Morens added.

Morens told National Geographic about the search for the pandemic origins that, “at some point, it crosses over from doing due diligence to wasting time and being crazy.”

Fauci could not be reached. Fauci has consistently backed the theory that COVID-19 emerged from nature, even though it has not been found in nature years later.

Morens was writing to Bloomberg reporter Jason Gale and others, prefacing the disclosure that he was instructed to talk by saying that he could speak to reporters, but typically on background or off the record.

“In the US government we all have to get approval from HHS or the Whitehouse [sic] to speak to the press,” Morens wrote, referring to the Department of Health and Human Services, the NIH parent agency. “Sometimes they are touchy about certain issues and say no. For many months, I have not been approved to talk about ‘origins’ on the record.”

Epoch Times Photo
Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R-Ohio) in Washington on Aug. 12, 2022. (Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

Concerns

Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R-Ohio), chairman of the select committee, said in a June 29 letter to Morens that the emails “suggest that you may have used your personal e-mail to avoid transparency and the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), potentially intentionally deleted federal records, and acted in your official capacity to disparage your fellow scientists, including by encouraging litigation against them.”

“Your e-mails also raise concerns that you may have knowledge or information suggesting Dr. Anthony Fauci, former Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), wished to influence the COVID-19 origins narrative without his ‘fingerprints,'” Wenstrup wrote.

Wenstrup said he was troubled by the emails and requested communications from Morens’s Gmail account.

The congressman also wants Morens to sit before the panel and answer questions.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/top-fauci-adviser-wanted-to-hide-emails-from-the-public-documents-show_5366402.html

Never Forget How Covid Controls Corrupted Independence Day

 America was founded by rowdy folks who enjoyed nothing better than applying tar and feathers to British tax collectors. For a couple centuries, Independence Day was a day for raising a ruckus with firecrackers and plenty of other friendly detonations. 

But in recent times, the Fourth of July has been downgraded to simply another victory lap for our political masters. We are still permitted to celebrate Independence Day but unfortunately, federal, state, and local governments routinely trample the rights that the Founding Fathers sought to make sacrosanct. 

The Fourth of July in Washington has been going downhill ever since 9/11. In his first draft of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson scratched out the word “subjects” and replaced it with “citizens.” But on Independence Day 2003, I wondered whether that had been an editing error. I saw long lines of people waiting outside government checkpoints around the National Mall, kowtowing for permission to celebrate independence according to the latest edicts. Police and security agents continue to have a far heavier holiday presence in Washington and many other places than in earlier times. 

In 2015, police urged people heading for the National Mall on July Fourth to sign up for a free emergency text alert system called NIXLE. (Subtext: “All your email addresses belong to us!”)

How many Americans recall that the Fourth of July originally consecrated independence achieved thanks to resistance to a corrupt, oppressive regime? In 2018, Facebook, auditioning for a Federal Censorship Medal of Honor, deleted a Texas newspaper’s reposting of a portion of the Declaration of Independence because it went against Facebook standards on hate speech. Facebook used the same standard to suppress photos of the Branch Davidian home in flames after the FBI tank assault. 

In 2019, when President Trump ordered the Pentagon to bring out of mothballs some World War II-era Sherman tanks, the media was indignant. The Washington Post condemned Trump’s “gaudy display of military hardware that is more in keeping with a banana republic than the world’s oldest democracy.” But the real problem was not the military relics. It was exalting government power and politicians on a day meant to celebrate individual liberty. 

In 2020, politicians in most areas effectively canceled Independence Day. Governors and mayors had quickly imposed “stay at home” orders restricting 300 million people after the Covid pandemic erupted. Most of the media ignored the fact that Independence Day occurred under the most dictatorial restrictions of the modern era. Crowds were banned from watching fireworks that governments often chose not to ignite.

The Maryland Office of Tourism offered residents consolation prizes – the opportunity to watch a “virtual pet parade” online or see a “virtual Independence Day Tour” of the National Museum of Health and Medicine. 

Could Independence Day ever become more servile? “Hold my beer,” announced Team Biden. 

In March 2021, President Biden announced plans to convert the Fourth of July as Americans’ shrink-wrapped “Freedom Day.” In lieu of “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness,” July 4 became a benchmark for presidential browbeating for Americans to get politically-approved injections. If people dutifully got vaccinated, Biden said, “there’s a good chance you, your families and friends, will be [permitted] to get together [in small groups] in your backyard or in your neighborhood and have a cookout or a barbecue and celebrate Independence Day.” Biden did not specify how many people would be permitted to consume hot dogs together before an FBI SWAT team commenced firing flash bang grenades. 

On May 4, 2021, Biden announced that he wanted 70 percent of American adults to be vaccinated by Independence Day. On June 2, Biden declared that people should “exercise your freedom” to get vaccinated so Americans can enjoy a “summer of freedom.” On the day of the holiday, the Biden White House titled Biden’s remarks as “Celebrating Independence Day and Independence from COVID-⁠19.” Biden proclaimed that “we are closer than ever to declaring our independence from a deadly virus.” Biden sounded like a high priest issuing a reprieve to his fearful flock: “We can live our lives.” 

Less than two weeks later, Biden accused Facebook and other social media companies of murder for failing to suppress all critical comments and posts on Covid vaccines. Shortly after that stunning charge, Biden appointees were forced to admit that the vaccines failed to prevent Covid infections or transmission. Biden responded to the failure by commanding that more than 100 million private citizens get Covid vaccine injections which the Biden White House browbeat the FDA into approving. (The Supreme Court nullified his edict for 84 million citizens working for large private companies.)

Independence Day is a time to recall the past crimes of officialdom. The Founding Fathers carved the First Amendment to ensure freedom of the press after the crown’s appointees muzzled criticism of King George’s regime. The Second Amendment, recognizing the right to keep and bear arms, was spurred by British troops seeking to seize firearms at Lexington and Concord, Massachusetts. The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches because British agents with general warrants would ransack any colonist’s house. The Fifth Amendment’s eminent domain provision was written after British agents claimed a right to seize without compensation any pine tree in New England for British navy ship masts.

But the battles our forefathers fought to secure our rights have long since been forgotten amidst a deluge of abuses at the federal, state and local government level. There are good reasons why barely 20 percent of Americans trust the federal government nowadays.

Americans should take their Fourth of July to higher ground. What matters is not what politicians say on any given day but the principles and values by which Americans live. Regardless of how often government agents violate the Constitution, citizens retain all the rights for which our forefathers fought. 

On the Fourth of July, Americans should recognize those who fought for individual freedom in past times and those who are fighting for it now. One of my favorite Washington Fourth of July events was the “Stop NSA Surveillance” rally a decade ago. That protest occurred one month after Edward Snowden began leaking documents exposing the Deep State crime wave.

Thomas Drake, a former National Security Agency executive who heroically whipped the Justice Department in federal court, challenged the audience: “The government has given up on the Constitution. Have you?” Drake warned that “the acid of government secrecy is eating out the heart of who we are as a people” and that “national security has become the state religion.” His warnings are as true now as they were then – and the Fourth of July is a fine time to watch this video of Drake’s fiery speech. 

To safeguard our remaining rights, we must keep up a spirit of resistance to official abuses and political lies from all parties. Federal Judge Learned Hand warned in 1944: “Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it.”

On this Fourth of July, Americans should nourish that spirit of liberty by taking a long walk, drinking a good beer, or heartily cussing the politician of your choice. As I tweeted 11 years ago, “July 4 is my Independence Day, regardless of how depraved the government has become.”

James Bovard, 2023 Brownstone Fellow, is author and lecturer whose commentary targets examples of waste, failures, corruption, cronyism and abuses of power in government. He is a USA Today columnist and is a frequent contributor to The Hill. He is the author of ten books.

https://brownstone.org/articles/never-forget-how-covid-controls-corrupted-independence-day/

Government Is Boxing Older Americans Out of Medicare Decisions

 It can be frustrating watching the government double down on healthcare policies that are failing the American people, especially older adults. Time and time again, lessons are not being learned, almost as if the dangers on the road we are going down are being entirely ignored. Blind to the most essential needs of older Americans, our leaders are instead continuing with policies against their interests.

The Inflation Reduction Act’s (IRA) Drug Price Negotiation Program is the most recent exhibit of the government’s blindness and is set to soon go into full swing. Though there are some positive aspects of the law, namely a cap on out-of-pocket costs, embedded in the IRA is a drug price scheme that would essentially mandate the price of Medicare drugs which would detrimentally impact the future of drug development. Although this proposal may seem well-intended, the residual effects of these price controls negatively outweigh most potential benefits. Both access and medical innovation are on the chopping block thanks to the IRA, as those that create the drugs older Americans rely on under Medicare Part D will be forced to cut costs and reduce output to meet government demands.

I speak to Medicare Part D beneficiaries regularly as President and CEO of RetireSafe, and a resounding number of them would rather have continued drug access and the potential of improved treatments than price controls that threaten the availability of new medicines. But you don’t have to take it from me. In fact, a recent poll found that 80% of older adults are concerned that IRA price controls will hurt access and innovation, and that’s no number to be scoffed at. If anything, this should be an indication that it’s time for our leaders to recalibrate their priorities to those that mirror the priorities of older Americans on Medicare.

Beneficiaries continue to stress that their healthcare works for them because it provides them timely access to a variety of drugs and therapies, and with these options come flexibility with their treatment plans. We’ve explained to our elected officials that any policy that directly hurts this access is counterproductive and can never be viewed as a net positive. A lowered drug price means nothing if treatment options disappear. It should be that simple in the eyes of our government leaders.

Nonetheless, the first drugs will be subjected to IRA price controls very soon, and the forecast for patients and retirees isn’t looking good. Executives in the industry are blaring the alarm bells on just how hurtful these price controls will be. Industry leaders recognize that the IRA will result in a loss of resources that will force a pullback on groundbreaking new developments. While the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has sought patients’ input as it designs how the initial drug price talks will work, the agency continues to face overwhelming criticism about how opaque the process is. I remain skeptical about the transparency of these feedback sessions and have serious suspicions that CMS would implement any of their input in a meaningful way, especially since implementation is so far underway.

It’s encouraging, however, to see some of our elected officials taking the negative effects of price controls seriously. The House Ways and Means Committee, for example, recently held a hearing on how to improve medical innovation in this country. Members of the majority acknowledged the challenges that price controls and government overreach bring to patients, and one can hope that their words are followed by actions that reverse the government’s course. If the government were to do anything, the top issues for older Americans ought to be prioritized above all else.

What older Americans want most is flexibility and choice when it comes to their health. To deny them this cuts directly against their most urgent needs. The government ought to intercede in ways that protect and improve choice and flexibility, not the opposite.

Mark Gibbons is the President and CEO of RetireSafe.

https://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2023/07/03/the_government_is_boxing_older_americans_out_of_medicare_decisions_963657.html

Ohio governor asks Biden to declare a disaster over East Palestine train derailment

 Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine (R) has asked President Biden to declare a major presidential disaster for the train derailment in East Palestine earlier this year, which resulted in toxic chemicals spewing from several box cars.

In a letter sent Monday, DeWine told Biden that the declaration “is needed to ensure that the State and Federal government use all resources available to step in and provide the community with needed assistance.”

The Republican governor added that currently “no unmet needs have been reported” due to the voluntary assistance from rail operator Norfolk Southern, noting that there is a possibility that the voluntary assistance provided by the rail operator could cease in the future.

According to CNN, Norfolk Southern has reimbursed citizens and local governments for costs related to the incident.

“I have determined that this incident is of such severity and magnitude that effective response is beyond the capabilities of the State and the affected local governments, and that supplementary federal assistance is necessary,” DeWine wrote in his letter.

DeWine also noted in his letter a summary of the effects of the train derailment, noting how residents continue to report medical conditions and concerns about the air quality in the area.

The letter comes months after a train carrying toxic chemicals derailed near the Pennsylvania state line, causing a massive fire and prompting authorities to evacuate about half of the 4,800 residents in the surrounding area, which included the village of East Palestine.

Norfolk Southern said some of the rail cars were carrying hazardous materials including vinyl chloride, combustible liquids, butyl acrylate, benzene residue, and other nonhazardous materials.

The National Transportation Safety Board announced that it will launch a special investigation into the company, adding that it had sent officials to investigate at least five different “significant accidents” involving the company since 2021.

https://thehill.com/homenews/4080006-ohio-governor-asks-biden-to-declare-a-disaster-over-east-palestine-train-derailment/

Are the Bidens a Crime Family? As the evidence mounts, the question answers itself

 There is so much evidence of President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter, engaging in influence-peddling and bribery that only the media and Biden’s other apologists can ignore it. Predictably, among them are Attorney General Merrick Garland, the FBI, and the IRS.

Since I wrote about this topic two weeks ago, there have been several major developments, including the publication of threatening text messages allegedly from Hunter to a Chinese businessman to elicit a bribe, testimony by IRS whistleblowers on political interference with the prosecution of Hunter, and more information from Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.), chairman of the House Oversight Committee.

The biggest bombshell of evidence comes from two IRS whistleblowers. One of them, Gary Shapley, was the head of a criminal investigation unit looking into Hunter Biden’s business dealings. (The other whistleblower was unidentified.)

Shapley told the House Committee on Ways and Means that he had obtained WhatsApp messages from Hunter to Henry Zhao, a Chinese businessman connected to the Chinese energy firm CEFC. One of the messages, sent on June 30, 2017, said, according to Shapley:

I am sitting here with my father and we would like to understand why the commitment made has not been fulfilled. Tell the director that I would like to resolve this now before it gets out of hand, and now means tonight. And, Z, if I get a call or text from anyone involved in this other than you, Zhang, or the chairman, I will make certain that between the man sitting next to me and every person he knows and my ability to forever hold a grudge that you will regret not following my direction. I am sitting here waiting for the call with my father.

Hunter was staying at his father’s guest house in Delaware when this message was sent. Joe Biden was the former vice president at the time.

Joe Biden has, of course, denied that he was there when the message was allegedly sent. One of Hunter’s lawyers, Abbe Lowell, claimed that the screenshots of the message were faked but didn’t deny the words.

About 10 days after the message was sent, one of Hunter’s business accounts reportedly received two payments totaling $5.1 million from one of Henry Zhao’s companies. The $5 million came from “CEFC Infrastructure Investment,” wired to Hudson West III, a Hunter company. Another $100,000 was paid to Owasco PC, a firm controlled by Hunter Biden.

Another email, obtained by the IRS (and given to the FBI), said, “Ten held by H for the big guy.” It is evidence that Joe Biden was personally involved in the scheme.

Shapley also testified that a search warrant to obtain physical evidence at the Biden guest house was denied due to political interference. Both the U.S. attorney for Delaware, David Weiss (a Trump holdover), and Garland have denied there was any political interference.

Shapley also testified that he wanted to bring tax evasion charges against Hunter but that Weiss told him, in an October 7, 2022, meeting, that he — Weiss — was “not the deciding official on whether charges are filed.” Weiss, according to Shapley, told him that the Biden-appointed U.S. attorney for D.C., Matthew Graves, wouldn’t allow those charges to be brought.

In her Friday Wall Street Journal column, Kim Strassel reported:

Mr. Shapley documented this exchange in an email he sent to his supervisor — who was also at the meeting and who verified Mr. Shapley’s account of it in the email. Mr. Shapley says he later found out that Mr. Weiss had been blocked from pursuing charges in California by another Biden appointee, Martin Estrada. The New York Times this week confirmed the California episode — although it buried that confirmation deep in a story about these “competing accounts.”

According to Shapley, Weiss asked for special counsel authority to bring the charges and told Shapley that someone higher up in the Justice Department told him to “follow the process.”

In his testimony, Shapley said that his whistleblowing caused retaliation against him and his unit. He said he was denied an expected promotion and that his investigative unit was disbanded. Such retaliation for whistleblowing is illegal.

Weiss has denied any DOJ (not IRS) retaliation against Shapley. He also denied that he had been limited in what charges he could bring. But in a weasel-worded letter to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) on June 30, Weiss — who had previously insisted that he wasn’t limited in bringing charges — admitted that he was “geographically” limited. This supports Shapley’s allegation that Weiss refused to bring charges against Hunter for political reasons.

The second whistleblower (“WB2”), who also testified before the Ways and Means Committee, told the committee that Hunter Biden engaged in an elaborate scheme to evade paying taxes. He said that in furtherance of the scheme, Hunter’s more than $600,000 — paid to him by the Ukrainian energy company Burisma, for which he “worked” as a board member — was paid to a Chinese company run by a Hunter pal and then “loaned” back to Hunter.

WB2 said there were other such payments that were loaned back to Hunter. Some were included in the recent plea deal, on which Hunter skated, and others that could have been charged criminally were not prosecuted before the statute of limitations expired.

In an interview with Fox News, Comer said that his committee was investigating specific instances in which policy decisions were made in order to receive the money from China.

Comer also said that nine Biden family members had been “creating policy for money” and received more than $20 million from foreign sources. When asked if the president was compromised, Comer said, “Absolutely.”

Nine Bidens? If true, the Bidens are a crime family.

Comer is evidently correct about that. According to a statement made to the FBI by Rob Walker, one of President Biden’s close associates, Joe — when he was vice president — met several times with executives of a Chinese energy company.

Let’s not forget Hunter’s complaint that he had to pay 50 percent of his salary to his father.

So we have specific allegations by Shapley and WB2, denials from Weiss and Garland, and a non-denial denial from Hunter’s lawyer.

Why would Shapely — or WB2 — lie? Shapley’s IRS career is over. He’ll be lucky to retire with a pension. He has no motive to lie. WB2 had no more reason to lie.

On the other hand, Weiss and Garland have every motive to protect both Hunter and Joe. Their careers — and saving their good names, to the extent that is even possible — are perfectly clear motivations.

It is long past time for Garland to recuse himself from the investigation of the Bidens and appoint a special counsel to investigate and possibly prosecute them. There is far more evidence of criminal conduct than there was when Robert Mueller was appointed to investigate Trump.

Garland won’t appoint a special counsel, however, because facts and evidence matter far less to him than the politics of the matter.

https://spectator.org/the-biden-crime-family/