For Biden, telling New York ‘Drop dead’ is a winning message

 Mayor Eric Adams has only one strategy for the migrant crisis that has brought the city’s homeless-shelter population to six figures: wrangle billions from Washington.

This gambit will continue to fail, as it has for a year — and for two solid political reasons, from national Democrats’ perspective.

At best, federal aid would be pointless.

New York is a solidly Democratic state.

At worst, federal aid will make the problem worse — and more visible to national swing voters.

If the definition of crazy is doing — or saying — the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different result, Adams qualifies.

He was at it again last week: “New Yorkers have been left to deal with this crisis almost entirely on our own,” he said. “We are compelling Washington to help.”

But he ignores the fact New York helped make this crisis.

Mayor Eric Adams has been battling with the growing number of migrants coming to NYC.

ZUMAPRESS.com

Yes, President Joe Biden has failed to secure the border, and Biden and Congress have failed to create — and enforce — a rational immigration and asylum policy.

But New York is the only city in the country bent on doing the impossible: giving every single person who arrives here, from anywhere in the world, for any reason, indefinite shelter.

“What we are doing is what you don’t see any other municipality doing,” the mayor said.

Some have criticized President Biden and Congress for “failing” to create and enforce a rational immigration and asylum policy.

REUTERS

That’s because it makes no sense.

New York has long had an immigrant population, including people with no authorization to be in the country.

But immigrants always found their own (black-market) jobs and shelter, often renting a room in a cut-up Queens or Bronx apartment.

This was not optimal, but it worked.

What doesn’t work is the city of New York competing with tourists and business travelers to bid up the price of thousands of hotel rooms, to house an unlimited number of newcomers from four continents.

Adams hides behind the city’s “right to shelter” obligation.

But the state’s highest court has never ruled on the obligation’s basis: whether the state Constitution’s directive to aid the “needy” created a right to shelter.

Adams could challenge whether this supposed “right” applies to people with no ties to New York City, but he hasn’t.

Instead, he’s doing what New York did after 9/11, after the 2008 financial crisis, and during COVID: ask Washington for billions.

If you’re a White House insider, the obvious question is: What’s in it for President Biden?

Mayor Adams has spoken out about wanting the fed to house migrants on federal property in Brooklyn and Staten Island.

Matthew McDermott

What are New Yorkers going to do if they don’t like the cold shoulder, vote for Donald Trump?

On 9/11, New York had a Republican governor and mayor.

During the 2008 financial crisis and COVID, the city benefited from the fact that the president during each era, Barack Obama and Trump, had personal ties to the city. (Obama is a Columbia grad.)

An announcement from the White House said they will provide open-ended billions to New York to house migrants in midtown Manhattan.

Robert Miller

Biden isn’t personally tied to New York, and he knows the state won’t be remotely in play next year.

Yes, last year, Lee Zeldin, a Trumpian Republican, came close to winning the governorship, and New York state lost the Democrats the House.

But these outcomes were because voters were fed up with state politicians (over crime and quality of life), not over national issues.

So there’s no political upside to sending billions to New York — but plenty of downsides.

An announcement that Washington will provide open-ended billions to New York to house migrants in midtown Manhattan will reverberate around the world — and encourage more people to cross the border.

Similarly, Adams has wanted the feds to house migrants on federal property in Brooklyn (Floyd Bennett Field) and Staten Island (Fort Wadsworth).

Over the weekend, though, the White House refused the Brooklyn site — flatly humiliating the governor, who made the request.

Does Adams really think the White House wants to send this message to would-be border crossers: Come to New York, the federal government has got a bed on a military base waiting for you!

The national narrative — including in swing states — would become: Biden’s promise to guarantee unlimited migrant housing in the most expensive city in the country, including directly on federal property, causes yet another surge at the border.

Migrant bus arrival from Texas to Port Authority Bus Terminal, NYC.

Robert Miller

Plus, the city would actually run any shelter on federal properties — meaning Washington would relinquish control, even as it would retain responsibility, in the eyes of national voters, for any failure at the sites, from bad food to sexual assaults.

There’s a reason the White House is treating New York with contempt.

Politically, telling New York to drop dead isn’t just risk-free. It reduces political risk.

Nicole Gelinas is a contributing editor to the Manhattan Institute’s City Journal. 

https://nypost.com/2023/08/13/for-biden-telling-new-york-drop-dead-is-a-winning-message/

'New concussion headset shows when it's safe to return to play'

 A new digital headset designed to measure alterations in brain function could change decisions about how quickly an athlete is ready to return to play after a concussion. In an evaluation of the device, UC San Francisco researchers found it revealed brain changes even in athletes whose concussion symptoms had gone away, suggesting they could be playing too soon.

Although not yet approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the device could fill an important niche among athletes, clinicians, trainers and coaches, who are concerned about the long-term effects of repeated sports-related concussions. These include chronic traumatic encephalopathy, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases.

The headset—patented by UCSF and licensed by MindRhythm, a medical technology company—picked up changes in what the researchers call "headpulse," which are subtle forces exerted on the skull as the heart contracts.

The researchers observed how the device performed on 101 young adults playing Australian Rules Football, who had experienced 44 concussions. Results appeared Aug. 11, 2023, in JAMA Network Open.

On average, the changes detected by the headset lasted 12 days longer than the players' symptoms.

"We found a mismatch between symptoms and changes in biometrics recorded by the device," said Cathra Halabi, MD, of the UCSF Department of Neurology and the Weill Institute for Neurosciences, who is the first author of the study. "This raises concern about relying on symptoms for return-to-play decisions. Delays could be recommended for those symptom-free athletes if head pulse abnormalities persist."

Researchers said the headset should be used in conjunction with medical expertise.

"We believe that it can provide critical objective biometric measures that can be used by athletes and medical professionals to decide when to return to play," said senior author Wade S. Smith, MD, Ph.D., chief of the UCSF Neurovascular Division and co-founder of MindRhythm. "The headset is also used to monitor athletes afterward to ensure measures remain in the normal range."

Concussed brain at risk if physical activity resumed

Playing sports with concussion puts the brain at increased risk of damage. "There is a rare condition called second impact syndrome, where a soon-after second concussion can cause near immediate brain death," Smith said.

More commonly, playing sports with concussion may result in an increased risk for subsequent brain injury, due to symptoms like delayed reaction time, impaired balance or vision.

"Recurrent concussions in close succession can lead to more debilitating symptoms that last longer, keeping athletes out of the game," Halabi said.

While the headset was tested in young adults, its use eventually may be expanded to minors. MindRhythm is hoping to acquire FDA approval within one year, said co-founder and chief executive officer John Keane. "The plan is to make the technology available to the medical community, with the most likely areas of interest being sports medicine physicians and concussion clinics," he said.

Athletes with concussion may be able to record their own biometric measurements, the researchers noted. Clinicians or athletic trainers would monitor the data remotely and provide guidance on when it is safe to resume sports and other physical activities.

More information: Cathra Halabi et al, Headpulse Biometric Measures Following Concussion in Young Adult Athletes, JAMA Network Open (2023). DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.28633

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2023-08-concussion-headset-safe-play.html

Hate to spoil the party but there's a new risk in town — a 'no landing' economy

 Some economists think inflation might subside for awhile but flare up early next year as the economy powers ahead, forcing the Fed to hit the economy harder in a presidential-election year

For the last 18 months, all you've heard from the markets is that the U.S. economy is three months away from a recession. Now, the popular analysis is that that inflation is on a smooth glidepath down and the economy will never have a downturn again.

Worries about a recession have evaporated, and all the talk is about a "soft landing," with the Federal Reserve not having to hike interest rates more than once more, at most.

But behind the scenes, in some economic circles, there is growing concern about another risk for the economy, dubbed a "no landing" scenario.

What does "no landing" mean? Essentially it's marked by economic growth that's too strong to allow inflation to fall all the way to 2%, where the Federal Reserve aims for it to be, and therefore an economy that will need more Fed rate hikes, according to Chris Low, chief economist at FHN Financial.

So instead of the U.S. central bank starting to cut rates early next year, there may be more rate hikes in store.

"There is still considerable work to do before the inflation beast is fully tamed," Low said.

Former Fed Vice Chair Richard Clarida described the risk in crystal-clear terms. "If the Fed finds itself in March 2024 with an unemployment rate of 4% and an inflation rate of 4% with some of that temporary good news behind them, they are in a very tough spot," Clarida said in a recent interview with Bloomberg News

"It is a risk. It is not the base case. But if I was still there [at the Fed], I would be assessing it," he added.

So why does this matter? Why would the Fed be in such a tough spot? Two words: presidential election.

A Fed that is dedicated to bringing inflation down might have to slam the brakes on the economy forcefully to get the job done. That gets tough during an election year, especially one that already seems poised to be filled with acrimony.

"The Fed does not play politics with monetary policy. The FOMC will do what is right for the economy, election year or not. Nevertheless, FOMC participants are already sensitive to triggering a recession. Doing it in an overt way when Congress, a third of the Senate, and the White House are up for grabs would be reckless," Low said.

Andrew Levin, professor of economics at Dartmouth College and a former top Fed staffer, said "raising interest rates sharply in the midst of an election cycle could be a delicate matter. Even the vaunted inflation fighter, Paul Volcker [the Fed's chairman from 1979 to 1987], decided to ease off the brakes midway through the 1980 presidential campaign."

Ray Fair, a Yale economics professor, thinks that, whether or not the Fed successfully lowers consumer-rice inflation to the vicinity of 2% will be what really matters for the 2024 presidential election. If inflation does not go gently and the Fed is still fighting next year, it would likely be negative for President Joe Biden and the Democratic Party, he said.

To avoid hiking rates next year, the Fed, in Low's view, will raise interest rates to 6% by the end of this year. That is an out-of-consensus call. Financial markets think the Fed is done hiking with its benchmark policy interest rate in a range of 5.25% to 5.5%.

Many economist and the financial markets are talking more about prospective Fed rate cuts in early 2024 than any more hikes.

Asked during a recent radio interview if he thought a "no landing" scenario was taking shape, Philadelphia Fed President Patrick Harker replied: "I don't think so."

Harker said the economy was likely on track to return to the low-interest-rate and low-inflation environment of 2012-19.

"I think about this a lot, and I asked myself what's different fundamentally about the U.S. economy now then the way it was before the pandemic," Harker said. He concluded that there wasn't much difference.

The big trend Harker mentioned was demographics, with baby boomers still moving in large numbers into retirement. "I don't think we have to stay in a high-inflation regime. I think we can get back to where we were," he said.

Steve Blitz, chief U.S. economist at research firm GlobalData.TSLombard, said he puts the probability of a "no landing" scenario at about 35%.

Blitz added it was a common mistake for economists, policy makers, traders and journalists "to presume that the expansion to come is going to look like the expansion that was."

"At least in the United States, that was never the case," he added.

Blitz said that if the U.S. economy were growing at a rate below 2% with an inflation rate higher than 3%, the Fed would have to raise the policy rate to about 6.5%. But if the economy is humming along with 3% growth and inflation over 3%, that would be a trickier spot. "Does the Fed really want to slow that down?" he asked.

The range of possible outcomes for the economy remains wide. Some economists still believe that a recession early next is the most likely outcome.

Other economists, like Michelle Meyer, chief U.S. economist at Mastercard, think the economy will continue to grow, with inflation coming down. Meyer described that outcome as "a soft landing with bumps."

Stephen Stanley, chief economist at Santander U.S., said he thinks the U.S. economy will "muddle through" next year with subpar growth in the range of 1% for several quarters and inflation slowing gradually.

"Obviously, that optimism melts away if we're back to readings of 0.4% and 0.5% on core CPI in three months or six months," Stanley said.

https://www.morningstar.com/news/marketwatch/20230813233/hate-to-spoil-the-party-but-theres-a-new-risk-in-town-a-no-landing-economy

'Pompeo slams Biden Iran prisoner swap deal as ‘very dangerous’'

 Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo criticized a possible Biden administration prisoner exchange deal with Iran during a Sunday interview with John Catsimatidis.

“It’s really dangerous,” Pompeo said on “The Cats Roundtable” on WABC 770 AM. “It’s dangerous for the Gulf nations, it’s dangerous for…Israel.”

The U.S. is attempting to bring home five jailed Americans in Iran via a deal that involves the release of $6 billion in oil revenue for the purchase of critical life goods. On Friday, White House National Security Spokesperson John Kirby said the “deal is not done,” and negotiations between the two countries are ongoing. 

“There would be a rigorous process of due diligence and standards applied with input from the U.S. Treasury Department,” Kirby told reporters in a briefing call on the matter. 

Pompeo said the price tag of the exchange will only encourage more hostage-taking, claiming the payment “will build their economy.”

“You now have a situation where we have told the Iranians, ‘For every American you take, the Biden administration will provide you with $1 billion,’” Pompeo said. 

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/4150598-pompeo-slams-biden-iran-prisoner-swap-deal-as-very-dangerous/

Legal challenges to Biden’s student loan plans have borrowers anxious

 The Biden administration has found more of its student loan policies entangled in legal battles, raising anxiety for borrowers as repayments are set to start in the fall.

The most recent challenges threaten student loan forgiveness for 800,000 borrowers and changes to the borrower defense student debt relief program that would make it easier for those defrauded by their colleges to receive forgiveness.

Borrowers are having to navigate what the legal developments mean for their loans while also losing faith in receiving more help from the administration before they have to begin repaying their debts in October. 

“I believe even though the specificities of the various lawsuits that are being challenged […] I think the question that is on a lot of people’s minds, specifically the 40 million borrowers, even if it doesn’t directly affect them, is when does the line end? When do the challenges end?” said Dorien Rogers, president of the Maryland Youth & College Division for the NAACP.

The two most recent challenges directly impact borrowers who were defrauded by their institutions and those who have been paying on their loans for more than 20 years. 

In the first case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit put a temporary injunction on updated rules the Education Department tried to apply that would change how loans are discharged for people who have been defrauded by their schools or their schools closed down. 

Those who have been defrauded by their institutions are able to apply to get their loans forgiven through the borrower defense program. 

The Career Colleges and Schools of Texas, which represents dozens of for-profit schools, sued the federal government over the updated guidance that would ease who could apply for debt relief through borrower defense and expand the violations applicable to borrower defense. 

The injunction will last at least until Nov. 6, when the next court date is set for the case. 

“We are reviewing the court’s order. The Department issued a set of new and stronger regulations to ensure that borrowers have a path to relief when their colleges take advantage of them or leave them stranded by closures,” an Education Department spokesperson said.

“And the Department won’t back down in our efforts to take on predatory colleges, provide relief to borrowers who have been cheated or had their school close, and hold institutions accountable for deceptive schemes,” the spokesperson added. 

A second lawsuit was recently filed against the Biden administration for its plan to cancel $39 billion in student loans for 800,000 borrowers. The suit was filed by the New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA) on behalf of the Cato Institute and Mackinac Center, in federal court. 

The Education Department said the debt would be canceled for the borrowers who have been paying on their loans for 20 years or more under an income-driven repayment (IDR) plan that allows debt to be canceled after a certain number of payments. 

The administration is adjusting how it calculates which payments count in the plan towards student loan relief, with the updated rules allowing more than 800,000 borrowers to get enough credit from past payments to receive loan forgiveness.

“The [Public Service Loan Forgiveness] and IDR statutes require borrowers to make a certain number of monthly payments before earning forgiveness. By trying to count non-payments as payments, the strategy seems to be to cancel $39 billion faster than a court can review and stop this blatantly unlawful act,” said Sheng Li, litigation counsel for the NCLA. 

The Education Department, again, pledged to fight the lawsuit and insisted its plan is legal.

“The Biden-Harris Administration is fighting every day to fix the broken student loan system and make sure borrowers get the relief they earned, need, and deserve. This lawsuit is nothing but a desperate attempt from right wing special interests to keep hundreds of thousands of borrowers in debt, even though these borrowers have earned the forgiveness that is promised through income-driven repayment plans,” an Education Department spokesperson said. “We are not going to back down or give an inch when it comes to defending working families.”

Borrowers are watching the news trying to parse out what will apply to them and how this will affect their payments, leaving many confused.

“You don’t know what part of the plan is sued or at risk. And borrowers are … there’s already a major trust problem when it comes to borrowers and their student loans. Any added fuel to the fire is going to make it that much worse,” said Natalia Abrams, president and founder of the Student Debt Crisis Center.

Borrowers already saw relief snatched away from them in June when the Supreme Court ruled against Biden’s plan for all 45 million borrowers to receive up to $10,000 in loan forgiveness, and up to $20,000 for Pell Grant recipients. 

While Biden said after the high court ruling he is working on a new plan, there are no details set for it. And challenges to the next policy could not come until it is finalized and made it through the months-long negotiated rule-making process.

Biden’s new IDR program called the Saving on a Valuable Education plan is one of his few student loan policies that has yet to face a legal challenge. The plan, which was recently launched by the administration, went through the negotiated rule-making process and makes substantial IDR changes such as allowing an individual borrower making $32,800 a year or less to have $0 monthly payments on their student loans. 

The number of lawsuits borrowers are having to track regarding student loan policies has increased dramatically since previous years, according to Abrams.

“I’ve been working in this space for a long time, and I never really seen regulations be sued at this level,” Abrams said. 

The additional lawsuits come as interest on student loans will turn back on at the beginning of September, with and payments on loans restarting in October. 

Due to Biden’s “on-ramp” program, borrowers will be able to miss payments up until September 2024 without financial repercussions — besides the accruing interest on their loans. 

“When it pertains to the confidence of the Biden-Harris administration, I think, truthfully, a lot of borrowers were hurt because they feel as though there was a lot of tokenized or false promises given kind of the landscape of the legislative but then also the executive and judicial actions of our institutions of government,” Rogers said.

“But I believe also there’s still faith in the people seeking an education but are burdened with this debt, that whether it’s going to be the president, whether it’s going to be their congressional figures or their state legislatures that they’re going to do the right thing,” he added.

https://thehill.com/homenews/education/4149230-legal-challenges-to-bidens-student-loan-plans-have-borrowers-anxious/

Millions of kids are missing weeks of school as attendance tanks across the US

 When in-person school resumed after pandemic closures, Rousmery Negrón and her 11-year-old son both noticed a change: School seemed less welcoming.

Parents were no longer allowed in the building without appointments, she said, and punishments were more severe. Everyone seemed less tolerant, more angry. Negrón’s son told her he overheard a teacher mocking his learning disabilities, calling him an ugly name.

Her son didn’t want to go to school anymore. And she didn’t feel he was safe there.

He would end up missing more than five months of sixth grade.

Across the country, students have been absent at record rates since schools reopened during the pandemic. More than a quarter of students missed at least 10% of the 2021-22 school year, making them chronically absent, according to the most recent data available. Before the pandemic, only 15% of students missed that much school.

All told, an estimated 6.5 million additional students became chronically absent, according to the data, which was compiled by Stanford University education professor Thomas Dee in partnership with The Associated Press. Taken together, the data from 40 states and Washington, D.C., provides the most comprehensive accounting of absenteeism nationwide. Absences were more prevalent among Latino, Black and low-income students, according to Dee’s analysis.

The absences come on top of time students missed during school closures and pandemic disruptions. They cost crucial classroom time as schools work to recover from massive learning setbacks.

Absent students miss out not only on instruction but also on all the other things schools provide — meals, counseling, socialization. In the end, students who are chronically absent — missing 18 or more days a year, in most places — are at higher risk of not learning to read and eventually dropping out.

“The long-term consequences of disengaging from school are devastating. And the pandemic has absolutely made things worse and for more students,” said Hedy Chang, executive director of Attendance Works, a nonprofit addressing chronic absenteeism.

In seven states, the rate of chronically absent kids doubled for the 2021-22 school year, from 2018-19, before the pandemic. Absences worsened in every state with available data — notably, the analysis found growth in chronic absenteeism did not correlate strongly with state COVID rates.

Kids are staying home for myriad reasons — finances, housing instability, illness, transportation issues, school staffing shortages, anxiety, depression, bullying and generally feeling unwelcome at school.

And the effects of online learning linger: School relationships have frayed, and after months at home, many parents and students don’t see the point of regular attendance.

“For almost two years, we told families that school can look different and that schoolwork could be accomplished in times outside of the traditional 8-to-3 day. Families got used to that,” said Elmer Roldan, of Communities in Schools of Los Angeles, which helps schools follow up with absent students.

When classrooms closed in March 2020, Negrón in some ways felt relieved her two sons were home in Springfield. Since the 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut, Negrón, who grew up in Puerto Rico, had become convinced mainland American schools were dangerous.

A year after in-person instruction resumed, she said, staff placed her son in a class for students with disabilities, citing hyperactive and distracted behavior. He felt unwelcome and unsafe. Now, it seemed to Negrón, there was danger inside school, too.

“He needs to learn,” said Negrón, a single mom who works as a cook at another school. “He’s very intelligent. But I’m not going to waste my time, my money on uniforms, for him to go to a school where he’s just going to fail.”

For people who’ve long studied chronic absenteeism, the post-COVID era feels different. Some of the things that prevent students from getting to school are consistent — illness, economic distress — but “something has changed,” said Todd Langager, who helps San Diego County schools address absenteeism. He sees students who already felt unseen, or without a caring adult at school, feel further disconnected.

Alaska led in absenteeism, with 48.6% of students missing significant amounts of school. Alaska Native students’ rate was higher, 56.5%.

Those students face poverty and a lack of mental health services, as well as a school calendar that isn’t aligned to traditional hunting and fishing activities, said Heather Powell, a teacher and Alaska Native. Many students are raised by grandparents who remember the government forcing Native children into boarding schools.

“Our families aren’t valuing education because it isn’t something that’s ever valued us,” Powell said.

In New York, Marisa Kosek said son James lost the relationships fostered at his school — and with them, his desire to attend class altogether. James, 12, has autism and struggled first with online learning and then with a hybrid model. During absences, he’d see his teachers in the neighborhood. They encouraged him to return, and he did.

But when he moved to middle school in another neighborhood, he didn’t know anyone. He lost interest and missed more than 100 days of sixth grade. The next year, his mom pushed for him to repeat the grade — and he missed all but five days.

His mother, a high school teacher, enlisted help: relatives, therapists, New York’s crisis unit. But James just wanted to stay home. He’s anxious because he knows he’s behind, and he’s lost his stamina.

“Being around people all day in school and trying to act ‘normal’ is tiring,” said Kosek. She’s more hopeful now that James has been accepted to a private residential school that specializes in students with autism.

Some students had chronic absences because of medical and staffing issues. Juan Ballina, 17, has epilepsy; a trained staff member must be nearby to administer medication in case of a seizure. But post-COVID-19, many school nurses retired or sought better pay in hospitals, exacerbating a nationwide shortage.

Last year, Juan’s nurse was on medical leave. His school couldn’t find a substitute. He missed more than 90 days at his Chula Vista, California, high school.

“I was lonely,” Ballina said. “I missed my friends.”

Last month, school started again. So far, Juan’s been there, with his nurse. But his mom, Carmen Ballina, said the effects of his absence persist: “He used to read a lot more. I don’t think he’s motivated anymore.”

Another lasting effect from the pandemic: Educators and experts say some parents and students have been conditioned to stay home at the slightest sign of sickness.

Renee Slater’s daughter rarely missed school before the pandemic. But last school year, the straight-A middle schooler insisted on staying home 20 days, saying she just didn’t feel well.

“As they get older, you can’t physically pick them up into the car — you can only take away privileges, and that doesn’t always work,” said Slater, who teaches in the rural California district her daughter attends. “She doesn’t dislike school, it’s just a change in mindset.”

Most states have yet to release attendance data from 2022-23, the most recent school year. Based on the few that have shared figures, it seems the chronic-absence trend may have long legs. In Connecticut and Massachusetts, chronic absenteeism remained double its pre-pandemic rate.

In Negrón’s hometown of Springfield, 39% of students were chronically absent last school year, an improvement from 50% the year before. Rates are higher for students with disabilities.

While Negrón’s son was out of school, she said, she tried to stay on top of his learning. She picked up a weekly folder of worksheets and homework; he couldn’t finish because he didn’t know the material.

“He was struggling so much, and the situation was putting him in a down mood,” Negrón said.

Last year, she filed a complaint asking officials to give her son compensatory services and pay for him to attend a private special education school. The judge sided with the district.

Now, she’s eyeing the new year with dread. Her son doesn’t want to return. Negrón said she’ll consider it only if the district grants her request for him to study in a mainstream classroom with a personal aide. The district told AP it can’t comment on individual student cases due to privacy considerations.

Negrón wishes she could homeschool her sons, but she has to work and fears they’d suffer from isolation.

“If I had another option, I wouldn’t send them to school,” she said.

https://apnews.com/article/back-to-school-attendance-pandemic-chronic-absenteeism-90c05e3013b72802439565250d1adc33_2

Doctors Facing Discipline for COVID Misinfo Sue State Medical Board

 Four doctors are suing the Washington Medical Commission, challenging the state licensing body's position statement on COVID-19 misinformation.

Three of the doctors hold active licenses in Washington, but are facing disciplinary action related to their alleged care for COVID patients with unproven treatments and "false and misleading" statements regarding the pandemic. The fourth gave up her Washington license earlier this year.

However, their lawsuit, filed by a Pasco, Washington-based organization called the Silent Majority Foundation on behalf of the doctors, alleges that the medical commission is "using the statement as an enforceable rule although it was not adopted with the procedures for such a rule."

"The Statement implements a specific standard of care and asks the public and practitioners to investigate a complaint if they think a physician or physician assistant is violating the Statement," the complaint argues

opens in a new tab or window, noting the commission has "enforced the statement through the mechanism of the Uniform Disciplinary Act."

The trio of plaintiffs facing disciplinary action are Michael Turner, MD, of Pasco; Richard Wilkinson, MD, of Yakima; and Ryan Cole, MD, a resident of Idaho, who also holds a medical license in Washington and other states.

The additional plaintiff is Renata Moon, MD, a resident of Idaho, who also holds medical licenses in other states -- including Washington until earlier this year.

According to the complaint, in January, "Moon, under duress, sought to relinquish her Washington state Medical license, despite having no complaints against her, because she was speaking out against certain COVID public policies, such as vaccination of healthy children for a disease that was unlikely to have a negative impact on them even if they contracted it."

"Silent Majority Foundation filed this lawsuit on behalf of these four providers to challenge the Washington Medical Commission's COVID-19 Position Statement in which the commission adopted a standard of care without proper implementation," Pete Serrano, director and general counsel at the Silent Majority Foundation, who is representing the doctors in the lawsuit, said in a statement provided to MedPage Today in an email.

"The most critical element of the rulemaking process is the notice and comment period prior to the adoption of a rule, and the commission failed to use that process in this instance," the statement continued. "Even if the commission would have employed the necessary rulemaking procedures in its adoption of the position statement, the statement violates the providers' rights to free speech."

The medical commission declined to comment on the matter. However, in publicly available documents regarding pending disciplinary action against Turner, Wilkinson, and Cole, the commission has detailed the respective allegations against them.

The commission's statement of charges against Turner alleges that he prescribed ivermectin to a number of patients

opens in a new tab or window related to the prevention or treatment of COVID, citing in at least one case he did so without sufficient evidence of its effectiveness to that end and without the consideration of certain risks.

In 2021, in the case of one older patient, who later died and was unnamed in the statement of charges, Turner is alleged to have "failed to discuss alternative treatments for Patient A who was 74-years-old, obese, suffered from PTSD, unvaccinated, and with a COVID-19 infection and therefore at high risk of getting seriously ill."

"A high-risk patient who is within ten days of the onset of illness should be offered monoclonal antibodies," the statement of charges continues. "Respondent failed to discuss with Patient A the use of monoclonal antibodies to treat Patient A's COVID-19 infection."

Wilkinson is alleged to have made "false and misleading statements" on his website

opens in a new tab or window related to the pandemic, COVID vaccines, and public health officials as well as provided "negligent care" to a number of patients for the prevention and treatment of COVID, according to the medical commission's statement of charges against him.

In 2021, in the case of one unnamed patient -- a 65-year-old who had previously tested positive for COVID in the emergency department and received supplemental oxygen and IV dexamethasone but refused treatment with remdesivir and baricitinib -- Wilkinson allegedly prescribed ivermectin (which the patient had already been taking) as well as azithromycin, prednisone, nebulized budesonide, heparin, zinc, melatonin, and vitamin C, according to the statement of charges.

When the patient ultimately returned to the emergency department, "Patient D told hospital personnel that based on Respondent's advice, he was not vaccinated against COVID-19, and had been taking ivermectin and supplemental oxygen at home, but his symptoms had worsened," the statement of charges alleged. The patient is said to have been diagnosed with acute hypoxic respiratory failure, and later died in the hospital from pneumonia due to COVID.

Cole is also alleged to have made "false and misleading statements" during public presentations

opens in a new tab or window related to the pandemic, COVID vaccines, the use of ivermectin to treat COVID, and the harmfulness of face masks to individual patients, according to the medical commission's statement of charges against him.

He is further said to have provided "negligent care" to a number of patients for the prevention and treatment of COVID.

In 2021, in the case of an unnamed 69-year-old patient who had a body mass index of 35, worked with seniors, and was treated over a virtual telemedicine platform, the patient indicated that she did not have COVID, was seeking ivermectin, and was not vaccinated, according to the statement of charges.

"Respondent prescribed ivermectin to Patient B, without seeing or physically examining her, instructing her to take 18 mg weekly, authorizing a 28-day supply, and granting two refills," the statement of charges alleged. "He also recommended that Patient B take 400 mg of magnesium citrate and 100 mcg vitamin K2 daily and to double her dose of ivermectin if she tested positive for COVID-19."

In their lawsuit against the medical commission, however, the physicians contend that they have suffered reputational and professional harm as a result of the investigations into them spurred by the commission's position statement on COVID misinformation.

"The distinction between the Plaintiffs and other medical professional[s] who were not investigated and charged under the Statement is that plaintiffs dissented politically, scientifically and medically from health officials on various matters related to COVID," the complaint states. "When threats to Plaintiffs' licenses and practices by the Commission as well as criticism by politicians and from mainstream and social media personalities could not silence these Plaintiffs, the Commission threatened and took punitive action, based on the Position Statement. This is simply due to Plaintiffs' disagreement with the mainstream policies for the treatment of COVID-19."

In their lawsuit, the physicians are asking that the court stay all of the medical commission's charges against them related to the enforcement of its COVID misinformation position statement, COVID "misinformation" or "disinformation," claims their speech affected the medical community or community at large, and their prescription of or treatment with ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine.

They're further asking the court to stay all other disciplinary actions related to such factors, and requesting the reinstatement of Moon's license, declaratory judgment against the medical commission's position statement on COVID misinformation, a stay of all commission proceedings related to the prescription of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID or "misinformation" related to COVID, attorney's fees, and any other relief to which they may be entitled.

https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/features/105819