Google sued after dad on nav app drowned after plunging off collapsed bridge

 The family of a North Carolina man who died after driving off a collapsed bridge as he followed directions given on Google Maps is suing the tech giant for negligence, saying it failed to update its navigation system after the span washed away nine years prior.

Philip Paxson was driving home from his oldest daughter’s birthday party on Sept. 30, 2022, when his Jeep plunged into Snow Creek in Hickory, causing him to drown, according to a lawsuit filed Tuesday by his family.

The 47-year-old father of two was unfamiliar with the neighborhood he was driving through on a dark and stormy night and was directed by Google Maps across a bridge that collapsed nearly a decade earlier and was never repaired.

“Our girls ask how and why their daddy died, and I’m at a loss for words they can understand because, as an adult, I still can’t understand how those responsible for the GPS directions and the bridge could have acted with so little regard for human life,” his wife, Alicia Paxson, said.

There were no barriers or warning signs along the roadway, which had been washed out and never mended following a 2013 flood.

Paxon’s car plunged off an unguarded edge and crashed 20 feet below, according to the lawsuit. State troopers discovered his body inside his overturned and partially submerged Jeep.

The family of a North Carolina man who died after driving off a collapsed bridge as he followed directions given on Google Maps is suing the tech giant for negligence.

Philip Paxson/Facebook

Multiple people told Google Maps about the broken bridge in the years leading up to Paxson’s death — urging the company to update its route information — but nothing was ever done, the lawsuit alleges.

The filing also includes email records from another Hickory resident who used Google Maps’ “suggest and edit” feature in September 2020 to inform Google it was sending drivers over the collapsed bridge.

A second email from November 2020 shows the company received the report and was reviewing the suggested change. The lawsuit claims that even after receiving the report, the tech giant took no further action.

The bridge is not maintained by local or state officials, the North Carolina State Highway Patrol said, and its original developer has since dissolved.

Multiple people told Google Maps about the broken bridge in the years leading up to Paxson’s death — urging the company to update its route information — but nothing was ever done, the lawsuit alleges.

WCNC

The lawsuit names Hickory businessman James Tarlton and the companies Tarde LLC and Hinckley Gauvain LLC as the owners of the bridge and its surrounding land, the Hickory Record reported.

Tarlton, Tarde and Hinckley Gauvain are accused of failing to repair the damaged bridge and providing sufficient lighting to prevent people from crashing into Snow Creek.

The lawsuit was filed in Wake County, North Carolina, because of Google’s presence in the state, Alicia Paxson’s attorney Robert Zimmerman said during a press conference Wednesday.

“It still doesn’t seem real,” his grieving widow said during a news conference Wednesday.

The 47-year-old father of two was unfamiliar with the neighborhood he was driving through on a dark and stormy night and was directed by Google Maps across a bridge that collapsed nearly a decade earlier and was never repaired.

WCNC

An obituary for Paxson said that he “had a lifelong affection for muscle cars, motorcycles, dirt bikes, boats, really anything with a motor.”

“He traveled the world with his father-in-law riding motorcycles. He and his wife along with their two daughters enjoyed camping and boating with family and friends. Phil put his family first and his friends, almost equal, second,” the obituary states.

“He was larger than life, always ready for an adventure, with a permanent smile on his face, he would give you the shirt off his back or talk you out of the one on yours.”

https://nypost.com/2023/09/20/google-sued-after-dad-philip-paxson-following-navigation-app-directions-drowned-after-plunging-off-collapsed-bridge/

Dyne: Orphan Status for Treatment of Myotonic Dystrophy Type 1

 Dyne Therapeutics, Inc. (Nasdaq: DYN), a clinical-stage muscle disease company focused on advancing innovative life-transforming therapeutics for people living with genetically driven diseases, today announced that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted orphan drug designation for DYNE-101 for the treatment of myotonic dystrophy type 1 (DM1). DYNE-101 is being evaluated in the Phase 1/2 global ACHIEVE clinical trial with initial data on safety, tolerability and splicing from the multiple ascending dose, placebo-controlled portion of the trial anticipated in the second half of 2023.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/dyne-therapeutics-receives-fda-orphan-200500898.html

'Older UK people back auto-enrolment in clinical trials'

 A new survey has found that a majority of people aged 50 or over in the UK who have long-term health conditions would have no problem with being automatically enrolled into clinical trials of new treatments.

The poll – carried out by YouGov on behalf of clinical research specialist Lindus Health – found that almost 70% of people in that age group backed auto-enrolment at the time of diagnosis, as long as they retained opt-out rights.

Support for the concept was also high in a younger age band of 25- to 49-year-olds, with 61% in favour, with 18- to 24-year-olds less convinced, although a majority (52%) still backed the idea.

The respondents reacted to a proposal that patients diagnosed with long-term health conditions such as diabetes, epilepsy, arthritis, and autoimmune disorders would be put into studies for their respective conditions, with the aim of helping new therapies make it onto the market.

If implemented, auto-enrolment could be an important way to boost participation in clinical trials and increase the likelihood of beneficial treatments being identified, according to Lindus Health.

It could also help reverse a decline in clinical research in the UK, most notable in industry-backed studies, which has raised concerns about the country’s aim to foster a globally competitive life sciences sector.

Figures from the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI) show there was a 41% decline in new trial initiations between 2017 and 2021, while the number of patients enrolled on commercially-led studies dropped by 44% over the same period.

The falls prompted a report by Lord James O’Shaughnessy, giving recommendations to reverse the trend, including measures to boost trial participation.

The first tentative steps down the auto-enrolment route are already in place in the UK, following the announcement by the government in June of a new scheme called Experimental Medicine Route To Success or 'Experts-ALS'.

Focusing on patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) – also known as motor neuron disease (MND) – the initiative will take patients at the point of their diagnosis and offer them the opportunity to take one of three drugs being tested to treat the condition.

It aims to recruit 700 people with MND from 11 centres for the five-year trial, which will initially screen drugs for activity before advancing promising candidates into phase 3.

“The UK drug development industry has made encouraging progress in identifying trial treatments for long-term health conditions, but without increasing participation in trials, new drug development is at risk of being wasted,” remarked Michael Young, chief executive of Lindus Health.

“With this in mind, it’s great to see such overwhelming support amongst the British public for innovative solutions to increase trial participation,” he added.

“It’s important patients have a choice whether to take part in a trial, but with the success of schemes such as the Government’s ‘Expert-ALS’, we will hopefully see the idea of automatic enrolment expand, and in turn help drug development successfully produce new treatments.”

https://pharmaphorum.com/news/older-uk-people-back-auto-enrolment-clinical-trials

Changes ring at Oxford Bio as ABL takeover talks progress

 UK contract development and manufacturer organisation (CDMO) Oxford Biomedica confirmed this morning it is in talks that could result in the acquisition of rival ABL Europe from France’s Institut Merieux.

The proposed deal, which will involve a €15 million ($16 million) purchase of Oxford Bio shares plus €20 million in future funding from Institut Merieux, would see the French organisation become a major shareholder in the combined company if the deal goes through with a stake of around 10%.

Oxford Bio’s recently-appointed chief executive, Dr Frank Mathias, said buying ABL would contribute to the company’s strategy to transition to a pure-play CDMO focusing on the cell and gene therapy category, due to be completed by the start of next year. That will conclude its pivot away from developing therapies itself and help to slash operating costs by £30 million a year ($37 million).

The proposed acquisition comes after Oxford Bio joined with Homology Medicines of the US last year to create a US joint venture focused on contract manufacturing and development of adeno-associated virus (AAV) and lentiviral vectors that are widely used in cell and gene therapies.

Taking control of ABL would give the UK company “a footprint in the EU” with facilities in Lyon and Strasbourg and also free up “capacity to meet increasing client demand, as well as significantly increasing our capabilities and flexibility for clients,” said Mathias.

“With the cell and gene therapy industry at an inflection point, I believe that we are in the right market at the right time, and well-equipped to succeed with our highly skilled workforce and leading-edge technology,” he added.

According to Prophecy Market Insights, the global cell and gene therapy market was worth $13 billion last year but could rocket to $62.5 billion by 2032.

In its just-released interim results update, Oxford Bio said it is expecting group revenues to reach £90 million this year, a little lower than expected due to lower milestone and license payments from clients, but with a reduced cost base that should allow the company to break even in 2024.

First-half revenues were £43 million, a decline of 33% that stemmed mainly from the loss of revenues associated with the production of AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine.

The number of clients making use of the company’s services has risen 50% since the end of 2022, and, by the end of 2026, it expects to have more than doubled its revenues.

All of those predictions exclude the potential impact of talking over ABL, which is currently working on more than 10 gene therapy programmes for clients and will increase Oxford Bio’s capacity in process and analytical development and early-stage manufacturing.

Institut Merieux’ CEO Michel Baguenault said the proposed deal would give ABL “new development prospects and access to innovative technologies that will enable them to broaden their offering to biopharmaceutical companies.”

https://pharmaphorum.com/news/changes-ring-oxford-bio-abl-takeover-talks-progress

Biden Lowers Drug Prices: Save a Little Now–Pay Huge Price Later

 The Biden administration just released their list of the first ten drug on the Health and Human Services’ (HHS) price chopping block. By Medicare “negotiating” the price down, President Biden promises that personal spending on these expensive drugs will decline. However, the price the public will pay in the future is huge and unquantifiable. 

HHS estimates that enrollees taking the 10 drugs “paid a total of $3.4 billion in out-of-pocket costs in 2022 for these drugs.” Compare to recent CoViD outlays. Washington paid big pharma more than thirty billion taxpayer dollars for the disastrous mRNA vaccines and spent $2.3 trillion  for the unnecessary CARES Act of 2020 (Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security).

A part of his disingenuously titled Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, President Biden assured the public that prices would be “negotiated.” What is really happening is central economic control, federal price fixing. 

When Medicare negotiates drug prices, there is a massive power imbalance. A good analogy would be a pharmacist in a rowboat negotiating the right of way at sea with a nuclear aircraft carrier.  Medicare will quote a price and then say to drug manufacturers: take it or leave it, just as Medicaid currently does with payments for physicians.  They release an allowable reimbursement schedule and physicians can accept the government price or not, period. That is how government agencies negotiate.  

Reductions in out of pocket drug spending will start in 2026. The true cost will be felt much later. It will be huge and incalculable. That cost will be the loss of future medical miracles like the very drugs Biden is short-changing today. 

The top ten drug hit list includes diabetes drugs like Fiasp and Novolog; blood thinners like Xarelto and Eliquus; Entresto, a combination of drugs to treat heart failure; and medications such as Enbrel and Stelara that help with auto-immune conditions. Every one of the ten medications is under still patent protection, i.e., they are new, expensive to develop and produce, and revolutionary improvements in medical care.

While insulin has been available for 42 years, the new forms like Novolog have great advantages over the initial compounding from Eli Lilly. They are longer lasting, some can be taken orally rather than by injection, and all have fewer side effects. There have been earlier drugs to treat heart failure, but Entresto appears to help the weakened heart muscle actually build new muscle tissue, which is new. Until Enbrel, Imbruvica, and Stelara, doctors could only treat the symptoms of Crohn’s disease or graft-versus-host disease. The three drugs mentioned attack the cause of these conditions rather than merely the symptoms. 

In other words, these ten drugs provide great value in terms of improved quality of life for patients. The drug companies that created them should be rewarded not punished. Do not ignore the billions each drug company spent of R&D for other drugs that turned out not to be useful. With Biden’s federal fixed drug pricing, pharmaceutical manufacturers simply cannot afford to take a chance on a new drug idea. 

If an administration fifteen years ago had passed a law federally fixing drug prices, today’s patients would not have Entresto, Enbrel, Fiasp, and Eliquus. They would have to rely on drugs that weren’t as good or in many cases, no drug treatment at all. 

There is a way to reduce the cost of drugs and still encourage – with money via patent protection – drug companies to invest in R&D. Simplify and streamline the process for getting a new drug into clinical care. The cost of required clinical trials is $2-3 billion plus another billion in FDA administrative process fees along with a 12-year time lag to get one miracle drug to the public. 

For those who say we need the FDA process to protect us, look at their total failure with CoViD-19. The CDC created a fake existential crisis over a new flu-like bug, and the FDA quickly approved a harmful drug – mRNA gene therapy – for mandatory mass vaccination. The FDA was and is ineffective, wastefully expensive, and aptly labelled, Death by Regulation. The FDA is a good place to start reducing the cost of drugs. 

Central economic control, such as price fixing, is a common feature in socialist and communist societies. Historians can show long waiting lines for free government-supplied drugs in the U.S.S.R. and can point to the destruction of a once vibrant indigenous Italian pharmaceutical industry. Economists can quote the disadvantages of a command economy: inefficiency, shortages, low quality, and no innovation. The reputed advantages – equality and low unemployment – call to mind the words of Winston Churchill (1945). “The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of its miseries.” 

Fixing prices for pharmaceuticals will produce small short-term out of pocket savings and a very large, long term loss for Americans. 

Deane Waldman, M.D., MBA is Professor Emeritus of Pediatrics, Pathology, and Decision Science; former Director of the Center for Healthcare Policy at Texas Public Policy Foundation; and author of the multi-award winning book Curing the Cancer in U.S. Healthcare: StatesCare and Market-Based Medicine. 

https://www.realclearhealth.com/blog/2023/09/19/biden_lowers_drug_prices_save_a_little_nowpay_huge_price_later_980566.html

Estimating the Cost of New Treatments for Diabetes and Obesity

 Abstract

The rising popularity of drugs to treat obesity and diabetes, including Ozempic, has focused attention on their costs. However, existing research has incompletely characterized prices by focusing on only undiscounted list prices. We estimate that net prices received by drugmakers are 48–78 percent lower than list prices. In effect, we document a large difference between net payments to manufacturers and the prices faced by some consumers who pay list prices, even after we adjust for currently available coupons from manufacturers. We conclude by highlighting uncertainty surrounding future prices of drugs in this class and policy implications.

Estimating the Cost of New Treatments for Diabetes and Obesity

By Benedic N. Ippolito | Joseph F. Levy

https://www.aei.org/research-products/report/estimating-the-cost-of-new-treatments-for-diabetes-and-obesity/

Blowing the COVID Cover-up Wide Open

 Earlier this week, the mystery surrounding the origins of SARS-CoV-2 took another bewildering turn when the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic revealed that a “multi-decade, senior-level, current [CIA] officer” stepped forward to claim that when six of the seven specialists tasked by the CIA with investigating the origins of the virus concluded with low confidence that it likely came from a lab in Wuhan, the CIA paid those scientists hush money to reverse their decision. The six experts who were offered “financial incentives”—otherwise known as bribes—eventually concluded that the origin of the pandemic was uncertain. For its part, the CIA has denied the whistleblower’s claims. This denial was issued by CIA spokesperson Tammy Kupperman Thorp who, until just two years ago, worked as a journalist for CNN and NBC News covering, among other things, the CIA.

Despite intense investigations for the past three years, the origins of the worst pandemic in generations remain, to this day, unknown. What is certain, however, is that a massive official cover-up took place. There is proof that Anthony Fauci knowingly deceived the public, that academic scientists and once-prestigious science journals colluded with him in that deception, and that scientists investigating the virus at the Defense Intelligence Agency’s National Center for Medical Intelligence were censored when they concluded it most likely came from a laboratory. Now there appears to be evidence that the CIA was involved as well.

What we still don’t know is what exactly was covered up. China isn’t a U.S. ally. So why would the CIA want to hide evidence that the virus might have come from a Chinese government laboratory? The answer may have to do with the fact that funding for the infamous Wuhan Institute of Virology came from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID)—which is relevant because USAID, while nominally America’s foreign aid agency, has decadeslong ties to the CIA and a history of acting as a cutout for the intelligence agency.

This is not the first time questions regarding America’s intelligence agencies’ ties to the Wuhan lab have come up. In June, I reported that one of the earliest gain-of-function experiments done at the Wuhan lab—where Chinese virologist Shi Zhengli houses what is likely the largest collection of bat-borne coronaviruses in the world—were funded by USAID. The aid agency’s funding was initially omitted from the paper that published the results of those experiments. But these new whistleblower allegations, which come from the CIA itself, present the first plausible evidence connecting America’s lead intelligence agency to efforts to sway official assessments of the pandemic’s origin.

The whistleblower’s testimony appears to reveal how deep the ties between virus research, the military-industrial complex, and China really run, and corroborates the diligent work of researchers and journalists who have been investigating the virus’s origins for the past three years. What these investigations have shown is that agencies including the National Institute of Health, the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases (formerly led by Fauci), as well as USAID, funneled millions of taxpayer dollars through an otherwise obscure New York NGO called EcoHealth Alliance to virus research programs. USAID, which was caught as recently as 2014 building a fake Twitter in Cuba on behalf of the CIA, gave $64.7 million to EcoHealth Alliance. At least $1.1 million of the USAID money went to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which studies coronaviruses.

In one collaboration between WIV’s Shi Zhengli and University of North Carolina—the study where USAID was mysteriously omitted from the funding disclaimer—researcher Ralph Baric produced a new hybrid virus that would later be described as the “prototype” for making SARS-CoV-2 in a lab. Baric is widely credited as the leading figure in coronavirus-related gain-of-function (GoF) research, the controversial line of experimentation by which scientists intentionally engineer viruses to be either more virulent or more deadly. Back in 2012, GoF work set off alarm bells when two different studies succeeded in giving avian flu—which has a species-ending 60% death rate in humans but has a hard time infecting mammalian cells—the ability to spread through the air between mammals.

Why would the United States government want to give Chinese researchers, who answer to their CCP bosses, the ability to conduct research that could potentially lead to mass deaths? And why would they want to fund it? One answer lies in Fauci’s true role inside the government. Contrary to the popular depiction of Fauci as an altruistic public health official, he was in fact deeply embedded in the U.S. military establishment through his role as the first head of U.S. biodefense, which made intelligence gathering essential to his work. Unlike nuclear weapons development, which requires the underlying physics to be transferred into technologies capable of delivering a warhead that detonates a nuclear reaction, advanced virus research provides little to no differentiation between the results of scientific experimentation and what essentially amounts to a bioweapon.

This is known in the field as dual-use research—work that could simultaneously produce advances capable of serving civilian and military ends. But scientists like Richard Ebright have argued that, to date, gain-of-function research and its scientific sibling—the virus-hunting that gathers previously unknown pathogens from the wild for scientists like Baric and Shi to study and modify—have produced no civilian benefit whatsoever. Indeed, despite USAID’s $200 million virus-hunting and surveillance program, “Predict,” it was Chinese doctors who alerted the world to the new pathogen rampaging around through Hubei province in late 2019, while those in the U.S. running nine-figure global surveillance programs remained, at least for a while, blissfully unaware.

Proponents of this type of research often point out that respiratory viruses make ineffective weapons since they infect your enemy’s population as well as your own. But this is not entirely true. The possession of an effective vaccine by one side prior to the release of a deadly virus transforms the pathogen from a common scourge into a strategic weapon. And this is, of course, why vaccines are of primary importance to America’s national security apparatus; without them the nation is susceptible to an attack that not only destroys the bodies of those it targets but, as we’ve seen, disrupts global trade and tears through the social fabric. It presents the potential for exactly the kind of superweapon that Dick Cheney panicked over in the early 2000s when he anointed Fauci, then just one among 27 directors of NIH institutes and centers, as head of American biodefense. (It’s also why, despite his penchant for prevarication, a taste for the limelight, and a deft hand at obfuscation, it’s hard to deny that Fauci’s intention was to serve his government and country.)

Whatever the exact mechanism, it is clear that the United States government had an interest in pursuing this research. So perhaps it’s understandable that senior officials at the CIA, who would have known that they were risking a major scandal by obscuring evidence that tied the pandemic to a lab connected to the Chinese People’s Liberation Army, would have decided the risk was worth it. On the other hand, it is inconceivable that U.S. government and intelligence agencies, which had been involved in research carried out in those labs for so long, would allow the fact to become common knowledge in the midst of an unfolding pandemic.

Whatever their reasons, the effect on public discussion of the pandemic was immediate, with the media dutifully falling in line with the cover-up. One of the main pillars journalists used to enforce the claim that inquiry into a “lab leak" was an irresponsible and even racist conspiracy was the intelligence community’s tilt toward the explanation that the pandemic likely came from an animal—a phenomenon known as zoonosis. An assessment of a lab origin for COVID-19 by the CIA would have undoubtedly altered the calculus. The New York Times, citing a report from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, noted this past spring that “The C.I.A. and another agency remain unable to determine the precise origin of the pandemic, given conflicting intelligence.”

The New York Times and Washington Post were among the first major news outlets to cast a lab origin as not merely unlikely but as a “conspiracy theory.” The papers published twin accounts on Feb. 17, 2020—a month before any scientific study, or even raw data, had been published suggesting a zoonotic origin was likely. In its story from that day, the Times pointed to questions raised in the senate by Sen. Tom Cotton as “fringe” theories about bioweapons. “Mr. Cotton later walked back the idea that the coronavirus was a Chinese bioweapon run amok,” the Times reported.

Cotton, however, never once mentioned the possibility of a bioweapon, nor did he walk back those would-be claims. Instead, the connection between Cotton’s statements and the question of bioweapons was an invention that existed solely in the pages of the Times’ story. There, off-the-wall speculation pulled from Steve Bannon’s podcast (of all places) was juxtaposed with Cotton’s actual remarks, including benign statements like, “We don’t have evidence that this disease originated [from the lab].” If it wasn’t outright propaganda from America’s leading establishment publications, it certainly looked like it: China Daily made the exact same misassociation in a piece published one week prior to the Times’ own article.

The New York Times article was written by reporter Alexandra Stevenson, who claimed in her piece that “experts generally dismiss the idea” that SARS-CoV-2 came from a lab. Stevenson, however, failed to name a single expert or cite a study, which raises a critical question: Where did she get that information? But just as notable was the fact that the Times tapped Stevenson for its first major story on the pandemic’s origin. While the paper had plenty of its own science and health reporters to choose from, it instead assigned the story of a global pandemic to Stevenson, a business reporter with little to no experience reporting on viruses, diseases or pandemics. (Stevenson directed previous requests for comment to The New York Times’ communications department, which did not respond.)

In a parallel worthy of The New York Times, Alexandra Stevenson is the daughter of William Stevenson, a reporter who, according to his Times obituary, “spent much of his career straddling the worlds of espionage and journalism,” eventually working for the Near and Far East News Group, a British government propaganda outfit. William Stevenson wrote a bestselling chronicle of the life of William Stephenson, a Canadian spy credited with playing a significant role in the creation of early incarnations of the CIA.

This is not to say that the younger Stevenson has ties to intelligence—there is no evidence to suggest this. But it does raise questions concerning the prerogatives and incentives of the professional elite that cuts across government, media, intelligence and, of course, science. The media went to bat for Anthony Fauci, a power broker who, as America’s top biodefense official, sat at the precise intersection of government, science, and national security. This seems inevitable given the shared interests and incentives among the various members of that class. Despite Fauci’s dramatic and destabilizing switchbacks on key issues like masking, the media was relentless in beatifying him as a technocratic saint. We should not be surprised that CIA officials and other members of the military-industrial complex got the same treatment.

This phenomenon of interlocking professional power is evident in the connections between the media and the intelligence community. Carl Bernstein reported in his landmark 1977 story that then-publisher of The New York Times, Arthur Hays Sulzberger (great-grandfather to the present-day publisher) signed a “secret agreement with the CIA” as part of its effort to give covert operatives cover as Times journalists. As I wrote in The Gray Lady Winked: How The New York Times’s Misreporting, Distortions, and Fabrications Radically Alter History, the Times collaborated with the Department of War in the 1940s to deny the existence of radiation poisoning from atomic bombs, going so far as to have its top science reporter pen propaganda pamphlets on the topic. In exchange, it got unprecedented exclusive access to the Manhattan Project and, indeed, to the bombing run on Nagasaki itself—as well as a Pulitzer Prize for the resulting reporting.

Just as important as the letter released this week by the House select subcommittee is the utter lack of coverage by news organizations that came out strong and early against a lab origin, like the Times and Washington Post. Despite the implications of the claim—the CIA bribing its own experts to alter professional assessments in a way that would favor the CCP—and the quality of the source, there has been nothing yet from either outlet as of the time of this writing.

As Rudyard Kipling wrote in Kim, his famous novel about international spy games playing out under the cover of seemingly mundane events in 19th-century India, the wheel turns, and turns again.

Ashley Rindsberg is the author of The Gray Lady Winked: How The New York Times’s Misreporting, Distortions and Fabrications Radically Alter History (2021).

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/blowing-covid-coverup-wide-open