'US cow-derived H5N1 virus flown to UK under strict security for testing'

 A new unit set up to tackle H5N1 is testing imported samples of the virus at the high-security laboratories at Porton Down, in a race to understand if it poses a substantial risk to British livestock. 

Virus extracted from sick cattle in the US has been shipped to three secure UK laboratories in Porton Down, London and Weybridge, Prof Ashley Banyard of the Animal Plant and Health Agency (APHA) told The Telegraph. 

The task force is trying to determine whether the outbreak of H5N1 in America, which has so far been linked to outbreaks in 49 dairy herds across nine states, is a one-off spillover event, or if the virus has adapted to replicate in cattle – which means it could impact UK livestock. 

An outbreak in the UK could have a significant impact on the dairy industry as it already has in the US. It would also increase the risk of the virus ‘ jumping’ to humans, either through contact with agricultural workers or via food products like meat and dairy. In the US at least one farm worker has been infected and several species of mammals including farm cats, wild possums and foxes. 

“The occurrence of events in America has led to us taking preparatory measures and a more watchful eye,” said Prof Banyard. 

“Samples have been shared with our very high containment secure labs, and we’re having a look to understand if there is genuinely something different about this clade of virus.” 

APHA is also working to develop new diagnostic tests that can detect H5N1 in milk, which is where the highest viral load has been found in sick US cows. Existing tests in the UK are designed to identify the virus in respiratory samples like nasal and throat swabs. 

“We’re doing this so that if something did happen – and I don’t think it will – then we could diagnose [H5N1] quickly,” said Prof Banyard. 

Despite these measures, the government is still not testing British cattle for the highly pathogenic avian flu, which has killed millions of birds and animals since it started circulating in 2020, a decision which has been criticised by scientists as “short-sighted”. 

The Department for Food, Environment, and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) has insisted that there is “no reason to suspect the virus is circulating in British cattle,” yet scientists say that they are unlikely to find something they are not testing for. 

Prof Banyard admitted much of the work undertaken by the government unit is “reactive”. 

“This reminds me a lot of how we handled Covid-19 from the beginning,” said Dr Krutika Kuppalli, a spokesperson for the Infectious Disease Society of America and former WHO medical officer. 

“When Covid was in China, it was hard for other governments to fathom it could reach their countries – but it did.

“If you wait until reports of sick cows you are going to be behind the ball,” stressed Dr Kuppalli. 

DEFRA’s involvement in particular has raised concerns among some experts because its principal role is to promote British farm produce. 

The agency lobbied to stop the press calling the 2008 H1N1 pandemic Swine Flu because “pigs are not to blame” and it presided over the salmonella and BSE scandals of the 1990s, the latter of which killed 176 people. 

“The financial implications for the agriculture industry are important and should be taken into account, but surveillance and early detection not only help to contain an outbreak but prevent less economic peril in the long-term,” said Dr Kuppalli.

Prof Banyard said part of the reason the UK isn’t yet testing for H5N1 in cows is that there have been no clinical signs of illness in the animals reported to authorities. 

Cows who have become sick with H5N1 in the US have been found to produce around 10-20 per cent less milk than normal, which would be an indication that they have the virus.

Since there has been “no mysterious milk loss” reported to DEFRA or APHA, the agencies don’t deem it necessary to start testing, and as such they are “pretty confident we don’t have the virus in [UK] cattle,” said Prof Banyard. 

Scientists have pointed out that this argument is not foolproof, however.

“This virus has continued to surprise us – we are still learning and don’t know if it’s spreading in asymptomatic cows, thus the prudent approach would be to be proactive and test to confirm there are no cases,” said Dr Kuppalli.

“We know the virus can spread from infected birds to cattle – it’s a question of when not if and they should be testing cattle,” added Prof Devi Sridhar, a global public health expert at the University of Edinburgh and former scientific adviser to the Scottish government on Covid-19.

Although it is still unclear how the virus first jumped to cattle, US health authorities think the most likely route of infection is via H5N1-positive wild birds – thousands of which have been detected in the UK over the last three years. 

Prof Banyard conceded that it was “possible” that infected birds could act as a route of transmission to cows in Britain. 

“If you had a dead duck in a water trough that then leached virus, and cows drank it directly, then yes it’s possible – but we’ve got no evidence of any cattle showing clinical signs of disease,” he said. 

“How can they be sure? The UK government can’t say for certain that the cows don’t have H5N1, because they could be asymptomatic,” stressed Dr Kuppalli.

So far this year, there have been two confirmed cases of H5N1 in humans. 

In Vietnam, a man died in March after direct contact with an infected bird, whilst in Texas a farm worker caught the virus from sick cattle – although his symptoms were mild.

The US Centre for Disease Control is monitoring a further 300 people who have been exposed to the virus via cattle for signs of infection. 

The WHO considers the risk to humans low but urged countries to rapidly share information to enable real-time monitoring of the situation to ensure preparedness as the virus continues to spread. 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/us-cow-derived-h5n1-virus-flown-to-porton-down-testing/

Nestlé launches food line targeting Ozempic, other weight-loss drug users

 Nestlé is launching a line of food products tailored to people using weight-loss medication in an effort to capitalize on a market expected to reach $30 billion in the next six years. 

Under its new Vital Pursuit brand, the global food giant plans to launch 12 products ranging from frozen protein pasta, sandwich melts and pizzas, all of which are made with a higher amount of protein and essential nutrients like iron, vitamin A and potassium. They are also "portion-aligned to a weight loss medication user’s appetite," the company said. 

It's the first time the company, known for brands like DiGiorno pizza and Nesquik, created a food brand that's specifically intended for glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) users.

GLP-1 agonists are a class of Type 2 diabetes drugs that improves blood sugar control but may also lead to weight loss. Semaglutide, which is the active ingredient in Novo Nordisk's Wegovy and Ozempic, as well as tirzepatide, which is the active ingredient in Eli Lily's Mounjaro and Zepbound, are considered GLP-1 drugs.  

They have surged in popularity in recent years as people touted the drugs' weight-loss effects. In turn, food executives are noticing some shoppers' habits are changing. 

For instance, Walmart U.S. CEO John Furner said during an earnings call in November that while it was still too early to tell how this will affect customers and the business, the company has seen "some shifts in categories." 

Before that, Furner acknowledged in an interview with Bloomberg that the company sees "a slight pullback in overall basket." 

"Just less units, slightly less calories," he said. 

At the same time, Nestlé sees an opportunity to be at the "forefront" of what it says is a "growing market opportunity." 

Earlier this month, Novo Nordisk told FOX Business that at least 25,000 Americans are beginning treatment with Wegovy each week and that figure is growing.  

The Danish pharmaceutical giant, which has been ramping up production capacity to meet demand, said that there are currently "four times" the number of U.S. patients starting the medication compared with December 2023.

In 2023, one in 60 adults were prescribed a GLP-1 medication, according to the American Pharmacists Association.

By 2030, the number of GLP-1 users in the U.S. could reach 30 million, or around 9% of the overall population, according to JPMorgan. The market is projected to exceed $100 billion by that same year, "driven equally by diabetes and obesity usage," the firm noted. 

Ticker	Security	Last	Change	Change %
NVO	NOVO NORDISK A/S	135.24	+2.31	+1.74%
LLY	ELI LILLY & CO.	803.24	+19.76	+2.52%

"As the use of medications to support weight loss continues to rise, we see an opportunity to serve those consumers," Nestlé North America CEO Steve Presley said. "We’re leveraging our deep understanding of consumers and nutritional science to stay ahead of the trends that are shaping consumer behaviors, and innovating across our portfolio to deliver products people will love."  

Nestlé said it plans to sell the products for less than $5, but that prices may vary by retailer. 

They will hit stores in the fourth quarter of 2024. 

https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/nestle-launches-food-line-targeting-ozempic-other-weight-loss-drug-users

Salman Rushdie Says Free Palestinian State Would Be 'Taliban-Like'

 Via Middle East Eye

Salman Rushdie has said that a free Palestinian state would be "Taliban-like" and a "client" of Iran.

Speaking to German broadcaster RBB, the author said that "any human right now" had to be "distressed by what is happening in Gaza because of the quantity of human death." But, he continued: "I would just like some of the protesters to mention Hamas because that’s where this started. And Hamas is a terrorist organisation. It’s very strange for young, progressive student politics to kind of support a fascist, terrorist group."

“They’re talking about free Palestine. I am somebody who has argued for a Palestinian state for most of my life, since the 1980s probably,” Rushdie, who had a fatwa calling for his death placed on him by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in 1989 after perceived blasphemy contained in his book The Satanic Verses, said. 

“Right now, if there was a Palestinian state, it would be run by Hamas and that would make it a Taliban-like state. It would be a client state of Iran,” said Rushdie. 

“Is that what the progressive movements of the western left wish to create? To have another Taliban? Another Ayatollah-like state in the Middle East, right next to Israel?”

“There’s an emotional reaction to the death in Gaza and that’s absolutely right but when it slides over towards antisemitism and sometimes to actual support of Hamas, then it’s very problematic,” Rushdie said. 

The British-Indian author has been in Germany promoting his new book Knife, which tackles his stabbing in 2022 at a lecture in New York. The attack left Rushdie in a critical condition and resulted in the loss of his right eye.

The Taliban praised the attack on Twitter, and Tehran, which had long since distanced itself from the 1989 fatwa, blamed the writer and his supporters for the multiple stabbing.

In Germany, which has cracked down heavily on pro-Palestinian protests and targeted pro-Palestinian activists, including a number of high-profile Jewish intellectuals, Rushdie met Chancellor Olaf Scholz and President Frank-Walter Steinmeier. 

A clip of Rushdie’s interview and his comments about a free Palestine were shared by Israel’s official X account and by Israeli diplomat David Saranga.

Richard Hanania, a right-wing American commentator, and pro-Israel advocate, posted: “Salman Rushdie, who has been chased to the ends of the earth by Islamists, sees things clearly. A Palestinian state would reflect Palestinian culture, and therefore be a menace to the world. People who think all you need is the right peace deal are crazy.”

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/salman-rushdie-says-free-palestinian-state-would-be-taliban

I was inside the court when the judge closed the Trump trial, and what I saw shocked me

 I have observed and participated in trials throughout the world. I have seen justice and injustice in China, Russia, Ukraine, England, France, Italy, Israel, as well as in nearly 40 of our 50 states.

But in my 60 years as a lawyer and law professor, I have never seen a spectacle such as the one I observed sitting in the front row of the courthouse yesterday.

The judge in Donald Trump’s trial was an absolute tyrant, though he appeared to the jury to be a benevolent despot. He seemed automatically to be ruling against the defendant at every turn.

Alan Dershowitz was allowed to stay in the courtroom during former President Donald Trump’s hush money trial while Judge Juan Merchan scolded witness Robert Costello.Steven Hirsch

Many experienced lawyers raised their eyebrows when the judge excluded obviously relevant evidence when offered by the defense, while including irrelevant evidence offered by the prosecution.

But when the defense’s only substantive witness, the experienced attorney Robert Costello, raised his eyebrows at one of New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan’s rulings, the court went berserk.

Losing his cool and showing his thin skin, the judge cleared the courtroom of everyone including the media.

For some reason, I was allowed to stay, and I observed one of the most remarkable wrong-headed biases I have ever seen. The judge actually threatened to strike all of Costello’s testimony if he raised his eyebrows again.

That of course would have been unconstitutional because it would have denied the defendant his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses and to raise a defense.

It would have punished the defendant for something a witness was accused of doing.

Even if what Costello did was wrong, and it was not, it would be utterly improper and unlawful to strike his testimony — testimony that undercut and contradicted the government’s star witness.

The judge’s threat was absolutely outrageous, unethical, unlawful and petty.

Moreover, his affect while issuing that unconstitutional threat revealed his utter contempt for the defense and anyone who testified for the defendant.

The public should have been able to see the judge in action, but because the case is not being televised, the public has to rely on the biased reporting of partisan journalists.

But the public was even denied the opportunity to hear from journalists who saw the judge in action because he cleared the courtroom.

I am one of the few witnesses to his improper conduct who remained behind to observe his deep failings.

Even when journalists do report on courtroom proceedings, their accounts must be taken with a grain of salt. When you watch CNN or MSNBC, you generally see an account of a trial that never took place.

They spin the events so much that reality is totally distorted.

I experienced that distortion firsthand yesterday, when I saw one of my former students and research assistants, a CNN legal analyst named Norman Eisen, during a break and went over to him and asked him about his family. We chatted for a few minutes in the most friendly way.

But NBC, the Daily Beast and other media decided to make up a story about the event. They claimed that I had a spat with my nemesis, rather than a friendly conversation with a former student. Their account was made up, yet it was circulated through the media.

To his credit, Eisen wrote to the media to correct the account, saying that the person sitting next to him would confirm the media’s false reporting. I doubt we will see a retraction.

This minor incident is simply the tip of a very large and deep iceberg of false reporting about the trial that can only occur because the proceedings are not being televised.

There are television cameras in the courtroom, and they record and transmit every word, but not to the public; only select reporters in the overflow room see what the cameras transmit.

There is absolutely no good reason why a trial of this importance, or any trial, should not be televised live and in real time. Allowing the public to see their courts in action is the best guarantee of fairness. As Justice Louis Brandeis wisely said a century ago, “Sunlight is the best disinfectant.”

When I was a kid growing up in Brooklyn, we used to listen to the colorful account of Dodger games rendered by Red Barber on the radio.

Occasionally when I went to a game and brought my portable radio, I could hear how the “old redhead,” as we called him, colorfully elaborated and exaggerated what was occurring on the field.

Once television came along and everyone could watch the games live, the accounts became far more accurate, because we could see everything for ourselves.

A similar phenomenon would operate if trials were televised; it would force commentators to tell the truth and nothing but the truth.

Today there is no check on partisan reporting of trials and exaggerations and personal opinions are rampant.

The American public is the loser.

Alan Dershowitz is a professor emeritus at Harvard Law School.

https://nypost.com/2024/05/21/opinion/i-was-inside-the-court-when-the-judge-closed-the-trump-trial-and-what-i-saw-shocked-me/

UK Tainted Blood Scandal Final Report

 The final report of the U.K.'s infected blood inquiry was published on Monday

opens in a new tab or window, nearly 6 years after it began looking into how tens of thousands of people contracted HIV or hepatitis from transfusions of tainted blood and blood products in the 1970s and 1980s.

The scandal is widely seen as the deadliest to afflict Britain's state-run National Health Service (NHS) since its inception in 1948, with around 3,000 people believed to have died as a result of being infected with HIV and hepatitis.

The report criticized medical practitioners, civil servants, and politicians, though many have already died given the passage of time. It's also set to pave the way to a huge compensation bill that the British government will be under pressure to rapidly pay.

Had it not been for the tireless campaigners, many of whom saw loved ones die decades too soon, the scale of the scandal may have remained hidden forever.

"This whole scandal has blanketed my entire life," said Jason Evans, who was 4 when his father died at the age of 31 in 1993 after contracting HIV and hepatitis from an infected blood plasma product.

"My dad knew he was dying and he took many home videos, which I've got and replayed over and over again growing up because that's really all I had," he added.

Evans was instrumental in the decision by then-Prime Minister Theresa May to establish the inquiry in 2017. He said he just "couldn't let it go." His hope is that on Monday, he and countless others, can.

Here is a look at what the scandal was about and what the report's impact may be.

What Is the Infected Blood Scandal?

In the 1970s and 1980s, thousands of people who needed blood transfusions -- for example after childbirth or surgery -- became exposed to blood tainted with hepatitis, including an as yet-unknown type of liver infection that was later named hepatitis C, and HIV.

Those with hemophilia, a condition affecting the blood's ability to clot, became exposed to what was sold as a revolutionary new treatment derived from blood plasma.

In the U.K., the NHS, which treats the vast majority of people, started using the new treatment in the early 1970s. It was called Factor VIII. It was more convenient when compared with an alternative treatment and was dubbed a wonder drug.

Demand soon outstripped domestic sources of supply, so health officials began importing Factor VIII from the U.S., where a high proportion of plasma donations came from prisoners and drug users who were paid to donate blood. That dramatically raised the risk of the plasma being contaminated.

Factor VIII was made by mixing plasma from thousands of donations. In this pooling, one infected donor would compromise the whole batch.

The inquiry heard estimates that more than 30,000 people were infected from compromised blood or blood products via transfusions or Factor VIII.

Missed Chances

By the mid-70s, there was evidence hemophiliacs being treated with Factor VIII were more prone to hepatitis. The World Health Organization, which had warned in 1953 of the hepatitis risks associated with the mass pooling of plasma products, urged countries not to import plasma.

AIDS was first recognized in the early 1980s among gay men but soon started appearing among hemophiliacs and those who had received blood transfusions.

Though HIV was not identified as the cause of AIDS until 1983, warnings had been relayed to the U.K. government the year before that the causative agent could be transmitted by blood products. The government argued there was no conclusive proof. Patients were not informed of the risk and continued to use a treatment that put them in mortal danger.

Mistakes

The inquiry said lessons from as early as the 1940s had been ignored.

Campaigners argue that since the 1940s it had been clear that heat killed hepatitis in another plasma product, albumin. They say authorities could have made Factor VIII safe before it was sold.

Evidence given to the inquiry suggested that authorities' main objection was financial. Non-heated Factor VIII was prescribed by the NHS until late 1985.

Campaigners hope the inquiry's core finding is that Factor VIII concentrates should never have been licensed for use unless heated.

Why Now?

In the late 1980s, victims and their families called for compensation on the grounds of medical negligence. Though the government set up a charity to make one-off support payments to those infected with HIV in the early 1990s, it did not admit liability or responsibility and victims were pressured to sign a waiver undertaking not to sue the Department of Health to get the money.

Crucially, the waiver also prevented victims from suing for hepatitis, even though at that stage they only knew about their HIV infection. Years after signing, victims were told they had also been infected with hepatitis, mainly hepatitis C.

There was no further group litigation until Evans, whose mother "crumbled" after his father's death and who was called "AIDS boy" at school, brought a case claiming misfeasance in public office against the Department of Health.

Combined with political and media pressure, May announced the independent inquiry. It was, she said, "an appalling tragedy which should simply never have happened."

Compensation

The government has accepted the case for compensation, with most estimates putting the final bill in the region of 10 billion pounds ($12.7 billion). In October 2022, authorities made interim payments of 100,000 pounds to each survivor and bereaved partners.

The government is expected to announce different payments for different infections and also address how and when bereaved families can apply for interim payments on behalf of the estates of people who have died.

https://www.medpagetoday.com/hematologyoncology/hematology/110226

EPA's Clean Power Plan Rule Prioritizes Net-Zero Over Grid Reliability

by Gabriella Hoffman & Christian Palich via RealClearEnergy,

Coal and natural gas plants provide 60% of the U.S.’ affordable, reliable, and baseload power. In a time of increased electricity demand, America needs to double down on harnessing these sources—not abandon them.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’s recently finalized Clean Power Plan 2.0 (CPP) rule, however, takes the country in the wrong direction. Under this regulation, one that is arguably illegal, existing coal and new natural gas power plants will be mandated to install emissions control technologies that aren’t yet commercially viable. Plants that don’t comply risk permanent closure. This unrealistic mandate is advanced under the guise of reducing greenhouse gas emissions 90% by 2032.

The Biden administration should nix this rule altogether given its many drawbacks to the American economy, all of which come with no environmental gain and are based on dubious authority. If it doesn’t reverse course, a forthcoming Congressional resolution of disapproval and newly-filed lawsuits could stop overreach here.

The EPA’s limited authority over-regulating greenhouse gas emissions was affirmed in the landmark June 2022 West Virginia vs. EPA decision. That case challenged the original Obama-era Clean Power Plan, and the Supreme Court ruled the EPA lacked the statutory authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. No change has been made to grant the EPA more authority over greenhouse gasses.

Moreover, the Clean Air Act says the EPA must craft achievable emission limitations standards that have been “adequately demonstrated.” Yet, the Carbon Capture technology that would be relied upon under this rule has never been “adequately demonstrated” on the scale that EPA is attempting to require.

The EPA rule would lead to grid instability because operators will be forced to adopt intermittent, unreliable, and costly sources like wind and solar. According to the Department of Energy, wind is only reliable 33.5% of the year while solar is dependable for just 24.9% of the time. Wind energy generation decreased for the first time last year. The federal government reports wind generation hit maturity with slower recorded wind speeds, despite adding 6.2 gigawatts of new wind capacity. Solar energy also had a bad 2023 with over 100 companies going bankrupt and expensive electricity rates. Many planned solar plants, including those receiving Inflation Reduction Act subsidies, are predicted to be canceled this year due to price collapse and waning demand.

The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) warned in its December 2023 Long-Term Assessment report that rigid policies like CPP 2.0 “have the potential to influence generators” to close down their plants. The risk of massive electric reliability issues across the country is by no means a political talking point. In 2023, FERC Commissioner Danly stated in a hearing to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee that “there is a looming reliability crisis in our electricity markets.” In that same hearing, Commissioner Christie said “The United States is heading for a very catastrophic situation in terms of reliability.” These are the experts sounding the alarm that we need more grid capacity from baseload sources, not intermittent ones, or we could face not just loss of commerce but a loss of human life.

CPP 2.0 promises to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 90% by 2032 by mandating coal and natural gas plants install carbon capture and storage (CCS) or face closure. But the EPA is downplaying the nascent technology’s shortcomings.

CCS, as it stands, is expensive and will diminish coal and natural gas plant efficiency by at least 14%. Moreover, natural gas and coal plants retrofitted with first-generation carbon capture technology reportedly can expect a 50% and 70 to 80% increase in electricity costs, respectively.

In the U.S., we already have highly effective emissions technology that enables coal plants to run in an incredibly environmental way. For example, just look at how states that rely heavily on coal have almost none of the air quality issues of China or India. That’s because of our emissions control technologies.

Let’s call this rule out for what it really is: It’s a vehicle to punish coal country which has left the president’s party in droves over the last 20 years, in favor of radical environmental non-governmental organization (NGO) donors who are a major constituency of this administration.

The finalized Clean Power Plan 2.0 rule is a bad deal for American energy producers and consumers. Congress should immediately pull the plug on this rule.

Gabriella Hoffman is director of Independent Women’s Forum’s Center for Energy and Conservation (iwf.org/CEC) and host of the District of Conservation podcast.

Christian Palich is Vice President of Government & External Affairs at Eagle Forge Services Company, one of the nation’s largest coal producers and a board advisory member for IWF’s Center for Energy and Conservation.

https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/epas-clean-power-plan-rule-prioritizes-net-zero-over-grid-reliability