New Standard for Newly Diagnosed Pediatric B-Cell Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia

 Children with newly diagnosed B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL) lived significantly longer without disease recurrence when they received the bispecific T-cell engager blinatumomab (Blincyto) in addition to chemotherapy, according to a randomized trial reported here.

Median disease-free survival (DFS) at 3 years improved from 87.9% with chemotherapy alone to 96.0% with the blinatumomab consolidation. DFS improved significantly in patients with a National Cancer Institute (NCI)-defined standard risk of relapse, including standard risk-average and standard risk-high. In the overall population, the absolute difference translated into a 61% reduction in the hazard ratio for disease recurrence, and the benefit was consistent across prespecified subgroups.

Major adverse events (AEs) were uncommon, but average-risk patients assigned to blinatumomab did have a higher rate of nonfatal sepsis and catheter-related infections, reported Rachel E. Rau, MD, of the University of Washington and Seattle Children's Hospital, at the American Society of Hematologyopens in a new tab or window meeting.

"The results of our very first efficacy interim analysis demonstrated that, in fact, blinatumomab does improve disease-free survival," Rau said during a press briefing. "The improvement in disease-free survival was secondary to a significant reduction in bone marrow relapses .... We did not see a similar reduction in the more rare event of an isolated central nervous system [CNS] relapse. This was not surprising, given blinatumomab's known limited activity in the central nervous system."

"Overall, our results demonstrated that blinatumomab added to chemotherapy represents a new treatment standard for most patients with NCI standard-risk B-cell ALL," she added.

Co-principal investigator Sumit Gupta, MD, PhD, of the Hospital for Sick Children in Seattle, said in a statement, "These breakthrough data showing a significant improvement in disease-free survival are set to bring a tremendous clinical benefit to nearly all children with newly diagnosed B-ALL. This is changing the standard of care for children with B-ALL around the world."

The results were published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicineopens in a new tab or window.

Challenges to Access

Without minimizing the significance of the results, press briefing moderator Ariela Marshall, MD, of the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, noted that "this therapy might have significant barriers to access, including cost and the infusion needs. Given these barriers, how do you see this therapy fitting into the real world? Is it something truly accessible to patients and their families?"

Rau acknowledged that "if we can't get blinatumomab to every patient who might benefit from it, then I think we've fallen short of our goals."

With regard to access, the FDA "somewhat fortuitously" approved blinatumomabopens in a new tab or window for all patients 1 month and older with B-ALL just shortly before the study results were released. The approval does not address the access issues posed by a medication administered by continuous infusion.

"It's particularly hard to give a continuously infused medication to someone who lives really far from a medical center," said Rau.

She suggested two potential ways to overcome the administration issue. One related to ongoing evaluation of subcutaneously delivered formulations of blinatumomab. Additionally, similar, longer-acting drugs are under development.

With regard to the issue of global access to the drug, Rau said "That's a much more challenging portion of this to tackle, and I don't think any of us have the best answers for that. We're all focused on finding ways to make it accessible to everyone globally, not just in well-developed countries."

Accumulation of Evidence

Blinatumomab targets CD19 expressed on the surface of B cells and redirects CD3+ T cells for CD19-selective lysis. Rau reported results from the multicenter AALL1731opens in a new tab or window trial, which followed other positive studies, including the TOWERopens in a new tab or window trial of adults with advanced ALL; the BLAST trial in adults and children with B-ALL in first or second remission, which led to FDA accelerated approvalopens in a new tab or window; a phase II studyopens in a new tab or window in newly diagnosed Philadelphia chromosome-negative B-ALL; a phase IIIopens in a new tab or window study of consolidation therapy for measurable residual disease (MRD)-negative B-ALL; and a small phase II study of sequential treatmentopens in a new tab or window for aggressive pediatric B-ALL.

AALL1731 involved 1,440 children (median age at randomization of 4.3 years) with standard-risk B-ALL, enrolled at sites in the U.S., Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Patients were stratified by NCI criteria into standard risk-average (N=835) and standard risk-high (N=605) categories. Randomized treatment consisted of a standard three-drug chemotherapy regimen with or without two cycles of blinatumomab consolidation. The primary endpoint was DFS.

After a median follow-up of 2.5 years, the trial met the primary endpoint, showing a statistically significant reduction in DFS in the patients who received blinatumomab. Statistically significant differences were observed in the overall population (HR 0.39, P<0.0001), the standard-average risk subgroup (97.5% vs 90.2%, HR 0.33, P=0.0019), and standard-high risk subgroup (94.1% vs 84.8%, HR 0.45, P=0.0126).

The DFS benefit held up in a subgroup analysis that included risk categories, sex, race/ethnicity, cytogenetics status (favorable, neutral, unfavorable), and MRD status.

The overall difference between treatment groups was driven by a reduction in bone marrow relapses (P<0.0001). The frequency of CNS relapse did not differ between treatment groups (P=0.8510).

Blinatumomab target toxicities (cytokine release syndrome, seizure, and encephalopathy) were infrequent and decreased from cycle 1 (4.5% grade 2, 1.3% grade 3) to cycle 2 (2.5%, 0.7%). Grade ≥3 infections occurred more often in standard risk-average patients with the addition of blinatumomab to chemotherapy, including febrile neutropenia (39.6% vs 47.0%, P=0.05) and sepsis and catheter-related infections (5.1% vs 14.8%, P<0.001). Infectious toxicities occurred with similar frequency in the standard risk-high subgroup.

With respect to the difference in infectious toxicities in the standard risk-average patients, Rau and co-authors noted in the journal article that "this result was not attributable to infectious events occurring during blinatumomab cycles; these adverse events occurred instead in subsequent treatment cycles (e.g., during delayed intensification of chemotherapy)."

Disclosures

The study was supported by the NCI, St. Baldrick's Foundation, and Amgen.

Rau disclosed relationships with Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Servier, and AbbVie.

Marshall reported no relevant relationships with industry.

Primary Source

American Society of Hematology

Source Reference: opens in a new tab or windowRau RE, et al Blinatumomab added to chemotherapy improves disease-free survival in newly diagnosed NCI standard risk pediatric B-acute lymphoblastic leukemia: Results from the randomized Children's Oncology Group Study AALL1731" ASH-Hematology 2024; Abstract 1.

Secondary Source

New England Journal of Medicine

Source Reference: opens in a new tab or windowGupta S, et al "Blinatumomab in standard-risk B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia in children" N Engl J Med 2024; DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2411680.

https://www.medpagetoday.com/meetingcoverage/ashhematology/113271

'Physicians Shouldn't Applaud Murder'

 The murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson appeared pre-meditated and meticulously planned, with police officials calling it a "targeted shooting." Furthermore, the shooter used a suppressed handgun (not likely suggestive of a crime of passion) and left messages on the shell casings

opens in a new tab or window found at the scene of the crime. The casings had the words "deny," "depose," and "defend" written on them.

Thompson had been receiving death threats, according to his widow. Here's a summaryopens in a new tab or window of the story.

UnitedHealthcare is a vast corporation. As of 2023, its parent company, UnitedHealth Group, was among the 10 largest companiesopens in a new tab or window in the world, and UnitedHealthcare was the largest health insurance companyopens in a new tab or window in the U.S. by revenue. UnitedHealth Group is worth over $500 billion.

Anyone who deals with health insurance -- and basically we all do -- knows that it is expensive, difficult, and sometimes seems barely worth the cost when patients are faced with denial after denial, despite rising premiums.

None of us know why this murder happened. It's easy to assume that it had to do with claim denials or something else related to the industry. However, the evidence simply isn't there yet. We don't know the motive: it might have been personal, or random, or the act of a crazed individual. Time will hopefully tell.

But I know this:

• His wife is now a widow and his children fatherless.
• His killer is likely now consigned to life on the run, or to prison or death.

I also know this: "Thou shalt not murder."

There is no disclaimer or caveat for, "Yes, but he wasn't very nice." Or, "They caused my family difficulty." There is no excuse for, "I really disagree with his opinion and he has to be silenced." It just isn't there. It is not acceptable. And we have structured our collective morality, our very legal system, along those lines.

And yet, I keep seeing comments onlineopens in a new tab or window intimating that maybe, just maybe, Thompson had it coming. You know, with denials and costs, and all the rest. Perhaps most disturbing to me is the fact that some of these are from physicians -- physicians who are supposed to be dedicated to the preservation of life and the cessation of suffering.

I understand the frustration with insurance companies. It impacts our patients, it impacts our livelihoods. But this is too far.

It's no surprise, of course. Some physicians were also vocal in their wish that the assassination attempts against President-elect Donald Trump had succeeded.

The law provides recourse for crimes and for civil litigation. Without the law, we are reduced to vengeance. For ages, that's how humans settled things -- with blood feuds.

The thing is, physicians can be implicated in suffering and loss as well. Our patients sometimes don't recover. Our patients die. Sometimes they die because of our action or inaction. How many family members of those we lose might feel justified in exacting revenge? We know it happens, but we are always shocked and dismayed when it does.

In the ancient past, even the law codified this sort of revenge. Hammurabi's Code, 218, says thisopens in a new tab or window: "If a physician performs an operation and kills someone or cuts out his eye, the doctor's hands shall be cut off."

I would caution my colleagues to dial back the rhetoric. It is our job to bring comfort and healing. It is our job to see everyone as deserving of our care.

It is certainly not our job to cheer murder.

Edwin Leap is a board-certified emergency physician who has been practicing for 30 years since finishing residency. He currently works as an emergency physician for WVU Hospitals in Princeton, West Virginia.

https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/rural/113257

Biden Crime Family and Democrats Laugh at America

 What do the coastal Democrat elite say when they’re pumping themselves up just to poke down on the rest of us?

“The Rule of Law.”

They say it and repeat it again and again. They speak with reverence and passion as if they were speaking of something holy. But they don’t believe in it. Not one word.

Like so many declarations made by the Democrat left, it is just a part of their public theater.  It is as authentic as a drag queen applying his lipstick before going out to dance for the preschoolers at your local woke library. And when they stand for elections, those same Democrats applauding the drag-queen story hour–and the angry trans protests in Washington– will later send out holiday cards to their voters to suggest they support the old-fashioned American family. ‘Tis the season.

Their reverence for the rule of law is as American as apple pie and bullshit.

They step on the precious rule of law, then they spit on it. Why? Because “the rule of law” is for voters and taxpayers. Like those COVID rules for thee, not for me” rules, the rule of law does not doesn’t apply to them.

Because they’re the Bidens and you are the chumps.

And Joe just dropped a blanket pardon on Hunter going back years, back to his beginnings as the family bagman.

Look at them hugging each other at China Joe’s inauguration. They hold each other tightly, as did some parents whose children went to state prison for doing crack. But their crackhead boy wasn’t going to prison like so many other young men suffering from addiction. Why not? Because they’re special.  Because they’re the Bidens. And Hunter was the Biden Crime Family bagman.

In that photo above from Jan. 20, 2021 long before China Joe would repeatedly and publicly deny that he would give Hunter a blanket pardon for crimes.  And long before Biden’s media lickspittles worried Biden would make complete fools of them– as he did with the Hunter pardon. At the time of that Biden family hug, they had already  told a series of lies denying Hunter’s laptop from hell and the corrupt corporate media repeated those lies.

Joe lied that he knew nothing about Hunter’s business dealings. He said he didn’t know Hunter had picked up millions and millions of dollars from China, Ukraine, and other nations that wanted to buy influence from the American president. He denied telling Americans that the laptop wasn’t real–and the Bidens and their lickspittle media Democrats insisted the laptop itself was a lie, that it was disinformation from Russia. He used the 51 American Intelligence Agents who lied for the Bidens, and used that to lie directly to the American people.

It was not from Russia. It was real.

And they knew it.

They were the Bidens and it was their time to score and score again.

When Joe Biden was a U.S. Senator, he argued that drug addicts deserved serious prison time because of the rule of law.

“We need to hold every drug user accountable…” said Joe.

And when he became president, Biden said he would not pardon his son Hunter. He said so seven or eight times. And Biden was the “living embodiment” of the rule of law said MSNBC’s Andrew Weissman, braying like a jackass.  The living embodiment of the rule of law? Weissman was a leading cheerleader of the lies around the Russia hoax which in essence was a Hillary Clinton hit job, but the old Washington combine grifter was the living embodiment of the rule of law? He should wear that as he wanders the halls of hell. Weisman has no shame.

The Federalist Elle Purnell offers a list of the Biden Crime Family:

“The pardon is an unprecedented, corrupt trick that we all knew was coming no matter how brazen and how many times Biden and his media mouthpieces lied about it. Biden isn’t just trying to protect Hunter, he’s desperately trying to cover up the scam he’s been running on the American people for the past decade.”

And Margot Cleveland reminds us who bought the Biden lies and tried to force the rest of us to eat them in “Joe Biden Tries To Justify Hunter Pardon By Peddling Another Round Of Lies”

As Biden lied and lied that he would not pardon his son Hunter, Cleveland tells her readers, and “Republicans ridiculed Biden’s claim, leading longtime legacy reporter John Harwood to denigrate the realists, writing on X, “people who insist Biden will pardon Hunter after specifically ruling it out are telling on themselves they can’t imagine someone acting on principle and keeping his word.”

No, Mr. Harwood, we just can’t imagine Joe Biden acting on principle and keeping his word.”

The corporate media lied for Biden, coddling him, pampering him and the corrupt Biden Crime Family.

And consider this from the supreme laughing stock of American journalism, the New York Times:

“Joe Biden won the presidency because, at a moment when so many Americans were exhausted by the chaos and nastiness of the Trump era, he promised stability, decency and healing. At the heart of his candidacy was the vow to be “a president for all Americans” as he labored “to restore the soul of the nation.””

How many trips to China, Ukraine and other shady places had Hunter gone on with China Joe to sell the office out as he would promise decency?

15, or was it 20?

Was that decent, New York Times?

And all of it was generated as a bagman pulling in the cash for the Big Guy.

A common streetwalker working the loading dock in some third-world shithole, and crawling with disease has that kind of New York Times decency.

Miranda Devine, the great columnist of the New York Post has a theory: She writes that the pardon for Hunter is really a pardon for Joe himself. She’s correct. Joe pretends sincerity like all the Democrat operatives, but all Joe and Jill care about is themselves.

I began supporting her years ago in my column at the Tribune.  She nailed the Biden family corruption with her book “Laptop from Hell.” And each time I wrote a column supporting her and condemning the compliant corporate media, I could hear the sighs of leftist anger in the woke newsroom in downtown Chicago.

But Devine had the bravery to call out the regime and do so publicly. And the other day, when Biden pardoned his crack-addict son, she called them out again. When she she came out with that second blockbuster book: “The Big Guy—How a President and His Son Sold Out America,” she returned to The Chicago Way podcast. We were honored to have her as our guest.

I can’t ignore the contempt that the Obama Biden clique have shown to the American people. It is stunning in its arrogance. And clearly the Democrats have learned nothing from the recent election won by the Republican President Donald John Trump as they took the Senate and the House and the White House. Perhaps Democrats will explain it after they put old Joe up on Mt. Rushmore? Remember that idiocy? The Democrat arrogance has even led the prissy suck-up leftist U.S. Rep. Swalwell to join the suck up party.

You’d have to be a certified stupid chumbolone not to think Obama knew about Hunter and Joe.

As you’re reading this, I know that you are no chumbolone.

Obama knew.

His spies at CIA knew. His secret police at the FBI knew. His toadies at the White House knew.

So, yes, he knew.

I don’t think of the Bidens wrapped up in the mantle of state. I prefer to think of them as what they are–trashy Delaware hillbillies, walking in Obama’s inaugural parade, thinking about the all the scores to come.

By the photo, you can see Jill blowing a big kiss to the chumbolones. And Joe and Hunter can feel the tingles in their legs because what’s out there for them.

Millions from China.

Millions from Ukraine.

And so on.

The Chicago Way is the Delaware Way is the Washington Way. And the “Rule of Law?” To the Bidens and their corrupt corporate media, it is something for them to use to wipe their feet.

John Kass spent decades as a political writer and news columnist in Chicago working at a major metropolitan newspaper. He is co-host of The Chicago Way podcast. 

https://johnkassnews.com/the-biden-crime-family-laughs-at-america/

Imperative of Preparing U.S. for the Hypersonic Threat

 Over my years of service, I have witnessed firsthand the rapid evolution of warfare technology. But few advancements have concerned me as much as the emergence of hypersonic weapons. These missiles, capable of traveling at speeds exceeding Mach 5 with unprecedented maneuverability, represent a paradigm shift in modern warfare.

Fortunately, senior Defense Department leadership and industry are not only addressing our own hypersonic capabilities; they are focused on defending against these threats as well – at least on the technical side. But there is still an important gap we should and can close.

As a former naval aviator, I can attest that the first time one of our servicemembers sees a hypersonic threat inbound should not be in combat. This holds true whether it’s an Air Force F-35 pilot, an Army Air Defender operating a THAAD battery, a sailor sitting at an AEGIS fire control display on a DDG, or a Guardian doing missile warning. This isn't just a common-sense opinion, however; it's a vital principle born from personal experience.

As a mid-grade F-14 pilot, I once had the rare opportunity to track and simulate an engagement of an extremely high and fast target off the coast of Southern California that I later learned was most likely an SR-71 Blackbird. The experience was humbling, to say the least. It was an order of magnitude more difficult than anything I had ever done in terms of interception. And that was only at Mach 3 — a fraction of the speed of today's hypersonic threats. If a Mach 3 aircraft presented such challenges for an experienced pilot, imagine the complexities of dealing with Mach 5+ weapons in actual combat situations. It's a scenario we simply cannot afford to deploy our servicemembers unprepared to face.

The threat is not hypothetical. According to the Defense Intelligence Agency, in 2020 China fielded the DF-17 medium range-range missile with a hypersonic glide vehicle payload and a range of 1600 kilometers. Russia has three deployed hypersonic weapon systems, two of which have been used on the battlefield in Ukraine. These already operational capabilities are shifting the strategic calculus and potentially undermining our traditional deterrence strategies and missile defense systems. Of particular concern is the vulnerability of key strategic locations like Guam, a vital hub for our Indo-Pacific operations. Its proximity to potential threats and the limitations of our current defenses against hypersonic threats make it an especially tempting target.

Addressing these challenges requires a multifaceted approach, combining technological innovation, strategic planning, and, crucially, extensive training. Fortunately, capabilities that will allow us to simulate this threat exist today. Not only should these capabilities be available to every deploying unit – our major military exercises offer a superb opportunity to test the end-to-end kill chain against hypersonics — it can open them to our vital allies and partners.

RIMPAC, the world's largest international maritime warfare exercise, offers an unparalleled opportunity to test and refine our capabilities against hypersonic threats in a multinational context. Talisman Sabre, our principal bilateral exercise with Australia, provides a crucial platform for developing interoperability. The Navy's Grey Flag exercises, designed to push the boundaries of naval aviation, are ideally suited for incorporating the extreme speeds and maneuverability of hypersonic threats into air combat scenarios.

By integrating hypersonic threat training into these exercises, we’ll familiarize our personnel with the unique characteristics of these weapons, identify gaps in our defensive capabilities, and foster a mindset of adaptability and innovation among our forces and those of our allies.

Moreover, initiatives like AUKUS Pillar II present valuable opportunities for collaboration. By working closely with Australia and the United Kingdom, we can pool resources, share expertise, and jointly develop advanced capabilities to counter hypersonic threats. This kind of international cooperation is essential in facing a challenge of this magnitude.

Throughout my career, I have learned that our greatest asset is not our technology, but the skill, adaptability, and readiness of the men and women who serve. As we continue to invest in cutting-edge defense technologies, we must ensure that our personnel are equally prepared. Regular exposure to hypersonic threat scenarios in exercises and pre-deployment workups is essential for our national security.

The advent of hypersonic weapons demands a corresponding shift in our training and preparedness. By rigorously incorporating these scenarios into our military exercises, we not only enhance our defensive capabilities but also send a clear message to potential adversaries: the United States and its allies are ready to meet the challenges of tomorrow's battlefield.

My experience with the SR-71 serves as a stark reminder of the challenges we face. The gap between Mach 3 and Mach 5+ is not just a matter of speed — it's a quantum leap in warfare technology that we must be prepared to confront. As we enter a new era of warfare, let’s ensure that our forces are trained, ready, and confident in their ability to defend against these emerging threats.

---

ADM James A. "Sandy" Winnefeld Jr. (USN, ret.) and former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2024/12/07/the_imperative_of_preparing_us_for_the_hypersonic_threat_1077113.html

The ranked choice failure

 By a margin of just 737 votes out of 340,078 cast, Alaska voters chose to keep their ranked choice voting system this year. This was the lone victory for a movement that saw losses in eight other states despite heavily outspending opponents. The empty promises of the ranked choice voting movement are being exposed, its costs are mounting, and voters are wisely choosing to reject this fundamentally undemocratic premise.

Advocates of ranked choice voting claim the system makes it easier for more centrist candidates with broader support to win over more “extreme” candidates who they claim benefit from low-turnout primaries. Ranked choice voting advocates, who happen to be almost entirely composed of Democrats, also claim that ranked choice voting discourages negative campaigning since candidates are forced to appeal to a wider spectrum of voters.

There is no empirical evidence any of this is true.

Just look at Oakland, California, where Mayor Sheng Thao, endorsed and funded generously by public sector unions, outspent centrist opponent Loren Taylor, who won on the first ballot. Only after multiple rounds of recounting ballots, which is a necessity of the ranked choice voting system, did Thao finally come out on top. The whole process took weeks, delaying governmental transition and undermining faith in electoral integrity.

And what did Oakland voters get with their public union-funded ranked choice-voted winner? A corrupt incompetent who is now under federal indictment and has since been recalled by voters. So much for wise moderation.

A more fundamental problem with ranked choice voting is its inherently undemocratic nature. Voters should not be forced to vote for candidates they don’t want to vote for. But the entire premise of ranked choice voting depends on forcing people to vote for candidates they don’t want to. Otherwise, voters with little preference between candidates are given more votes than those who don’t.

Consider a voter who only likes one candidate in a race and does not want to vote for any of the other four candidates. So that voter votes for just his favorite candidate, leaving the other four lines blank. If that voter’s candidate does not survive the first round, he has voted once. But another voter who was apathetic between the candidates and ranked all five got to vote in every round of the ranked choice runoff, effectively giving him five votes to the other voter’s one vote. This is inherently undemocratic since it violates the Supreme Court’s standard of “one person, one vote.”

This is not as uncommon an outcome as ranked choice proponents would have you believe. In 2019, for example, the San Francisco mayor’s race lasted nine rounds, with just 46% of ballots filling out enough candidates to make it all nine rounds. As a result, Mayor London Breed was elected from a majority of just 115,977 final eligible ballots compared to the 254,106 that were originally cast. Voters were apparently unhappy with this result as well since Breed lost reelection handily last month.

Despite this well-established track record of failure, ranked choice advocates spent more than $110 million in nine states pushing their wasteful democratic voting system on voters. And the voters of Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and South Dakota all rejected the ranked choice nonsense. Figures for ranked choice opponents for all states are not in, but in Colorado alone, ranked choice advocates spent $14.6 million compared to just half a million dollars spent by ranked choice opponents.

It is understandable why Democratic Party activists are looking for some neat trick to deliver competent governance magically. Oakland, San Francisco, New York City, and many other Democratic-controlled localities desperately need better leadership. But ranked choice voting is not the answer. Just look at Fairfax, where the Democratic mayor is calling for ranked choice voting precisely because it well helped protect incumbents from unhappy voters who want to hold them accountable for their bad decisions. 

If Democrats want better governance in the cities and states they run, a better solution would be to end collective bargaining privileges for public unions. Now that would allow for new and centrist voices to emerge.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/3247838/the-ranked-choice-failure/

'Biden Decision on Weight-Loss Drugs a Push-Back on Progressives'

 Last week, the Biden administration passed a rule allowing for the government healthcare programs Medicare and Medicaid coverage of a class of weight-loss drugs that promises to help millions of people lose weight and become healthier. This decision by the White House begs the question: Why wait until after the election to pass a popular proposal that will help millions of working-class Americans afford weight-loss drugs they currently cannot afford to purchase themselves?

A lot of the press analysis portrays this White House decision as a shot by President Biden at the incoming Trump administration, forcing the potential new Health and Human Services Secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has cast doubt on the benefits of these drugs, to either keep this Biden era provision or take critical medical coverage away from millions of working-class Americans who rely on government subsidized healthcare. 

But my clear understanding of the White House decision to cover GLP-1 weight loss and diabetes drugs like Novo Nordisk’s Ozempic/Wegovy and Eli Lilly’s Mounjaro/Zepbound is that this was not a shot at the incoming Trump administration, but rather, a willingness of the president and the vice president to rebuke the progressive wing of the Democratic Party which has vociferously opposed this new policy. Indeed, lawmakers like Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont have waged a personal crusade against the makers of these drugs to reduce their profits. 

That is what the progressives are so upset about: the profits by the drug makers. Indeed, progressives would rather block low-income Americans from accessing these medications – by opposing Medicare and Medicaid coverage – than allowing the pharmaceutical makers to profit from expanded access to their products. Indeed, my understanding is that some leading progressives in the Congress and at the White House launched last minute efforts to derail this decision by the president and vice president. 

My organization has been urging the Biden administration for most of the last year to allow Medicare and Medicaid to cover these drugs for obese patients who cannot seem to lose weight. In our opinion, this was both good public policy and great politics. After all, if we can – and should – send billions of dollars of military aid to Israel and Ukraine to defend themselves, surely, we can afford to help working-class Americans lose weight and live healthier. 

In fact, my organization recently conducted polling in several critical swing states in the last election, and our polling was conclusive that government coverage of these weight-loss drugs was popular with voters. This is from an op-ed our pollster published in Real Clear Health:

Based on our polling in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin and Arizona: it is clear that voters want the government to help them afford these GLP-1 drugs. 

When asked: “If recommended by a doctor, Medicare should cover prescription drugs for weight loss for adults diagnosed with obesity,” in Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Arizona 84% of respondents agreed with that assertion. In Wisconsin, that number was slightly higher at 85%. These findings indicate broad, bi-partisan support for Medicare coverage of these GLP-1 drugs and Vice President Harris should take notice. 

After all, in Pennsylvania, our survey found that 30% of respondents answered that they are “much more likely” to vote for a candidate that supported Medicare coverage of these weight loss drugs. 

Wouldn’t it have been great if the Biden administration made this decision on weight-loss drugs before the election and could have campaigned on a massive new government program to help working-class Americans afford these drugs only available to the wealthy who can afford to buy them without government support?

But time and again, when the Democratic Party tries to assuage the progressives, it only hurts our chances at winning national elections. This could not have been more evident than the election earlier this month where Democrats lost campaigns up and down the ballot because Republicans are making stronger appeals to working-class Americans. 

This decision by the Biden administration could end up costing taxpayers over $30 billion dollars, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. But I believe that a healthier nation is worth that price and that there are going to be considerable cost savings for taxpayers, because healthier people spend less on medical care. For these reasons, I am confident that the Trump administration will not overturn this decision to help working-class Americans afford life-altering weight-loss drugs through Medicare and Medicaid. 

Hank Naughton is president of Centrist Democrats of America.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2024/12/07/biden_decision_weight_loss_drug_push-back_progressives_152046.html

Why this tech billionaire left a White House meeting last spring and endorsed Trump

 My ears always perk up when I hear that a lifelong Democrat has thrown his or her support behind President-elect Donald Trump. One of the biggest surprises of the 2024 election cycle was the sheer number of people who did just that.

Two key factors drove this shift. First, many working-class voters finally grasped that the Democratic Party, which they had blindly supported for decades, had abandoned them.

The second factor concerned Democrats at the opposite end of the economic spectrum — a group that included tech billionaires, hedge fund managers, and the ultrawealthy, many with direct access to the Biden White House. They saw that the line between democracy and authoritarianism had become blurred, or even erased in some instances, as party leaders shifted their focus from governance to the pursuit of power, showing a willingness to do whatever it took to acquire it and maintain it.

Marc Andreessen, co-founder of the venture capital firm a16z, was part of this second group. In a Tuesday interview with podcaster Joe Rogan, he exposed the Biden administration’s despotic plan to control artificial intelligence in the U.S. This bombshell revelation should have been front-page news last week; instead, it flew largely under the radar.

Andreessen told Rogan that he attended a series of White House meetings about the future of AI in the spring. During one session, Biden administration officials unveiled “their plan to control AI through government regulatory capture.” Horrified by the administration’s intentions, he walked out the door and endorsed Trump.

What had left the tech billionaire so spooked? Andreessen said, “The AI thing was very alarming. We had meetings this spring that were the most alarming meetings I’ve ever been in.”

He continued, “They were taking us through their plans, and it was – basically just full government – full government control. Like this sort of thing, there will be a small number of large companies that will be completely regulated and controlled by the government, they told us. They said don’t even start startups – there’s just no way that they can succeed – there’s no way that we’re going to permit that to happen.” 

Rogan gasped.

But Andreessen wasn’t finished. “They said that this [control of AI] is already over. It’s going to be two or three companies and we’re just gonna control them and that’s that. Like this is already finished.”

Rogan asked, “When you leave a meeting like that, what do you do?”

Andreessen smiled and replied, “You go endorse Donald Trump!”

Andreessen also claimed the Biden administration has “debanked” more than 30 tech startups, including cryptocurrency companies. (Debanking occurs when a bank abruptly closes an individual’s or organization’s account or refuses to open one for a new customer. This usually happens when the person or entity is perceived as a risk—whether “legally, financially, or to the bank’s reputation.”) 

The use of debanking as a control mechanism began under the Obama administration. It was called “Operation Choke Point.” The government began debanking “marijuana businesses, escort businesses, and gun shops,” Andreessen said.

He walked Rogan through what debanking would look like for a business owner. “So, if you’re running a marijuana dispensary in 2012, then, guess what, you’re doing your business all in cash. Because you literally can’t get a bank account. You can’t get a Visa terminal. You can’t process transactions. … You’ve been sanctioned.” 

“This administration [Biden] extended that concept to apply it to tech founders, crypto founders, and just generally political opponents,” Andreessen said. They use it “primarily against their political enemies and then to their disfavored tech startups. … We’ve had like 30 tech founders debanked in the last four years. It’s been a big recurring pattern.”

Summing up, he noted, “This is one of the reasons we ended up supporting Trump. … We can’t live in a world where somebody starts a company that’s a completely legal thing and they literally get sanctioned and embargoed through the United States government through a completely unaccountable [authority].”

He added, “By the way, no due process. None of this is written down. There’s no rules. There’s no court. There’s no decision process. There’s no appeal. Who do you appeal to?” 

Of course, this is just one man’s perspective, and Rogan asked very few follow-up questions. Still, I find Andreessen’s claims to be credible given the vast amount of evidence of the Democratic Party’s corruption that’s been revealed over the past decade. Nearly all of it centers on their efforts to consolidate power through control over people, information, and language.

Control of the media in particular has been a cornerstone of the Democrats’ strategy. It has enabled them to shape the narrative. The party secured its dominance over the legacy media a long time ago. Ahead of the 2020 election, it extended this control to major social media platforms, leveraging its influence to censor free speech and to take back the White House.

Fortunately for Republicans, the landscape has begun to shift. Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter in 2022, the public’s growing distrust of the legacy media, and the rise of alternative news sources such as online platforms and podcasts have collectively helped level the information playing field. This shift has weakened the Democrats’ grip on political discourse in the U.S. and likely contributed to Trump’s victory.

Still, Andreessen’s revelation about Democrats’ intentions for AI should have us worried. AI, still in its early stages, is both awe-inspiring and terrifying. While most of us can’t fully grasp where it will be in five years, we understand its immense potential. Those who control AI will wield extraordinary power.

Does anyone actually believe that the Democrats would pass up the chance to dominate AI?

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/faith-freedom-self-reliance/3249005/why-this-tech-billionaire-left-a-white-house-meeting-last-spring-and-endorsed-trump/