Canada Can't Afford To Play Trade Chicken With The US

 by Marco Navarro-Génie via The Epoch Times,

Calls for Canada to respond aggressively to U.S. trade threats ignore the economic realities of such a move. Consider Quebec and Alberta energy. The stakes for Alberta and Quebec in this morbidly anticipated trade-war gamble are profoundly asymmetric, with Alberta standing to lose far more in absolute terms and per capita. The arguments to engage in such conflict are reckless and fail to recognize the magnitude of our economic integration with the United States.

Canada and the United States share one of the world’s most extensive and intertwined trading relationships. In 2022, bilateral trade in goods and services exceeded $900 billion annually. Canada exported 75 percent of its goods to the United States. Beyond trade, bilateral investment is immense, with over $1 trillion in two-way direct investment (All amounts in Canadian dollars).

A trade war would jeopardize trade and these capital flows, which are critical for businesses and public finances. Retaliatory tariffs or export restrictions would destabilize relationships and harm key industries across Canada. During the 2018 NAFTA renegotiations, even the spectre of a trade breakdown cost Canadian industries millions in lost revenue and opportunities. A full-blown trade war would magnify these damages exponentially.

Alberta’s oil and gas sector is the backbone of its economy and a vital contributor to Canada’s prosperity. In 2023, Alberta exported  $127 billion worth of oil and gas to the United States, representing 82 percent of its energy exports. This sector accounts for 27 percent of Alberta’s GDP and contributes approximately $28,863 per capita to the provincial economy.

Halting these exports would be harmful to a weakened economy. Alberta’s energy industry supports tens of thousands of jobs and generates substantial government revenues that fund social programs and infrastructure. Alberta is also a net contributor to federal equalization payments, providing billions annually to support less prosperous provinces, including Quebec.

The suggestion that Alberta should stop exporting oil and gas to “do its part” for Canada is economically nonsensical. Unlike Quebec’s electricity sector, Alberta’s energy industry has no immediate alternative markets to replace U.S. demand. Shutting off the tap to America would devastate Alberta and weaken Canada.

In contrast, Quebec’s hydroelectric sector, though significant, plays a smaller role in its economy than oil and gas do in Alberta. In 2022, Hydro-Québec exported $3 billion worth of electricity to the U.S., representing about 12 percent of its total electricity production and 2.9 percent of its GDP. With a population of 8.6 million, these exports amount to $349 per capita.

While losing U.S. electricity exports would hurt Quebec, the economic impact would be far less severe than Alberta’s potential losses. Quebec’s export economy is more diversified, with industries like aerospace, aluminum, pharmaceuticals, and technology providing alternative revenue streams.

The notion that Alberta and Quebec will equally shoulder the burden of a trade war by withholding energy sales to the United States is deeply flawed. Alberta’s reliance on the U.S. market is far greater, and its potential losses are higher. This is partly because Quebec objected to Energy East, the proposed pipeline to carry Alberta energy to Atlantic waters. Halting oil and gas exports would cost Alberta almost 10 times more per capita than it would cost Quebec.

This asymmetry highlights the uneven stakes in any trade conflict. Asking Alberta to sacrifice its economy while Quebec faces minor losses is unfair, economically irrational, and deeply corrosive to national unity. Undermining Alberta’s economy would have repercussions far beyond the province’s borders.

Far from being “anti-Canadian,” as suggested by people with a political agenda to hurt Alberta, Alberta’s reluctance to dismantle its energy sector is a defence of Canada’s broader economic interests. The province’s contributions to federal revenues and equalization payments help sustain national programs that benefit all Canadians. Conversely, Quebec’s relative insulation from the harmful consequences of a trade war explains its more relaxed stance.

For Quebec, halting exports would be akin to a paper cut whereas for Alberta, it would be a lethal wound.

Canada’s strength lies in its economic diversity and regional contributions. Alberta’s oil and gas sector, Quebec’s hydroelectric industry, Atlantic fisheries, and Ontario’s manufacturing base are all critical to the country’s prosperity.

A trade war would disrupt this relationship and risk Canada’s position as a stable and reliable trading partner. Premier Danielle Smith alone has offered a mature and reasonable approach.

The idea of a trade war with the United States is reckless when Canada’s government is in stasis and already mired in the economic problems it created.

Rather than pitting provinces against one another, Ottawa (and the premiers spoiling for a fight) should focus on preserving a proven key to our prosperity: strengthening its relationship with the United States.

https://www.zerohedge.com/economics/canada-cant-afford-play-trade-chicken-us

SCOTUS Denies RFK Jr. Request To Block California's Doctor Probes Over COVID-19 Advice

 by Matthew Vadum via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The U.S. Supreme Court rejected three doctors’ emergency request to prevent a California agency from investigating them over advice they give to patients that does not conform to the state’s position on COVID-19.

Justice Elena Kagan, who handles urgent appeals from California, rejected the emergency application in Kory v. Bonta late on Jan. 21. She did not explain why.

The decision came 13 days after the case was docketed by the court on Jan. 8. Kagan did not ask California to respond to the application.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was listed as one of two attorneys representing the physicians in the case.

President Donald Trump has nominated Kennedy, an activist on environment and health-related issues, to be secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

The other co-counsel on the application is Richard Jaffe of Sacramento, California.

The Medical Board of California considers the expression of the doctors’ dissenting views on the disease as potentially dangerous misinformation that needs to be suppressed.

The board argues that it has legal authority to discipline the doctors for speech it deems to be medical misconduct. The physicians counter that they didn’t surrender their free speech rights when they obtained medical licenses.

The application was initiated by Dr. Pierre Kory and Dr. Brian Tyson, both medical doctors; Dr. Le Trinh Hoag, an osteopathic physician; Physicians for Informed Consent; and Children’s Health Defense, a nonprofit organization founded by Kennedy.

Kennedy has resigned from the nonprofit because of his pending HHS nomination, Jaffe told The Epoch Times.

The application stated that California’s executive and legislative branches are “threatening California physicians with professional discipline for their viewpoint speech contrary to the mainstream COVID narrative.”

After the Federation of State Medical Boards in July 2021 asked its member medical boards in the United States to punish physicians for advancing perceived “COVID misinformation” and “disinformation” among patients and the public, Medical Board of California President Kristina Lawson announced in February 2022 that the board planned to sanction physicians for what it called “COVID misinformation.”

The California Legislature passed AB 2098, which took effect in January 2023, making the dissemination of “misinformation” about the disease an offense for which doctors could be disciplined, the application stated.

After a federal district judge halted the law in January 2023, the Legislature repealed the misinformation provision effective January 2024. The application said the board continued to probe physicians for violating its COVID-19 policy following the repeal.

The applicants were challenging “the practice and policy of threatening and targeting physicians with discipline for providing information and recommendations contrary to the mainstream COVID narrative,” according to the application.

On April 23, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California rejected a request to preliminarily block the state’s enforcement program, holding that the applicants lacked legal standing.

Standing refers to the right of someone to sue in court. The parties must show a strong enough connection to the claim to justify their participation in a lawsuit.

The ruling was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Nov. 27, 2024.

The California Business and Professions Code, under which the California Medical Board claims its disciplinary authority, “regulates conduct, not speech,” the appeals court stated. “It provides for enforcement of the standard of care, which is the standard for physicians’ treatment of patients,” the court added.

To demonstrate standing, the applicants had to demonstrate that there was “a credible threat that the [board] will prosecute them under the statute,” but they did not do so, the appeals court stated.

The Ninth Circuit said the court record showed that the only disciplinary action taken against a doctor “involved a physician encouraging her patient to use veterinary ivermectin and resulted in the stipulated surrender of her license.”

The applicants were asking the Supreme Court for an injunction stopping the state from “continuing their enforcement program targeting the information, opinions, and recommendations on COVID-19 which California licensed physicians may provide to patients.”

A related challenge that Kennedy and Jaffe filed with the Supreme Court was rejected by the full court on Jan. 13.

In Stockton v. Ferguson, the justices were asked to prevent the Washington Medical Commission from investigating licensed physicians in the state over their criticism of COVID-19 policies.

The application was brought by former professional basketball player John Stockton along with Drs. Richard Eggleston, Thomas Siler, Daniel Moynihan, another 50 unidentified medical doctors, and Children’s Health Defense.

Jaffe told The Epoch Times it was “not surprising” that Kagan denied the application in Kory v. Bonta given that the full court declined the application in Stockton v. Ferguson.

The lawyer said his clients in the California case will either file a petition for certiorari, or review, with the Supreme Court, or continue pursuing the lawsuit that is still pending in federal district court.

“The plaintiffs are committed to pressing their case for the right of physicians to speak their truth to patients, and to the public,” he said.

Jaffe said “the tide is turning,” and pointed to Trump’s executive order signed Jan. 20 aimed at preventing government censorship, along with Facebook co-founder Mark Zuckerberg’s recent “admission that [Facebook parent company] Meta had been bullied into suppressing speech the government did not like.”

After Kennedy is confirmed, “we are hopeful that the government will start releasing information about the COVID vaccines and treatments which may further support the wisdom of the principle that physicians have the right to speak out against the government narrative without fear of government reprisal.”

Before the recent pandemic, the courts “fully recognized those rights, but I think COVID scared many, including judges to grant a constitutional exception in times of crises.”

Jaffe added that his side remains optimistic that in the future the Supreme Court “will reject what these two states are doing in these physician speech cases.”

The Epoch Times reached out to the Medical Board of California and to California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who represents the board, for comment. No replies were received by publication time.

https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/supreme-court-denies-rfk-jr-request-block-californias-doctor-investigations-over-covid-19

Federal Government Drops COVID-19 Vaccination Requirement For Legal Immigrants

 by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times,

A COVID-19 vaccine is no longer a requirement for individuals seeking permanent residence in the United States, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) said in a Jan. 22 notice.

USCIS, which oversees legal immigration, imposed the COVID-19 vaccination requirement in October 2021 on people looking to move to the United States. Applicants were required to submit proof of COVID-19 vaccination before completing medical examinations.

“USCIS will not issue any Request for Evidence or Notice of Intent to Deny related to proving a COVID-19 vaccination,” the agency stated.

“USCIS will not deny any adjustment of status application based on the applicant’s failure to present documentation that they received the COVID-19 vaccination.”

USCIS did not respond to a request for more information, including whether the change applies retroactively.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, whose guidance the USCIS cited when announcing the COVID-19 vaccine mandate, did not return an inquiry.

U.S. immigration officials typically accept proof of prior infection instead of vaccination but did not offer that option for COVID-19.

They did offer exceptions for people whose doctor decided a COVID-19 vaccine was not medically appropriate, or whose religious beliefs did not permit a vaccination.

Some applicants successfully sought exceptions, Christina Xenides, a lawyer with Siri & Glimstad LLP, told The Epoch Times in an email.

Xenides said that the requirement has negatively impacted numerous immigrants while it has been in place.

“Families have endured prolonged separation due to this specific vaccine requirement, and others have had to give up their American dream due to either not wanting to receive the vaccine themselves or give it to their children as young as 6 months, as was required per CDC guidelines,” she said.

“The requirement for all residency applicants aged six months and older to receive this vaccine was particularly troubling for many reasons, especially given the clear evidence that the available vaccines do not prevent the transmission of COVID-19. Additionally, USCIS’s refusal to recognize natural immunity as a valid medical waiver and the limited scope of accepted medical contraindications effectively rendered these options inaccessible for many individuals with serious health conditions.”

Other USCIS vaccination requirements, including for the mumps, measles, and rubella vaccine, are still in place.

Xenides said that people can seek waivers for the remaining vaccination requirements.

If they’re solely opposed to COVID-19 vaccination, she said, the revocation of the COVID-19 vaccine mandate “marks a significant and positive development.”

https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/federal-government-drops-covid-19-vaccination-requirement-legal-immigrants

Vigil Alzheimer's Candidate Encouraging Safety Profile, To Start Mid-Stage Study In Q3

 On Thursday, Vigil Neuroscience Inc. (NASDAQ:VIGL) released data from its completed Phase 1 trial evaluating VG-3927 as a potential treatment for Alzheimer’s disease.

Key takeaways from the Phase 1 clinical trial of VG-3927 include:

• Demonstrated a favorable safety and tolerability profile across all cohorts, including the elderly cohort.

• All related adverse events were mild or moderate in severity and self-resolving without drug discontinuations. No serious AEs were reported.

• Highly brain penetrant with a favorable and predictable PK profile that supports once-daily dosing.

• Achieved robust and dose-dependent reduction of sTREM2 of up to approximately 50% in the cerebral spinal fluid (CSF), demonstrating a strong PK/PD relationship, sustained target engagement, and TREM2 agonist activity.

• PK and sTREM2 reduction observed in the Alzheimer’s cohort was consistent with healthy volunteers and similar across evaluated TREM2 and ApoE genetic variants supporting development in Alzheimer’s disease across genotypes.

• PK and sTREM2 reduction observed in the elderly cohort was consistent with healthy volunteers.

• Combined clinical and in vivo preclinical data confirm that VG-3927 elicits neuroprotective activation of microglia downstream of TREM2 signaling.

The company plans to advance a once-daily oral dose of 25mg and expects to initiate the Phase 2 trial in the third quarter of 2025.

William Blair writes that the 50% sTREM2 reduction improves on the interim Phase 1 data from healthy volunteers that showed significant reductions in sTREM2, with cohort means ranging from 20% to 25% decreases in the highest three dose levels.

Analyst Sarah Schram sees this as encouraging preliminary support of target engagement.

The analyst writes, “We are highly encouraged by today’s update, which comes after a robust Phase I study incorporating 14 cohorts and indicating consistent target engagement across participant groups.”

Vigil’s market cap is lower than the cash it reported at the end of last year’s third quarter, William Blair says, and the company is significantly undervalued compared to its potential and maintains an Outperform rating.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/vigil-neurosciences-alzheimers-candidate-shows-163318630.html

Dogwood to Start Phase 2b Trial Evaluating Halneuron® in Chemotherapy Induced Neuropathy

 Dogwood Therapeutics (NASDAQ: DWTX) announced plans to begin patient dosing in Q1 2025 for its Phase 2b clinical trial (HALT-CINP) evaluating Halneuron®, a first-in-class Nav 1.7 inhibitor for treating chemotherapy-induced neuropathic pain (CINP). The drug has shown promising results in previous trials, demonstrating statistically significant reduction in cancer-related pain with an acceptable safety profile across over 700 patients, and importantly, shows no addiction potential.

The company is targeting a significant unmet medical need, as one-third of patients treated with certain chemotherapeutics develop chronic painful neuropathy, with no currently approved treatments. The CINP market is valued at approximately $1.5B, representing a substantial opportunity for Dogwood Therapeutics.

https://www.stocktitan.net/news/DWTX/dogwood-therapeutics-announces-patient-dosing-in-phase-2b-trial-tyfsff2lpt94.html

US Sanctions Could Hit 1.5 Million Bpd Of Russian Oil Exports

 by Tsvetana Paraskova via OilPrice.com,

• The outgoing U.S. Administration on January 10 imposed the most severe sanctions on Russia’s oil yet.

• Many of the vessels transporting Russia’s oil from the Arctic and Far East Pacific fields and production clusters to Asia have now been sanctioned.

• India’s refiners have stopped doing business with the Russian tankers and companies sanctioned by the U.S., a source at the Indian government told Reuters on Monday.

One week into the latest – and most aggressive yet – U.S. sanctions on Russian oil exports, the Asian buyers of Russian crude are scrambling for alternative supply, the price of oil has rallied, and analyses suggest that more than 1 million barrels per day (bpd) of Moscow’s export volumes could be severely constrained, at least in the short term.

The outgoing U.S. Administration on January 10 imposed the most severe sanctions on Russia’s oil yet, designating two major Russian oil companies, Gazprom Neft and Surgutneftegas, as well as 183 vessels, dozens of oil traders, oilfield service providers, insurance companies, and energy officials.

Many of the vessels, specialized tankers, and shuttle tankers transporting Russia’s oil from the Arctic and Far East Pacific fields and production clusters to Asia have now been sanctioned. This puts around 1.5 million bpd of Russia’s crude flows from its Pacific and Arctic ports at risk, according to a Bloomberg analysis of the tankers now designated by the U.S.

Most of the flows from the Sakhalin projects require special ice-class tankers—all of these have been sanctioned. The storage tankers and specialized vessels servicing shipments, storage, and loadings at Murmansk are also under sanctions now. The Gazprom Neft fields on the Yamal peninsula will also find it much harder to export crude—the company itself has been sanctioned, as have all its seven ice-class tankers handling shipments at and through the Arctic Gates terminal.

In the Arctic and Russia’s Far East, the crude grades most severely hit by the sanctions are expected to be Sokol, Sakhalin, and ESPO, according to Bloomberg’s analysis.

The least affected shipments are likely to be those of the Urals crude grade from the Baltic and Black Sea, which are mostly going to India.  
Only a quarter of Russia’s shipments of Urals since October were carried on now-sanctioned tankers. That’s the smallest share of designated tankers of any Russian crude grade, Bloomberg’s analysis showed.

The sanctions are already roiling the market. India and China are racing to procure alternative supply while studying the wider implications of the U.S. sanctions on Russian oil deliveries six months from now.

The sanctions caught a few million barrels of crude oil en route to India in a precarious situation. There is a wind-down period until February 27 for parties to complete dealings with now-sanctioned entities and vessels. Indian state-held refiners are targeting to settle the payments for Russian oil in half the time they have taken so far, as part of efforts to complete the deals before the seven-week wind-down period in the latest U.S. sanctions ends.

India’s refiners have stopped doing business with the Russian tankers and companies sanctioned by the U.S., a source at the Indian government told Reuters on Monday.

India doesn’t expect major disruptions during the wind-down period until March.

But “Going forward, it's early days yet to anticipate the impact, how discounts shape up, if somebody is willing to sell below the $60 price cap,” a source with the Indian government told Reuters earlier this week.

Indian officials and refiners held emergency meetings to discuss the implications of the sanctions on the exports of its single largest crude oil supplier. China’s independent refiners have also held emergency meetings to discuss the fallout and a workaround for the sanctions, sources tell Bloomberg.

Fleet capacity to service Russian exports is expected to tighten significantly, according to Mary Melton, a freight analyst at Vortexa.

So far, U.S. sanctions on individual vessels have been very effective in limiting further employment in Russian trade, Melton said this week.

According to Vortexa, the most likely scenario for Russian crude exports going forward is that they will most likely face serious logistical difficulty due to the lack of available tonnage.

“In order to keep export volumes at the same level, Russia will be forced to sell crude below the price cap. At that point, Western vessel operators would be able to get involved to lift Russian crude,” Vortexa’s Melton noted.

However, greater adherence to the Russian price cap will depend on China’s stance on allowing sanctioned vessels to call in its ports, Vortexa reckons.

https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/us-sanctions-could-hit-15-million-bpd-russian-oil-exports

Trump White House Means "4 Years Of Good Policy"; Polish President Says

 by Liz Heflin via Remix News,

Polish President Andrzej Duda had only good things to say about the upcoming Trump administration before he left for the World Economic Forum in Davos (WEF) on Monday, which will be held under the slogan “Cooperation in a Smart Age.”

At the conference preceding his departure, the president answered questions about Donald Trump’s upcoming presidency, among other things.

“I believe that Donald Trump’s second presidency will bring four years of good policy for Poland,” Duda said.

He also expressed hope that his current relationship with the U.S. president will benefit Poland, according to Business Insider. 

Leaders from around the world gather in Davos to discuss current issues and challenges, which this year includes the ongoing war in Ukraine. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky will be present to take part in these meetings, the Polish president noted.

However, all eyes will be on D.C.

Duda said events at the WEF would be “dominated by what is happening in Washington, the inauguration of President Donald Trump,” as it is an “extremely important event” not only for the United States but also for the entire world, in terms of the economy and security.

“I look at this event with satisfaction and great calm,” Duda said, adding that he met with Trump when “many people doubted whether he had any chance” of becoming U.S. president again.

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/trump-white-house-means-4-years-good-policy-polish-president-says