Search This Blog

Saturday, March 1, 2025

Venezuela vessels near Exxon unit in Guyanese waters are unacceptable, US State Dept says

 The United States on Saturday denounced what it said were Venezuelan naval vessels "threatening" an ExxonMobil unit in maritime territory claimed by Guyana.

The statement came hours after Guyana President Irfaan Ali said a Venezuelan patrol boat had entered "exclusive" Guyanese waters around 7:00 in the morning.

Guyana had "put its international partners on alert," he said on Facebook.

The US warned against any further encroachment.

"Venezuelan naval vessels threatening ExxonMobil's floating production, storage and offloading (FPSO) unit is unacceptable and a clear violation of Guyana's internationally recognized maritime territory," said the statement from the US Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs.

"Further provocation will result in consequences for the Maduro regime," it added.

Guyana and Venezuela have seen heightened tensions over control of the disputed Esequibo territory, a sprawling region rich in natural resources.

Tensions flared in 2015 when petroleum giant ExxonMobil discovered deposits that gave Guyana, a country of just 800,000 people and with a tiny military, the largest crude oil reserves in the world.

Ali, whose country is closely allied to the US, said on Facebook that the floating production vessels were "operating legally within Guyana's exclusive economic zone."

Venezuela's armed forces have not commented.

Tensions were fanned on February 17 when Guyana said six of its soldiers were wounded when a supply transport was ambushed, allegedly by members of a Venezuelan criminal gang.

That happened on the anniversary of the signing of a 1966 agreement between Venezuela and Britain, reached before Guyanese independence, that called for a negotiated solution to the territorial dispute.

But Guyana has insisted that an 1899 ruling had fixed the disputed border in its favor.

Last December, Britain sent the patrol ship HMS Trent on a port visit to Guyana capital Georgetown, a gesture deemed a "provocation and threat by the United Kingdom" by Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro.

Venezuela then launched a major military exercise in the border region, including more than 5,600 soldiers, fighter jets and patrol boats.

Ali and Maduro met in December in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines and agreed to avoid any use of force.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-guyana-denounce-venezuelan-naval-182710526.html

Musk: Soros Hack Leveraged Small Donations To Nonprofits Into Billions In Government Funds



Elon Musk spoke about how non-government organizations (NGOs) are used by people like George Soros to extract money from the government, Friday on the "Joe Rogan Experience" podcast (full video at the bottom of the page).

"The whole 'NGO' thing is a nightmare," Musk said. "And it's a misnomer because if you have a government-funded non-governmental organization, you're simply a government-funded organization. It's an oxymoron."

"We've seen cases where one person was getting $1.9 billion sent to their NGO, which had basically been formed about a year ago and had no prior activity."


"George Soros is a systems hacker. He is a genius arbitrager. He figured out that you could leverage a small amount of money to create a non-profit and then lobby politicians to send a ton of money to that non-profit so you can take what might be a $10M donation and leverage it into a $1 Billion NGO."

"And 'nonprofit' is a weird word. It’s just a non-governmental organization. The government continues to fund it every year, and it’ll have a nice-sounding name like The Institute for Peace or something like that. But really, it’s a graft machine."

He added: "It does some good. So it’s not like 0% good. If it was really 0% good, it would be much easier to attack. So there’s going to be some percentage of good that they add in there. But it might be 5% or 10% good, while 90–95% is not."





That’s the situation https://t.co/PDRIXc223F— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 28, 2025


JOE ROGAN: When you guys first started investigating it, how much of it was shocking, like just the size of it all?

ELON MUSK: Well, the size of it all, small decisions result in multibillion-dollar outcomes. So, you know, we'd see cases where one person was getting $1.9 billion sent to their NGO, which had basically been formed about a year ago and had no prior activity.

So they just stand up an NGO. The whole "NGO" thing is a nightmare, and it's a misnomer because if you have a government-funded non-governmental organization, you're simply a government-funded organization. It's an oxymoron.

JOE ROGAN: It's a loophole.

ELON MUSK: Yes, basically, government-funded NGOs are a way to do things that would be illegal if they were the government but are somehow made legal if the money is sent to a so-called nonprofit.

But these nonprofits are then used by people to cash out. They become very wealthy through nonprofits. They pay themselves enormous sums through these nonprofits.

JOE ROGAN: It's insane that this has been going on for so long.

ELON MUSK: It's a gigantic scam—one of the biggest, maybe the biggest scam ever.

JOE ROGAN: And how many NGOs are there?

ELON MUSK: I think the total number of NGOs is probably in the millions, but in terms of large NGOs—tens of thousands.

It's actually kind of a hack to the system where someone can get an NGO stood up for a fairly small amount of money. George Soros was really good at this. He’s like a system hacker. He figured out how to hack the system. He’s a genius at arbitrage. I mean, these days, he's pretty old, but he was a genius at arbitrage.

He figured out that you could leverage a small amount of money to create a nonprofit, then lobby politicians to send a ton of money to that nonprofit. So you can take what might be a $10 million donation to create a nonprofit and leverage that into a billion-dollar NGO.

And "nonprofit" is a weird word. It’s just a non-governmental organization. The government continues to fund it every year, and it’ll have a nice-sounding name like The Institute for Peace or something like that. But really, it’s a graft machine.

JOE ROGAN: And what are the requirements for that money? What do they have to do?

ELON MUSK: Really, no requirements at all.

JOE ROGAN: So they just get grants, and the government assumes they’re doing good work?

ELON MUSK: I think a lot of people in the government know that they’re not doing good work, but it’s a giant graft machine. But when people start unpacking this.

JOE ROGAN: It almost seems fake. We were covering this article that said 55,000 Democrat NGOs were discovered that had been contributing to campaigns, moving things around, and pushing propaganda. They were all connected, and they found it through AI. You have to go through steps and steps and steps to figure out where the money’s coming from. Oh, it’s all funneling down to this group, and this group does that.

Yeah, it’s a giant propaganda machine, a giant regime-change machine.

But doesn’t it do some good as well?

ELON MUSK: It does some good. So it’s not like 0% good. If it was really 0% good, it would be much easier to attack. So there’s going to be some percentage of good that they add in there. But it might be 5% or 10% good, while 90–95% is not.



You can watch the full conversation here:

Medicare’s Drug Price Negotiation And Innovation: What’s Off The Table

 

The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 marked a significant shift in US health care policy, granting the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) the authority to establish a program to negotiate Medicare drug prices with manufacturers. The goal is to make prescription drugs more affordable and accessible for patients, and to maintain the sustainability of the Medicare program. In August 2023, CMS identified the first 10 drugs for price negotiation. In August 2024, CMS announced the new prices for these drugs, which are slated to take effect in 2026.

The pharmaceutical industry has voiced concerns over CMS’s negotiation program. Specifically, some critics believe that the potential reduction in revenue from new drug prices would curtail investment in research and development (R&D) and restrict patient access to novel treatments. This apprehension is not new. The impact on innovation is a common refrain against policies to affect pharmaceutical profits. Although profitability has a direct impact on drug innovation, marginal change in revenue is not necessarily proportional to marginal change in R&D spending for individual pharmaceutical companies, given the complex dynamics between drug development and investment.

The relationship between the new drug negotiation program and likely future pharmaceutical innovation is further complicated by the fact that a long list of drugs is exempted from the program. This is not the case in other countries that have long practiced drug price negotiation. This article examines the potential impact of these exemptions on future drug innovation.

Lower-Spend Drug Exemption

First and foremost, drugs with total annual spending under Medicare Part B (which covers drugs that are administered in a medical setting) and Part D (which covers retail drugs) combined of less than $200 million are exempted from the price negotiation. The program targets high-expenditure prescription drugs that have a considerable market presence and have been without generic or biosimilar competition for a substantial period following approval by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (nine years for small-molecule drugs and 13 years for biologics). The first 10 drugs selected for negotiation have been on the market for an average 16.8 years, ranging from 11 to 28 years. The total cost of these drugs was $56.2 billion, accounting for 20 percent of CMS Part D spending in 2023. Spending on individual drugs ranged from $2.57 billion to $16.48 billion between June 2022 and May 2023. That same year, patients paid `1234 for these drugs. To put these numbers into context, the average R&D costs from drug discovery to launch were estimated at $2.3 billion.

With current eligibility criteria, 80 percent of the 250 drugs with the highest 2022 US domestic net revenue would not be eligible for negotiation. Viewed another way, if the program had started in 2012, only $43.2 billion, representing 4 percent of $1.14 trillion in 2022 global pharmaceutical industry revenue, or 6 percent of $742 billion in global revenue for the affected companies, would have been subject to negotiation.

In August 2024, CMS announced the Maximum Fair Prices (MFPs) negotiated for the 10 drugs and estimated that net Part D spending would have decreased by 22 percent had the new prices been in effect in 2023. Discounts ranged from 38 percent (Imbruvica) to 79 percent (Januvia). While some of the negotiated prices appear to have steep discounts compared with list prices, such a comparison is misleading. This is because the list prices presented by CMS are wholesale acquisition costs (WACs). WACs do not include discounts and rebates, and therefore do not reflect the actual price Medicare paid for a drug—which is considered confidential and proprietary. In a testimony before the US Senate, Merck CEO Robert Davis reported that the weighted average net price (post-discount/rebate) for Januvia is 90 percent less than its list price. While there may be differences in rebates among Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs, many of the drugs selected for the first round of negotiation are older products nearing the end of their patent exclusivity (for example, Stelara, Eliquis) and would likely already have deep discounts. Together with the exemption, this dynamic helps limit the actual impact of the negotiations on revenue received by manufacturers.

Small Biotech Exemption

second exemption, which could impact innovation in as-yet unknown ways, is for small biotech drugs with less than or equal to 1 percent of Part D spending (and eventually Part B) and 80 percent or more of the Medicare program expenditures for the drug’s manufacturer. This is probably in recognition of the fact that small biotech companies are often a driving force for developing groundbreaking therapies that are later marketed by big pharmaceutical companies. Between 2011 and 2016, 65 percent of 170 new molecule entities approved by the FDA originated from small or mid-size biotech companies. Large companies tend to either partner with or acquire smaller companies that developed the drug. There is speculation that few small biotech companies would be eligible for this exemption. To date, CMS has approved four drugs originating from small biotech.

The intent of the exemption is to allow these small biotech companies to maintain higher revenue compared to large pharmaceutical companies and ensure they are not disproportionally affected by the new pricing policy. However, many small companies responsible for initial drug development may not have the infrastructure necessary for commercialization as they are often dealing with a single product instead of an entire portfolio. It may be in their best interest to sell the new product to a larger company that can commercialize it more efficiently. Yet, qualifying single source drugs are not eligible for the exemption if they are acquired by a large drug manufacturer after 2021. This removes a major source of revenue for small companies oriented toward drug discovery. To this end, the “small biotech” exemption potentially disincentivizes innovation among small biotech firms.

For small biotech companies that decide to commercialize, the criteria of the single source drug consisting of “80 percent or more of the Medicare program expenditures for the manufacturer” may cause further disincentive for innovation. These companies likely do not have another blockbuster drug, and having a single product is a vulnerable time for them. They may seek to build their portfolio in other ways. Approximately one-third of therapies originating from large pharmaceutical companies are later sublicensed to small firms for production. This is especially common for therapies for rare diseases. The gain in revenue by licensing an existing product for a small patient population may not offset the cost of losing the price negotiation exemption for their qualifying drug. Thus, the exemption could also disincentivize small companies seeking to build their portfolio and ultimately compete with large companies to create a more diverse and competitive ecosystem. As the pharmaceutical industry is in a transitional period (due to the upcoming patent cliffchanges in the regulatory environment, and so forth), more research on the impact of this exemption on innovation among small biotech is required.

Orphan Drug Exemption

A third exemption is for drugs that are designated for only one rare disease or condition and approved for an indication (or indications) only for that disease or condition. This exemption includes drugs that have been FDA-approved for multiple indications within the same disease (for example, for children, adults, or other subgroups). It does not, however, include drugs that have indications for multiple diseases. Drugs for single indication, rare disease are generally not subject to price negotiation, making them attractive to investors. For instance, there has been significant deal activity around antibody drug conjugates (ADCs). These drugs are designed to target specific types of cancers, rather than being used for multiple indications. The number of ADC trials has risen in recent years, accompanied by increased acquisitions.

Nevertheless, of the 282 orphan drugs approved by the FDA between 2003 and 2022, 63 (23 percent) had at least one follow-on indication. One potential impact of this exemption is that it may disincentivize pharmaceutical companies from conducting the additional trials required to obtain follow-on indications. Pharmaceutical companies have long been criticized for making R&D decisions based on financial considerations, not unmet need. However, if a large pharmaceutical company decides not to pursue an additional indication for financial reasons related to the CMS negotiation program, it may open doors for small biotech, government or patient groups interested in developing other therapies in these areas with a high unmet need.

Some stakeholders have also questioned whether this exemption is even necessary given the original intent of the Orphan Drug Act, which is to provide incentives to develop drugs for conditions affecting fewer than 200,000 individuals in the US that have “no reasonable expectation” that revenues will offset development costs. Yet, drugs approved for rare diseases earn similar revenues to drugs for common conditions. From 2012 to 2021, total Medicare Part B and Part D spending on the 95 high-spending Orphan Drug Act–designated drugs was $517 billion (25 percent of Medicare drug spending). The median sole orphan drug in this cohort was projected to earn revenues of $21.9 billion, which far exceeds published estimates of drug development costs. When it comes to these financially successful orphan drugs (that is, achieving greater than $200 million in spending), CMS is leaving a significant amount of savings (for themselves and patients) off the negotiating table.

Conclusion

The future of health care hinges on striking a delicate yet crucial balance between ensuring affordability for payers and incentivizing innovation within the pharmaceutical industry. The CMS drug price negotiation program represents a pivotal shift in US health care policy, promising to lower prescription drug prices. However, the anticipated reduction in revenue from lower prices for drugs that already have a considerable market presence may not significantly hinder drug innovation, while the orphan drug exemption could leave significant savings off the table. The exemption on small biotech companies could have unintended consequences as these companies, as a key driving force in drug innovation, are often engaged in distributed partnerships with large pharmaceutical companies, leading to a more profound impact on the pharmaceutical ecosystem.

https://www.healthaffairs.org/content/forefront/medicare-s-drug-price-negotiation-and-innovation-s-off-table-matters-too

All Over But the Shouting

 by John Hinderaker

France’s President Emmanuel Macron is in Washington, and did a joint press conference with President Trump today, on the Russia-Ukraine war. News reports on the press conference fall along predictably partisan lines. This Sky News report is objective, if only because it is so brief:

A half-turn, in a carefully choreographed dance, the US leader asserting optimism, the French one, much more cautious in response.

President Trump repeated his view that the war in Ukraine would soon end.

He signalled a dramatic shift by Russia, suggesting President Putin might accept the deployment of European peacekeepers on the ground in Ukraine.

But Emmanuel Macron cautioned that any peace agreement must respect Ukraine’s sovereignty.

Trump claimed Ukraine’s president would be in Washington soon, to sign a deal granting the US access to rare earth minerals to offset US war aid.

Again, the French president gently stressed the need for security guarantees.

I think that the way this will play out is pretty obvious:

1) The war has been a disaster for both Russia and Ukraine. Both countries badly want it to end. Vladimir Putin needs it to end in a way that doesn’t wind up with him being hung from a lamppost.

2) If the United States had had a functioning president three years ago, the war would not have begun. If we had had a functioning president for the last two years, it would have been brought to an end before now.

3) Russia and Ukraine need President Trump to manage an end to the conflict. Trump will do that successfully, but he won’t be awarded a Nobel Peace Prize.

4) There will be a ceasefire, very soon. That will be followed rapidly by a peace treaty.

5) The terms on which the war will end are clear: Russia will keep a slice of eastern Ukraine pretty much equal to what it now occupies. In return, Russia will promise not to invade again.

6) There will be a peacekeeping force consisting of European troops. They will not be on the front line–God forbid!–but will nevertheless deter future Russian attacks, which Russia has no intention of launching.

7) Ukraine will give the U.S. mineral concessions of a value sufficient to repay some of the cost that our taxpayers have incurred in supporting that country. The details will be negotiated, but the final amounts will be substantial.

Happily, with Donald Trump negotiating on behalf of the United States, we can be sure that American taxpayers will not be taken to the cleaners.

The diplomatic dance will continue, but that is what is going to happen.

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2025/02/all-over-but-the-shouting.php

NATO chief Rutte urges Zelenskiy to mend his relationship with Trump

 NATO chief Mark Rutte said on Saturday he told Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy that he needs to find a way to restore his relationship with U.S. President Donald Trump after their clash at a White House meeting on Friday.

The confrontation flared over differing visions of how to end Russia's three-year-old invasion, with Zelenskiy seeking strong security guarantees from a Trump administration that has embraced diplomacy with Vladimir Putin's Russia.

The meeting, which Rutte described as "unfortunate", plunged ties between Kyiv and its top military backer to a new low.

"I said: I think you have to find a way, dear Volodymyr, to restore your relationship with Donald Trump and the American administration. That is important going forward," Rutte told the BBC, commenting on a call he had with Zelenskiy on Friday.

He said he told Zelenskiy that "we really have to respect what President Trump has done so far for Ukraine", reminding Zelenskiy that Trump was the one who provided Javelin anti-tank weapons to Ukraine in 2019 that had enabled the country's forces to fight back after Russia's invasion.

FILE PHOTO: U.S. President Donald Trump meets with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., February 28, 2025. REUTERS/Brian Snyder/File Photo© Thomson Reuters

"Without the Javelins in 2022, when the full-scale attack started, Ukraine would have been nowhere", said Rutte. "I told him we really have to give Trump credit for what he did then, what America did since then and also what America is still doing."

Quizzed on some of the accusations traded between the leaders on Friday, the NATO chief declined to comment in detail, saying the U.S. was very invested in the military alliance, including in its mutual-defence clause Article 5.

Rutte called Trump a friend but did not directly address questions about whether Trump was right when he accused Zelenskiy of gambling with World War Three, or when he said Zelenskiy either needed to strike a deal or the U.S. would be "out".

"I am absolutely convinced that the U.S. wants to bring Ukraine to this durable peace...And obviously, what they need to get there is to make sure that we'll all work together on this," he said.

Asked whether NATO allies would be capable of filling the gaps should the U.S. withdraw its military support from Ukraine, Rutte replied: "Let's move beyond this question. It is crucial that we stay all in this together - the U.S., Ukraine, Europe, that we bring Ukraine to a peace, this is exactly what President Trump is fighting for, what we all are fighting for."

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/nato-s-rutte-urges-zelenskiy-to-mend-his-relationship-with-trump/ar-AA1A38Bd

'France's Macron is ready to discuss nuclear deterrence for Europe'

 French President Emmanuel Macron has said he is ready to start discussions on nuclear deterrence for Europe, hinting France could help to protect other EU countries, given the security threats posed by Russia.

European leaders will meet in London on Sunday to discuss a peace plan for Ukraine and they will attend a European Union summit on Thursday.

The bloc is grappling with U.S. President Donald Trump's willingness to embrace Russian diplomacy and the implications of an extraordinary clash between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy and Trump at the White House on Friday.

Macron told Portuguese TV RTP in an interview he posted on X on Saturday that if Europe wanted to move towards "greater autonomy" in matters of defence and nuclear deterrence, then its leaders should start a discussion about it.

"I am available to open this discussion...if it allows to build a European force," he said. "There has always been a European dimension to France's vital interests within its nuclear doctrine."

French far-right leader Marine Le Pen was swift to react to Macron's comments.

"The French nuclear deterrent must remain a French nuclear deterrent," she said as she visited the Farm Show in Paris on Saturday. "It must not be shared, let alone delegated."

Defence Minister Sebastien Lecornu reiterated Macron's stance that France's vital interests include a “European dimension”, but also that it was under the exclusive control of the French head of state.

"Our nuclear deterrent is French, and it will remain so: from the design and production of our weapons, to their implementation by decision of the President of the Republic," he said on X.

"It protects the vital interests of France, which the head of state alone can define."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/france-s-macron-is-ready-to-discuss-nuclear-deterrence-for-europe/ar-AA1A3baL

Andrew Cuomo running for New York City mayor after resigning governor post in disgrace

 The politician was accused of sexually harassing several women who worked for him and misleading the public about Covid-19 deaths

Andrew Cuomo announced on Saturday he is running to become mayor of New York, more than three years after he resigned in disgrace as governor of New York after being accused of sexually harassing a number of women who worked for him and misleading the public about Covid-19 deaths.

Cuomo, 67, denies the allegations. He is among the most well-known of a number of candidates challenging embattled Mayor Eric Adams to become the Democratic Party's nominee in the primary election in June.

"I know what needs to be done and I know how to do it," Cuomo said in a video message, saying the city needs a bold plan to address crime, mental illness and other concerns, and calling for a permanent increase in police numbers and the construction of thousands of affordable homes.

Do you have questions about the biggest topics and trends from around the world? Get the answers with SCMP Knowledge, our new platform of curated content with explainers, FAQs, analyses and infographics brought to you by our award-winning team.

Adams is seeking a second term even as he faces calls to resign by senior Democrats after he was indicted last year on corruption charges and then courted US President Donald Trump, a Republican, as he seeks to have the indictment dismissed. Adams, 64, has pleaded not guilty.

Cuomo entered politics in the 1980s helping his father, Mario Cuomo, win three terms as New York governor, an office he himself won in 2010.

He also served in US President Bill Clinton's cabinet as housing secretary, and, before becoming governor, served a term as New York's attorney general.

As governor, Cuomo signed bills legalising same-sex marriage and recreational marijuana, and in New York City he oversaw an expansion of Pennsylvania Station and an overhaul of LaGuardia Airport.

He was known for making daily public briefings in the early days of the coronavirus pandemic, which killed thousands of New Yorkers, but his response to the crisis became the beginning of his political downfall.

In an audit, New York state's comptroller found Cuomo's administration had pressured the Health Department to deliberately undercount Covid-19 deaths of state nursing home residents.

Cuomo had signed a US$5.1 million deal for a book about his leadership during the pandemic, but the state ethics board revoked its approval after saying Cuomo wrongly used state employees and resources to write it.

Cuomo has said he did nothing wrong or unethical, and has sued the ethics board, which has sought the US$5.1 million from him, in litigation that continues.

In August 2021, Cuomo resigned a week after New York Attorney General Letitia James released the results of an investigation which concluded that Cuomo had sexually harassed 11 women.

He said he had done nothing wrong, but apologised to anyone he made uncomfortable by what he described as clumsy attempts to be affectionate or funny.

https://www.msn.com/en-xl/news/other/andrew-cuomo-running-for-new-york-mayor-after-resigning-governor-post-in-disgrace/ar-AA1A3BCJ