hotair--2020-04-22--We're not actually stopping legal immigration after all

Yesterday we looked at the President ’ s recent announcement about suspending all legal immigration to the United States and how that might impact both our long-term immigration strategy and our efforts to combat the pandemic .
Well , as too often happens , interpreting United States policy based on a single tweet from the President ’ s Twitter feed is a risky proposition at best .
President Trump ’ s first announcement didn ’ t contain much in the way of details , but now that it ’ s being more fully fleshed out , we ’ re learning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legal immigration entirely .
In fact , we ’ re probably not going to be changing the numbers in any meaningful fashion .
What we ’ re really doing is pausing the issuance of green cards .
( Associated Press ) President Donald Trump announced what he described as a “ temporary suspension of immigration into the United States.
” But the executive order would bar only those seeking permanent residency , not temporary workers .
Trump said Tuesday he would be placing a 60-day pause on the issuance of green cards in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a U.S. economy wrecked by the coronavirus .
The order would include “ certain exemptions , ” he said , but he declined to outlined them , noting the order was still being crafted .
“ By pausing immigration we ’ ll help put unemployed Americans first in line for jobs as America reopens , so important , ” Trump said at the White House .
“ It would be wrong and unjust for Americans laid off by the virus to be replaced with new immigrant labor flown in from abroad.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this announcement has turned out to be mostly a non-news item .
First , the order doesn ’ t affect visas , which are the vehicles used by the vast majority of foreigners legally coming to the United States for the first time .
Many are work visas , though student and tourist visas are also popular .
Trump ’ s explanation that pausing the issuance of green cards will ensure that Americans are first in line for jobs when the economy is restarted may be true in some cases , but suspending @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have done a lot more .
Second , the ban on new green cards isn ’ t absolute and has a gaping hole in it .
This order won ’ t affect the issuance of green cards to immediate family members of American citizens .
Records show that roughly one million green cards were issued last year and nearly half of them were given to people in that category .
( And not to put too fine of a point on this , but that ’ s supposedly how the First Lady ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ live here . )
And finally , as one immigration attorney interviewed for the article points out , this is essentially a symbolic order in its entirety .
The reason is that the embassies have basically been closed except for emergency situations since the middle of March .
Nobody has been available to process green card requests for more than a month so almost none have been issued anyway .
The only way this would have any real impact is if the ban extended past the date when the embassies are reopened for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t make any sense based on the rationale the President offered for issuing the order , to begin with .
As I predicted yesterday , groups like the ACLU almost immediately began crying “ racism ” in response to this announcement .
But in reality , they don ’ t have much to complain about .
The number of immigrants arriving in the country isn ’ t going to measurably change , at least in the short term .

Yesterday we looked at the President’s recent announcement about suspending all legal immigration to the United States and how that might impact both our long-term immigration strategy and our efforts to combat the pandemic. Well, as too often happens, interpreting United States policy based on a single tweet from the President’s Twitter feed is a risky proposition at best. President Trump’s first announcement didn’t contain much in the way of details, but now that it’s being more fully fleshed out, we’re learning that we’re really not ending legal immigration entirely. In fact, we’re probably not going to be changing the numbers in any meaningful fashion. What we’re really doing is pausing the issuance of green cards. (Associated Press)
President Donald Trump announced what he described as a “temporary suspension of immigration into the United States.” But the executive order would bar only those seeking permanent residency, not temporary workers. Trump said Tuesday he would be placing a 60-day pause on the issuance of green cards in an effort to limit competition for jobs in a U.S. economy wrecked by the coronavirus. The order would include “certain exemptions,” he said, but he declined to outlined them, noting the order was still being crafted. “By pausing immigration we’ll help put unemployed Americans first in line for jobs as America reopens, so important,” Trump said at the White House. “It would be wrong and unjust for Americans laid off by the virus to be replaced with new immigrant labor flown in from abroad.”
There are a variety of reasons that this announcement has turned out to be mostly a non-news item. First, the order doesn’t affect visas, which are the vehicles used by the vast majority of foreigners legally coming to the United States for the first time. Many are work visas, though student and tourist visas are also popular. Trump’s explanation that pausing the issuance of green cards will ensure that Americans are first in line for jobs when the economy is restarted may be true in some cases, but suspending the issuance of work visas would likely have done a lot more.
Second, the ban on new green cards isn’t absolute and has a gaping hole in it. This order won’t affect the issuance of green cards to immediate family members of American citizens. Records show that roughly one million green cards were issued last year and nearly half of them were given to people in that category. (And not to put too fine of a point on this, but that’s supposedly how the First Lady’s family was allowed to come to live here.)
And finally, as one immigration attorney interviewed for the article points out, this is essentially a symbolic order in its entirety. The reason is that the embassies have basically been closed except for emergency situations since the middle of March. Nobody has been available to process green card requests for more than a month so almost none have been issued anyway. The only way this would have any real impact is if the ban extended past the date when the embassies are reopened for normal business. And that wouldn’t make any sense based on the rationale the President offered for issuing the order, to begin with.
As I predicted yesterday, groups like the ACLU almost immediately began crying “racism” in response to this announcement. But in reality, they don’t have much to complain about. The number of immigrants arriving in the country isn’t going to measurably change, at least in the short term.


hotair--2020-04-22--Guterres: You know what's worse than the pandemic, don't you?

U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres must be a student of Rahm Emanuel ’ s school of political advice – never let a crisis go to waste .
In this case , it ’ s the Secretary-General ’ s address to commemorate the 50th anniversary of Earth Day .
He will try to make the case that climate change is more of a threat to the human race than the coronavirus pandemic .
What is interesting is the obvious far-left tone of the speech .
It could have been written by a DNC staffer , or Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ( AOC ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the remarks and Guterres has decided to go after Trump ’ s policies this year .
In past years he has been more cautious in singling out Trump , no doubt out of concern for continued funding from the United States to the W.H.O .
among other groups , and in hopes of Trump signing on to any new agreements with other countries .
Since President Trump said he ’ s going to cut off W.H.O .
funding recently , and there is no indication that he is inclined to sign on to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Guterres probably figures he has nothing to lose .
He also probably expects Joe Biden to win in November .
He must think he has nothing to lose now .
Guterres isn ’ t pleased to hear that President Trump intends to offer financial subsidies to the fossil fuel industry , as he tweeted in support of as the oil industry crashed this week .
Trump tweeted his support for the industry after crude oil futures prices dove into negative territory on Monday for the first time ever , a signal that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economies around the globe had outstripped the production cuts from OPEC , Russia and the U.S. companies that have moved to rapidly idle oilfield operations .
“ We will never let the great U.S. Oil & Gas Industry down , ” Trump said on Twitter .
“ I have instructed the Secretary of Energy and Secretary of the Treasury to formulate a plan which will make funds available so that these very important companies and jobs will be secured long into the future !
” Energy Secretary Dan Brouillette said the energy industry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pandemic .
There are some options that are on the table to help ease some of the pain .
“ From working with our oil producing allies in North America , to filling up the Strategic Petroleum Reserve , and to ensuring that oil and gas producers have access to the Fed lending facilities created in the CARES Act , the Secretary reaffirmed that all options remain on the table and that President Trump is committed to solving this problem , ” said a spokesperson for House Republican Whip Steve Scalise , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and other Republican lawmakers spoke via phone with the DOE chief .
DOE earlier this month offered to store 30 million barrels of crude in the SPR for companies lacking storage space , and could offer space for another 45 million barrels .
Voters rarely like to hear about offering help to the fossil fuel industry , unless that voter is a part of the energy sector .
For me , it ’ s personal .
My husband has been a part of the oil and gas drilling industry for over thirty years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the table , it is important to remember that not everything is about helping out the big guys .
The biggest oil companies , for example , will be ok in the long run .
It ’ s those not in the very top tier that are just trying to hang on right now .
It ’ s not only the medium and small-sized oil and gas companies that feel a collapse in the price of crude oil first and hardest , but it is also all the other businesses in that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t have a lot of financial reserves to fall back on .
Then , when the lay-offs begin , lots of other businesses suffer .
Grocery stores , restaurants , entertainment venues , retail stores , and so on all feel the pinch .
Now , with the pandemic causing business shutdowns while everyone shelters in place , that may not be so obvious but when businesses eventually do open back up , will they have customers ?
In towns and cities all along the Gulf Coast and in areas where fracking is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not go back to anywhere near normal until the energy sector is allowed to rebound .
When ideologues like Guterres or for that matter , AOC , spout off about the evil fossil fuel industry , they assume it is easily dissolved and energy alternatives are readily available .
If the evil oil companies would just go away , right ?
It not anywhere near reality .
And , the dirty little secret is that major oil companies have been funding and doing research into alternative energy for years .
Guterres will say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and polluters must start paying for their pollution.
” There is no industry as heavily regulated as the oil and gas industry , Mr. Secretary-General .
Guterres is a climate change alarmist .
He is a zealot .
It ’ s one thing to hear this rhetoric from a precocious Swedish teenager , or an 80-year-old commie actress-activist , it is quite another to hear it from the leader of a global world organization .
Just like the Democrats on Capitol Hill , Guterres wants taxpayer money to be used to rescue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ far left is attached .
Green jobs and sustainable growth are a top priority , whatever that means .
“ Public funds should be used to invest in the future , not the past , and flow to sustainable sectors and projects.
” The Secretary-General conflates greenhouse gases with the coronavirus .
This is a good example of why conservatives and others with an ounce of common sense no longer trust much of anything coming out of the United Nations .
Guterres spoke Monday to the Alliance of Small Island States ( AOSIS @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Of the virus , he said , “ We must work together to save lives , ease suffering , lessen the shattering economic and social consequences and bring the disease under control.
” Then he launched into climate alarmism .
However , he emphasized that the struggle to rein in climate change – in particular , to keep global temperature rise below the 2015 Paris Agreement target of 1.5 degrees Celsius – has only become more acute amid the pandemic .
Meanwhile , countries struggling with the most severe effects of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sharply contracting economies and unsustainable debt levels .
“ The social and economic devastation caused by climate disruption will be many times greater than the current pandemic ” , he stressed , adding : “ Now is not the time for retreat.
” He said the COVID-19 pandemic – which is resulting in major economic and political shifts around the globe – gave the international community a unique window of opportunity in which recovery plans can be instrumental in creating a more sustainable and resilient future .
Calling for ambitious climate mitigation , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back better ” , he said the voices of small island States – traditional warriors at the forefront of climate advocacy – are needed now more than ever .
“ By coming forward this year with enhanced nationally determined contributions and strategies to reach net zero emissions , you will once again lead the way for others to follow , ” he said , noting that the UN will remain a strong ally .
“ It is essential that you are supported in your efforts.
” Never let a crisis go to waste @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agenda .
That goes for the Democrats and the United Nations alike .

U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres must be a student of Rahm Emanuel’s school of political advice – never let a crisis go to waste. In this case, it’s the Secretary-General’s address to commemorate the 50th anniversary of Earth Day. He will try to make the case that climate change is more of a threat to the human race than the coronavirus pandemic.
What is interesting is the obvious far-left tone of the speech. It could have been written by a DNC staffer, or Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) herself. Politico obtained a copy of the remarks and Guterres has decided to go after Trump’s policies this year. In past years he has been more cautious in singling out Trump, no doubt out of concern for continued funding from the United States to the W.H.O. among other groups, and in hopes of Trump signing on to any new agreements with other countries. Since President Trump said he’s going to cut off W.H.O. funding recently, and there is no indication that he is inclined to sign on to non-enforceable, meaningless global climate change agreements, Guterres probably figures he has nothing to lose. He also probably expects Joe Biden to win in November. He must think he has nothing to lose now.
Guterres isn’t pleased to hear that President Trump intends to offer financial subsidies to the fossil fuel industry, as he tweeted in support of as the oil industry crashed this week.
Trump tweeted his support for the industry after crude oil futures prices dove into negative territory on Monday for the first time ever, a signal that the drop in demand from the pandemic-shuttered economies around the globe had outstripped the production cuts from OPEC, Russia and the U.S. companies that have moved to rapidly idle oilfield operations. “We will never let the great U.S. Oil & Gas Industry down,” Trump said on Twitter. “I have instructed the Secretary of Energy and Secretary of the Treasury to formulate a plan which will make funds available so that these very important companies and jobs will be secured long into the future!”
Energy Secretary Dan Brouillette said the energy industry needs to come back through the coronavirus pandemic. There are some options that are on the table to help ease some of the pain.
“From working with our oil producing allies in North America, to filling up the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and to ensuring that oil and gas producers have access to the Fed lending facilities created in the CARES Act, the Secretary reaffirmed that all options remain on the table and that President Trump is committed to solving this problem,” said a spokesperson for House Republican Whip Steve Scalise, who along with GOP House Leader Kevin McCarthy and other Republican lawmakers spoke via phone with the DOE chief. DOE earlier this month offered to store 30 million barrels of crude in the SPR for companies lacking storage space, and could offer space for another 45 million barrels.
Voters rarely like to hear about offering help to the fossil fuel industry, unless that voter is a part of the energy sector. For me, it’s personal. My husband has been a part of the oil and gas drilling industry for over thirty years. When subsidies and incentives are put on the table, it is important to remember that not everything is about helping out the big guys. The biggest oil companies, for example, will be ok in the long run. It’s those not in the very top tier that are just trying to hang on right now. It’s not only the medium and small-sized oil and gas companies that feel a collapse in the price of crude oil first and hardest, but it is also all the other businesses in that sector. The service industries don’t have a lot of financial reserves to fall back on. Then, when the lay-offs begin, lots of other businesses suffer. Grocery stores, restaurants, entertainment venues, retail stores, and so on all feel the pinch. Now, with the pandemic causing business shutdowns while everyone shelters in place, that may not be so obvious but when businesses eventually do open back up, will they have customers? In towns and cities all along the Gulf Coast and in areas where fracking is a major economic factor, life will not go back to anywhere near normal until the energy sector is allowed to rebound.
When ideologues like Guterres or for that matter, AOC, spout off about the evil fossil fuel industry, they assume it is easily dissolved and energy alternatives are readily available. If the evil oil companies would just go away, right? It not anywhere near reality. And, the dirty little secret is that major oil companies have been funding and doing research into alternative energy for years. Guterres will say, “Fossil fuel subsidies must end, and polluters must start paying for their pollution.” There is no industry as heavily regulated as the oil and gas industry, Mr. Secretary-General.
Guterres is a climate change alarmist. He is a zealot. It’s one thing to hear this rhetoric from a precocious Swedish teenager, or an 80-year-old commie actress-activist, it is quite another to hear it from the leader of a global world organization.
Just like the Democrats on Capitol Hill, Guterres wants taxpayer money to be used to rescue businesses only if the agenda of the far left is attached. Green jobs and sustainable growth are a top priority, whatever that means. “Public funds should be used to invest in the future, not the past, and flow to sustainable sectors and projects.”
The Secretary-General conflates greenhouse gases with the coronavirus. This is a good example of why conservatives and others with an ounce of common sense no longer trust much of anything coming out of the United Nations.
Guterres will argue that “climate disruption is approaching a point of no return,” adding that “greenhouse gases, just like viruses, do not respect national boundaries.”
Guterres spoke Monday to the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) Ambition Forum in Placencia, Belize. Of the virus, he said, “We must work together to save lives, ease suffering, lessen the shattering economic and social consequences and bring the disease under control.” Then he launched into climate alarmism.
However, he emphasized that the struggle to rein in climate change – in particular, to keep global temperature rise below the 2015 Paris Agreement target of 1.5 degrees Celsius – has only become more acute amid the pandemic. Meanwhile, countries struggling with the most severe effects of the climate crisis now find themselves grappling with sharply contracting economies and unsustainable debt levels. “The social and economic devastation caused by climate disruption will be many times greater than the current pandemic”, he stressed, adding: “Now is not the time for retreat.” He said the COVID-19 pandemic – which is resulting in major economic and political shifts around the globe – gave the international community a unique window of opportunity in which recovery plans can be instrumental in creating a more sustainable and resilient future. Calling for ambitious climate mitigation, adaptation and financing aimed at “building back better”, he said the voices of small island States – traditional warriors at the forefront of climate advocacy – are needed now more than ever. “By coming forward this year with enhanced nationally determined contributions and strategies to reach net zero emissions, you will once again lead the way for others to follow,” he said, noting that the UN will remain a strong ally. “It is essential that you are supported in your efforts.”
Never let a crisis go to waste when it comes to pushing a liberal agenda. That goes for the Democrats and the United Nations alike.


hotair--2020-04-23--Hmmmm: Durham bolsters investigative -- and prosecutorial -- team

This seems like a curious time to add staff to an investigation into an investigation , but the coronavirus crisis has not stopped John Durham .
Earlier this week , Attorney General William Barr said that the pandemic would not slow the US Attorney ’ s probe of Operation Crossfire Hurricane and the intelligence operations connected to it for potential criminal acts .
Durham has underscored that pledge by expanding his team — not just with agents , but with a big addition to the prosecutorial squad as well : The top federal prosecutor for Connecticut selected additional team members @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , adding agents from the FBI , as well as the chief of the violent crimes and narcotics trafficking section for the U.S. attorney ’ s office in Washington , D.C. , Anthony Scarpelli , according to sources cited by CNN .
Durham , who has been running the operation out of Connecticut and D.C. , drove down to Washington a few weeks ago to keep the investigation moving even as the COVID-19 virus hampered many law enforcement efforts nationwide .
… Scarpelli has spent the last two years leading the office in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the drug trade in D.C. Before that , he was the deputy chief of that office , according to his LinkedIn profile .
Scarpelli also spent a year as an assistant U.S. attorney in the U.S. Virgin Islands , 14 years as an assistant U.S. attorney in D.C. , and eight years as an assistant prosecutor for Middlesex County in New Jersey .
That is a very interesting addition to Durham ’ s team .
The murder and drug trade hasn ’ t yet come to a screeching halt in the capital , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a high-profile position for an ambitious federal prosecutor .
( Are there any other kind ? )
To walk away from that kind of highly visible position , Scarpelli must see some intriguing potential for his talents in court with whatever Durham has already found .
It ’ s also interesting that Durham has added more agents from the FBI , although that cuts both ways .
Durham ’ s scope in this investigation includes the FBI — in fact , it seems likely to mainly involve the FBI .
If Durham starts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a consequence of this investigation , that won ’ t make these agents TDYed to him very popular once they return .
On the other hand , the fact that he ’ s been able to recruit them might make for a good demonstration of organizational integrity at the FBI … or an indication that this will be mostly aimed at the intelligence communities ( FBI included ) rather than law enforcement .
That may also be why Durham ’ s team has spent a lot of time inside a SCIF of late @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Durham and a team of prosecutors and investigators have continued their work , even requesting witness information after the country largely shut down in March because of coronavirus restrictions , according to people briefed on the investigation .
Leading up to the lockdown , Durham ’ s team had spent many days a month reviewing classified intelligence inside a special facility for reviewing classified documents known as a SCIF .
… Durham ’ s focus appears to have turned toward decisions made by top officials overseeing the intelligence analysis of Russian election interference @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leadership of then-CIA director John Brennan and then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper , according to more than a half dozen people familiar with the investigation .
Durham ’ s investigators have asked witnesses about examining the information that backs the US intelligence community ’ s assessment that the Russian interference effort was aimed in part to get Donald Trump elected , a person familiar with the matter said .
Two days ago , Barr told Hugh Hewitt that indictments aren ’ t “ imminent , ” but that there isn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , including any consideration about the upcoming election .
“ You don ’ t indict candidates or perhaps someone that ’ s sufficiently close to a candidate , that it ’ s essentially the same , you know , within a certain number of days before an election , ” Barr said .
“ But you know , as I say , I don ’ t think any of the people whose actions are under review by Durham fall into that category.
” However , Barr said he ’ s “ very troubled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
One has to wonder whether Scarpelli feels the same way .
Say , neither Brennan or Clapper have signed onto a presidential campaign , have they ?
I wonder how long it will take them to start pitching Joe Biden .

This seems like a curious time to add staff to an investigation into an investigation, but the coronavirus crisis has not stopped John Durham. Earlier this week, Attorney General William Barr said that the pandemic would not slow the US Attorney’s probe of Operation Crossfire Hurricane and the intelligence operations connected to it for potential criminal acts. Durham has underscored that pledge by expanding his team — not just with agents, but with a big addition to the prosecutorial squad as well:
The top federal prosecutor for Connecticut selected additional team members for his investigative effort in recent weeks, adding agents from the FBI, as well as the chief of the violent crimes and narcotics trafficking section for the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington, D.C., Anthony Scarpelli, according to sources cited by CNN. Durham, who has been running the operation out of Connecticut and D.C., drove down to Washington a few weeks ago to keep the investigation moving even as the COVID-19 virus hampered many law enforcement efforts nationwide. … Scarpelli has spent the last two years leading the office in charge of the fight against murder and the drug trade in D.C. Before that, he was the deputy chief of that office, according to his LinkedIn profile. Scarpelli also spent a year as an assistant U.S. attorney in the U.S. Virgin Islands, 14 years as an assistant U.S. attorney in D.C., and eight years as an assistant prosecutor for Middlesex County in New Jersey.
That is a very interesting addition to Durham’s team. The murder and drug trade hasn’t yet come to a screeching halt in the capital, after all, and that would be a high-profile position for an ambitious federal prosecutor. (Are there any other kind?) To walk away from that kind of highly visible position, Scarpelli must see some intriguing potential for his talents in court with whatever Durham has already found.
It’s also interesting that Durham has added more agents from the FBI, although that cuts both ways. Durham’s scope in this investigation includes the FBI — in fact, it seems likely to mainly involve the FBI. If Durham starts returning indictments against fellow FBI agents as a consequence of this investigation, that won’t make these agents TDYed to him very popular once they return. On the other hand, the fact that he’s been able to recruit them might make for a good demonstration of organizational integrity at the FBI … or an indication that this will be mostly aimed at the intelligence communities (FBI included) rather than law enforcement.
That may also be why Durham’s team has spent a lot of time inside a SCIF of late, too:
Amid the pandemic, Durham and a team of prosecutors and investigators have continued their work, even requesting witness information after the country largely shut down in March because of coronavirus restrictions, according to people briefed on the investigation. Leading up to the lockdown, Durham’s team had spent many days a month reviewing classified intelligence inside a special facility for reviewing classified documents known as a SCIF. … Durham’s focus appears to have turned toward decisions made by top officials overseeing the intelligence analysis of Russian election interference efforts in 2016, and particularly the leadership of then-CIA director John Brennan and then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, according to more than a half dozen people familiar with the investigation. Durham’s investigators have asked witnesses about examining the information that backs the US intelligence community’s assessment that the Russian interference effort was aimed in part to get Donald Trump elected, a person familiar with the matter said.
Two days ago, Barr told Hugh Hewitt that indictments aren’t “imminent,” but that there isn’t really any timeline on such actions either, including any consideration about the upcoming election. “You don’t indict candidates or perhaps someone that’s sufficiently close to a candidate, that it’s essentially the same, you know, within a certain number of days before an election,” Barr said. “But you know, as I say, I don’t think any of the people whose actions are under review by Durham fall into that category.”
However, Barr said he’s “very troubled” by what Durham has already found. One has to wonder whether Scarpelli feels the same way. Say, neither Brennan or Clapper have signed onto a presidential campaign, have they? I wonder how long it will take them to start pitching Joe Biden.


hotair--2020-04-23--What was Trump going for here?

What was Trump going for here?

They had someone from DHS at the briefing today to recommend “ best practices ” against the virus .
Use disinfectant to kill it ; move activities outdoors ( excellent advice ! )
; and hope that increased heat , humidity , and UV light during the summer will help suppress the spread , which may or may not happen .
The president liked the idea of using non-medical interventions like light and disinfectant against the virus , which led to the exchange below .
I don ’ t know who needs to hear this but someone probably does , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inject yourself with disinfectant to fight the virus .
Stick with hydroxychloroquine .
The really funny part was when he circled back to it later and put Birx on the spot .
What do you think , doctor ?
Think we can scrap the vaccine and hit this virus with a little internal heat and light instead ?
In case someone at CNN makes fun of him for this later , bear in mind that in the Cuomo household they bathe in bleach solutions to try to ward off the virus .
Also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , this isn ’ t the goofiest idea of combating the virus to come out of his circle today .
Here ’ s Stephen Moore , whom he once nominated to the Federal Reserve board , speaking to the Times today : We can use really good public safety measures , social distancing the work force , disinfectants everywhere , masks .
I was thinking this morning , and this is just kind of a thought experiment because I was thinking about this — why don ’ t we just put everybody in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
No .
Seriously , I mean — [ Question : ] Well , we ’ d have to make the space outfits , right ?
I know we don ’ t have space outfits [ laughter ] — I mean , just thinking out loud , and maybe this is a crazy idea , but instead of just locking down the economy , putting everybody in a kind of — you ’ re right .
You have to make 200 million of these , but it wouldn ’ t have cost $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you can have for months people just walking around in these kind of — I mean , I was looking online , and there are all these kinds of suits that they ’ re building now that you ’ re not exposed and you ’ re breath — kind of ventilator .
It was like two weeks ago that the CDC finally caved and recommended face masks .
Now we ’ re going to upgrade to everyone in the country wearing PPE at the office ?
What ?
Hey , everyone ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for ways to return to normalcy .
Some of us cling to fantasies about remdesivir .
Others imagine 300 million people in “ space outfits.
” There was some actual news at today ’ s briefing .
Anthony Fauci told Time in an interview earlier what everyone except one person already understands , that the U.S. isn ’ t where it needs to be on testing in order to make it safe to reopen parts of the country .
“ We need to significantly ramp up not only the number of tests , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so that you don ’ t have a situation where you have a test but it can ’ t be done because there isn ’ t a swab , or because there isn ’ t extraction media , or not the right vial , ” says Fauci .
“ I am not overly confident right now at all that we have what it takes to do that .
We are doing better , and I think we are going to get there , but we are not there yet.
” Unfortunately for him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his boss : I hope DHS is right about heat bringing relief from the disease ’ s spread .
Nate Silver ’ s map of when different U.S. states have seen their estimated percentage of positive COVID-19 tests peak is interesting in that it does show many warmer southern states peaking a few weeks ago , including hard-hit Louisiana , while states further north are still in the thick of it .
But it ’ s not a hard and fast rule : Arizona met or tied a new high just this past @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Singapore is seeing a second wave despite the fact that the temperature is reliably in the high 80s right now with high humidity .
The weather may slow down COVID but it ’ s obviously not stopping it .

They had someone from DHS at the briefing today to recommend “best practices” against the virus. Use disinfectant to kill it; move activities outdoors (excellent advice!); and hope that increased heat, humidity, and UV light during the summer will help suppress the spread, which may or may not happen.
The president liked the idea of using non-medical interventions like light and disinfectant against the virus, which led to the exchange below.
I don’t know who needs to hear this but someone probably does, so here it is: Do not inject yourself with disinfectant to fight the virus. Stick with hydroxychloroquine.
“The disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute, and is there a way we can do something like that by injection inside, or almost a cleaning. It gets in the lungs” — Trump seems to suggests that injecting disinfectant inside people could be a treatment for the coronavirus pic.twitter.com/amis9Rphsm — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) April 23, 2020
The really funny part was when he circled back to it later and put Birx on the spot. What do you think, doctor? Think we can scrap the vaccine and hit this virus with a little internal heat and light instead?
Get a load of Dr. Birx’s demeanor after Trump tells her, “I would like you to speak to the medical doctors to see if there’s any way that you can apply light and heat to cure [coronavirus].” pic.twitter.com/TP0QoSzkYl — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) April 23, 2020
In case someone at CNN makes fun of him for this later, bear in mind that in the Cuomo household they bathe in bleach solutions to try to ward off the virus.
Also, in the president’s defense, this isn’t the goofiest idea of combating the virus to come out of his circle today. Here’s Stephen Moore, whom he once nominated to the Federal Reserve board, speaking to the Times today:
We can use really good public safety measures, social distancing the work force, disinfectants everywhere, masks. I was thinking this morning, and this is just kind of a thought experiment because I was thinking about this — why don’t we just put everybody in a space outfit or something like that? No. Seriously, I mean — [Question:] Well, we’d have to make the space outfits, right? I know we don’t have space outfits [laughter]— I mean, just thinking out loud, and maybe this is a crazy idea, but instead of just locking down the economy, putting everybody in a kind of — you’re right. You have to make 200 million of these, but it wouldn’t have cost $3 trillion to do that. And you can have for months people just walking around in these kind of — I mean, I was looking online, and there are all these kinds of suits that they’re building now that you’re not exposed and you’re breath — kind of ventilator.
It was like two weeks ago that the CDC finally caved and recommended face masks. Now we’re going to upgrade to everyone in the country wearing PPE at the office? What?
Hey, everyone’s under a lot of strain and grasping for ways to return to normalcy. Some of us cling to fantasies about remdesivir. Others imagine 300 million people in “space outfits.”
There was some actual news at today’s briefing. Anthony Fauci told Time in an interview earlier what everyone except one person already understands, that the U.S. isn’t where it needs to be on testing in order to make it safe to reopen parts of the country.
“We need to significantly ramp up not only the number of tests, but the capacity to perform them, so that you don’t have a situation where you have a test but it can’t be done because there isn’t a swab, or because there isn’t extraction media, or not the right vial,” says Fauci. “I am not overly confident right now at all that we have what it takes to do that. We are doing better, and I think we are going to get there, but we are not there yet.”
Unfortunately for him, the one person who disagrees is his boss:
Question: Do you agree with Dr. Fauci on testing that we’re just not there yet?
Trump: No I don’t agree with him on that. No I think we’re doing a great job on testing. If he said that, I don’t agree with that pic.twitter.com/h4imBkpCWU — Acyn Torabi (@Acyn) April 23, 2020
I hope DHS is right about heat bringing relief from the disease’s spread. Nate Silver’s map of when different U.S. states have seen their estimated percentage of positive COVID-19 tests peak is interesting in that it does show many warmer southern states peaking a few weeks ago, including hard-hit Louisiana, while states further north are still in the thick of it. But it’s not a hard and fast rule: Arizona met or tied a new high just this past week. And as noted elsewhere today, Singapore is seeing a second wave despite the fact that the temperature is reliably in the high 80s right now with high humidity. The weather may slow down COVID but it’s obviously not stopping it.


hotair--2020-04-23--This Washington Post analysis piece dunking on President Trump is really something

The Washington Post published an analysis piece by Philip Bump today which attempts to dunk on President Trump for his embrace of a coronavirus death toll that the U.S. will likely surpass next month .
The piece is headlined , “ Misunderstanding the math , Trump embraced a coronavirus death toll we ’ ll soon surpass.
” The headline , like the story itself , is misleading .
I ’ ll go into the details in a moment but the bottom line is that Bump is straining to create a gotcha moment where none exists .
When the White House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ refrain from meeting in groups and take other steps to contain the spread of the coronavirus , it presented a chart suggesting that doing so could avoid the worst-case scenario of infections .
Without mitigation efforts , models of the spread of the disease estimated that as many as 2.2 million Americans could die of covid-19 , the disease caused by the virus .
With mitigation ?
A more modest 100,000 to 220,000 deaths .
Still a lot , but obviously far better .
It was a hard message for President Trump , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president wants to tell the public that the best-case scenario from a crisis is that hundreds of thousands of people would die .
But that ’ s what the data showed , and so that ’ s what was presented in defense of urging people to stay home .
As time passed , the models were revised with new information .
One leading model used by the White House , created by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington , used new information about distancing measures in Europe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ downward estimate for the death toll from 90,000 to a little over 60,000 .
That last line is the gotcha .
Trump “ relished ” the idea that thousands fewer Americans might not die from the virus .
The absolute bastard .
If you think I ’ m exaggerating , read the whole piece for yourself .
Here ’ s his conclusion : I ’ m struggling to imagine the kind of person that would not want to embrace this lower figure coming , not from some internet rando but from a credible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had been following .
But even so , it ’ s really only a mistake if Trump embraced the new figures in a way that was obviously over the top and irresponsible .
Did he do that ?
Here ’ s what Trump actually said according to Bump : With 60,000 deaths , “ you can never be happy , ” Trump said at a briefing on April 10 , shortly after the model revision .
“ But that ’ s a lot fewer than we were originally told and thinking .
So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 220,000 lives on the minimum side , and then up to 2.2 million lives if we didn ’ t do anything .
But it showed a just tremendous resolve by the people of this country .
So we ’ ll see what it ends up being , but it looks like we ’ re headed to a number substantially below the 100,000 .
That would be the low mark .
And I hope that bears out.
” “ We did the right thing , ” he said a bit later , “ because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people died instead of whatever that final number will be , which could be 60 , could be 70 , could be 75 , could be 55 .
Thousands of people have died.
” First , Trump did not commit to the number 60,000 .
He specifically said it could be somewhere between 55,000 and 75,000 .
Second , he ’ s clearly not stating a fact .
He ’ s saying that thanks to social distancing efforts “ it looks like ” the number will be “ substantially ” below 100,000 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ bears out.
” He ’ s not guaranteeing anything .
He ’ s literally expressing a hope of good results stemming from good behavior .
More recently Trump suggested the number could be between 50,000 and 60,000 .
So what is the actual number going to be ?
Well , we don ’ t know but here ’ s how Bump describes two models trying to estimate the number : If you click over and look at the models he ’ s talking about , they show a clear plateau .
Here ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Notice that dotted line which shows the current best guess of where the death toll will be by the end of summer : 67,641 deaths .
That ’ s beyond 60,000 obviously but not that far off .
There are some huge uncertainty bars around that figure .
It could be as low as 48,000 or as high as 104,000 .
But my point is that the current modeling suggests we will could get through this first wave with a figure that is still substantially below 100,000 deaths .
The other model @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out to May 14 .
On that date they also predict about 67,000 deaths in the U.S .
Finally , Bump points out that these models only deal with the first wave of the virus : “ In other words , even when people were celebrating its downward revision to 60,000 deaths , that was still only the estimated total through the early summer.
” Okay , fair enough .
But the lower numbers are still something to celebrate now !
We may have five more rounds of this to come , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ death toll of this one looks better than we thought .
What really bothers me about Bump trying to turn this into a partisan gotcha moment is that he clearly knows better because he embraced the same data himself .
Just last Tuesday he wrote about the declining estimates of the IHME model and how the change was good news .
There was nothing in that piece last week about the 2nd round of the virus this winter .
In fact , the last line in that piece is “ Hopefully , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” You could say that when the IHME revised its death toll downward , Philip Bump embraced it and expressed hope the trend would continue .
But a week later he ’ s trying to dunk on Trump for doing exactly the same thing .
Why would he do that ?

The Washington Post published an analysis piece by Philip Bump today which attempts to dunk on President Trump for his embrace of a coronavirus death toll that the U.S. will likely surpass next month. The piece is headlined, “Misunderstanding the math, Trump embraced a coronavirus death toll we’ll soon surpass.” The headline, like the story itself, is misleading. I’ll go into the details in a moment but the bottom line is that Bump is straining to create a gotcha moment where none exists.
When the White House announced its recommendation last month that Americans refrain from meeting in groups and take other steps to contain the spread of the coronavirus, it presented a chart suggesting that doing so could avoid the worst-case scenario of infections. Without mitigation efforts, models of the spread of the disease estimated that as many as 2.2 million Americans could die of covid-19, the disease caused by the virus. With mitigation? A more modest 100,000 to 220,000 deaths. Still a lot, but obviously far better. It was a hard message for President Trump, for a variety of reasons. No president wants to tell the public that the best-case scenario from a crisis is that hundreds of thousands of people would die. But that’s what the data showed, and so that’s what was presented in defense of urging people to stay home. As time passed, the models were revised with new information. One leading model used by the White House, created by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington, used new information about distancing measures in Europe and the United States to shift its downward estimate for the death toll from 90,000 to a little over 60,000. Trump relished the change.
That last line is the gotcha. Trump “relished” the idea that thousands fewer Americans might not die from the virus. The absolute bastard. If you think I’m exaggerating, read the whole piece for yourself. Here’s his conclusion:
For Trump, the question was simple. The lower estimate said 100,000, and here was a model suddenly throwing out a figure of 60,000. Trump, in Trump fashion, embraced it, even slicing off a few thousand now and again.
I’m struggling to imagine the kind of person that would not want to embrace this lower figure coming, not from some internet rando but from a credible model of the infection the White House had been following. But even so, it’s really only a mistake if Trump embraced the new figures in a way that was obviously over the top and irresponsible. Did he do that? Here’s what Trump actually said according to Bump:
With 60,000 deaths, “you can never be happy,” Trump said at a briefing on April 10, shortly after the model revision. “But that’s a lot fewer than we were originally told and thinking. So they said between [100,000] and 220,000 lives on the minimum side, and then up to 2.2 million lives if we didn’t do anything. But it showed a just tremendous resolve by the people of this country. So we’ll see what it ends up being, but it looks like we’re headed to a number substantially below the 100,000. That would be the low mark. And I hope that bears out.” “We did the right thing,” he said a bit later, “because maybe it would have been 2 million people died instead of whatever that final number will be, which could be 60, could be 70, could be 75, could be 55. Thousands of people have died.”
First, Trump did not commit to the number 60,000. He specifically said it could be somewhere between 55,000 and 75,000. Second, he’s clearly not stating a fact. He’s saying that thanks to social distancing efforts “it looks like” the number will be “substantially” below 100,000. He added, “I hope that bears out.” He’s not guaranteeing anything. He’s literally expressing a hope of good results stemming from good behavior.
More recently Trump suggested the number could be between 50,000 and 60,000. So what is the actual number going to be? Well, we don’t know but here’s how Bump describes two models trying to estimate the number:
Models of the possible death toll, including IHME’s, have the country passing 60,000 deaths in the first week in May. A model created by a number of university and nongovernmental groups called the Gleam Project suggests that by May 7, there will be more than 62,000 deaths. On that day, IHME’s number is closer to 64,000.
If you click over and look at the models he’s talking about, they show a clear plateau. Here’s the graph from the IHME model:
Notice that dotted line which shows the current best guess of where the death toll will be by the end of summer: 67,641 deaths. That’s beyond 60,000 obviously but not that far off. There are some huge uncertainty bars around that figure. It could be as low as 48,000 or as high as 104,000. But my point is that the current modeling suggests we will could get through this first wave with a figure that is still substantially below 100,000 deaths. The other model Bump links to only offers future projections out to May 14. On that date they also predict about 67,000 deaths in the U.S.
Finally, Bump points out that these models only deal with the first wave of the virus: “In other words, even when people were celebrating its downward revision to 60,000 deaths, that was still only the estimated total through the early summer.” Okay, fair enough. But the lower numbers are still something to celebrate now! We may have five more rounds of this to come, but it’s still good that the death toll of this one looks better than we thought.
What really bothers me about Bump trying to turn this into a partisan gotcha moment is that he clearly knows better because he embraced the same data himself. Just last Tuesday he wrote about the declining estimates of the IHME model and how the change was good news.
By now, there were supposed to have been more than 1,000 people dead in Alabama… Happily, that estimate was wrong… Modeling, as White House coronavirus task force member Anthony S. Fauci would remind us, is a forward-looking estimate. It is an educated guess, based on the available data, used to make decisions about resource allocation and strategies. As data come in, the model should and will change. As the IHME model did.
There was nothing in that piece last week about the 2nd round of the virus this winter. In fact, the last line in that piece is “Hopefully, the general trend will continue to be downward.” You could say that when the IHME revised its death toll downward, Philip Bump embraced it and expressed hope the trend would continue. But a week later he’s trying to dunk on Trump for doing exactly the same thing. Why would he do that?


hotair--2020-04-23--UCSF Microbiologist: Those early deaths in Santa Clara probably indicate a direct connection to Wuha

UCSF Microbiologist: Those early deaths in Santa Clara probably indicate a direct connection to Wuhan

Ultimately , all coronavirus deaths are connected to Wuhan , but that ’ s not what UCSF microbiologist Dr. Charles Chiu means .
He ’ s talking about different strains of the virus which can be detected with gene sequencing .
So , for instance , the original Wuhan strain of the virus can be differentiated from the strain that formed the first U.S. hotspot in Washington state by looking for specific mutations .
Dr. Chiu , who has been studying the outbreak in the Bay Area hasn ’ t been able to test samples from the three early victims @ @ @ @ @ @ @ announced yesterday , so consider this informed speculation : A top Bay Area microbiologist said Wednesday that the discovery of COVID-19 in a Santa Clara County woman who died three weeks before the nation ’ s first recorded fatality appears to be part of a cluster imported from China that he has been tracking… Charles Chiu , director of the UCSF-Abbott Viral Diagnostics and Discovery Center , said he hasn ’ t yet sequenced the genomes of the three victims , but he suspects they were infected by the same coronavirus strain he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Santa Clara County , the county with the most COVID-19 cases in Northern California .
That virus , he said , is identical to the coronavirus strain in Wuhan , China , where the pandemic started , except for a single mutation .
That suggests the county was one of the first entry points for the virus and hadn ’ t yet spread widely around the community .
It ’ s China origin also indicates that it wasn ’ t community spread… Chiu said his laboratory sequenced four or five strains from samples @ @ @ @ @ @ @ March and found two strains that caused small clusters , but now appear to have been successfully isolated and controlled .
So sometime in very early February or late January , someone brought the virus directly from Wuhan and a few people were infected in Santa Clara County , but those early infections didn ’ t spread widely enough to create a significant cluster .
However , the same story notes the tightness of the proposed timeline makes some investigators question this explanation .
Warner Greene , a senior investigator at the Gladstone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reported in China in late December , and they were mostly connected to a fish market in Wuhan .
For someone with no travel history to have been infected in Santa Clara County in early or mid-January , just a few weeks after the first reported cases in China , seems unlikely , he said… “ Certainly it ’ s possible someone traveled from Wuhan , but they would have had to have been at the market and then gone to San Francisco and then infected someone else .
That timeline is getting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said .
“ I ’ m really starting to question how long this virus has been circulating in humans.
” Hopefully we ’ ll get a follow-up on this once Dr. Chiu has had a chance to examine the virus found in those early cases , the first of which on Feb. 6 is the earliest death in the U.S. Until then this is one more issue over which even credentialed experts continue to disagree .

Ultimately, all coronavirus deaths are connected to Wuhan, but that’s not what UCSF microbiologist Dr. Charles Chiu means. He’s talking about different strains of the virus which can be detected with gene sequencing. So, for instance, the original Wuhan strain of the virus can be differentiated from the strain that formed the first U.S. hotspot in Washington state by looking for specific mutations.
Dr. Chiu, who has been studying the outbreak in the Bay Area hasn’t been able to test samples from the three early victims of the disease which Santa Clara officials announced yesterday, so consider this informed speculation:
A top Bay Area microbiologist said Wednesday that the discovery of COVID-19 in a Santa Clara County woman who died three weeks before the nation’s first recorded fatality appears to be part of a cluster imported from China that he has been tracking… Charles Chiu, director of the UCSF-Abbott Viral Diagnostics and Discovery Center, said he hasn’t yet sequenced the genomes of the three victims, but he suspects they were infected by the same coronavirus strain he had discovered in several early patients in Santa Clara County, the county with the most COVID-19 cases in Northern California. That virus, he said, is identical to the coronavirus strain in Wuhan, China, where the pandemic started, except for a single mutation. That suggests the county was one of the first entry points for the virus and hadn’t yet spread widely around the community. It’s China origin also indicates that it wasn’t community spread… Chiu said his laboratory sequenced four or five strains from samples collected in Santa Clara County in early March and found two strains that caused small clusters, but now appear to have been successfully isolated and controlled.
So sometime in very early February or late January, someone brought the virus directly from Wuhan and a few people were infected in Santa Clara County, but those early infections didn’t spread widely enough to create a significant cluster. However, the same story notes the tightness of the proposed timeline makes some investigators question this explanation.
Warner Greene, a senior investigator at the Gladstone Institutes, said the first cases were reported in China in late December, and they were mostly connected to a fish market in Wuhan. For someone with no travel history to have been infected in Santa Clara County in early or mid-January, just a few weeks after the first reported cases in China, seems unlikely, he said… “Certainly it’s possible someone traveled from Wuhan, but they would have had to have been at the market and then gone to San Francisco and then infected someone else. That timeline is getting very, very tight,” Greene said. “I’m really starting to question how long this virus has been circulating in humans.”
Hopefully we’ll get a follow-up on this once Dr. Chiu has had a chance to examine the virus found in those early cases, the first of which on Feb. 6 is the earliest death in the U.S. Until then this is one more issue over which even credentialed experts continue to disagree.


hotair--2020-04-23--Flop? Data from first randomized clinical trial suggests Gilead's "miracle drug" remdesivir is a bus

Flop? Data from first randomized clinical trial suggests Gilead's "miracle drug" remdesivir is a bust

All the hydroxychloroquine true believers got their comeuppance a few days ago and now the remdesivir true believers like me are getting their comeuppance today .
That doctor from Harvard tried to warn us that the positive buzz for remdesivir so far was largely anecdotal , but did I listen ?
This is what I get for daring to entertain a hopeful thought in the middle of this waking farking nightmare .
I ’ m going to go hibernate for the next year .
Wake me up if they find a “ miracle drug ” that holds up to even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ antiviral drug for the coronavirus has flopped in its first randomised clinical trial , disappointing scientists and investors who had high hopes for remdesivir , according to draft documents published accidentally by the World Health Organization and seen by the Financial Times .
The Chinese trial showed remdesivir — developed by California-based Gilead Sciences — did not improve patients ’ condition or reduce the pathogen ’ s presence in the bloodstream .
Researchers studied 237 patients , giving the drug to 158 and comparing their progress with the remaining 79 .
The drug @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which meant 18 patients were taken off it .
According to Stat , 13.9 percent of Chinese patients who received remdesivir died within a month versus 12.8 percent of the control group , a statistically insignificant difference .
At *best* , the drug didn ’ t help .
At worst , it actually hastened death .
Gilead ’ s shares are down more than six percent today as I write this .
But wait , the company says : You ’ re all jumping the gun .
Gilead spokesperson Amy Flood said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inappropriate characterization of the study.
” Because the study was stopped early because it had too few patients , she said , it can not “ enable statistically meaningful conclusions.
” However , she said , “ trends in the data suggest a potential benefit for remdesivir , particularly among patients treated early in disease.
” The data ( for details , see screenshot below ) will be closely scrutinized but are also likely imperfect .
The study was terminated prematurely , which could have affected the results .
The context that would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ missing , and the data have not been reviewed as normally occurs before publication .
“ Trends in the data ” ?
What does that mean ?
Well , there ’ s a clinical trial of the drug going on right now at the University of Nebraska Medical Center that ’ s backed by the NIH .
Results are expected “ any day , ” according to NBC .
Maybe Gilead has seen those results and is teasing some good news to come to counter today ’ s grim report about the Chinese @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that it ’ s still working on ways to speed up production of remdesivir , which is difficult to synthesize ; if they had reason to believe the drug was a bust , one would think they wouldn ’ t bother devoting more resources to it .
So maybe they know something encouraging that we don ’ t .
Or , more pessimistically , maybe they have preliminary reason to believe it ’ s a bust but want to be in position to produce massive amounts just in case some of the other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ One expert told Stat that the Chinese trial was large enough that a bad result there bodes ill for the drug , even if the trial was incomplete : “ If there is no benefit to remdesivir in a study this size , this suggests that the overall benefit of remdesivir in this population with advanced infection is likely to be small in the larger Gilead trial.
” The drug may not work for patients who are far gone — but note again what the Gilead rep said about “ patients treated early @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the drug would work better the earlier it ’ s used , since it ’ s designed to inhibit RNA replication by viruses .
A patient who ’ s far gone may already have too much of the virus in their system for remdesivir to do much about it .
A patient who ’ s earlier in the course of the disease might be different .
Anyway , feel free to bookmark this post and throw it back at me when the next remdesivir trial shows it doesn ’ t do anything @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then , it ’ s on to the next miracle drug : If that one doesn ’ t work , we ’ ll continue to hold out hope that somehow Oxford University ’ s going to deliver an effective vaccine in one-half or even one-third the time that every scientist in the world thinks it ’ ll take to produce a vaccine .
And if that doesn ’ t work , there ’ s a long longshot possibility that we can beat back this virus with an item that just so happens to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ America .
One word , my friends : Cigarettes .
By the way , the only reason we know the results of this Chinese trial of remdesivir is because our friends at the WHO “ accidentally ” posted them publicly on their website , before the full report was ready .
Do we think that was an honest mistake ?
I have no theory that it wasn ’ t , but ( a ) I don ’ t trust anything that the Chinese stooges at the WHO do and ( b ) it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one study that ended up being published prematurely on the website was the one having to do with the world ’ s most hotly anticipated potential coronavirus treatment .
Was the buzz a week ago about the encouraging data on remdesivir in Chicago part of some pump-and-dump scheme by an insider who knew the new Chinese data was coming ?
Last to chance to cash in on the drug before the hype collapsed !

All the hydroxychloroquine true believers got their comeuppance a few days ago and now the remdesivir true believers like me are getting their comeuppance today. That doctor from Harvard tried to warn us that the positive buzz for remdesivir so far was largely anecdotal, but did I listen?
This is what I get for daring to entertain a hopeful thought in the middle of this waking farking nightmare.
I’m going to go hibernate for the next year. Wake me up if they find a “miracle drug” that holds up to even one round of trials.
A potential antiviral drug for the coronavirus has flopped in its first randomised clinical trial, disappointing scientists and investors who had high hopes for remdesivir, according to draft documents published accidentally by the World Health Organization and seen by the Financial Times. The Chinese trial showed remdesivir — developed by California-based Gilead Sciences — did not improve patients’ condition or reduce the pathogen’s presence in the bloodstream. Researchers studied 237 patients, giving the drug to 158 and comparing their progress with the remaining 79. The drug also showed significant side effects in some, which meant 18 patients were taken off it.
According to Stat, 13.9 percent of Chinese patients who received remdesivir died within a month versus 12.8 percent of the control group, a statistically insignificant difference. At *best*, the drug didn’t help. At worst, it actually hastened death.
Gilead’s shares are down more than six percent today as I write this. But wait, the company says: You’re all jumping the gun.
Gilead spokesperson Amy Flood said the company believes “the post included inappropriate characterization of the study.” Because the study was stopped early because it had too few patients, she said, it cannot “enable statistically meaningful conclusions.” However, she said, “trends in the data suggest a potential benefit for remdesivir, particularly among patients treated early in disease.” The data (for details, see screenshot below) will be closely scrutinized but are also likely imperfect. The study was terminated prematurely, which could have affected the results. The context that would be provided by a full manuscript is missing, and the data have not been reviewed as normally occurs before publication.
“Trends in the data”? What does that mean? Well, there’s a clinical trial of the drug going on right now at the University of Nebraska Medical Center that’s backed by the NIH. Results are expected “any day,” according to NBC. Maybe Gilead has seen those results and is teasing some good news to come to counter today’s grim report about the Chinese trial. The company has also said that it’s still working on ways to speed up production of remdesivir, which is difficult to synthesize; if they had reason to believe the drug was a bust, one would think they wouldn’t bother devoting more resources to it. So maybe they know something encouraging that we don’t.
Or, more pessimistically, maybe they have preliminary reason to believe it’s a bust but want to be in position to produce massive amounts just in case some of the other studies ongoing turn up better results. One expert told Stat that the Chinese trial was large enough that a bad result there bodes ill for the drug, even if the trial was incomplete: “If there is no benefit to remdesivir in a study this size, this suggests that the overall benefit of remdesivir in this population with advanced infection is likely to be small in the larger Gilead trial.” The drug may not work for patients who are far gone — but note again what the Gilead rep said about “patients treated early in disease.” It would make sense that the drug would work better the earlier it’s used, since it’s designed to inhibit RNA replication by viruses. A patient who’s far gone may already have too much of the virus in their system for remdesivir to do much about it. A patient who’s earlier in the course of the disease might be different.
Anyway, feel free to bookmark this post and throw it back at me when the next remdesivir trial shows it doesn’t do anything for patients treated early either. Until then, it’s on to the next miracle drug:
New: Researchers clone two human blocking monoclonal antibodies using #SARSCoV2 specific memory B cells isolated from patients with #COVID19 that bind and neutralize activity of virus; demonstrating the basis for antibody drugs as potential therapeutics. https://t.co/6mbnZatnA8 — Scott Gottlieb, MD (@ScottGottliebMD) April 23, 2020
If that one doesn’t work, we’ll continue to hold out hope that somehow Oxford University’s going to deliver an effective vaccine in one-half or even one-third the time that every scientist in the world thinks it’ll take to produce a vaccine. And if that doesn’t work, there’s a long longshot possibility that we can beat back this virus with an item that just so happens to be available in every convenience store in America. One word, my friends: Cigarettes.
By the way, the only reason we know the results of this Chinese trial of remdesivir is because our friends at the WHO “accidentally” posted them publicly on their website, before the full report was ready. Do we think that was an honest mistake? I have no theory that it wasn’t, but (a) I don’t trust anything that the Chinese stooges at the WHO do and (b) it seems like quite a coincidence that the one study that ended up being published prematurely on the website was the one having to do with the world’s most hotly anticipated potential coronavirus treatment.
Update: Now here’s a thought.
An investigative journalist should track the Gilead stock selling and buying of everyone involved in the leak of apparently positive data (sending the stock price soaring) one week before these negative results came out (sending stock price plunging).https://t.co/NUM2vExwYa — Keith Humphreys (@KeithNHumphreys) April 23, 2020
Was the buzz a week ago about the encouraging data on remdesivir in Chicago part of some pump-and-dump scheme by an insider who knew the new Chinese data was coming? Last to chance to cash in on the drug before the hype collapsed!


hotair--2020-04-23--Today's hot topics on #TEMS: New York update, Iran irate, COVID mortality rate, Whitmer mutate, Sale

Today's hot topics on #TEMS: New York update, Iran irate, COVID mortality rate, Whitmer mutate, Salena's classmate, and more!

Today on The Ed Morrissey Show ( 4 pm ET ) , we have another great lineup for the news of the day !
The show will be streamed on Hot Air ’ s Facebook page and embedded here and on the show page for those who are not on Facebook .
Join us as we welcome : • Duane “ Generalissimo ” Patterson brings us up to date on the week ’ s top stories and gives us a preview of tomorrow ’ s Hugh Hewitt show .
We ’ ll talk about the significance of the antibody study @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the Iranian response to Donald Trump ’ s new rules of engagement , Gretchen Whitmer ’ s retreat , and more of the nonsense on Capitol Hill , which is at least open for business today .
Plus , did Trump blow it with his “ LIBERATE ” campaign ?
• Salena Zito joins us to tell us about her friend Jimmy Yinzer , who just lost his business to a fire — while trying to help his community through the COVID-19 pandemic shutdown .
Jimmy ’ s been one of Salena @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and she ’ ll tell us all about Jimmy ’ s efforts to rebuild , and hopefully how we can help .
The Ed Morrissey Show and its dynamic chatroom can be seen on the permanent TEMS page .
Be sure to join us , and don ’ t forget to keep up with the debate on my Facebook page , too !
How can Republicans and conservatives keep winning after 2016 ?
Find out in GOING RED , published in April from Crown Forum !

Today on The Ed Morrissey Show (4 pm ET), we have another great lineup for the news of the day! The show will be streamed on Hot Air’s Facebook page and embedded here and on the show page for those who are not on Facebook.
Join us as we welcome:
Duane “Generalissimo” Patterson brings us up to date on the week’s top stories and gives us a preview of tomorrow’s Hugh Hewitt show. We’ll talk about the significance of the antibody study in New York announced by Andrew Cuomo, the Iranian response to Donald Trump’s new rules of engagement, Gretchen Whitmer’s retreat, and more of the nonsense on Capitol Hill, which is at least open for business today. Plus, did Trump blow it with his “LIBERATE” campaign?
Salena Zito joins us to tell us about her friend Jimmy Yinzer, who just lost his business to a fire — while trying to help his community through the COVID-19 pandemic shutdown. Jimmy’s been one of Salena’s closest friends since high school, and she’ll tell us all about Jimmy’s efforts to rebuild, and hopefully how we can help.
https://twitter.com/SalenaZito/status/1253157986798907394
The Ed Morrissey Show and its dynamic chatroom can be seen on the permanent TEMS page. Be sure to join us, and don’t forget to keep up with the debate on my Facebook page, too!
How can Republicans and conservatives keep winning after 2016? Find out in GOING RED, published in April from Crown Forum!


hotair--2020-04-23--Flashback: Why Birx' warning to media on COVID-19 mortality rate matters more today

Saturday ’ s briefing was not the first time Dr. Deborah Birx has made this argument , but it takes on even more significance after seeing the antibody-study data from New York City .
Birx emphasized the need to calculate population into death figures from the COVID-19 outbreaks to properly assess both the disease ’ s actual mortality rate and the effectiveness of a national/regional response to it .
In this presentation , Birx noted that we had a lower mortality rate than six out of the ten nations dealing with major outbreaks — and China and Iran ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Does anyone really believe those numbers ?
” Donald Trump asked about China ’ s reported death rate : Trump also implied that Iran ’ s numbers were not to be trusted at the beginning of the briefing : While we mourn the tragic loss of life — and you can ’ t mourn it any stronger than we ’ re mourning it — the United States has produced dramatically better health outcomes than any other country , with the possible exception of Germany .
And I think we ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ per capita basis — remember that : On a per capita basis , our mortality rate is far lower than other nations of Western Europe , with the lone exception of possibly Germany .
This includes the UK , Switzerland , Belgium , the Netherlands , Italy , France .
Spain , for example , has a mortality rate that is nearly four times that of the United States , but you don ’ t hear that .
You hear we have more death .
But we ’ re much bigger countries than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ So when the fake news gets out there and they start talking about the United States is number one — but we ’ re not number one ; China is number one , just so you understand .
China is number one by a lot .
It ’ s not even close .
They ’ re way ahead of us in terms of death .
All this is true , and it also is incomplete .
The missing piece all along for a true calculation of mortality rate was a reliable denominator on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we have gotten out of the gate slowly on testing , we only really know how many active infections have been confirmed , and a somewhat-reliable death toll .
That doesn ’ t really give us a true mortality rate , though , because that is calculated by deaths divided by exposure , not deaths divided by overall population or confirmed cases .
As Allahpundit wrote earlier , if if if this is reliable , it ’ s huge in more than one way : Those numbers will have to hold up to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them , but at least for the moment , it shows a far wider distribution of the virus than diagnoses demonstrated , which one would expect when many never notice significant symptoms at all .
New York has only confirmed a little over 260,000 cases of COVID-19 infection since the beginning of the pandemic .
This data would demonstrate that the actual spread of the virus has been ten times as wide .
As Andrew Cuomo announced , that means we can finally get a good handle on the true mortality rate for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which he puts at 0.5 % .
This data , by the way , also speaks to more success than perhaps people believe we have had in fighting this outbreak .
The numbers here demonstrate a significantly higher lethality for COVID-19 than the flu ( 0.1 % ) , but we have to factor in other conditions to that as well .
No state has been a hotter spot than New York , which never “ flattened the curve ” but instead felt the full brunt of exponential growth .
Hospitals and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ couldn ’ t keep up with the pace of cases in the initial spread .
That has abated , in large part because of the lockdown strategies put in place , as well as increased resources .
Under less intense circumstances , with enough resources to meet demand , the mortality rate could be somewhat lower — although it seems unlikely from this data that it ’ s anywhere as near as low as normal influenza .
If that were the case , we wouldn ’ t have seen the overwhelming number of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and especially NYC , even with this level of spread .
If the true mortality rate is between 0.3-0.5 % , let ’ s say , then that calls for some continued mitigation — but only until we get the medical resources in place to handle the expected increase in demand .
Once we meet that threshold , which would include sufficient PPE , pharmaceuticals , ventilators , and especially testing , we should be able to send all of the lower-risk people back to work and reopen the marketplaces .
This vindicates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but also reminds us that their intent was correct as well — not to wait for the virus to disappear , but just to put us in position to deal with its deadlier consequences , which will come one way or another .
This data — if accurate and confirmed — makes the White House ’ s three-phase reopening guidelines look rational and proper .
Get the testing in place to make sure there isn ’ t a sudden acceleration of COVID-19 spread , and then start reopening the public square while observing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ foreseeable future .
High-risk households , like mine , will have to deal with more self-imposed restrictions , but there is little sense in holding everyone back to the high-risk standard — especially when that may end up doing far more damage than the disease will .

Saturday’s briefing was not the first time Dr. Deborah Birx has made this argument, but it takes on even more significance after seeing the antibody-study data from New York City. Birx emphasized the need to calculate population into death figures from the COVID-19 outbreaks to properly assess both the disease’s actual mortality rate and the effectiveness of a national/regional response to it. In this presentation, Birx noted that we had a lower mortality rate than six out of the ten nations dealing with major outbreaks — and China and Iran’s better rates are questionable, at best.
“Does anyone really believe those numbers?” Donald Trump asked about China’s reported death rate:
Trump also implied that Iran’s numbers were not to be trusted at the beginning of the briefing:
While we mourn the tragic loss of life — and you can’t mourn it any stronger than we’re mourning it — the United States has produced dramatically better health outcomes than any other country, with the possible exception of Germany. And I think we’re as good or better. On a per capita basis — remember that: On a per capita basis, our mortality rate is far lower than other nations of Western Europe, with the lone exception of possibly Germany. This includes the UK, Switzerland, Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy, France. Spain, for example, has a mortality rate that is nearly four times that of the United States, but you don’t hear that. You hear we have more death. But we’re much bigger countries than any of those countries by far. So when the fake news gets out there and they start talking about the United States is number one — but we’re not number one; China is number one, just so you understand. China is number one by a lot. It’s not even close. They’re way ahead of us in terms of death.
All this is true, and it also is incomplete. The missing piece all along for a true calculation of mortality rate was a reliable denominator on the scope of the outbreak. Because we have gotten out of the gate slowly on testing, we only really know how many active infections have been confirmed, and a somewhat-reliable death toll. That doesn’t really give us a true mortality rate, though, because that is calculated by deaths divided by exposure, not deaths divided by overall population or confirmed cases.
As Allahpundit wrote earlier, if if if this is reliable, it’s huge in more than one way:
If the early results hold, that would mean about 2.7 million people were infected statewide. This means the overall death rate of #coronavirus, at least in New York, may be lower than estimates. Gov. Cuomo notes these are preliminary results https://t.co/y6QWrdVQCK pic.twitter.com/2ZsQFd83Gc — Bloomberg (@business) April 23, 2020
Those numbers will have to hold up to more scrutiny. Some are already questioning them, but at least for the moment, it shows a far wider distribution of the virus than diagnoses demonstrated, which one would expect when many never notice significant symptoms at all. New York has only confirmed a little over 260,000 cases of COVID-19 infection since the beginning of the pandemic. This data would demonstrate that the actual spread of the virus has been ten times as wide. As Andrew Cuomo announced, that means we can finally get a good handle on the true mortality rate for COVID-19, at least in New York, which he puts at 0.5%. This data, by the way, also speaks to more success than perhaps people believe we have had in fighting this outbreak.
The numbers here demonstrate a significantly higher lethality for COVID-19 than the flu (0.1%), but we have to factor in other conditions to that as well. No state has been a hotter spot than New York, which never “flattened the curve” but instead felt the full brunt of exponential growth. Hospitals and emergency responders got so overwhelmed that they couldn’t keep up with the pace of cases in the initial spread. That has abated, in large part because of the lockdown strategies put in place, as well as increased resources. Under less intense circumstances, with enough resources to meet demand, the mortality rate could be somewhat lower — although it seems unlikely from this data that it’s anywhere as near as low as normal influenza. If that were the case, we wouldn’t have seen the overwhelming number of hospitalizations that took place in New York and especially NYC, even with this level of spread.
If the true mortality rate is between 0.3-0.5%, let’s say, then that calls for some continued mitigation — but only until we get the medical resources in place to handle the expected increase in demand. Once we meet that threshold, which would include sufficient PPE, pharmaceuticals, ventilators, and especially testing, we should be able to send all of the lower-risk people back to work and reopen the marketplaces. This vindicates the “flatten the curve” policies but also reminds us that their intent was correct as well — not to wait for the virus to disappear, but just to put us in position to deal with its deadlier consequences, which will come one way or another.
This data — if accurate and confirmed — makes the White House’s three-phase reopening guidelines look rational and proper. Get the testing in place to make sure there isn’t a sudden acceleration of COVID-19 spread, and then start reopening the public square while observing proper hygiene and social distancing for the foreseeable future. High-risk households, like mine, will have to deal with more self-imposed restrictions, but there is little sense in holding everyone back to the high-risk standard — especially when that may end up doing far more damage than the disease will.


hotair--2020-04-23--Sexual assault allegations against Biden continue to be a problem for the #MeToo movement

Today Politico published a story on the ways in which the # MeToo movement is struggling with its response to the allegations of sexual harassment against Joe Biden .
Tara Reade ’ s story , like everything else , has mostly been wiped out of the news cycle by the coronavirus , but behind the scenes it continues to be discussed .
The story opens with the obvious hypocrisy of Alyssa Milano , which I wrote about here .
Unfortunately , the authors of the Politico story couldn ’ t help themselves when it came to describing the right ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we ’ ve seized on this glaring hypocrisy , but the story here is not the reaction on the right but the reaction on the left .
In other words , the story is the hypocrisy itself , and it ’ s not just people on the right who see what is happening : “ The disgusting behavior that Christine Blasey Ford had to deal with from the right is the disgusting behavior that Tara Reade is having to deal with from many on the left , ” said Sarah Ann Masse , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hollywood film producer Harvey Weinstein of sexual misconduct .
“ Survivors in the world watch this , and those who have not come forward publicly , those who have not shared it with their family or gone to the police or sought out mental health support , they see this and it silences them.
” … “ It really bothers me , ” said former actress Louisette Geiss , another woman who accused Weinstein of harassment , of [ Time ’ s Up Legal Defense Fund ’ s ] decision not to help @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re saying here in the # MeToo movement is that ’ s it , time ’ s up , if you will .
You can not engage in this behavior anymore no matter who you are — Trump , Biden , Harvey.
” … “ Because Trump is Trump , people feel like if they say something negative against Biden , then it could hurt his chances of winning .
So I think it ’ s completely political , ” said Geiss .
“ I feel personally like this is a really horrible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I do think it ’ s imperative that we also stand by what we ’ re saying.
” Activists who make a living from this are a bit more reticent to talk openly about the situation .
Politico reports that it contacted lawyer Debra Katz , who represented Christine Blasey Ford during the Kavanaugh confirmation , but “ Katz did not return messages seeking comment.
” The silence is deafening , as they say .
But Lucy Flores , who accused Biden of touching her inappropriately last year , says the silence from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not the silence that matters most .
She wonders when we ’ re going to hear from Joe Biden : I ’ m sure Biden is being advised by his people not to speak about this because doing so , even to deny it , would only give the issue more oxygen .
What they are hoping is that the media , which obviously doesn ’ t want to give this the Kavanaugh treatment , will continue to do the bare minimum .
Then maybe by the time of the convention they can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ news .
In any case , they are clearly leaning on the media ’ s lack of urgency to keep Biden away from this .
So far that plan is working .
Finally , there is one little tidbit in the Politico story I hadn ’ t seen before .
One of the main criticism of Reade has been that when she came forward last year she only told reporters about uncomfortable touching by Biden , not sexual assault .
The sexual assault part of her story only arose last month on a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ story has been pointed to by many people as a reason to doubt her credibility .
However , I hadn ’ t realized that Reade wrote a post on Medium last year in which she said that she hadn ’ t told the whole story .
That was published April 6 , 2019 three days after the first story about Biden ’ s inappropriate touching was published .
So even then Reade was saying there was more to the story .
That doesn ’ t prove she ’ s telling the truth but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more consistency than some people have assumed .

Today Politico published a story on the ways in which the #MeToo movement is struggling with its response to the allegations of sexual harassment against Joe Biden. Tara Reade’s story, like everything else, has mostly been wiped out of the news cycle by the coronavirus, but behind the scenes it continues to be discussed. The story opens with the obvious hypocrisy of Alyssa Milano, which I wrote about here. Unfortunately, the authors of the Politico story couldn’t help themselves when it came to describing the right’s reaction:
Supporters of President Donald Trump, who has been accused of sexual assault and misconduct by multiple women, have seized on Biden and other Democrats’ past comments about believing women’s accusations as proof of hypocrisy.
Yes, fine, we’ve seized on this glaring hypocrisy, but the story here is not the reaction on the right but the reaction on the left. In other words, the story is the hypocrisy itself, and it’s not just people on the right who see what is happening:
“The disgusting behavior that Christine Blasey Ford had to deal with from the right is the disgusting behavior that Tara Reade is having to deal with from many on the left,”said Sarah Ann Masse, one of the numerous women who accused Hollywood film producer Harvey Weinstein of sexual misconduct. “Survivors in the world watch this, and those who have not come forward publicly, those who have not shared it with their family or gone to the police or sought out mental health support, they see this and it silences them.”… “It really bothers me,” said former actress Louisette Geiss, another woman who accused Weinstein of harassment, of [Time’s Up Legal Defense Fund’s] decision not to help Reade financially. “What we’re saying here in the #MeToo movement is that’s it, time’s up, if you will. You cannot engage in this behavior anymore no matter who you are — Trump, Biden, Harvey.”… “Because Trump is Trump, people feel like if they say something negative against Biden, then it could hurt his chances of winning. So I think it’s completely political,” said Geiss. “I feel personally like this is a really horrible position to be put in. But I do think it’s imperative that we also stand by what we’re saying.”
Activists who make a living from this are a bit more reticent to talk openly about the situation. Politico reports that it contacted lawyer Debra Katz, who represented Christine Blasey Ford during the Kavanaugh confirmation, but “Katz did not return messages seeking comment.”
The silence is deafening, as they say.
But Lucy Flores, who accused Biden of touching her inappropriately last year, says the silence from activists like Alyssa Milano and Katz is not the silence that matters most. She wonders when we’re going to hear from Joe Biden:
“We shouldn’t be asking what #MeToo is saying. We should be asking what Joe Biden is saying. That is most critical here,” she said. “He has not addressed this himself. He has made one statement, possibly two, through his spokesperson.”
I’m sure Biden is being advised by his people not to speak about this because doing so, even to deny it, would only give the issue more oxygen. What they are hoping is that the media, which obviously doesn’t want to give this the Kavanaugh treatment, will continue to do the bare minimum. Then maybe by the time of the convention they can simply claim the whole story is old news. In any case, they are clearly leaning on the media’s lack of urgency to keep Biden away from this. So far that plan is working.
Finally, there is one little tidbit in the Politico story I hadn’t seen before. One of the main criticism of Reade has been that when she came forward last year she only told reporters about uncomfortable touching by Biden, not sexual assault. The sexual assault part of her story only arose last month on a podcast. That dramatic change in her story has been pointed to by many people as a reason to doubt her credibility. However, I hadn’t realized that Reade wrote a post on Medium last year in which she said that she hadn’t told the whole story.
I am upset now and feel defensive. Again, somehow me talking about what happened, what Joe Biden did to me, is my fault. And I did not even tell the whole story…The small portion that did come out of what Joe Biden did to me resulted in me being bullied and threatened to silence.
That was published April 6, 2019 three days after the first story about Biden’s inappropriate touching was published. So even then Reade was saying there was more to the story. That doesn’t prove she’s telling the truth but I think it suggests there’s more consistency than some people have assumed.