Remdesivir gets full FDA approval as coronavirus treatment

POLITICAL PRESSURE VS SCIENCE

The approval comes a week after a large-scale World Health Organization trial found remsdesivir had no substantial impact on the survival of COVID-19 patients or the length of their hospital stay

https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2020/10/vaccine-trials-cant-detect-virus-risk.html

BY NATHANIEL WEIXEL - 10/22/20 

© Getty Images


The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted full approval to the antiviral drug remdesivir to treat COVID-19, manufacturer Gilead announced Thursday.

FDA initially granted emergency use authorization for remdesivir in May, which allowed doctors and hospitals to use the drug to treat hospitalized patients without a full approval.

It showed modest results in reducing the hospitalizations of patients with severe cases of COVID-19. Remdesivir is administered in a hospital setting through an IV.

The approval is based on three randomized controlled trials, including one sponsored by the National Institutes of Health.

That study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine earlier this month, showed that hospitalized patients receiving remdesivir recovered five days faster on average, and in patients with severe disease, seven days faster, compared to a placebo.

The study also found remdesivir also reduces the likelihood of patients requiring new or more intensive oxygen support. While it was not a primary endpoint for the study, there was evidence remdesivir may reduce the likelihood of death.

Remdesivir is now the only FDA-approved treatment for COVID-19, and is available in more than 50 countries.

“It is incredible to be in the position today, less than one year since the earliest case reports of the disease now known as COVID-19, of having an FDA-approved treatment in the U.S. that is available for all appropriate patients in need,” said Daniel O’Day, Gilead's chairman and CEO.

The approval comes a week after a large-scale World Health Organization trial found remsdesivir had no substantial impact on the survival of COVID-19 patients or the length of their hospital stays.

However, Gilead said the WHO trial design "prioritized access" to remdesivir and other investigational treatments "over the ability to draw definitive conclusions, due to the variability in the implementation of the study, standard of care controls and patient populations across trial sites."

The majority of patients treated with remdesivir receive a five-day treatment course using six vials of the intravenous drug.

Gilead currently charges private insurers $3,120 per patient for a five-day course of the treatment.

Other developed countries and direct purchasers in the U.S. government, including the Veterans Affairs hospitals, will pay $2,340 for a five-day course of the drug.

FDA advisers grapple with COVID vaccine questions

BY NATHANIEL WEIXEL - 10/22/2020

© Getty Images

Members of an expert panel advising the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on coronavirus vaccines on Thursday argued against ending clinical trials even after the first vaccine becomes available.

There is no vaccine for COVID-19 for the panel to review yet, as clinical trials are still continuing. The FDA has said it expects to reconvene the panel multiple times in the future to examine the evidence every time a vaccine manufacturer applies for emergency authorization or approval.

During the daylong remote meeting, the panel of infectious disease experts and federal scientists offered reassurances that when they do review a COVID-19 vaccine, it will not be rushed to market before it is proven safe.

"Vaccine development can be expedited; however, I want to stress that it cannot, and must not, be rushed," Marion Gruber, director of FDA’s vaccine research office, told the panel.

The clinical trials of major vaccine manufacturers are ramping up, the FDA could see initial results by the end of November. Moderna, for instance, announced Thursday its clinical trial had finished enrolling participants.

Moderna said that more than two-thirds of its trial participants had received their second dose and that the company was working toward FDA's requirement of tracking participants for two months afterwards.

FDA is requiring manufacturers to do studies of at least 30,000 people to prove if a vaccine protects and how safe it is. Those studies must include people at highest risk from COVID-19, like older adults, minorities and people with underlying health issues. 

FDA has made clear that any vaccine must be at least 50 percent effective. 

If and when a vaccine becomes available, its availability will be extremely limited for the first few months, if not longer. Federal officials are grappling with the question of whether to continue clinical trials during the time.

Patients enrolled in the blinded trials will likely want to know if they have been given a placebo. In comments submitted ahead of the meeting, Pfizer said it wants to be able to dose placebo patients with an authorized vaccine if they want it. 

The FDA has said it does not consider the emergency approval of a vaccine to be grounds for stopping blinded trials.

During the meeting, FDA's Dorian Fink, a deputy director in the agency's vaccine application division, said it is important to keep the blinded trials going as long as possible.

A vaccine authorized under emergency use is still considered experimental, he said, so more safety and efficacy data will be needed. 

Stephanie Schrag, an epidemiologist at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, noted there will be limited information available under an emergency authorization, which generally requires less data than full approval. 

Schrag said that if the FDA allows emergency use of a vaccine before a trial is over, experts may not have the full picture of how long it can protect people or whether the vaccine will merely prevent serious infection or completely prevent the disease.

House committee subpoenas Education Department staff over for-profit colleges
BY JORDAN WILLIAMS - 10/22/20 



Democrats on the House Education Committee have issued subpoenas for several career staff at the Department of Education as the panel investigates the owner of several for-profit colleges.

The committee had been investigating department personnel since last year over the department’s handling of Dream Center Education Holdings as it collapsed. Dream Center owns the Art Institutes, Argosy University and South University.

The committee's chairman, Rep. Bobby Scott (D-Va.), says Education Under Secretary Diane Auer Jones worked for the Dream Center despite knowing two of its schools had lost accreditation.

The committee released a report from its own investigation finding that Dream Center had misled students into falsely thinking its schools were accredited and continued to receive taxpayer money. It further concluded that the Trump administration tried to protect the company from the ramifications of its actions.

Scott in a cover letter to Education Secretary Betsy DeVos asked for three unnamed senior staff members to testify in depositions next month, after accusing her of repeatedly ignoring the committee’s request for documents and interviews.

“Due to the Department’s obstruction, the Committee’s only available avenue to obtain an accurate understanding of the Department’s role in the Dream Center collapse is to pursue depositions of the knowledgeable Department officials under subpoena,” Scott wrote. “The Committee will continue its oversight of this matter with the goal of getting answers about Dream Center’s collapse.”

Department of Education press secretary Angela Morabito said in a statement to The Hill that it is “wholly unreasonable to subpoena civil servants in this case,” and added that the committee has refused to review the documents it has sent.

“Yet, instead of conducting business in a lawful, rational, and responsible way, the unhinged Democrats have resorted to badgering career civil servants to carry on what is nothing more than a witch hunt,” Morabito said.

Dream Center finalized the acquisition of its schools from Education Management in 2018. As part of the acquisition, the Higher Learning Commission (HLC) downgraded the accreditation of two Art Institute campuses for a period of time.

The Commission told Dream Center in January 2018 to inform its students that the two schools were no longer accredited, the committee's report states. It says the Dream Center instead waited until June that year to give notice. Students still kept enrolling in the school during that time.

The Department of Education still provided students with loans despite the school not being accredited. To circumvent the issue, it declared the schools to be nonprofit institutions in May 2018, and made this effective as of January 2018, the day the schools lost accreditation. Jones then tried to convince the HLC to back-date the accreditation of the schools during that time, the Democrats charge.

EPA eases permitting for modifications to polluting facilities
BY RACHEL FRAZIN - 10/22/20 



© Getty

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on Thursday finalized a rule that eases the permitting process for modifications made to polluting facilities.

The rule changes the way the threshold for a more stringent type of permitting is calculated, with EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler arguing that the action incentivizes industry to implement technology that would lessen air pollution.

“This rule incentivizes installation of new technologies that can both improve operator efficiency and reduce air pollution,” he said in a statement.

Whether or not facility modifications trigger the stricter air pollution permitting process is determined using a two-step process.

The first step seeks to determine whether the modification would cause a “significant emissions increase.” The second step seeks to determine whether the modification and other projects undertaken at the pollution facility within a specific time frame together result in a significant net increase in pollution emissions.

If both conditions are met, facility modifications need pre-construction permits under a program called New Source Review.

However, the new rule changes the way that the first step is calculated, accounting for both emissions increases and emissions decreases caused by the modification rather than just the increases.

The change, first proposed last year, codifies a 2018 memo from then-EPA administrator Scott Pruitt which said that decreases should be considered in the first step of the process.

The new rule is the latest in a string of actions taken on by the EPA to weaken requirements or ease permitting or standards for polluters.

Earlier this month, the agency finalized a rule that could reclassify “major” sources of pollution as minor ones, allowing facilities to abide by less-stringent emissions standards.

And in July, it finalized a rule speeding up the review process for industry permits, which critics said would limit communities’ ability to fight them.

Trump's new interest in water resources — why now?

BY JEFF PETERSON, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 10/22/2020
THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL
9
© Getty Images

After spending almost four years attacking programs to protect water resources, President Trump has just issued an executive order creating a new interagency water policy committee, or “water subcabinet,” to “improve our country’s water resource management.”

Is this a genuine effort to modernize water infrastructure to “meet the needs of current and future generations,” or simply dressing up the administration’s long neglect of water resources just in time for the election; in other words, putting lipstick on a pig?

Skeptics will undoubtedly point out that, while a primary objective of the order is “reducing duplication across the federal government,” the new water subcabinet effectively duplicates the existing Water Resources Council.

Why create a new subcabinet when you already have a council made of many of the same heads of departments and agencies? The existing council has statutory powers, including the authority to establish standards for federal water and related land resources projects. The council is also charged with a biennial assessment of the “adequacy of supplies of water necessary to meet…the national interest.” Layering on a new organization has the effect of smothering the statutory framework and shifting attention to a new set of policies and objectives.

One such new policy is cutting back on existing coordination among federal agencies. Section 4 of the order laments the “hundreds of Federal water-related task forces, working groups, and other formal cross-agency initiatives” working to manage water resources and calls for a report within 90 days “on coordinating and consolidating” these efforts. Not every federal interagency coordination workgroup is doing essential work. But, the direction to evaluate these efforts and recommend restructuring in just 90 days that fall after a presidential election suggests a demolition that will take the good with the bad, setting back cooperative work by years.

There is a whiff of politically motivated urgency in the order’s demand that agencies develop, within 120 days, recommendations to improve drinking water and flood control. These are worthy goals, but the Trump administration has spent the last four years working against them. For example, the Environmental Protection Agency has proposed changes to regulations for lead in drinking water that more than double the time for replacement of lead pipes. Yet President Trump revoked requirements developed during the Obama administration to steer new federal projects away from flood risk areas.

The president also directs agencies to make recommendations, again within 120 days, for improving water quality, including implementing the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, reducing nutrient pollution in the Mississippi River watershed and continuing restoration of the Florida Everglades. Speeding restoration of these waters, and many others around the country, would be good news. But again, big improvements would be a major turnaround from past actions.

For example, for fiscal year 2018 the Trump administration proposed to zero out all funding for the $300 million Great Lakes Restoration Initiative and proposed a cut of 90 percent for fiscal years 2019 and 2020. In its budget for fiscal year 2021, however, the administration seems to have awakened to the ecological significance of the Great Lakes, or recognized their importance in swing states, because it has proposed $320 million.

Politics also played a role in funding for the Florida Everglades. Again, the Trump administration initially proposed two-thirds less than requested by Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis but, after lobbying by Sens. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Rick Scott (R-Fla.), the president increased proposed funding to $200 million. And, while reducing pollution in the Mississippi River is a good thing, it is offset by the recent resurrection of a major Army Corps of Engineers project that the Bush administration vetoed in 2008 in order to protect 200,0000 acres of wetlands along the river.

Aside from the order appearing just weeks prior to the election, there are other reasons to wonder whether any of the resulting recommendations will be acted on if the president is reelected. The short schedule for developing recommendations makes any meaningful public engagement difficult and reduces the chance of public support. And, the delivery date for recommendations late this year or in January of next year, means that recommendations are disconnected from the budget process, arriving after agency budgets are largely fixed.

Finally, in considering whether the Trump administration might have turned a new leaf, it is important to remember the larger context. This is the same administration that has weakened the National Environmental Policy Act, cut Clean Water Act enforcement prosecutions by 70 percent and proposed to cut funding for clean water and drinking water infrastructure projects by 28 percent in fiscal year 2021.

Although much of the new order should be viewed with skepticism, I hope we can all agree with the first line: “Abundant, safe, and reliable supplies of water are critical to quality of life for all Americans…”.

Jeff Peterson is a retired senior policy advisor at the Environmental Protection Agency and the author of “A New Coast: Strategies for Responding to Devastating Storms and Rising Seas.”

Trump order strips workplace protections from civil servants

BY REBECCA BEITSCH - 10/22/20 

A new executive order from President Trump makes it easier to hire and fire civil servants that work on policy, stripping some protections from career employees before a potential change in administration.

Federal employee unions are billing the order as the biggest change to federal workforce protections in a century, converting many federal workers to “at will” employment.

It also makes it easier to hire new employees outside of the competitive process — something critics say could be used to hire policy employees without appropriate experience.

The order specifically targets policy-related career positions, a move critics say will enable the administration to fire employees that may question their policies.

“By targeting federal workers whose jobs involve government policies, the real-world implications of this order will be disastrous for public health, the environment, the defense of our nation, and virtually every facet of our lives,” Everett Kelley, president of the American Federation of Government Employees, the largest federal employee union, said in a release.

“Through this order, President Trump has declared war on the professional civil service by giving himself the authority to fill the government with his political cronies who will pledge their unwavering loyalty to him – not to America," Kelley added.

Trump’s order creates a new category of federal employment, Schedule F, and gives agencies 90 days to determine which policy-related positions should attain the new status. Those employees could then be removed for performance reasons without the opportunity to contest the decision or rely on union representation.

“Agencies need the flexibility to expeditiously remove poorly performing employees from these positions without facing extensive delays or litigation,” the order states.

The National Treasury Employees Union, another major federal workforce representative, called it “yet another in a long line of attacks on the civil service and circumvention of the laws passed by Congress to protect certain career federal employees from partisan, political interference.”

Though civil service protections are often compared to tenure for professors, they are similar to processes in place at private companies, where employees must be notified of performance issues and given a chance to improve before being dismissed.

“This is not solving some problem of ‘you can’t get rid of federal employees.’ You can. If people aren't really performing you can get rid of them. Trust me, I’ve done it,” said Andrew Rosenberg with the Union of Concerned Scientists, who previously served as deputy director for fisheries at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

“But you have to go through the appropriate steps and you have to deal with fair labor laws, which you actually should have to do," he added.

But Rosenberg sees another potential side effect of the order: current political appointees could be among employees transitioned into the new Schedule F category, a way to “burrow in” employees that typically turn over with a change in administration.

While the new category makes it easier to fire employees for performance issues, they would still be protected from being dismissed “on the basis of the employee’s partisan affiliation.”

Rosenberg gave the example of new employees hired at NOAA that have a history of questioning climate science.

“It’s always going to cut both ways,” he said, “but just gaming this out, the Trump administration can say ‘Oh, it’s not partisan. We’ve had examples [of poor performance] over four years with this person, and they really need to go.’ But Biden coming in would have to build a record showing this isn’t a partisan action.”

The Trump administration has taken numerous actions that critics say have chipped away at the nonpartisan nature of the government, from violating the Hatch Act by encouraging political speech to sidelining scientists. The administration has also moved federal agencies outside of D.C., each time resulting in a loss of as much as 70 percent of staff.

“What it seems like is little brick on top of little brick but what is actually going on is they are building a wall around politics and centralizing political power” for systems that are designed to be apolitical, said Delaney Marsco, an ethics expert with the Campaign Legal Center.

The Atlantic in rare endorsement urges voting for Biden:

 'Vote for the decent man'
BY ZACK BUDRYK - 10/22/20 


© Getty Images

The Atlantic endorsed Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden Thursday in only its fourth ever presidential endorsement.

The magazine previously endorsed Abraham Lincoln, Lyndon B. Johnson and Hillary Clinton, but editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg wrote that the magazine considered the latter two a referendum on the fitness of their respective opponents.

Goldberg wrote that the same held true for the publication’s endorsement of Biden.

“Biden is a man of experience, maturity, and obvious humanity, but had the Republican Party put forward a credible candidate for president, we would have felt no compulsion to state a preference,” he wrote. “Donald Trump, however, is a clear and continuing danger to the United States, and it does not seem likely that our country would be able to emerge whole from four more years of his misrule.”

The editorial blasts the president as “the worst president this country has seen since Andrew Johnson, or perhaps James Buchanan, or perhaps ever.” It specifically excoriates the president on his handling of the coronavirus pandemic, race relations and environmental issues, among others.

Goldberg cites the case of Air Force Major Harold Hering, who in 1973 asked an instructor “How can I know that an order I receive to launch [nuclear] missiles came from a sane president?”

“When contemplating their ballots, Americans should ask which candidate in a presidential contest is better equipped to guide the United States through a national-security crisis without triggering a nuclear exchange, and which candidate is better equipped to interpret—within five or seven minutes—the ambiguous, complicated, and contradictory signals that could suggest an imminent nuclear attack,” Goldberg wrote.

"Two men are running for president. One is a terrible man; the other is a decent man. Vote for the decent man," it concludes.

The endorsement is Biden's latest from several publications that have seldom or never endorsed presidential candidates before. Scientific American and the scientific journal Nature also endorsed the former vice president in recent months.

Fecal transplants: The secret to eternal youth

Download PDF Copy

Interview conducted by Emily Henderson, B.Sc. Oct 14 2020

Thought Leaders 

University of East Anglia

 Dr. David Vauzour Professor Claudio Nicoletti

In this interview, News-Medical speaks to researchers from the University of East Anglia about their latest research which could reveal the secret to eternal youth, fecal transplants.
What provoked your research into cognitive function?

Indication of the existence of two-way communication between the gut and the brain – known as the ‘gut-brain axis’ – has emerged as an important player in shaping aspects of behavior and cognitive function.

Such relationship provoked this research as a collaboration between UEA, the University of Florence, and the Quadram Institute.


Image Credit: LightField Studios/Shutterstock.com

How does cognitive decline occur in the elderly?

Many parameters are involved in accelerating cognitive decline in the elderly including a combination of biological, genetic, environmental, and lifestyle factors.

Such events occur in the brain over a decade or longer.

What role does the hippocampus play in memory and learning?

The hippocampus plays a critical role in the formation, organization, and storage of new memories. It is also one of the first regions of the brain to suffer damage in Alzheimer’s disease.
Before this research, what can the elderly do to help improve their memory and cognition?

The elderly can improve/maintain their cognition by maintaining good general health habits: staying physically active, getting enough sleep, not smoking, having good social connections, limiting alcohol consumption, and eating a balanced diet.

Recent experimental evidence from us (Tarini et al GUT, 2019) suggested that during aging a Mediterranean-like style can help to maintain a healthy microbiota.


Image Credit: oneinchpunch/Shutterstock.com

Can you describe how you carried out your research into fecal transplants and cognitive decline?

We performed fecal transplants from older adult mice to younger adult mice and then assessed the young adults for markers such as anxiety, exploratory behavior, and memory.
What did your results show?

We showed that while the young adults showed no significant changes in markers of anxiety, explorative behavior, or locomotor activity, they did show impaired spatial learning and memory as measured in a maze test.

These changes were paralleled by alterations in the expression of proteins associated with synaptic plasticity and neurotransmission, and changes to cells in the hippocampus part of their brains – responsible for learning and memory.
What is the relationship between the gut microbiome and spatial learning and memory?

There is a growing body of evidence, showing that gut microbiota plays a major role in the development and function of the central nervous system, affecting learning and memory via metabolic, neuroendocrine, and immune pathways.
Do you believe that one day, these transplants could help to improve cognitive decline in the elderly and improve conditions such as Alzheimer’s disease?

Gut bacteria transplants could one day be used to protect against Alzheimer’s disease. However, we are only at the early stage of this research and it may take some years before it becomes available.


Image Credit: Anatomy Image/Shutterstock.com

What are the next steps in your research?

We are currently investigating the reverse process by adding fecal microbiota from young mice to older mice to see if it helps them.

Where can readers find more information?
https://www.uea.ac.uk/news/-/article/could-a-poo-transplant-one-day-be-the-secret-of-eternal-youth-

https://quadram.ac.uk/could-a-poo-transplant-one-day-be-the-secret-of-eternal-youth/

https://gut.bmj.com/content/69/7/1218

About Dr. David Vauzour
Dr. David Vauzour is a Senior Research Fellow at the Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia. His research focuses on developing novel strategies to delay brain aging and cognitive decline including Alzheimer’s disease.

To date, Dr. Vauzour has published over 90 peer-reviewed manuscripts, sits on many scientific panels and journal editorial boards, and is currently the co-chair of the ILSI Europe Nutrition and Brain Health Taskforce.

About Professor Claudio Nicoletti

Prof Claudio Nicoletti, former research leader at the Quadram Institute in Norwich is currently Professor of Anatomy at the Dept. of Experimental and Clinical Medicine of the University of Florence, Italy. His main interest is in gut biology/immunology and the gut-brain axis.

Prof Nicoletti is a member of several editorial boards of international journals and scientific panels.

Biden says US 'must stand with Nigerians' peacefully demonstrating for police reform

BY ARIS FOLLEY - 10/22/20 

© Getty Images

Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden said the United States “must stand with” protesters in Nigeria who are peacefully demonstrating for police reform following reports that security forces in the country opened fire on protesters in Lagos earlier this week.

“I urge President Buhari and the Nigerian military to cease the violent crackdown on protesters in Nigeria, which has already resulted in several deaths. My heart goes out to all those who have lost a loved one in the violence,” Biden said.

“The United States must stand with Nigerians who are peacefully demonstrating for police reform and seeking an end to corruption in their democracy. I encourage the government to engage in a good-faith dialogue with civil society to address these long-standing grievances and work together for a more just and inclusive Nigeria,” he continued.

The hashtag #EndSARS went viral on Twitter this month as lawmakers, celebrities and other prominent figures have tweeted support for protests demonstrating against police brutality and pushing for an end to Nigeria's Special Anti-Robbery Squad, or SARS.

According to Amnesty International, the police unit, which was formed over three decades ago to tackle violent crimes, has a history of alleged abuses, with “at least 82 cases of torture, ill treatment and extra-judicial execution by SARS between January 2017 and May 2020.”

The unit was dissolved earlier this month, according to The Washington Post, after officers were recorded dragging two men from a Lagos hotel and later shooting one of the men outside.

However, protests continued following reports that some members from the disbanded unit were reportedly hired for other roles.

The African nation drew international attention weeks later after security forces in Nigeria were allegedly seen opening fire on protesters near the Lekki toll gate plaza in Lagos on Tuesday, according to the Post. The shooting prompted the #LekkiMassacre hashtag to go viral on Twitter this week.

A 24-hour curfew had reportedly been implemented in the city at the time. Protestors told the Post the shooting happened shortly after the streetlights cut off in the area.

Amnesty International said Wednesday that at least 12 peaceful protesters were killed by police and military forces between the Lekki protest and another protest that happened the same day in Alausa.

In a statement on Thursday, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said the United States “strongly condemns the use of excessive force by military forces who fired on unarmed demonstrators in Lagos.”

“The right to peaceful assembly and freedom of expression are essential human rights and core democratic principles," he said, while also calling on the security services to "show maximum restraint and respect fundamental rights and for demonstrators to remain peaceful."

"We extend our condolences to the victims of the violence and their families,” Pompeo added.

Columbia report: US could have avoided 130,000 COVID deaths with better response

BY PETER SULLIVAN - 10/22/20 

A new report from Columbia University researchers finds that at least 130,000 coronavirus deaths in the United States could have been avoided if the U.S. had responded to the virus as well as a group of other high-income countries.

The report compares the per capita death rate in the U.S. from the virus with six other high-income countries: South Korea, Japan, Australia, Germany, Canada and France.

It finds that if the U.S. had the same rate of death as France, it would have about 55,000 fewer deaths, while if it had South Korea’s rate it would have about 215,000 fewer.

“We therefore posit that had the U.S. government implemented an ‘averaged’ approach that mirrored these countries, the U.S. might have limited fatalities to between 38,000 to 85,000 lives — suggesting that a minimum of 130,000 COVID-19 deaths might have been avoidable given alternate policies, implementation, and leadership,” the report states.

The report was published by the National Center for Disaster Preparedness at Columbia University. One of the authors, Irwin Redlener, was named to Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden’s Public Health Advisory Committee in March to advise on the response to the coronavirus.

The report points to “abject failures of U.S. government policies and crisis messaging” in helping to explain why the United States has such a high death rate from the virus. The U.S. has has more than 220,000 deaths from the virus so far, according to Johns Hopkins University, which is about 20 percent of all of the coronavirus deaths in the world, even though the U.S. has only 4 percent of the world’s population.

It has the ninth highest number of deaths per 100,000 population in the world, behind only Peru, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Ecuador, Chile, Spain and Mexico.

If the U.S. had the same death rate as its neighbor Canada, about 132,000 deaths would have been avoided, the report finds.

To explain the disproportionately high number of deaths in the U.S., the report points to a number of shortcomings in the Trump administration’s response that have also drawn widespread criticism from other experts.

The country has “insufficient testing capacity” and a contact tracing system that is “woefully inadequate,” the report states.

It also points to the lack of a mask mandate or at least “the consistent encouragement of mask use” as harming the response. President Trump has mocked masks and rarely worn one himself.

House Democrats threaten to subpoena HHS over allegations of...
Alabama lieutenant governor tests positive for COVID-19

The report also points to “politicization, leadership vacuum, and the failure of top officials to model best practices.” Trump in recent days has escalated attacks on his own administration’s health experts, calling National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Anthony Fauci a “disaster.” He has also attacked the Food and Drug Administration for harboring a “deep state” and publicly clashed with the head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

In contrast, the report states: “Many nations facing the pandemic crisis have put politics aside and orchestrated a response led by public health experts and global coordination.”

“Canada, for instance, has witnessed a unique period of political unity surrounding COVID-19 this year,” it adds.

Trump is out of touch with Republican voters on climate change

BY QUILL ROBINSON, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 10/22/20 

Ahead of the final presidential debate on Thursday, the Trump campaign is calling for climate change to be removed from the agenda.

In a letter to the Commission on Presidential Debates, Trump Campaign Manager Bill Stepien criticized the organizers, writing that “the Commission’s pro-Biden antics have turned the entire debate season into a fiasco and it is little wonder why the public has lost faith in its objectivity.”

According to the latest polls, it’s the Trump campaign, not the debate commission, that is out of touch with American voters — including Republicans — on the topic of climate change.


In a poll conducted by our sister organization, The Conservation Coalition and the Conservative Energy Network, 68 percent percent of Republicans between the ages of 18 and 54 say climate change is important to their vote. The poll also found that more than three quarters of all GOP voters favor the government taking steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

At the first presidential debate, moderator Chris Wallace surprised viewers by bringing up the topic. He pushed Joe Biden on the economic feasibility of his proposals, but most notably challenged Trump on his record of climate change denial. For the first time, Trump acknowledged that human activity contributes to global warming, saying, “I think a lot of things do [contribute], but I think to an extent, yes. To an extent, yes.”

Trump pointed to declining carbon emissions under his administration as well as his support for the Trillion Trees Initiative, a proposal to expand the natural carbon sequestration capacity of the world’s forests. Yet, despite acknowledging the problem for the first time, Trump’s response fell short.

While earning the votes of the progressive base of the climate movement is understandably not a priority of the Trump campaign, his team seems to have missed the growing majority of Republicans who are concerned about the issue. In a year of historic wildfires in the West and relentless hurricanes in the Southeast, more Republicans are going to the ballot box with climate change on their minds.

These voters will never support progressive proposals like the Green New Deal, but they are looking for leadership from their own party. Eighty-five percent of GOP voters between the ages of 18 and 54 say they are more likely to support a Republican candidate who embraces an innovation based approach to climate change. In Congress, Republicans like House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.) have listened, introducing legislation to invest in clean energy and expand natural carbon sequestration. In House and Senate races across the country, many GOP candidates are also responding by including climate action in their platforms and discussing climate on the campaign trail.

With the election less than two weeks away, Thursday’s debate is an opportunity for the president to show his base that, like them, he takes climate change seriously. The upside is huge — 90 percent of GOP voters between 18 and 54 say they would view Trump more favorably if he supported a conservative approach to addressing climate change. Down ballot, a pivot on climate from Trump would also relieve pressure on Senate Republicans facing grueling reelection races.

Rather than deny Americans the chance to judge the candidates’ positions on an issue they care about, Trump should join Republican voters and lawmakers in supporting an innovation-based approach to climate change. If he doesn’t, Americans will have no reason to believe that he is equipped to meet one of the greatest challenges facing our country in the next four years and beyond.

Quill Robinson is the vice president of Government Affairs at the American Conservation Coalition (ACC). Follow him on Twitter at @QuillRobinson.

Barrett punts on climate, oil industry recusals in written responses
BY RACHEL FRAZIN - 10/21/20 

© Greg Nash

Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett declined to weigh in on climate change or say whether she’d recuse herself from cases involving the oil industry in written responses to questions from the Senate Judiciary Committee ahead of its Thursday vote on her confirmation.

In response to several questions on climate, Barrett gave responses including “The Supreme Court has described ‘climate change’ as a ‘controversial subject’ and ‘sensitive political topic.’ ’’

“As a sitting judge, it would be inappropriate for me to weigh in further on the matter,” she added.

The response echoed statements that Barrett made during her confirmation hearing last week, when she said that she did not hold "firm views" on climate change. She added that her opinion on climate is not “relevant” and called the subject a "contentious matter of public debate."

The vast majority of scientists believe that climate change is happening and human-caused.

Overnight Energy: Barrett punts on climate, oil industry recusals |...
Democrats to boycott committee vote on Amy Coney Barrett's Supreme...

Barrett also punted on questions about whether she’d recuse herself from oil companies other than Shell and why the American Petroleum Institute, which her father was involved with, was not on her recusal list. She said that four Shell entities were on her recusal list “in an abundance of caution” because her father worked for Shell Oil Company.

She did not directly say why she didn’t similarly recuse herself from any other oil or energy companies or the American Petroleum Institute, saying that “the question of recusal is a threshold question of law that must be addressed in the context of the facts of each case.”

“As Justice [Ruth Bader] Ginsburg described the process that Supreme Court justices go through in deciding whether to recuse, it involves reading the statute, reviewing precedents, and consulting with colleagues. As a sitting judge and as a judicial nominee, it would not be appropriate for me to offer an opinion on abstract legal issues or hypotheticals. Such questions can only be answered through the judicial process,” she added.

Ex-EPA official who spoke about Pruitt scandals claims retaliation in new lawsuit

BY RACHEL FRAZIN - 10/21/20 05:57 PM EDT 

© Getty Images


A former Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) official who spoke out about scandals involving administrator Scott Pruitt sued the Trump administration this week, claiming that he was retaliated against.

Kevin Chmielewski, who served as the deputy chief of staff in 2017 and 2018, sued both the EPA over his removal and the Energy Department for not hiring him.

Chmielewski's lawsuit alleges that he was “removed for retaliatory reasons and without due process of law because he engaged in a series of allegations to appropriate officials, human resources staff, agency counsel, and Congressional committees that the Administrator was engaged in a pattern and practice of incurring travel expenses, office improvements, and use of staff for personal tasks in violation of federal statutes, regulations and EPA policies.”


While at the EPA, Chmielewski leaked documents and provided information that prompted investigations into scandals like the retroactive altering of Pruitt’s public calendar and a request that staff help him find a condo in Washington.

Pruitt left the agency in 2018 amid a number of ethics controversies and Chmielewski told The Hill at the time that he’d take credit for Pruitt’s departure.

The lawsuit was filed Tuesday and first reported by E&E News on Wednesday.

Chmielewski claimed that after being stripped of access to the EPA’s building, he received documents signed by other officials falsely stating that he had resigned. He alleged that he was later told his insurance was canceled.

EPA spokesperson Molly Block declined to comment, saying in an email that “we can’t comment on pending litigation.”

In the suit, the former official also claimed that his actions at EPA caused him not to be hired by the Energy Department.

He said that he was “unable to find work” after his removal from the EPA until the Energy Department in March of this year “informed him that he would be hired.”

His lawsuit claimed, however, that White House officials told him in April that “every time they tried to pass his paperwork through, it was stopped by numerous people because of what happened at the EPA with Scott Pruitt due to Plaintiff’s disclosures.”

Spokespeople for the Energy Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment from The Hill.

Controversial mining to proceed near Georgia swamp without federal permit

BY RACHEL FRAZIN - 10/21/20

© Getty


A controversial plan to mine near the Okefenokee Swamp in Georgia will proceed without a federal permit following a Trump administration rollback of waterway protections.

Twin Pines Minerals intends to extract minerals like titanium in a 600-acre area near the swamp, a plan about which environmentalists have raised concerns.

“We have reduced the size of the proposed mine in Charlton County to less than 600 acres, and we have reconfigured its footprint to ensure there will be no impact to ‘waters of the United States’ as defined by the new Navigable Waters Protection Rule,” said a statement from Twin Pines president Steve Ingle.

Army Corps of Engineers spokesperson Billy Birdwell confirmed that Twin Pines on Wednesday withdrew its request for a permit to mine an 898-acre area near the swamp. The 600-acre project will still need a permit from the state of Georgia.

Birdwell said in an email that the Army Corps conducted a jurisdictional determination after the Navigable Waters Rule went into effect and determined that “much of the area no longer required a permit from the Corps of Engineers.”

“Twin Pines may mine on non-jurisdictional wetlands without a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. They will need permits from the Georgia Department of Natural Resources,” he said, stressing that this was not a decision made by the Corps but rather its application of the new rule.

The Navigable Waters Rule, which limited the scope of which bodies of water receive protection under federal law, was finalized this year by the Trump administration and went into effect in June.

Ingle said in a statement to The Hill on Wednesday that moving ahead with mining will not impact the Okefenokee’s water level.

“There is no risk to the swamp because we are far enough away (more than 3 miles), and because all mining will occur at an elevation higher than the swamp. Our studies have shown that mining can be conducted safely, such that it will not impact the area’s waterways, groundwater systems, or the swamp itself,” he said.

Environmentalists have fought against mining near the swamp, saying that mining could harm the swamp’s ability to move and store water and that potentially lowered water levels could also destroy habitats, increase wildfire risk and impact nearby rivers.

Christian Hunt, the Southeast Program Representative with Defenders of Wildlife pledged to “fight as long as it takes” to see the Okefenokee’s protection, in an email to The Hill.

"A slight reduction in acreage makes no difference when operations stand to compromise and lower the water table of the swamp," he said. "The only data, anywhere, to suggest that mining would prove benign was that commissioned by Twin Pines itself. Since the government has abandoned its duties, we intend to utilize every tool at our disposal to prevent Twin Pines from spoiling the refuge and causing irreversible damage."

Documents recently shared with The Hill showed that officials with the Fish and Wildlife Service had expressed concerns about the now-withdrawn proposal to mine 898 acres near the swamp.

One official wrote in May that the project could have posed “risks to the Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge (OKENWR) and the natural environment due to the location, associated activities, and cumulative effects of similar projects in the area," adding, "We opine that the impacts are not sufficiently known and whatever is done may be permanent."

In a statement to The Hill on Wednesday, Ingle referred to the 600 acre project as a “demonstration project.”

“Our only plans at present are to conduct the demonstration project on the footprint that is less than 600 acres if and when the state approves,” he said.

Emails that have previously been reported on by The Hill and others show an Army Corps officials saying in January, when Twin Pines had proposed mining a 1,450-acre area, that the company had proposed a “‘demonstration project’ which would allow some work to commence and collect data in support of the larger overall project.”

The 898-acre project was also referred to as a demonstration project when it was being proposed.

The Okefenokee Swamp is located in Georgia and Florida and occupies 438,000 acres. Of that, 402,000 acres make up the Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge, which is home to endangered species including the red-cockaded woodpecker, wood storks and indigo snakes, as well as other wildlife.

EPA union buys subscription after agency canceled contract with news outlet dedicated to covering it

The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) largest union is independently subscribing to one of the largest environmental publications, E&E News, after the agency abruptly canceled its subscription in July.

BY REBECCA BEITSCH - 10/22/20 

© Getty Images

The announcement came from the American Federal of Government Employees Council, which said employees saw the cancelation “as anti-transparency, anti-science, and part of a years-long campaign by the Trump administration to discredit critical journalism as 'fake news' and stymie coverage of the union’s work to support employees following a bruising contract negotiation process.”

EPA had subscribed to E&E since 1998, offering all employees access to the news service which covers the agency and related government offices alongside a wide variety of environmental issues.

The deal will only provide E&E access to AFGE’s 7,500 members, about half of the agency’s workforce.

EPA did not respond to request for comment Thursday but had said in July it was canceling the subscription effective immediately due to the cost.

“Over the next two years, EPA would have spent $382,425 to receive" various E&E newsletters, Associate Deputy Administrator Doug Benevento wrote in an email at the time, which the agency adding that the money would be spent "in other higher priority areas."

THIRD WORLD USA 

Eviction crisis sparked by pandemic disproportionately hits minorities

BY MARTY JOHNSON - 10/22/20 

The eviction crisis exacerbated by the pandemic is hitting minorities much harder than other Americans, and experts are concerned the problem will only get worse in the coming months as the coronavirus recession drags on.

A review of more than 8,000 eviction cases by the Center for Public Integrity found that almost two-thirds of the tenants lived in areas with above average minority representation with a median household income below $42,000. The thousands of evictions filed spanned late March to early July, primarily in Florida and Georgia.

Residents on the brink include people like Bishop Donald Harper, who was making nearly $5,000 a month as a chef for Universal's Cabana Bay Beach Resort in Orlando, Fla., before the pandemic hit. Harper, 55, was soon furloughed.

Now, almost eight months into the pandemic, unemployment benefits from the state of Florida are his only source of income. But, at just $275 a week — the max amount offered by the Sunshine State — Harper doesn’t come close to what he was making pre-pandemic.

The extra $600 a week in unemployment benefits given to Americans through the CARES Act, signed in late March, was effective for a time, and it helped Harper, who is Cuban and Trinidadian, to pay rent on his apartment. But that program expired at the end of July, briefly supplemented now by a $300 a week benefit authorized by President Trump as Congress remains deeply divided over another coronavirus relief package.

In the meantime, for Harper and millions of other Americans who have lost their job because of the pandemic, rent is still due.

“What do you do with [$1,100] a month, when everything is due?” Harper, whose rent is $1,900 a month, said to The Hill.

The Princeton Eviction Lab, which tracks evictions across 17 cities in the country, has recorded more than 60,000 evictions during the pandemic, with more than 1,500 coming over the past week.

An August study by the Aspen Institute projected that anywhere from 30 million to 40 million Americans could be at risk of being evicted if nothing changes by Dec. 31, when the moratorium from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) expires.

At the end of September, the National Council of State Housing Agencies released a report that says the debt that renters nationwide will collectively owe by the end of the year could be as high as $34 billion.

During most of the pandemic, the federal government has had in place an eviction moratorium, first through the CARES Act and then through a policy implemented by the CDC. That policy is slated to expire at the end of the year, and experts say the jury is still out on how effective the moratorium between now and the end of year will be.

“[A moratorium’s] effectiveness really depends on how comprehensive it is,” said Alieza Durana, who works for the Princeton Eviction Lab. “Normally, a moratorium can affect three different stages of the eviction process. The first relates to the filing of an eviction. ... The second part of the process relates to the court process itself, and the third relates to the enforcement of the eviction process is usually local law enforcement, such as a sheriff that will go to do a lockout or to remove [a tenant’s] belongings.”

“The most effective way to prevent people from being forcibly removed,” Durana added, “is to either ban all three or to, at the very least, prevent filings, because even the threat of an eviction hanging over a family can negatively impact their physical and mental well-being.”


However, critics have called the CDC’s guidance vague, noting that it largely puts the onus on tenants in guarding against evictions. It also doesn’t provide any additional money for rent relief for tenants or landlords.

Complicating matters is the fact that states often have different tenant laws, meaning the order was interpreted in different ways in courts around the country until the CDC issued a clarifying document that effectively weakened the guidance’s power.

The moratorium is not “intended to prevent landlords from starting eviction proceedings, provided that the actual eviction of a covered person for non-payment of rent does NOT take place during the period of the Order,” the document reads.

The moratorium also doesn’t stop the landlords from charging interest or fees on the back rent.

“It's not a solution. It's not even a band-aid on the problem,” said Dianne Enriquez, co-director of community dignity campaigns at the Center for Popular Democracy. “It's just creating a myth that families are protected when they're really not.”

New research details effect of 'Black tax' on African American homeownership
BY ARIS FOLLEY - 10/22/20 

Black Americans are paying more than white Americans to own a home, making it harder for Black households to accumulate housing wealth at the same rate as their white counterparts, according to new research from MIT.

In a study published earlier this month, MIT researchers found that Black Americans pay $743 more annually than white Americans when it comes to mortgage interest payments, $550 more per year in mortgage insurance premiums and $390 more each year in property taxes — totaling more than $13,000 over the life of the loan.

The study — authored by Ed Golding, executive director of the MIT Golub Center; Michelle Aronowitz, former deputy general counsel for enforcement and fair housing at the Department of Housing and Urban Development; and Jung Hyun Choi, a researcher with the Housing Finance Policy Center at the Urban Institute — found that the inequities totaled to $67,320 in lost retirement savings for Black homeowners.

Citing income data from the National Association of Real Estate Brokers (NAREB), the country’s oldest minority trade association, the study said it found an income gap of $25,800 between Black and white Americans to be “exacerbated by this ‘Black tax’ on homeownership.”

The elimination of those additional costs, the study said, would cut in half the roughly $130,000 gap in liquid retirement savings between white and Black families.

The study also found that African Americans paid higher interest rates due to a lack of refinance opportunities, a problem researchers said results in Black homeowners paying "approximately another $475 per year more than white homeowners, which results in a loss of retirement savings of nearly $20,000."

Golding told The Hill that, for a variety of reasons, Black families don’t refinance or can’t refinance as easily or as quickly as white families.

“So, when the [Federal Reserve] lowers rates, people refinance to lower their mortgage rate. But more Black families are stuck at the old higher rates and our data shows that,” he said, while noting that African American families have a higher unemployment rate, meaning “they're more likely to be in that group that can't refinance.”

While the study notes that the inequities can be “traced to the long history of slavery, segregation, and race discrimination,” it also points to “current policy choices that maintain the disparities” and suggests reforms.

Some of the policy recommendations include forming a “government supported insurance program that makes mortgage payments in the event of unemployment or disability" and including “tax credits for first time homeowners, which could be used as a down payment to reduce the effect of risk-based pricing and the need for mortgage insurance.”

The MIT study builds on previous research from the real estate website Redfin in June that found the homeownership rate for Black families stood at less than 45 percent nationwide, compared to the 73 percent rate for white families.

And an analysis published over the summer — authored by economists Troup Howard, an assistant professor of finance at the University of Utah, and Carlos Avenancio-León, assistant professor of finance at Indiana University — found that Black and Hispanic residents bore a 10-13 percent “higher property tax burden than white residents" in the nation.

When discussing the homeownership gap in an interview this week, Antoine Thompson, executive director of NAREB, which works to promote democracy in housing, said the impact of racist practices in the country that have shut Black Americans out of housing, dating back to slavery, is still being felt today.

Thompson said the suggestion made in the MIT study to pool risk among borrowers in lieu of risk-based pricing was “a great idea,” and one that has been discussed before.

He also pointed to the Great Recession as to why some Black Americans could be reluctant to get a refinance.

For many Black Americans who lost their homes, Thompson said, “their first loan was good, but then someone went after them and encouraged them to refinance and then they no longer had a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage … and once they hit a cliff they couldn't recover.”

The MIT study pointed to capital standards that it noted have “the effect of placing the burden of staving off a repeat of the 2008 Great Recession on black homeowners, even though black homeowners were primarily the victims of the crisis, not its cause.”

Thompson said that going forward, the widening or narrowing of the racial homeownership gap will depend largely on "how we come out of COVID in terms of making sure that more African Americans get a forbearance that need it.”

Another key factor, he said, is employment and whether the country will be able to “break this trend of African Americans going back to work slower” than white Americans, citing data that shows white workers have been making job gains at faster rates than Black workers during the pandemic

Intercept bureau chief on Bolivian election: Right-wing government 'reminded everybody how important it was to have socialists in power'

10/20/2020

The presumptive victory in Bolivia's presidential election by Luis Arce shows the enduring strength of socialist parties and politicians in that country, the Washington, D.C., bureau chief of The Intercept said Tuesday on Hill.TV.

“People who were in their 20s there basically never knew anything other than Morales being in leadership,” the Intercept's Ryan Grim said, referring to the former Bolivian leader Evo Morales, who was forced out of office last year.

“But one year of right wing government reminded everybody how important it was to have socialists in power. The right wing government had no mandate when they came in,” Grim said.

Arce is an ally of Morales, who was also a mentor of new new Bolivian leader.

While the vote is still being counted in the race, the main centrist candidate has conceded, all but completely assuring a victory for Arce, the Socialist candidate.

Grims credited Arce's victory to the previous government doing more “looting the Treasury than actually governing.” He also said the current government was criticized over its handling of the coronavirus pandemic.

VIDEO https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/521907-dc-bureau-chief-on-bolivian-election-one-year-of-right-wing-government-reminded?jwsource=cl

Top court in Poland strikes down law allowing abortions for birth defects

BY KAELAN DEESE - 10/22/2020

© Getty


Poland's top court ruled Thursday that a law permitting abortion of fetuses with congenital disabilities is unconstitutional.

The country's Constitutional Court ruled the ban will be effective immediately, outlawing abortions in cases where congenital disabilities are discovered and further limiting abortion access, The Associated Press reported.

Poland, a predominantly Catholic country, already maintains one of the strictest abortion laws in Europe.

The ruling was in response to motions from right-wing lawmakers who argued terminating a pregnancy when congenital disabilities are detected in the fetus was in violation of the Polish Constitution protecting every individual's life.

Julia Przylebska, the court’s president and a supporter of the right-wing government, first announced the verdict Thursday, The Washington Post reported.

The law being challenged was first introduced in 1993 and allowed for abortions when a woman's life or health was endangered or if they are a victim of rape or another illegal act.

Two judges on the 13-member court did not support the majority ruling.

Before the ruling, abortion rights groups demonstrated in protests and human rights organizations argued against further restricting abortion rights.

Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights Dunja Mijatović posted on social media the ruling Thursday was a "sad day for women’s rights."

“Removing the basis for almost all legal abortions in #Poland amounts to a ban & violates #HumanRights,” she penned on Twitter. “Today’s ruling of the Constitutional Court means underground/abroad abortions for those who can afford & even greater ordeal for all others. A sad day for #WomensRights.”

Some Polish lawmakers considered a bill earlier this year to implement nearly a full ban on abortions. However, it postponed a final vote on the proposal brought by a Catholic group, the Post reported.

Sanctuary city policies did not result in crime increase: study
BY JUSTINE COLEMAN - 10/21/20 

© Getty

Sanctuary city policies have not resulted in an increase in crime in communities that have imposed them, according to a Stanford University study published this week.

Researcher David Hausman concluded that evidence does not support the argument, voiced by the Trump administration, that sanctuary cities, which limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities, threaten residents' public safety

The study, which was obtained by The Washington Post, was published in the academic journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Hausman studied violent crime and property crime statistics across more than 200 sanctuary jurisdictions between 2010 and 2015, a time period when many of the sanctuary policies in the country were instituted to protect immigrants living in the country illegally.

He determined that the policies helped decrease deportations of nonviolent offenders. But deportations of violent offenders continued at the same rate, which Hausman said was because many sanctuary policies do not take much action to prevent Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from intervening in those cases.

Overall, deportations reduced by about one-third in places with sanctuary policies, and immigrants arrested but not convicted of a crime were about 50 percent less likely to get deported.

“There’s no evidence sanctuary policies harm public safety, and there’s no evidence those policies increase crime,” Hausman, who previously worked with the American Civil Liberties Union that has challenged the administration’s immigration policies, told the Post.

“I think it’s disappointing that the government and this administration rely on anecdotes when there is data,” he added. “The government itself keeps the data I rely on, and if the administration had looked at its own data, it would know these claims are not true.”

ICE officers have the authority to make arrests anywhere in the country, but jurisdictions with sanctuary policies usually do not assist them by detaining suspects for federal authorities to pick up.

The agency sent a statement to The Hill that did not directly address Hausman’s findings but cited instances of crimes linked to immigrants who were previously let go.

“U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) maintains that cooperation with local law enforcement is essential to protecting public safety, and the agency aims to work cooperatively with local jurisdictions to ensure that criminal aliens are not released into U.S. communities to commit additional crimes,” an ICE spokesperson said. “There are numerous examples where an individual without legal status was arrested by state or local law enforcement and released into the community to reoffend while an ICE detainer was in place.”

In recent weeks, ICE has focused on sanctuary jurisdictions through Operation Rise, making more than 300 arrests, according to the Post.

Local officials who pass sanctuary policies assert that the policies make immigrants more likely to report crimes instead of avoiding police out of a fear they could face deportation.

The sad secrets of Glasgow's abandoned mental hospital
Hidden away in a secluded rural spot north of Glasgow, Lennox Castle Hospital is an abandoned building with a very interesting history.

By The Newsroom

The ruins of Lennox Castle Hospital hide a sad and traumatic history. Picture: Ron Shephard/Wikimedia Commons

The castle itself was built in the 1830s, but in early 20th century, the space was converted into what would later become a truly infamous psychiatric hospital.

Lennox Castle Hospital was eventually closed in 2002, leaving the institution’s sad and difficult history to be forgotten, just like its crumbling, abandoned former home.

In 1925, plans were drawn up by Glasgow Council for a new ‘Mental Deficiency Institution’, and the Lennox Castle Hospital complex was opened a few years later, in 1936. When it opened, Lennox was hailed as being way ahead of its time, and was the largest and best equipped hospital of its kind in Britain

The hospital cost over £1 million to build, and had space for 1,200 patients. There were separate dormitories for male and female patients, each one holding around 60 people in two wards.

Patients also had access to two communal dining halls (with seating for 600 people in each) and a central Assembly Hall, which housed a stage, equipment for cinema shows, and recreational facilities.

Despite a promising start, conditions at Lennox Castle Hospital soon began to deteriorate. The hospital was vastly overcrowded, understaffed and underfunded. Vulnerable patients were left to fend for themselves in the large wards.

Friends and family of patients generally reported that staff tried their best, despite the lack of resources, but conditions in the hospital were described as “wretched and dehumanising”. Conditions were so bad by the 1980s that Doctor Alasdair Sim (the hospital’s Medical Director at the time), said he had never worked in a “worse pit”, and that he was “sick to the stomach about the plight of these poor people”.

A 1989 study by the British Medical Journal found that a quarter of patients at Lennox Castle Hospital were dangerously underweight and malnourished. Some claim that there was more than neglect going on at Lennox Castle Hospital.

Former patients recall being given unnecessarily cruel punishments for small offences. Incidents included being struck with a baseball bat and being made to run laps barefoot around the castle, just for forgetting to address a staff member as “sir”.

In more recent years, comparisons have been drawn between Lennox and cult TV series, American Horror Story: Asylum, thanks to the allegations of abuse, neglect and terrible conditions. Those who attempted to run away would be caught and locked up in isolation for up to six weeks, drugged with heavy doses of medication, and refused contact with visitors.

Patients who didn’t need drugs were given them, as a way of ensuring they remained calm and didn’t cause trouble in the overcrowded conditions. In reality, only around 10 per cent of the hospital’s residents genuinely required anti-psychotic drugs.

There are several reports of patients dying or being seriously injured due to the lack of care at Lennox Castle Hospital. One man was found set alight in the bathroom in the middle of the night and died the following day. Another was seriously injured when a nurse threw a scalding cup of tea on him, while a heart attack (brought on by severe distress while being physically restrained) resulted in another patient’s death.

After decades of keeping patients shut away from the outside world, Lennox Castle Hospital finally closed in 2002.

The last few remaining patients were reintegrated back into the local community, or transferred to more modern psychiatric units, before the hospital was abandoned.

Since then, the eerie site has lain empty, and the buildings have rapidly deteriorated. The formerly grand Lennox Castle is now a crumbling shell. The area remains empty, aside from occasional urban explorers looking to catch a glimpse of the former hospital.

Although several plans have been put forward to restore the castle and build new housing on the grounds, none have been successful so far.

In 2007, Celtic Football Club built a new training facility on the grounds of Lennox Castle. It’s likely that many of the players and staff come and go without having any idea about what went on at the former hospital, less than half a mile away from their state of the art training ground.

LONGEVITY HACKS
SCIENCE REVEALS THE PERFECT TIME TO DRINK COFFEE FOR A HEALTHY METABOLISM


South_agency/DigitalVision Vectors/Getty Images

"Knowing this can have important health benefits for us all."

ALI PATTILLO 10.18.2020 

IT'S A VICIOUS CYCLE: Stay up late into the night and revive yourself upon waking with a cup of strong coffee. While the caffeine may perk you up, it could also have a negative effect on your metabolism, new research suggests.

According to the new study, published in the journal British Journal of Nutrition, a single bad night's sleep isn't likely to acutely impair metabolism. Having coffee before breakfast the next day can.

In the experiment, participants who drank strong, black coffee after a disrupted night's sleep, and followed that up with a sugary drink had impaired blood sugar control — a marker for metabolic dysfunction.‌‌

"It may be better to wait until after breakfast to have coffee following a bad night of sleep — rather than before breakfast in order to balance the stimulating effects of the coffee with their potential to disrupt glucose metabolism," study co-author Harry Smith, a researcher at the Centre for Nutrition, Exercise & Metabolism at the University of Bath, tells Inverse.

Moderate coffee drinking is linked to health benefits like lower risk of heart disease, certain cancers, and neurological conditions, so the findings "don’t mean that coffee can’t be part of a healthy balanced lifestyle," Smith adds.

What the research does say is that it may be worth considering when to down your java.

COFFEE EXPERIMENT — To determine how broken sleep and morning coffee influence metabolic function, researchers recruited 29 healthy men and women. The group participated in three overnight experiments in random order:
Participants had a normal night's sleep (approximately eight hours) and consumed a sugary drink upon waking in the morning.
Participants experienced a disrupted night's sleep (where the researchers woke them every hour for five minutes using specially designed texting prompts) and then upon waking were given the same sugary drink.
Participants experienced the same sleep disruption but were first given a strong black coffee (including approximately 300 milligrams of caffeine) 30 minutes before consuming the sugary drink.

At the start of the study, researchers measured participants' height, weight, and waist circumference along with health metrics like sleep quality, mood, and appetite. After completing each condition, researchers took samples of the participants' blood after drinking the sugary drink. The drink was designed to mirror the calories of a typical breakfast.

THE HEALTH IMPACTS OF A CUP OF JOE — The scientists found that one night of broken sleep did not affect people's insulin sensitivity or glucose tolerance —two markers of metabolic health — the next day, compared to a full night of sleep.

The study may be reassuring for those who occasionally miss out on their full eight hours of rest. But those who regularly lose out on snoozing time aren't out of the woods, metabolically speaking.

"More severe acute sleep disruption and/or chronic sleep disruption have been associated with impaired glucose metabolism and increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease," Smith notes.

The results may throw a wrench in the morning routines of avid coffee drinkers.

In the study, consuming strong, black coffee after broken sleep substantially increased the blood glucose response to breakfast by around 50 percent. This shift doesn't necessarily put someone at risk for diabetes or other metabolic disorders, but the scientists say it could influence health if the spike occurs habitually.

"Single occasions of elevated blood glucose responses such as in the study can be predictive of cardiometabolic events in the future, and this response repeated over a long period of time certainly could have an impact on health such as reduced insulin sensitivity," Smith explains. Still, other factors such as physical activity need to be considered when predicting long-term outcomes.

SHIFTING COFFEE ROUTINES — Taken together, these findings suggest drinking coffee after a bad night's sleep can make you feel alert, but may limit your body's ability to tolerate the sugar in your breakfast.

That's because the caffeine contained in coffee beans has a negative effect on sensors in the muscle that help take glucose out of the blood, therefore resulting in this higher blood glucose response, Smith explains. Caffeine also stimulates a greater release of lipids into the blood which also negatively impacts our muscles' ability to take glucose out of the blood.

"If this scenario of caffeinated coffee before breakfast is continued over a prolonged period it is possible that this may have longer-term health implications, however, it is also likely that our body clock may adjust to the morning spike in blood glucose," Smith says.

More, larger randomized clinical trials are needed to hammer out exactly how coffee routines impact daily metabolic function. But for now, these findings suggest people should consume their bean juice after breakfast, not before, to support a healthy metabolism.

"We know that nearly half of us will wake in the morning and, before doing anything else, drink coffee - intuitively the more tired we feel, the stronger the coffee," study co-author James Betts, co-director of the Centre for Nutrition, Exercise and Metabolism at the University of Bath, said in a related statement. "This study is important and has far-reaching health implications as up until now we have had limited knowledge about what this is doing to our bodies, in particular for our metabolic and blood sugar control."

Coffee is the world's most popular beverage, so drinking morning coffee at the perfect time is useful information for billions of individuals.

"Put simply, our blood sugar control is impaired when the first thing our bodies come into contact with is coffee especially after a night of disrupted sleep. We might improve this by eating first and then drinking coffee later if we feel we still feel we need it. Knowing this can have important health benefits for us all."