Sunday, February 21, 2021

Q IN CANADA

Liberals Accuse Conservative MP Cheryl Gallant Of Promoting 'Deranged Conspiracy Theories'

Liberal MP Jennifer O’Connell said Gallant is spreading “disgusting and dangerous lies.”

THE CANADIAN PRESS
Conservative MP Cheryl Gallant rises during Question Period in the House of Commons on Parliament Hill in Ottawa on May 16, 2019.

OTTAWA — Federal Liberals are accusing a Conservative MP of promoting “deranged conspiracy theories” akin to those promulgated by supporters of former U.S. president Donald Trump.

They’ve pounced on video of a virtual meeting eastern Ontario MP Cheryl Gallant held earlier this month with a group of young Conservatives at Queen’s University in Kingston.

In the video, Gallant says Liberals have become “radicals” who want “all illicit drugs to be legal” and “to normalize sexual activity with children.”

Liberal MP Jennifer O’Connell, who posted the video on Twitter, says Gallant is spreading “disgusting and dangerous lies” and asserts that her fearmongering is “a threat to our democracy.”

Gallant says her comments were taken out of context.

Conservative Leader Erin O’Toole, who has been attempting to put a more moderate face on his party, says the Liberals are trying to distract from their failure to deliver COVID-19 vaccines.

“Canadians have other priorities and so do I,” he said in a brief statement late Friday.

In the video, Gallant talks about how Liberals used to have more common sense but have now become a bunch of “radicals.”

“They want all illicit drugs to be legal. They want anything goes in every aspect of life. They want to normalize sexual activity with children,” she says.

Gallant also asserts that “cultural Marxists” have “taken over every university administration” and are silencing free speech on campuses.

It’s all part of a broader agenda, she says.

“The elites call it the great reset or build back better or green new deal. The names change but the goal remains the same: more power for the powerful and less freedom for everyone else.”

The idea of a “great reset” was first floated by the widely respected World Economic Forum in calling for post-pandemic policies to reduce societal inequalities.

But it has since become code for conspiracy theorists who see it as a plot by global elites to replace capitalism with a new socialist world order. Some go so far as to assert that the elites deliberately unleashed COVID-19 in order to achieve world domination.

In the video, Gallant goes on to complain that “the liberal media have been bought and paid for” by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and are now backing Canadian Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault — whom she dubs the “censor in chief” — in his plans to make Google and Facebook pay for news content they disseminate on their platforms.

She says that will lead the tech giants to shut down their services in Canada, as Facebook has done in Australia. And she suggests that it is all part of Trudeau’s plan to silence critics before plunging the country into an election.

“Why do you think Trudeau would want Canadians to be unable to search or share news right as he’s planning a snap election?” she says.

O’Connell posted the video to Twitter, saying “another of Erin O’Toole’s team is promoting deranged conspiracy theories.”

She said Gallant is spreading “disinformation about election interference” and compared it to the Trump-led conspiracy theories about the alleged rigging of last November’s presidential election that sparked a violent riot at the Capitol last month.

“We have seen all too clearly the power of political disinformation and claims of election fraud,” O’Connell tweeted.

In a statement late Friday, Gallant said her “comments on the Liberals choosing to lower the age of consent were taken out of context.” She did not address any of her other comments and said she “will not be commenting further on this matter.”

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Feb. 19, 2021.

CRIMINAL CAPITALI$T

Uber: Bankrupt engineer Levandowski is hiding millions from creditors

Judge views Levandowski's financial antics with an "incredibly jaundiced eye."


TIMOTHY B. LEE - 2/18/2021

Enlarge / Anthony Levandowski in 2019.
David Paul Morris/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Famed self-driving engineer Anthony Levandowski was forced to declare bankruptcy last year after he lost a legal battle with Google over claims that he stole trade secrets on behalf of Uber. Now Uber is objecting to the proposed terms of his bankruptcy, arguing that he used legally dubious techniques to shelter his wealth from creditors.

Levandowski faces a skeptical bankruptcy judge. "I continue to view many of the transactions in which Mr. Levandowski engaged immediately prior to the filing of this bankruptcy case with an incredibly jaundiced eye," said Judge Hannah Blumenstiel during a phone conference last week.

Levandowski received tens of millions of dollars in compensation from Google in 2015 and 2016 for his work on self-driving technology. In October 2016, Google initiated an arbitration process to claw the money back, arguing that Levandowski had stolen trade secrets from Google on his way out the door. Uber alleges that Levandowski then took a number of steps to make it difficult for Google, Uber, or other creditors to get their money back.

The focus of Uber's objection is Levandowski's request that courts shield from creditors $17.2 million in a Roth IRA. Tax law limited Roth IRA contributions to $5,500 per year when Levandowski opened it in 2016—a figure that has since risen to $6,000. So how did he accumulate $17.2 million in five years?

According to Uber, Levandowski deposited $4,326 in cash around April 2016 and used the money to purchase 4,326,000 shares of Otto Trucking at a price of 0.1 cents per share. When Uber acquired Otto, these shares became worth millions of dollars. Uber says Levandowski sold half of them for $11.9 million, keeping the cash inside the IRA. He sold the rest of the shares to his business partner Robert Miller, in exchange for a $5.3 million promissory note.Advertisement


Retirement accounts are often shielded from creditors in bankruptcy proceedings. But Uber argues that rule shouldn't apply here because Levandowski violated several IRA rules when he set up the account. Tax law requires IRA money to be used for arms-length investments. Uber argues that investing in Levandowski's own company doesn't qualify.

Uber says Levandowski also took other steps to shield his assets from creditors. For example, in 2017, he bought a house for his father and stepmother for $949,000. He then "sold" it back to the stepmother for $720,000. Rather than paying cash, she gave him an unsecured promissory note with a balloon payment that comes due in 2048, effectively allowing her to live in the home rent-free for 30 years.

According to Uber, Levandowski invested $250,000 in a company founded by his fiancée on March 4, 2020, the same day he filed for bankruptcy.

In addition, Uber says Levandowski loaned more than $10 million to entities controlled by his college friend and longtime business partner Randall Miller. He funneled millions more to his new self-driving startup Pronto.ai.

Levandowski used a donor-advised fund to funnel $175,172 to Way of the Future, an AI "church" that Levandowski founded in 2017. The church got an in-depth write-up by our sister publication Wired in 2017. (Update: a Levandowski spokeswoman tells Ars that the Way of the Future was dissolved in 2020 and that "the entirety of the allotted funds in question, $175,172.00, was donated to the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund.")

Uber urged Judge Blumenstiel not to accept Levandowski's claim that he needed the $17.2 million in his IRA to support himself in retirement. Uber pointed out that Levandowski has more than $400,000 in more conventional retirement accounts that likely will be protected in bankruptcy. Even if his various other assets are stripped away in the bankruptcy process, the company argued, the 40-year-old's skills as an engineer and manager should enable him to make a good living over the next 20 years.
OUT OF SEQUENCE —
As coronavirus variants spread, the US struggles to keep up

Without federal strategy or enough funding, US sequencing superpowers don't work.


MEGAN MOLTENI, WIRED.COM - 2/20/2021

Family business

We tend to use the singular word “coronavirus” when referring to the bug that causes COVID-19. But a more accurate way to think about SARS-CoV-2 is as a population of viruses. And that population is in a state of constant flux—expanding and contracting, mutating, and evolving new lineages as it spreads from person to person. Genetic epidemiologists can track those minute changes, following them like the branches of a family tree to identify clusters of cases all linked to one another. With enough viral genomes, they can also zoom out to compare how fast different branches are growing. If one branch starts to take off, it can indicate that the genetic changes those viruses have acquired provide some kind of competitive advantage. And if a bunch of different branches independently acquire the same mutation, and they all start to take off, well, that’s convergent evolution.

Though the seven variants identified by Cooper, Kamil, Hodcroft, and company appear to have become more common in recent months—accounting for up to 15 percent of the transmission in some places where they have been found—there’s still much the researchers don’t understand about them. Where did they first emerge? Are they spreading faster because the 677 mutation changes the virus’s behavior, as is the case with the other major variants of concern first detected abroad? Or did holiday travel and family gatherings in the US spread it farther and faster than other domestic strains? Even basic questions about the real prevalence of each new variant are hard to answer, because the nation is still so far behind on sequencing.

“What we’ve discovered is just the tip of the iceberg,” says Cooper. Currently the US has sequenced the genomes of just 0.4 percent of all coronavirus cases, according to a WIRED analysis of GISAID data. By comparison, the UK is doing about 10 percent. Denmark, the world leader, has surpassed the 50 percent mark.

“Convergence is actually our friend”


The good news is that all the sequencing being done elsewhere in the world is finding that the virus keeps settling on the same genetic changes in its hunt for an advantage. That suggests it has chanced upon a run of good cards, but there might not be many better ones left in the deck. “In that sense,” says Cooper, “convergence is actually our friend here, because it limits the roster of mutations we have to pay attention to.” That’s not just good for surveillance and testing, but also for vaccine makers trying to future-proof their shots. Any constraints on the number and placement of useful mutations should make it easier to develop an arsenal of boosters that will be effective against whatever variants are yet to emerge.Advertisement


But that doesn’t change the fact that the US is still disastrously unprepared to spot them when they do. As WIRED has previously reported, scaling up a national SARS-CoV-2 monitoring network involves coordinating a patchwork of players—academics like Kamil and Gangavarapu, industry players like Helix, and labs on the front lines, operated by public health departments and hospitals. Connecting sequencing facilities to patient samples and data requires coordination—both in terms of logistics and of agreeing to do things in a standardized way.

All of that takes time and money. Each viral sequence costs between $25 and $400 to generate. So far, the CDC has funded seven universities to the tune of $14.5 million; signed contracts with Illumina, Helix, and medical testing behemoths LabCorp and Quest Diagnostics for $12.5 million; and released a further $15 million to public health labs. But this week, the Biden administration announced it is providing a much needed infusion of cash—almost $200 million—intended to ramp up the nation’s sequencing capacity from 7,000 to 25,000 samples per week. That would put the US on track to capture about 5 percent of new coronavirus cases, provided they continue to decline. It’s a threshold scientists at Illumina estimate the country needs to hit in order to detect a new variant before it grows to more than 1 percent of total cases.
“No consensus”

A spokesperson for the CDC declined to say whether the agency was setting specific targets. “There is currently no consensus in the US or globally on the optimal rate for genomic surveillance,” she wrote in an email to WIRED. In a briefing Wednesday, White House testing czar Carole Johnson described the funding as a “pilot” to tide the CDC over until Congress passes the proposed $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan. The House version of that bill sets aside $1.75 billion for genomic surveillance.

“It’s really great that we have interest from Congress to invest in this,” says Lane Warmbrod, co-author of a new report from the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, outlining recommendations for what an effective SARS-CoV-2 surveillance program should look like. In the short term, she says, labs need money to buy reagents and sequencers, and to hire and train personnel to run them. That includes building up a bioinformatics workforce in public health labs—people who can sort, clean, and interpret the reams of genomic data produced by surveillance sequencing.Advertisement


“The much bigger barrier is the informatics side,” says Warmbrod. In addition to people, that also means computational firepower. She and her colleagues suggest that CPU-strapped public health departments could partner with the Department of Energy, which operates supercomputers around the country, to process increasing loads of genomic data. “We have the capacity and the expertise in this country,” she says. “We just need to incentivize it and put resources where it’ll be most efficient.”
“They’re going to keep coming”

She and her colleagues recommend that funds should go toward coordinating the characterization of variants—which ones should be studied and what experiments scientists should perform. Right now, the old standards of science are still largely being applied. Whoever discovers a variant gets to hold onto it and study it. But when those discoveries could have such a huge effect on human health, Warmbrod argues, the government might want to step in to make sure studies are being done swiftly, safely, and in the public eye. In the longer term, she also believes the US should invest some of those congressional funds in a national pandemic prediction agency to safeguard against emerging threats even after the Covid crisis subsides.

But for now, building up sequencing capacity in whatever way gets it done the fastest should be the highest priority, says Warmbrod. “We know variants are here. We know they’re going to keep coming as long as there’s transmission. These variants could pop up anywhere,” she says. “And right now, in most places in the country, a new variant could be popping up in your backyard, and we’d have no idea because we can’t see it.”

This story originally appeared on wired.com.


Dr. Fauci: Trump Let 'Terrible Things' Happen After Our COVID-19 Disagreements

The infectious disease specialist recalled the moment he lost influence with the former president, who instead acted "like there was no outbreak."

Dr. Anthony Fauci continues to open up about his experiences working under the Trump administration, revealing the moment he began to lose influence with former President Donald Trump

In a wide-ranging interview with The Telegraph, the infectious disease specialist recalled a marked shift in his professional relationship with Trump in April or May of last year, once the president began to publicly side with anti-lockdown protesters and back states’ efforts to lift stay-at-home orders. 

“My influence with [Trump] diminished when he decided to essentially act like there was no outbreak and focus on re-election and opening the economy,” Fauci, who is now serving as chief medical adviser to President Joe Biden, recalled Friday. “That’s when he said, “It’s going to go away, it’s magical, don’t worry about it.”’

Immediately thereafter, he added, “my direct influence on him was negligible. It became more conflictual than productive.”

ALEX BRANDON/AP
Then-President Donald Trump arrives with his vice president, Mike Pence, to speak to the press about the coronavirus on March 31, 2020, in Washington. At right is Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.



Over the course of the past year, Fauci has enjoyed broad support from both Democrats and Republicans, and continues to be seen as a touchstone of scientific wisdom amid the ongoing pandemic. But as the 2020 election drew to a close, Trump publicly lashed out at him and other medical experts even as the COVID-19 death toll continued to spike. In an October phone call with campaign staffers, the former president deemed Fauci “a disaster.” Weeks later, he told supporters at a Florida rally he was considering firing Fauci “a little bit after” the election. 

In his interview with The Telegraph, Fauci didn’t touch on specific incidents but said having to correct the president’s numerous coronavirus falsehoods, often on live television, led to a gradual falling-out.

“When it became clear that in order to maintain my integrity and to get the right message [across] I had to publicly disagree with him, he did things — or allowed things to happen — that were terrible,” he said. On the flip side, he offered faint praise for former Vice President Mike Pence, who “really tried his very best to address the outbreak.”

Elsewhere in the interview, Fauci ― who has worked alongside six presidents ― drew parallels between Trump’s handling of the coronavirus to the ways former President Ronald Reagan neglected to deal with the HIV/AIDS epidemic. Still, he said, they were “significant differences.”

Reagan “never did anything to obstruct what I was trying to do,” he recalled, while Trump “was putting as much stock in anecdotal things that turned out not to be true as he was in what scientists like myself were saying.” 

“That caused unnecessary and uncomfortable conflict where I had to essentially correct what he was saying,” he added, “and put me at great odds with his people.”

Northrop Grumman Antares rocket launches Cygnus cargo ship to space station for NASA