HEY DR HINSHAW; WHAT'S UP DOC

Double masking, snug fit key to limiting COVID-19 spread, study finds

"Double-masking" is among the most effective ways to ensure face coverings stop the spread of COVID-19, according to a new study. File photo by John Angelillo/UPI | License Photo

Dec. 16 (UPI) -- Layering a three-ply cloth mask over a medical mask or securing a medical mask with an elastic brace provides the best protection against respiratory droplets, like those that spread COVID-19, a study published Thursday found.

Medical masks such as N95 coverings alone blocked about 56% of droplets released by coughs and about 42% of those discharged when breathing out, the data showed.

However, placing a cloth mask over a medical mask, or double masking, blocked at least 85% of droplets from coughs and at least 91% of those exhaled, the researchers said, in an article published Wednesday by the American Journal of Infection Control.

In addition, adding a brace, or elastic straps designed to ensure a tight fit, over a medical mask created a covering that blocked at least 95% of cough droplets and at least 99% of exhaled droplets.

RELATED Study shows double-masking -- medical mask under cloth -- cuts COVID-19 spread

"There has been considerable confusion about the most effective use of face masks, especially among the general public, to reduce the spread of infection," Ann Marie Pettis, president of Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, said in a press release.

"[These] findings are important and timely because they identify specific, practical combinations of face masks and mask modifications that ... measurably reduce the expulsion of infectious aerosols into the environment," said Pettis, who was not part of the study.

The findings come at a time when many state and local governments are reinstituting mask mandates as the Omicron variant of COVID-19 spreads across the country.

Respiratory viruses, such as COVID-19, spread when an uninfected person is exposed to droplets released from the nose or mouth of an infected person.

Face coverings are used to reduce the spread of infectious viruses that are transmitted by respiratory aerosols and droplets produced during actions such as talking, breathing and coughing, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The agency recommends face coverings that are multi-layered, cover the nose and mouth and form a tight seal against the face.

At the height of the pandemic, the CDC advocated double masking, or wearing a cloth mask over a medical mask. This approach is seen as the best way to ensure that the wearer does not spread infectious droplets, and it may limit their exposure to droplets from others as well.

For this study, the researchers used both human subjects and simulator manikins to evaluate the performance of multiple mask types, combinations and modifications.

They conducted a variety of experiments that simulated coughs and exhalations, and then measured the efficiency of the masks at blocking respiratory aerosols.

Using earloop toggles, or an earloop strap, or knotting and tucking the mask also increased its performance compared to medical masks without modification, the researchers said.

Two other mask-fit modifications, crossing the earloops or placing a bracket under the mask, did not increase performance.

The most efficient face mask combinations and fit modifications -- double masking and masks with braces -- should be used by healthcare workers, patients and the public to improve mask fit and limit infection spread, the researchers said.

"The performance of face masks as devices that control infection spread depends [on] the ability of the mask material to filter aerosols," study co-author Francoise M. Blachere said in a press release.

It also depends "on how well the mask fits the wearer," said Blachere, a research biologist at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

USA

AP-NORC poll: Omicron raises COVID worry but not precautions
By KATHLEEN FOODYDecember 13, 2021

 Maya Goode, a COVID-19 technician, performs a test on Jessica Sanchez outside Asthenis Pharmacy in Providence, R.I., Dec. 7, 2021. As the omicron variant sparks worldwide fears of renewed virus outbreaks, Americans’ worries about infection are again on the rise. But fewer say that they are regularly wearing masks or isolating compared with the beginning of the year. (AP Photo/David Goldman, File)

CHICAGO (AP) — As the omicron variant sparks worldwide fears of renewed COVID-19 outbreaks, Americans’ worries about infection are again on the rise, but fewer say they are regularly wearing masks or isolating compared with the beginning of the year.

A new poll conducted by The Associated Press and NORC Center for Public Affairs Research shows that 36% of Americans now say they are very or extremely worried that they or a family member will be infected with the virus, up from 25% who said the same in late October. Another 31% now say they’re somewhat worried.

The percentage saying they are highly worried is slightly lower now than it was in August, as the delta variant was taking hold, and still below the level of concern Americans expressed through much of 2020 as deaths and case counts varied widely across regions and seasons.

Hugh Gordon said he and his wife, Lillian, have continued to avoid people as much as possible and wear masks when they do go out to visit a doctor or retrieve groceries ordered online. But the 81-year-old retiree from Dalton, Georgia, said getting vaccinated made him feel comfortable seeing the couple’s children and 10 grandchildren — even attending the oldest granddaughter’s wedding this fall.

The Gordons hope to host 10 or 12 family members for Christmas at their house this month, a far cry from last year’s holiday when they just “worked the phones,” he said.

Although most of those who are vaccinated still say they’re at least somewhat worried about infections, 55% of those who are unvaccinated say they have little or no worry. Roughly 8 in 10 Democrats say they’re at least somewhat worried, compared with about half of Republicans.

The poll also shows that 57% of Americans now say they’re wearing masks always or often when around other people outside their homes, a slight increase from 51% in August. But that’s well below the 82% who said the same in an AP-NORC poll conducted in February and March, before many Americans had a chance to get vaccines.

Dr. Tara Kirk Sell, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, said people become less likely to alter their lives as a threat becomes familiar to them.

“We’ve been dealing with COVID for a long time, and we’re going to be dealing with it for a long time,” she said. “People are going to want to do things, so the focus should be on how can we help people think through those risks ... rather than saying don’t do ‘X’ or focusing on getting to zero risk.”

Those calculations differ from one person to another, Sell said. For instance, parents of children younger than 5 who are not yet approved for COVID-19 vaccines or people living with elderly relatives may have a lower tolerance for risking infection.

John O’Dell, a 25-year-old from Nashville, said getting his initial vaccination and a booster shot made him more comfortable getting together with friends, eating at restaurants and attending NFL and NHL games along with large crowds this year. But he also said looser rules on mask wearing in Tennessee has influenced his own relaxation on wearing masks or avoiding people.

This week, O’Dell and his father spent several hours browsing a Nashville mall for Christmas gifts and he’s looking forward to visiting movie theaters to see several films set for release this month.

“It’s a total, complete flip,” he said, comparing those outings to his approach of masking and staying home a year ago.

Gordon, who has diabetes, said emerging variants of COVID-19 will likely keep him cautious about avoiding crowds and wearing masks in public.

“I just don’t want to take chances, and I feel like I’m doing everything that I can,” he said. “But if they come out with another shot, I’d be in line to get it. I want to stay around a little longer.”

Americans as a whole remain much less likely than they were in the spring to report that they’re always or often avoiding nonessential travel, staying away from large groups or avoiding other people as much as possible. But the poll shows that those who are vaccinated are far more likely than the unvaccinated to say they are still practicing those behaviors.

David Cotton, a vice president of Public Health Research and Evaluation at NORC who did not personally work on the poll, said those results suggest a large portion of Americans remain willing to take precautions more than a year into the pandemic.

“In some ways I find that encouraging, that there are so many people who continue to persist and follow the science and take care of one another,” Cotton said.

Not everyone has returned to the activities that they did regularly before the pandemic, especially things like seeing movies and going to the gym. Among those who say they did so at least monthly prior to the pandemic, 84% say they will visit friends and family in the next few weeks, 80% will shop in person for nonessential items, 73% say they will attend religious services, and 73% say they will go to a bar or restaurant.

The poll shows 58% of those who frequently traveled pre-pandemic will do so in the next few weeks, and 56% of those who used public transportation will do so.

Even fewer -- 49% -- say they will exercise at a gym or studio or go out to a concert, movie or the theater, among those who did so regularly before the pandemic.

The poll shows that about two-thirds of Americans say they find it easy to find factual information about COVID-19 vaccines and when people can get booster shots. Somewhat fewer -- 58% -- say they think it’s easy to find information about COVID-19 vaccines for children, with the numbers similar among both parents and non-parents.

Still, only about a third of the unvaccinated say they find it easy to find information about vaccines, vaccine booster or vaccines for children, with similar shares saying it is difficult and the remainder saying it’s neither easy nor difficult.

___

The AP-NORC poll of 1,089 adults was conducted Dec. 2-7 using a sample drawn from NORC’s probability-based AmeriSpeak Panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for all respondents is plus or minus 4.1 percentage points.

Dogs are unsung heroes of COVID-19 pandemic for many, experts say

By Cara Murez, HealthDay News

Experts say that dogs -- some that were already part of human families, and others newly adopted -- are the unsung heroes of the COVID-19 pandemic because of the mental health benefits these canine companions offer just by being there. File Photo by Jim Ruymen/UPI | License Photo

Coping with the isolation, fear and sadness of the pandemic may have been a little easier if you had a trusting and loving dog by your side.

But you don't need to tell that to Francois Martin, a researcher who studies the bonds between animals and humans.

His two Great Danes helped him through the last two years, and he just completed a study that shows living with a dog gave folks a stronger sense of social support and eased some of the negative psychological effects of the pandemic.

"When you ask people, 'Why is your dog important to you? What does your dog bring to you?' People will say that it's companionship. It's the feeling of belonging to a group that includes your family dog. It keeps people busy," said Martin, who is section leader for the Behavior and Welfare Group at Nestle Purina in St. Joseph, Mo.

"If you have a dog, you have to walk the dog, you have to exercise the dog. It gives you a sense of purpose," Martin said.

It's "just plain fun," Martin added. "I don't know anybody who is as happy as my dogs to see me every day."

His team saw the pandemic as a unique time to better understand how dogs provide social support to their owners.

To do that, they surveyed more than 1,500 participants who had dogs or wanted dogs that were not designated support animals.

The survey, which was conducted on November 2020 and spring 2021, did not include owners of other types of pets because there is some evidence that different species may provide different types of support, Martin noted.

Experts say that dogs -- some that were already part of human families, and others newly adopted -- are the unsung heroes of the COVID-19 pandemic because of the mental health benefits these canine companions offer just by being there. 

File Photo by John Angelillo/UPI | License Photo

The researchers found that the depression scores were significantly lower for dog owners compared to the potential dog owners. The owners also had a significantly more positive attitude toward and commitment to pets.

The two groups did not have any difference in anxiety scores or happiness scores.

"In terms of trying to measure the effect of dog ownership on depression, for example, and anxiety, we saw that people that had low social support and that were affected a lot by COVID-19, you could see that the importance of their dog was stronger," Martin said.

"If you're already doing well and you're not affected too much by the COVID-19 situation, having a dog is not likely to help you be less depressed because you are already not very depressed, but we saw that people who were at the other end ... you could measure the effect more precisely," he noted.

In his particular situation, Martin already had a support system, so though he certainly enjoyed having his dogs around, that didn't change his mood.

Yet, it could for someone who might have been more personally impacted by the pandemic.

The study was published Wednesday in the journal PLOS One.

Experts say that dogs -- some that were already part of human families, and others newly adopted -- are the unsung heroes of the COVID-19 pandemic because of the mental health benefits these canine companions offer just by being there. 

File Photo by Kevin Dietsch/UPI | License Photo

Pets can provide affection, companionship and entertainment, said Teri Wright, a mental health therapist in private practice in Santa Ana, Calif. However, it may not be the right choice for everyone.

"People ask me the question, 'Do you think that animals, pets, dogs are good for depression, loneliness and psychiatric reasons?' And I say it depends because they can also create a whole lot of stress. And so it depends on the person," Wright said.

While Wright does have a dog at home, in her office she has a rabbit named Dusty who helps in her therapy practice. He serves as an ice breaker and helps people relax, she said.

Stanley Coren has written a lot about dogs and spent time during the pandemic with his two, a Nova Scotia duck tolling retriever named Ranger and a Cavalier King Charles spaniel named Ripley.

Coren, a professor emeritus in the Department of Psychology at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, was not affiliated with this study.

He said differences between anxiety and depression may be the reason why dogs had an impact on one but not the other for the participants in this study.

It may be possible, Coren said, that a person petting their dog had a momentary reduction in stress or anxiety, rather than a long-term reduction.

Experts say that dogs -- some that were already part of human families, and others newly adopted -- are the unsung heroes of the COVID-19 pandemic because of the mental health benefits these canine companions offer just by being there. File Photo by John Angelillo/UPI | License Photo

"During COVID-19, there are just so many anxieties. The dog will relieve the social anxieties, but not the medical anxiety or the financial anxiety," Coren suggested.

Dogs may help reduce depression because they provide a person with unconditional positive regard, Coren said. This can be especially helpful in times like the pandemic, particularly for someone without other social supports.

"If you live by yourself or you have minimal social supports, I think that a dog is a good adjunct to your mental health," Coren said.

More work is needed to better understand the relationship between pet ownership, social support and how it affects owner well-being, according to the researchers.

"I think that if you are a dog lover and you're in a position where you could acquire a dog and take care of him or her, I think it shows that you should, that dogs actually contribute to the overall well-being of people," Martin said.

More information

The American Psychological Association has more on the human-animal bond.

Copyright © 2021 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

A rush to mine lithium in Nevada is pitting climate advocates and environmental groups against each other


By Ella Nilsen and Rene Marsh, CNN
Fri December 17, 2021

Nevada's extinct supervolcano may hold largest lithium deposit in the world

(CNN )In an ancient and now extinct supervolcano sitting in northern Nevada lies a treasure that its seekers call "white gold."

This metal isn't to trade or to make jewelry out of -- it's lithium, and its value lies in its role in potentially slashing the world's carbon emissions.

President Joe Biden's plan to transform the US to clean, low-carbon economy energy depends on switching to electric vehicles, and that means replacing gas with batteries, which are made from critical minerals like lithium.

But in the US, doing so is not without controversy.

Lithium is a key ingredient for the big, rechargeable batteries that power electric vehicles and store energy generated by solar panels and wind turbines -- keeping that energy in use even when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing.

Obtaining these minerals, which some call the new "white gold," is part of the latest worldwide rush to produce clean energy. Earlier this year, the Biden administration released a strategic plan from several federal agencies detailing how it planned to improve the entire supply chain for critical minerals like lithium -- from extracting it from US mines to putting it in batteries, to recycling and reusing these batteries.

"America has a clear opportunity to build back our domestic supply chain and manufacturing sectors, so we can capture the full benefits of an emerging $23 trillion global clean energy economy," US Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in June.

In the US, the major lithium prospect is a large deposit in Thacker Pass, Nevada, and another lithium deposit sits in North Carolina. The Thacker Pass lithium deposit is one of the world's largest, sitting in an ancient, and now-extinct, supervolcano.

A proposal to start mining lithium by Lithium Nevada Corporation -- a subsidiary of Lithium Americas Corp. -- was approved by the US Bureau of Land Management in January.

"It's the largest-known lithium deposit in North America, so given where we're going globally and as a country, it's a unique opportunity," Jonathan Evans, president and CEO at Lithium Americas Corp., told CNN.

Evans told CNN that currently, the bulk of lithium chemicals used in the US are imported from other countries. Lithium-rich countries including Chile and Bolivia are heavy exporters. Evans said that with lithium deposits in the US and Canada, "it's not lost on state governments and the federal that everyone wants to play in that and we have the resources to do it."

Lithium and cobalt mining for electric cars has been controversial globally for years, in part because of its environmental destruction, the short lifespan of batteries and in some countries, because child labor has been used in the process.

And as a "white gold" rush comes to the US, not everyone is thrilled about the rush to mine it.

Not everyone is on board

Lithium Americas hopes to break ground on its mining project in early 2022. CNN traveled to Nevada and found the rush to procure critical minerals in the United States has pitted environmental advocates against each other.

Some climate advocates say the rush to mine lithium is critical for a larger transition away from fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas. Other local environmental groups and tribal nations oppose the project, concerned about disturbing sacred tribal burial grounds as well as potential environmental impacts. Three tribal groups tried to stop it through lawsuits -- which were dismissed by a judge in September.

"A lot of us understand blowing up a mountain for coal mining is wrong; I think blowing up a mountain for lithium mining is just as wrong," said Max Wilbert, an environmental organizer who is camping out at Thacker Pass to protest the mine's development.

Wilbert cited several reasons he is against the lithium mine: environmental impacts to sage grouse and antelope, potential water pollution for surrounding communities and cultural issues for the local indigenous community, which considers the land on and around Thacker Pass sacred burial grounds.

Wilbert is currently camping out in frigid Nevada desert winter conditions in a tribal ceremonial camp, and he and other advocates say they're willing to stand in front of mining machinery to try to stop the project from going forward.

"Our laws haven't caught up to the reality of what's happening to our planet, and so people might have to break the law in order to change what's happening," he said. "Electric cars won't actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions that much; they will reduce emissions but not by a sizable amount."

Driving gas-powered vehicles in the US comes at a cost to the climate. Greenhouse gas emissions from transportation account for nearly 30% of total US emissions; more than any other sector, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.

Glenn Miller, a retired professor of environmental science at the University of Nevada Reno, disagreed -- telling CNN the Thacker Pass project is a "relatively benign mine for its size."

Miller said he thinks the clean energy benefits of mining lithium in Nevada outweigh environmental concerns -- especially when it comes to reducing the greenhouse gas emissions worsening global climate change.

"Those who say it isn't going to make any difference, they're simply wrong," Miller said. "Radical environmentalists are going to argue that the only way to solve the climate change problem is to drive a whole lot less and to not burn gasoline or coal. Well, that's not going to happen -- the demands of society are set so we're going to have to have an active transportation industry."

Miller told CNN that lithium is the key ingredient that will power the transition to electric vehicles.

"There's no other metal that can work as well as lithium," Miller said. "We're going to need a lot of batteries to run the cars that we're going to have on the road. It's going to be a very positive contribution to mitigating climate change."

Evans told CNN his company is engaging community stakeholders, and local and state governments about the mine's plans.

"It's very important that this transition is done as sustainable as possible," Evans said, stressing his company is committed to mitigating the environmental impacts of mining as much as it can, by conserving water use and trying to lessen carbon emissions as it extracts the mineral.

"It's not the cheapest, but it's essential as we move to this phase to ensure we do things as responsibly as possible."

Revealed: How ‘abortion pill reversal’ originating in the US has spread to Russia


openDemocracy’s work prompts Russian health ministry to discuss the dangers of unproven treatment backed by US Christian conservatives


Tatev HovhannisyanLiza Velyaminova
17 December 2021, 10.37am

Illustration: Inge Snip. All rights reserved

Russia’s health ministry has agreed for the first time to consider the dangers of a controversial ‘abortion reversal’ treatment, after openDemocracy revealed that it had spread into the country from the US.

The commitment came after we went undercover to show how easily the ‘treatment’ known as ‘abortion pill reversal’ (APR), developed and promoted by conservative Christian groups in the West, could be obtained in Russia – despite international health warnings against the procedure.

Russian women’s rights campaigners hope that “urgent concrete actions” will follow the response of the health ministry. Although Russia has one of the world’s most liberal abortion laws, last year President Vladimir Putin ordered the government to step up efforts to prevent abortion. “However, the ministry's reaction means that there are still officials among them who think about women’s health,” Alena Popova, human rights activist and founder of the Ethics and Technology think tank, told openDemocracy.

APR was first developed by a controversial Californian GP who now works as an adviser for the religious anti-abortion US charity Heartbeat International. It is an unproven procedure that supposedly halts and reverses the effect of a medical (rather than a surgical) abortion. It involves taking huge doses of the hormone progesterone, after having taken the first (mifepristone) of two pills used in a medical abortion.

But the only trial into APR, in the US in 2019, was halted after some participants ended up in hospital with severe bleeding.

What’s more, experts also doubt APR’s efficacy, explaining that most medical abortions do not work if the second abortion pill (misoprostol) is not taken. Anti-abortion doctors administer APR after the first abortion pill only – meaning that its supposed effects may be non-existent.

Undercover investigation

openDemocracy went undercover to investigate how ‘abortion pill reversal’ has spread to Russia. We contacted a 24-hour APR hotline run out of the US by Heartbeat International, who gave us information about Agari, a so-called “maternity home” in Russia.

We spoke to an American volunteer at Agari, who described it as a “shelter for immigrant women of Central Asia experiencing unplanned pregnancies”. She then directed us to their Russian “partner medical centre”, Agape, and also offered to cover the costs of APR treatment.

An online consultant at Agape said they would provide our reporter with an “abortion reversal” service.

The Heartbeat International hotline also gave us details of the Russian APR network, Peredumala.ru (Russian for ‘change my mind’), where a gynaecologist encouraged our reporter to take the “treatment” and claimed: “There is absolutely no harm from progesterone.”

When shown our evidence, the health ministry conceded the treatment was “controversial” and said it was being “discussed” internally.

Meanwhile, Russian politicians, doctors and human rights activists condemned the promotion of APR in Russia as “inhumane” and “very dangerous”.

“A doctor can’t guarantee that the pregnancy will proceed normally if a woman ‘reverses’ her abortion,” said Russian gynaecologist Olga Pustotina. For Russian women’s rights activist Zalina Marshenkulova, APR is “inhumane”.

Russia is using the most aggressive technologies of Western conservatives and anti-abortion fighters

“It can harm women and put their lives at risk,” Oxana Pushkina, a former Russian MP, told openDemocracy. She added: “Russia is using the most aggressive technologies of Western conservatives and anti-abortion fighters as a carbon copy.”

Popova from Ethics and Technology said that the spread of APR in Russia was connected to pressure “from pro-life organisations”: “They believe that the birth rate is more important than women’s health and the health of their children.”

In response to questions from openDemocracy, Heartbeat International said “the protocol used in the abortion pill reversal process is nothing new. [...] Progesterone has been used routinely and safely with pregnancy since the 1950s.”

“More than 2,500 lives have been saved thanks to the abortion pill reversal protocol,” the group claimed.

Growing APR network in Russia

Abortions are legal in Russia as an elective procedure, free of charge, up to the 12th week of pregnancy, and later under special circumstances. The country had the highest number of abortions per capita (37.4 per 1,000 women aged 15–44), according to data published in 2013 by the UN.

Now, almost 100 years after Soviet Russia became the first country in the world to legalise abortion, anti-abortion narratives are back.

President Putin is a well-known defender of “traditional values”. In October, Moscow joined the anti-abortion Geneva Consensus Declaration, initiated by the Donald Trump administration. On the same day, Republicans in the US Congress introduced resolutions insisting that there should be no international right to abortion.

According to articles on the websites of Pregnancy Help News (“powered by Heartbeat International”) and the National Catholic Register, Russia’s “growing” APR network is overseen by Dr. Alexey Fokin from St Petersburg, who promotes the method through Peredumala.ru, which he founded.

Fokin has been helping “reverse chemical abortions” for five years with the help of “three physicians and several registered nurses in multiple regions of Russia,” Pregnancy Help News claims.

Peredumala.ru encourages women to buy progesterone from a pharmacy, suggesting that they can avoid the need for a prescription by saying they were “told to buy it in the hospital”.

In 2017, Fokin founded Dve Poloski (Russian for ‘two lines’, in reference to a pregnancy test), a “regional public organisation […] to protect children, pregnant women and traditional family values.”

He is also linked to the website Postabort.ru, which provides references to books, articles, research and stories that describe the alleged negative psychological effects of abortion on women’s mental health.

Fokin described our findings as “absolutely stupid,” “mistakes” and “lies”, but did not comment more specifically.

The phone number for the APR hotline on Peredumala.ru is identical to the hotline listed on the website of the anti-abortion programme Spasi Zhizn (‘save a life’), where priests are listed as responders alongside doctors and lawyers. The programme was launched in 2017 by Za Zhizn! (‘for life’), a national ‘crisis pregnancy centre’ that is supported by the Russian Orthodox Church.

Za Zhizn! claims to “ensure the protection of children from conception to birth, approve traditional family values” and “solve demographic problems”. Its leader Sergey Chesnokov has called abortion “murder”. In 2017, he was told by President Putin: “What you are doing in terms of supporting pregnant women – to decide whether to leave a child or not – is absolutely right. […] I am ready to do everything in order to support you in this part of your work.”

MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX

The Eternal Recurrence of Defense Contractor Price-Gouging

For the second time in three years, TransDigm has been caught ripping off the Pentagon for millions of dollars. Will there finally be some accountability?


BY DAVID DAYEN
DECEMBER 17, 2021

STAFF SGT. FRANK ROHRIG/U.S. AIR FORCE
U.S. Air Force F-16 Fighting Falcons fly in formation behind a KC-135 Stratotanker after aerial refueling, December 8, 2021.


Two years ago, the Defense Department’s inspector general released a report showing that TransDigm, a contractor that makes spare aviation and maritime parts, relentlessly ripped off the U.S. government in contracting negotiations. The IG found $16.1 million in overcharges on a sample of $29.7 million in contracts. After a contentious congressional hearing, TransDigm returned the money to the government.

That brings us to this week. The Pentagon IG released another report, looking at another sample of TransDigm contracts. This time, out of the $38.3 million in contracts, TransDigm received “excess profit” (defined as a profit margin above 15 percent) of $20.8 million. The IG again recommended that TransDigm return the money. TransDigm spokesperson Jaimie Stemen said the company is “reviewing” the audit report.

The future of military auditing, then, seems to be one of endless reports of endless TransDigm contracts showing endless rip-offs. “It’s pretty remarkable; we just scratched the surface with the initial $16 million,” said Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA), who chaired the 2019 hearing on TransDigm in the House Oversight Committee and has been a leading critic of the company’s practices. “There’s nothing that angers the American public more than people making money on the backs of our military men and women who risk their lives in service. Arthur Miller wrote a whole play about it, All My Sons. Harry Truman ascended to the presidency because of his investigations into war profiteering.”

Khanna’s citations, going back 75 years, make clear that defense contractor swindling is an enduring feature of American life. In fact, this week’s IG report notes that it has issued nine other reports over the past 23 years that pinpoint the exact problem at issue in the TransDigm case, which allows them to mark up prices without government knowledge.

A majority of TransDigm’s net sales are derived from sole-source parts, where they are the only provider.

At a time of constant chatter about inflation, this is the enduring inflation story buried beneath the surface: consistent, outrageous charges on military equipment, inching up costs in the largest single line item in the U.S. budget. But in the report, the Pentagon reveals a novel solution to the TransDigm problem, which would involve taking them out of the supply chain entirely. Will the government finally exact some accountability for what they have painstakingly demonstrated as repeated fleecing?

TransDigm is a private equity–style firm with a business model of acquiring companies to corner the market on various spare parts. A majority of TransDigm’s net sales are derived from sole-source parts, where they are the only provider. Of the 107 TransDigm parts the IG studied, 94 of them were sole-source.

Sole-sourcing creates a sense of urgency among procurement officials. These spare parts keep planes in the air; they have to purchase them to continue operations. But TransDigm is the only supplier, and corporate-friendly contracting rules give the procurement officers no leverage to make a decent deal.

For contracts below a $2 million threshold (recently increased from $750,000 by the Truth in Negotiations Act, or TINA), contractors are not obligated to provide cost data (i.e., how much it actually costs to produce the parts) that officials can analyze to determine a fair and reasonable price. Procurement officials can ask contractors for cost data, but contractors are under no obligation to supply it. In the contracts studied, officials asked for cost data on 27 contracts; TransDigm provided that data for just two. In the vast majority of those other cases, TransDigm’s excess profit was well over 100 percent.

Without cost data, procurement officials are flying blind. They can use historical price comparisons, but if a company has been jacking up the price for years, those comparisons are ineffective; you’d just be comparing price-gouging to price-gouging. For example, the IG report looked at 46 TransDigm acquisitions of companies making spare parts. In 44 out of 46 cases, TransDigm immediately increased the price, as much as 247 percent in one case.

After the fact, the IG was able to obtain the cost data it needed from TransDigm, enabling the IG to see how much profit TransDigm was earning above a “reasonable” 15 percent level. Excess profits were found on 106 of the 107 spare parts studied. A contract for a check valve yielded a 1269.9 percent excess profit; a quick-disconnect coupling half earned 1697.7 percent. The highest markup was an astronomical 3850.6 percent.

“DoD will continue to pay higher prices on spare parts if contractors use market-based pricing in a sole-source environment when contract values are low and uncertified cost data is not provided,” the IG report states.

These spare parts will never add up to the cost of an F-35. More than 95 percent of TransDigm contracts in the time frame studied were under that TINA threshold, and the company works to keep it that way. In numerous cases, DOD had to buy the same parts from TransDigm over and over again. But while the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) attempted to award multiyear or multipart contracts that would rise above the TINA threshold, TransDigm didn’t agree to the terms, preferring to fly below the radar.

TransDigm has taken issue with the report’s analysis. “TransDigm acted consistent with all laws and regulations, and in many other areas, the report contains flawed analysis and misleading conclusions,” spokesperson Jaimie Stemen told the Prospect.

Of course, this is what TransDigm said about the 2019 IG report, which it then tacitly acknowledged as accurate by repaying the $16.1 million. “Are they saying the men and women who serve in the Pentagon are biased?” Khanna asked. “There’s one institution in America that has public support, not Congress, not the White House or journalists. It’s the military. If you want to argue against the only institution with a 90 percent approval rating in America, go ahead.”

Khanna, who first became interested in TransDigm’s activities in 2017, told the Prospect that he is working with his staff on holding another Oversight Committee hearing about the company. He believes TransDigm should refund the additional $20.8 million in excess profits, issue an apology, and submit a plan to reform its practices.

But how many chances should TransDigm be given? How many reports need to come out about excess profits before the government says enough? Khanna said that “everything is on the table,” including removing TransDigm as a contractor, though he didn’t want to prejudge before a congressional inquiry.

The Defense Department submitted two legislative proposals last year mandating that procurement officials obtain cost data before negotiating a contract. Neither of them made it into the National Defense Authorization Act last year, or this year. Despite the Defense Department being relatively unquestioned on Capitol Hill, in this case the military is screaming for help from being continuously overcharged, and Congress gave them the brush-off.

Khanna chalked up the failure to the dearth of members who make procurement a high priority, though he promised to raise his colleagues’ awareness before next year’s NDAA comes before them. But the military is not inclined to wait. The IG revealed that the Defense Logistics Agency is working on two initiatives, both of which would be groundbreaking.

The first, a Reverse Engineering Initiative, would identify sole-source parts that the military can reverse engineer and make themselves, rather than relying on TransDigm and other price-gougers. Already, 394 aviation parts have been approved as candidates for reverse engineering. In a separate Strategic Supplier Alliance Initiative, DLA is encouraging 14 original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) to cancel their licensing agreements with TransDigm, and instead begin to manufacture the parts themselves.

It’s not every day in Washington that an agency announces a plan to engage in its own manufacturing. But it seems like the best way to deal with a monopoly, by encouraging competition, and the best way to deal with a rogue contractor, by cutting them out of the process. “It’s a drastic thing for DOD to call for; I haven’t seen it before,” Khanna said. “It should show that what TransDigm is doing is particularly egregious.”

Whether through legislation or the military just taking over production, there should be some urgency to avoid the need for another report in 2023, showing that TransDigm once again snookered the Defense Department for millions of dollars in markups. And another in 2025. And so on.


DAVID DAYEN
David Dayen is the Prospect’s executive editor. His work has appeared in The Intercept, The New Republic, HuffPost, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and more. His most recent book is ‘Monopolized: Life in the Age of Corporate Power.’

SEE 

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX 

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for PERMANENT ARMS ECONOMY 

Altercation: MSM Discovers Fox ‘News’ Isn’t News

Only 25 years after it became obvious

BY ERIC ALTERMAN
DECEMBER 17, 2021

MICHAEL BROCHSTEIN/SIPA USA VIA AP IMAGE
At a protest against Fox News outside the network’s New York offices, November 23, 2021


On the PBS NewsHour Tuesday night, anchor Judy Woodruff and NPR media correspondent David Folkenflik discussed the recent text messages sent by Fox News hosts to White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows during the January 6 violent insurrection. Woodruff wondered whether “in terms of what we knew about—we have known in the past they have spoken favorably of a former President Trump for years. But does this take it to a different level, do you think?” Folkenflik added, “And so I think that what you have here is a question of Fox News having that word ‘news’ appended to its name, but not operating like a news operation.”

I’ve been writing about Fox News since it first began broadcasting 25 years ago. The first story I remember had to do with the fact that New York’s then-mayor Rudy Giuliani, at the behest of Roger Ailes, used the power of his office to force Time Warner Cable to carry Fox in New York. It had originally been left off the dial and could not likely have survived without that market. That gives you a clue that maybe it was not a typical “news” station from moment one.

Those clues have been mounting on a daily basis ever since. I can’t count the number of times I’ve felt compelled, in different fora, to argue that what Fox does is not and has never been “news.” I think my clearest statement of this fact, and of the problem that everybody pretended that this was not case, came in a “Think Again” column I wrote in 2010 on the website of the Center for American Progress. 

The piece, headlined “Just What Exactly Is Fox News?” began with this:

Fox News Channel is often described as a cable news station. On occasion, the words “conservative” or “biased” are attached to that description. But few dispute the journalistic orientation of the overall enterprise.

This is a mistake. Fox is something new—something for which we do not yet have a word. It provides almost no actual journalism. Instead, it gives ideological guidance to the Republican Party and millions of its supporters, attacking its opponents and keeping its supporters in line. And it does so at a hefty profit, thereby turning itself into the political equivalent of a perpetual motion machine.

In the same column, I offered this (incomplete) thesis:

I’m not exactly sure what to call Fox. It has more in common with the integrated political/judicial/business/media empire that is making a mockery of Italian democracy under the rule of Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi than any American political or media machine of the past. And yet for a whole host of reasons, both financial and psychological, many in the media cannot admit this, thereby allowing Fox to benefit from the protections of journalism offered up by the First Amendment while simultaneously subverting their purpose.

I therefore have to chuckle quite a bit when someone like Jonah Goldberg writes that a reason he left Fox News after 13 years “was that I didn’t want to be complicit in so many lies.” How many lies was the right number, Jonah? A thousand? A million?

I can’t bear at this point to list all the times I’ve tried to make the point that “‘real’ journalists debase themselves and their profession by participating in the destructive and debilitating charade” of treating Fox “journalists” as their colleagues. Readers might recall that, at one point, the Obama administration tried to address Fox’s dishonesty by barring its officials from appearing on Fox’s Sunday shows. The administration was attacked—and Fox defended—by the likes of CNN’s Jake Tapper, and The Baltimore Sun’s David Zurawik, with assists from Maggie Haberman, the Times’ White House correspondent, NBC’s Jonathan Allen, the Associated Press’s Zeke Miller, and Politico’s Jack Shafer, and sadly, many, many others; thereby helping to enable Fox’s lies, and with them the systematic destruction of our democracy and our planet.

Now the curtain has been pulled back, and the wizard is naked before the world. Thanks to Liz Cheney’s dramatic reading of the text messages sent to Trump’s White House chief of staff by Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity, and Brian Kilmeade, we have airtight evidence that not only are these Fox News hosts deliberately lying to their audience, they are acting as backstage players on the basis of what they know to be the truth.

What will now change? My guess is nothing. Fox will continue to make its owners, shareholders, and lying hosts richer and richer. Our democracy will continue to disintegrate, and our political reporters will forget all this and go back to focusing on the reporting that belongs on Page Six and The Sporting News.

And, oh yes, Chris Wallace will no longer be the “whataboutist” go-to for those who wish to pretend that Fox does any news at all. (I wonder what Fox pays out in nondisclosure agreements, given the fact that Wallace, Shepard Smith, and Juan Williams have all left so quietly.) Eric Boehlert has more on Wallace’s well-timed exit, so that I don’t have to think about it anymore.

DEFINE A CAPITALI$T STATE

Merrick Garland’s Department of Justice Is Perpetuating Climate Destruction

When the government’s lawyers defend fossil fuel interests, people and the planet pay the price.

BY DOROTHY SLATER, HANNAH STORY BROWN
DECEMBER 17, 2021

BRYAN OLIN DOZIER/NURPHOTO VIA AP
Environmental activists march to the U.S. Capitol on October 15, 2021, part of a week of protest actions to bring attention to climate change.

The Revolving Door Project, a Prospect partner, scrutinizes the executive branch and presidential power. Follow them at therevolvingdoorproject.org.

Anyone with an eye on the planet’s ticking clock should be growing frustrated with the Biden administration’s slow and sometimes backwards pace on climate action. It is increasingly difficult to assess whether the administration genuinely wants to address the climate crisis while being thwarted by political and judicial setbacks, or has simply decided that the planet’s livable future is worth auctioning off to the highest fossil fuel bidder.


Read more from the Revolving Door Project

Blame is not to be shared equally throughout the administration. The EPA is working on an ambitious new Clean Air Act rule to curb methane emissions, while the SEC has embarked on some promising climate financial risk assessments. But one of the biggest hindrances to climate policy is coming from an agency that isn’t traditionally thought of as “environmental”: Merrick Garland’s Department of Justice.

The DOJ functions as the federal government’s lawyer, which means it touches nearly every federal law and policy, from the Constitution to the Clean Air Act. Any enforcement action, lawsuit, or regulatory strategy has to have DOJ sign-on if the administration wants to fight for or against any climate-oriented policy. The fate of almost all of President Biden’s climate ambition will ultimately be decided in the octagon of legal challenge. Yet Garland’s DOJ has been effectively functioning as an ally to the fossil fuel industry, making the legal case for Biden to ignore his duty to both the American people and the planet.

It’s a pattern that transcends climate: From student debt to humane immigration policy, Garland’s DOJ has taken sides. To paraphrase Matt Stoller of the American Economic Liberties Project, one of the biggest problems in Biden’s administration is that he’s surrounded himself with lawyers who tell him why he can’t do things, instead of how he can do them. The consequences of Garland deliberately tying the administration’s hands at every turn will be most drastic for the climate in the long term.

The Trump administration, in its deregulatory zeal, did an almost unthinkable amount of damage to the already insufficient environmental regulation that was once on the books. Indefensibly, Biden’s DOJ is continuing to defend much of that damage in the name of continuity and stability, instead of reassessing the impact of Trump’s slash-and-burn and charting a new way forward. For one, Biden’s DOJ is defending a Trump-era decision to issue permits to pipeline company Enbridge to build and operate the Line 3 tar sands pipeline. Line 3, which became operational earlier this year, violates Ojibwe treaty rights and emits the equivalent of 50 coal plants’ worth of climate-warming emissions per year. When asked about how the pipeline could possibly square with the president’s goals to reduce emissions, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki insisted the administration could not comment or intervene to stop the pipeline from going live because the issue was in “active litigation.”

Yet active litigation apparently wasn’t a sufficient reason for the administration to delay the nation’s largest offshore oil and gas lease sale in history. Biden started off the year strong in January when he announced a pause on new oil and gas drilling leases on federal lands. By June, however, a federal judge in Louisiana ruled in Louisiana v. Biden that Biden didn’t have the authority to implement a systematic stoppage. The administration appealed the Louisiana judge’s decision, and the DOJ itself issued a legal opinion that the court order did not require the Department of the Interior to move forward with this specific lease sale. Meanwhile, several environmental advocacy groups, led by Earthjustice, launched a lawsuit against the administration to stop the lease sale.

In other words, the pause’s legal standing was moving through the courts, the very same “ongoing litigation” invoked by Psaki regarding Line 3 that left the question of the authority to block public land leases up in the air. Yet none of it prevented the administration from selling off more public lands for oil production than ever before. In total, 1.7 million acres of federal waters were leased for drilling in November, out of 80 million total acres that have been made available to oil and gas companies.

Meanwhile, both the Earthjustice-led litigation and the federal government’s appeal of the Louisiana decision continue, with lawyers from the DOJ’s Environment and Natural Resources Division defending the government in both cases. The American Petroleum Institute and the State of Louisiana have successfully joined the government as defendants in the Earthjustice case, while Earthjustice lawyers have filed several amicus briefs in support of the government in the Louisiana case. Seeing the very same Biden administration on both sides of the issue highlights the self-sabotaging nature of Garland’s fence-sitting. Rather than leading the nation, the Biden administration is boldly proclaiming that it has no strong feelings one way or the other about the planet.

Indefensibly, Biden’s DOJ is continuing to defend much of the Trump administration’s damage in the name of continuity and stability.

The DOJ’s moral failure when it comes to the climate crisis is particularly visible in Juliana v. United States, where it continues to oppose teenagers asking the court to intervene in safeguarding the planet’s future. Six years ago, a group of 21 children and teenagers filed a lawsuit against the United States, alleging that the federal government’s continued support of fossil fuel exploitation and consumption violates their constitutional right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Today, Biden’s DOJ continues to defend the government against these young plaintiffs’ claims. In November of this year, nine senators and 39 U.S. representatives urged Biden to stop contesting the lawsuit, arguing that the position taken by DOJ lawyers on the United States’ behalf is misaligned with Biden’s stance on environmental justice. The myopia of the DOJ’s legal arguments astounds: A group of American youth argue for the benefits of a planet that sustains human life, while DOJ lawyers argue that the court should dismiss their complaint for lack of jurisdiction.

Another ongoing case about the health and future of American children has DOJ lawyers on the defensive. Last week, The Intercept reported on the EPA’s long-standing failure to regulate the phthalate DINP, a chemical used in plastic that causes a wide range of birth defects and cancers, and interferes with children’s sexual development. In 2000, the EPA proposed a rule that would add DINP to the toxics inventory, but never finalized it. In the 21 years since, DINP has become ubiquitous in American products, with hundreds of millions of pounds of DINP produced or imported each year. Not content to merely produce fossil fuels, Exxon is also a phthalate manufacturer, and has lobbied hard to keep the chemical in children’s toys. Earthjustice launched lawsuits against the EPA in September and the FDA in December for their continued failure to regulate. A DOJ lawyer is defending the EPA, and another will likely defend the FDA in this new case, meaning that DOJ lawyers will have a substantial say in whether this toxic chemical continues to wreak havoc on Americans’ health.

If there’s one bright spot, it’s in the department’s novel commitment to environmental justice—the DOJ Civil Rights Division has opened a first-of-its-kind “environmental justice investigation” into whether the Alabama health department’s practices put Black communities at higher risk of infectious-disease exposure. This week, the DOJ’s Environment and Natural Resources Division also expressed their commitment to “achieving the objectives for environmental justice” and enforcing corporate compliance with environmental regulation.

In some cases, course correction along these lines could be quite simple. The Biden DOJ originally defended a Trump-era approval for ConocoPhillips’s Alaska Willow project back in May, a project that would have produced more than 100,000 barrels of oil per day for the next 30 years. However, when a federal court in Alaska decided the Bureau of Land Management had failed to account for greenhouse gas emissions and vacated the approval, Biden’s DOJ allowed the clock to run out on their timeline to appeal, letting the Willow project die. Yet ConocoPhillips intends to proceed with the Willow project despite the court’s decision, and the DOJ should not lapse into inaction when future challenges to the project inevitably erupt.

Biden is, of course, the most powerful person in the country, so he has no excuse for employing anything but the very best legal team at his Department of Justice. And any good lawyer with the ability to recognize reality and “listen to the science,” as Biden has so often promised to do, should not throw up their hands in the face of opposition. DOJ lawyers should be endlessly creative in invoking America’s laws to help this country, and the global community, survive a climate apocalypse. Their mandate to defend the country’s interests requires nothing less.

Anyone who would argue that preserving a healthy and livable planet is in the United States’ interests should care about the DOJ’s next move. The DOJ can be a powerful ally or a powerful foe in the fight for our planet’s future—what it can’t do is split the difference. If it is going to choose the former, it will need to do so quickly.

DOROTHY SLATER is a senior researcher at the Revolving Door Project.

IINFLUENCE OF BIG BROTHER CHINA

Private sector overtakes state as North Korea's top economic actor under Kim - S.Korea

Hyonhee Shin
Wed., December 15, 2021

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un attends a ceremony to inaugurate the start of construction on the first phase of a project to eventually build 50,000 new apartments, in Pyongyang

By Hyonhee Shin

SEOUL (Reuters) - The private sector has overtaken state-led agents to become North Korea's biggest economic actor over the past decade, a sign of booming markets allowed by leader Kim Jong Un, South Korea's Unification Ministry said on Thursday.

The ministry, which handles North Korea affairs, released a report on political, economic and social changes during Kim's 10-year rule, based on data from South Korean and U.N. agencies as well as interviews with defectors.

While the isolated country suffered from coronavirus lockdowns and sanctions over its weapons programmes, private activity has grown from about 28% a decade ago to make up nearly 38% of the economy, the ministry said in the report.

Government-led programmes, meanwhile, have shrunk to make up 29% of the economy from 37%, and around 9% was from entities that work in both state and private sectors, up from 7%.

The number of merchants has also soared some fourfold to hit an all-time high at about 1,368 in 2018, from 338 in 2011, before sharply dropping amid economic hardships and the pandemic.

"As marketisation continues, the proportion of private economy is on a long-term upward trend," the ministry said. "People's activities are shaping into a dual way, state and private economy."

North Korea does not answer questions from foreign reporters and its government and state media rarely give insights into economic conditions.

Kim became leader in late 2011, upon the death of his father, Kim Jong Il.

The new leader's approval of markets previously abhorred by his father had helped improved livelihoods for many North Koreans, with its gross domestic product (GDP) rising 3.9% in 2016 - the fastest in 17 years.

But initial progress was overshadowed by sanctions imposed over nuclear and long-range missile tests, a ministry official said, even as Kim vowed to build a self-reliant economy after declaring completion of "state nuclear force" in 2017.

"After all, in order to achieve sustainable economic growth and substantively boost people's livelihoods, they need to shift policy toward denuclearisation and economic cooperation," the official said.

As the pandemic and natural disasters compounded the squeeze, North Korea's GDP suffered its biggest contraction in 23 years in 2020, while crop production hit its lowest level under Kim, at 4.4 million. North Korea's trade with top ally China has plunged more than 90% from its 2014 peak.

This month, Kim warned of a "very giant struggle" next year, and called in October for focusing on improving people's lives despite "grim" economic conditions.

North Korea has not confirmed any COVID-19 infections but shut its borders and tightly restricted public transport and inter-state movement.

(Reporting by Hyonhee Shin; Editing by Robert Birsel)

Warren Wants Big Oil Executive Pay Investigated

By Irina Slav - Dec 16, 2021

Senator Elizabeth Warren has asked the Securities and Exchange Commission to launch an investigation into the remuneration of executives at several oil companies, including Marathon Petroleum, Chevron, and Occidental Petroleum.

According to Warren, these companies "may be misleading investors and the public about their executive compensation by using loophole-ridden climate metrics tied to CEO pay," she said in a letter to SEC chairman Gary Gensler.

Citing a Washington Post report that made allegations oil companies were setting climate change goals but then using easily manipulated metrics to gauge success, Senator Warren said that "These potentially deceptive environmental, social, and governance (ESG) metrics pose a serious problem: they have the potential to mislead investors and the public on the terms and conditions under which executive bonuses are paid to top company officials. I am requesting that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) investigate this matter." 

Marathon Petroleum, one of the "world's most egregious fossil fuel lobbying companies preventing policy-based climate action," paid its then-CEO $1.9 million between 2011 and 2020 for meeting environmental goals, awarding bonuses in nearly every year, even though a Marathon Petroleum pipeline released 1,400 barrels of diesel fuel into an Indiana creek in 2018," Senator Warren said in her letter.

Last month, Warren targeted natural gas exporters in a similar vein, accusing them of causing massive price increases for American consumers to enrich themselves.

"I am writing regarding my concern about rising natural gas prices for American consumers, the impact this will have for families struggling to pay their bills and keep their homes warm this winter, and the extent to which these price increases are being driven by energy companies' corporate greed and profiteering as they 'moved record amounts of U.S. gas out of the country,'" she said.

ROFLMAO

In response, the chief executive of EQT noted the reduction in emissions since the start of the shale gas boom, calling the U.S. LNG export industry the potentially largest green initiative in the world.

By Irina Slav for Oilprice.com