Jeremy Renner new EP, The Medicine, is the balm for our tired spirits – LaineyGossip

Posted on by

Just last Friday, Lainey wondered if Jeremy Renner would release a new song since hes claiming in court the corona crash is affecting his ability to make child support payments. WELL GUESS WHAT? Jeremy Renner has, indeed, released a new song; in fact, he has released a whole new EP called The Medicine. The lead single is also called The Medicine, and other songs on the EP include Never Sorry, Ghost and Roses,Every Woman, Best Part of Me,and December Days.Now we know how Jeremy Renner has been spending his self-quarantine: he has been preparing the healing salve of his music for the world. This is not about his never-ending and nasty custody fight, this is about soothing the masses! Did you know that we all need to feed our sins with the medicine? We do! Amidst our troubles, our uncertainty, our fear, Jeremy Renner is here with a balm for our tired spirits. Feed our sins with the medicine and we will be okay!

Feed our sins with the medicine is nonsense, of course, as no one has ever described feeding anyone or anything medicine. Taking medicine, yes, swallowing, perhaps, but I assume that wouldnt work in the scansion of the song. You could just write a different song that doesnt rely on nonsense for the hook, but what I do know? Ive only won poetry prizes. I love the dad rock Renner is putting out into the world. Its so mediocre. I will never, ever understand people who are genuinely good at one thing but insist on being mediocre at something else. I get that he loves music, and he has the money to fund his hobbybut not pay his kids bills?but alsoremember when Jeremy Renner was just a good actor? It was better, right? It was certainly simpler. Now we have to contend with his acting career AND the steady diet of unflattering stories re: the custody battle AND his singing career. Dont we have enough going on in our lives right now? Do we really have time for new music from Jeremy Renner?

Read the original post:

Jeremy Renner new EP, The Medicine, is the balm for our tired spirits - LaineyGossip

The National Library of Medicine expands access to coronavirus literature through PubMed Central – National Institutes of Health

Posted on by

News Release

Wednesday, March 25, 2020

The National Library of Medicine (NLM), part of the National Institutes of Health, is working on multiple fronts to aid in the COVID-19 response through new initiatives with the global publishing community and artificial intelligence researchers. NLM is expanding access to scientific papers on coronavirus for researchers, care providers, and the public, and for text-mining research. This work makes use of NLMs PubMed Central (PMC), a digital archive of peer-reviewed biomedical and life sciences literature. PMC currently provides access to nearly 6 million full-text journal articles.

Following on a statement issued by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and science policy leaders from almost a dozen other nations, NLM has stepped up its collaboration with publishers and scholarly societies to increase the number of coronavirus-related journal articles in PMC, along with available data supporting them. Submitted publications will be made available in PMC as quickly as possible after publication, in formats and with needed permissions to support text mining.

To support this initiative, NLM is adapting its standard procedures for depositing articles into PMC to provide greater flexibility that will ensure coronavirus research is readily available. NLM is also engaging with journals and publishers that do not currently participate in PMC but are in-scope for the NLM Collection. Interested publishers should contact pmc-phe@ncbi.nlm.nih.gov for information on participating in this initiative. Additional information, including a list of participating publishers and journals, is available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/about/covid-19.

By making this collection of coronavirus articles more readily available in machine-readable formats, NLM aims to enable artificial intelligence researchers to develop and apply novel approaches to text mining to help answer questions about coronavirus. NLM has already made more than 10,000 full-text scholarly articles from PMC related to the coronavirus available through the COVID-19 Open Research Dataset (CORD-19). The CORD-19 dataset, the result of a request by OSTP, represents the most extensive machine-readable coronavirus literature collection available for text mining to date.

NLM will continue to aid COVID-19 response efforts by adding articles to its text-mining collection as they are published and submitted. It will also aim to bring this collection to the attention of the artificial intelligence and machine learning research communities.

The National Library of Medicine (NLM) is a leader in research in biomedical informatics and data science and the worlds largest biomedical library. NLM conducts and supports research in methods for recording, storing, retrieving, preserving, and communicating health information. NLM creates resources and tools that are used billions of times each year by millions of people to access and analyze molecular biology, biotechnology, toxicology, environmental health, and health services information. Additional information is available athttps://www.nlm.nih.gov.

About the National Institutes of Health (NIH):NIH, the nation's medical research agency, includes 27 Institutes and Centers and is a component of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. NIH is the primary federal agency conducting and supporting basic, clinical, and translational medical research, and is investigating the causes, treatments, and cures for both common and rare diseases. For more information about NIH and its programs, visit http://www.nih.gov.

NIHTurning Discovery Into Health

###

Here is the original post:

The National Library of Medicine expands access to coronavirus literature through PubMed Central - National Institutes of Health

Yale Medicine researchers discover way to clean, reuse N95 masks – Waterbury Republican American

Posted on by

A worker sews face masks at SugarHouse Industries Thursday, March 26, 2020, in Midvale, Utah. SugarHouse Industries, a Utah company that usually manufactures boat tops and covers, has reconfigured its operation amid the spread of the coronavirus to produce face shields and masks. (AP Photo/Rick Bowmer)

Researchers at Yale Medicine said Friday they have discovered a way to clean and reuse N95 masks, now in critical supply throughout the country.

The study comes as shortages of the N95 masks, which protect health care workers from the coronavirus, have forced hospitals to improvise, using less-ideal surgical masks.

Some drive-thru testing centers have had to curb their hours because of mask shortages.

Reusing the N95 masks could give health care workers some respite amid the growing demand.

The study found that using aerosolized hydrogen peroxide the agent used to fumigate the hospital rooms of patients with the C. Diff hospital infection was successful in cleaning the masks 100% of the time.

Using this process, researchers say, they were able to reuse the masks up to five times.

Dr. Patrick Kenney, medical director of the corporate supply chain for Yale Medicine and Yale New Haven Health, said prior research found that the N95 mask retained good protection 50 times after the technique was used but that you cannot use them clinically that many times. The wear and tear of the mask would not stand up.

Although Yales research paper has yet to be peer-reviewed, researchers have reproduced the results three times and expect to implement the technique when supply of N95s becomes dangerously low.

Researchers decided to make their findings available to physicians now for the public health benefit.

Already, on Thursday, Duke Health announced it would begin decontaminating and reusing the specialized mask using aerosolized hydrogen peroxide at its three hospitals in Durham and Raleigh. In a statement, Duke Health explained that the technique permeates the masks to kill germs, including viruses, without harming the material.

Kenney said Yale New Haven Hospital has begun to reprocess the N95 masks but is waiting for an independent lab to determine whether the masks are still able to provide necessary filtration.

The N95 masks are one type of personal protective equipment that hospitals are trying desperately to stockpile as the COVID-19 outbreak intensifies. Also known as the N95 respirator, the mask offers more protection than a standard surgical mask. It gets its name because it prevents at least 95% of airborne particles from entering the wearers mouth and nose, if worn properly.

The shortage of N95 masks has left many hospitals scrambling for ways to protect its health workers. The Centers for Disease Control also relaxed its guidelines, allowing health care providers to use less-effective surgical mask.

Although Kenney said many hospitals have the aerosolized hydrogen peroxide equipment, neither Saint Marys, Waterbury or Charlotte Hungerford hospitals responded to inquiries asking whether they did.

Yales Kenney said Yale-New Haven has an adequate supply of N95s but that were quite concerned about availability. He emphasized that this technique is a back up plan to be implemented only if the supply of N95s becomes dangerously low. Its not the only aspect of our emergency plan, he said.

Related

Read more:

Yale Medicine researchers discover way to clean, reuse N95 masks - Waterbury Republican American

Dairies demand doorstep delivery of vet medicines – The Tribune

Posted on by

Harshraj Singh

Tribune News Service

Ludhiana, March 30

After the supply of fodder for cattle has been normalised, dairy owners in city are now waiting for medicines for the treatment of sick cattle and are concerned as medicines are not available.

Since curfew has been imposed, veterinary medicine shops are closed and there is no service available to deliver medicine at dairy complexes, said the dairy owners on Tajpur Road.

Earlier, Mayor Balkar Singh Sandhu met fodder suppliers of Baranala and requested them to ensure the supply of fodder for cattle in the district. Now, dairy owners want from the concerned authorities to allow delivery of veterinary medicines at doorsteps.

The president of Tajpur Road Dairy Complex Association, DS Oberoi, said: The supply of dry fodder for cattle has been resumed. We want that medicines and feed for the cattle should also be delivered at dairy complexes. There are some veterinary medicine shops at Tajpur Road, but are closed owing to the curfew. The government should either open veterinary medicine shops or provide the shop owners with curfew passes to start delivery of required medicines at dairy complexes. If the required feed is not available, production of milk may also get affected.

Though dry fodder is being made available but the suppliers say they are unable to weigh the fodder as the stores where weighing scales are available, are closed. We request the authorities to resolve our issues so that supply of milk can be ensured, said a dairy owner.

Mayor Balkar Singh Sandhu said: After we met some farmers, they have started the supply of fodder to dairy complexes. We will take the required measures so that the delivery of veterinary medicines can also be ensured at the earliest.

Read the original post:

Dairies demand doorstep delivery of vet medicines - The Tribune

Futurism – Literature | Britannica

Posted on by

Not content with merely taking over the urban and modernist themes of Futurist painting, the writers who embraced Italian literary Futurism sought to develop a language appropriate for what they perceived to be the speed and ruthlessness of the early 20th century. They established new genres, the most significant being parole in libert (words-in-freedom), also referred to as free-word poetry. It was poetry liberated from the constraints of linear typography and conventional syntax and spelling. A brief extract from Marinettis war poem Battaglia peso + odore (1912; Battle Weight + Smell) was appended to one of the Futurists manifestos as an example of words-in-freedom:

Arterial-roads bulging heat fermenting hair armpits drum blinding blondness breathing + rucksack 18 kilograms common sense = seesaw metal moneybox weakness: 3 shudders commands stones anger enemy magnet lightness glory heroism Vanguards: 100 meters machine guns rifle-fire explosion violins brass pim pum pac pac tim tum machine guns tataratatarata

Designed analogies (pictograms where shape analogically mimics meaning), dipinti paroliberi (literary collages combining graphic elements with free-word poetry), and sintesi (minimalist plays) were among other new genres. New forms of dissemination were favoured, including Futurist evenings, mixed-media events, and the use of manifesto leaflets, poster poems, and broadsheet-format journals containing a mixture of literature, painting, and theoretical pronouncements. Until 1914, however, output fell far short of the movements declared program, and Futurist poetsin contrast to Marinettiremained largely traditionalist in their subject matter and idiom, as was demonstrated by the movements debut anthology I poeti futuristi (1912; The Futurist Poets).

Marinetti was for some time primarily associated with his African Mafarka le futuriste (1910; Mafarka the Futurist), a tale of rape, pillage, and battle set in North Africa. Apart from its misogyny, racism, and glorification of a cult of violence, the novel is remembered for its heros creation of a machine brought to life as a superman destined to inherit the future. Only when Marinetti started grounding his avant-garde poetry in the realities of his combat experiences as a war reporter during World War I, however, did a distinctly innovative Futurist idiom emerge, one that represented a significant break from past poetic practices.

The title of literary Futurisms most important manifesto, Distruzione della sintassiimmaginazione senza filiparole in libert (1913; Destruction of SyntaxWireless ImaginationWords-in-Freedom), represented Marinettis demands for a pared-down elliptical language, stripped of adjectives and adverbs, with verbs in the infinitive and mathematical signs and word pairings used to convey information more economically and more boldly. The resultant telegraphic lyricism is most effective in Marinettis war poetry, especially Zang tumb tumb and Dunes (both 1914). A desire to make language more intensive led to a pronounced use of onomatopoeia in poems dealing with machines and waras in the title of Zang tumb tumb, intended to mimic the sound of artillery fireand to a departure from uniform, horizontal typography. A number of Futurist painter-poets blurred the distinction between literature and visual art, as Severini did in Danza serpentina (1914; Serpentine Dance). While Marinettis poetic experiments revealed an indebtedness to Cubism, he elevated Italian literary collage, often created for the purpose of pro-war propaganda, to a distinctively Futurist art form. The culmination of this tendency came with Carrs Festa patriottica (1914; Patriotic Celebration) and Marinettis Les Mots en libert futuristes (1919; Futurist Words-in-Freedom).

A typographical revolution was also proclaimed in the Futurists 1913 manifesto; it grew out of both a desire to make form visually dynamic and a perceived need for visual effects in type that were capable of reflectingthrough size and boldnessthe noise of modern warfare and urban life. A diverse series of shaped poetic layouts depicted speeding cars, trains, and airplanes, exploding bombs, and the confusions of battle. Apart from Marinettis work, the most accomplished typographical experiments are to be found in the poetry of Francesco Cangiullo and Fortunato Depero.

During its first decade, Italian literary Futurism remained a largely homogeneous movement. By contrast, Russian Futurism was fragmented into a number of splinter groups (Ego-Futurists, Cubo-Futurists, Hylaea [Russian Gileya]) associated with a large number of anthologies representing continually regrouping artistic factions. While there was an urbanist strand to Russian Futurism, especially in the poetry of Vladimir Mayakovsky and Yelena Guro, Russian writers were less preoccupied with machines, speed, and violence than their Italian counterparts. The dominant strain of primitivism in Russian Futurism led some to conclude that the two movements have little in common apart from the word Futurism. While there was a shared interest in the renewal of language, the Italians innovations were invariably designed to express an ultramodern sensibility, whereas Russian Futurist poets and playwrights confined their attentions to The Word as Such (the title of one of their most famous manifestos, Slovo kak takovoye, published in 1913). A number of these writers, most impressively Velimir Khlebnikov, explored the archaic roots of language and drew on primitive folk culture for their inspiration.

As was the case in Italy, the main achievements of Russian Futurism lie in poetry and drama. As it did in Italy, neologism played a large role in Russian attempts to renew language, which in turn aimed at the destruction of syntax. The most-famous Futurist poem, Khlebnikovs Zaklyatiye smekhom (1910; Incantation by Laughter), generates a series of permutations built on the root -smekh (laughter) by adding impossible prefixes and suffixes. The result is a typical (for Russian Futurism) concern with etymology and word creation. Khlebnikovs and Alexey Kruchenykhs radical forays into linguistic poetry went hand in hand with an interest in the word as pure sound. Their invented zaumthe largely untranslatable name given to their transrational languagewas intended to take language beyond logical meanings in the direction of a new visionary mysticism. Kruchenykhs opera Pobeda nad solncem (1913; Victory over the Sun) and Khlebnikovs play Zangezi (1922) are two of the most-important examples of the Futurist blend of transrationalism with the cult of the primitive. Mayakovsky, the greatest Russian poet to have gone through a Futurist phase, was coauthor of the manifesto Poshchochina obshchestvennomu vkusu (1912; A Slap in the Face of Public Taste), and his poems figure in many of the movements key anthologies. While sharing an Italian-influenced Futurist sensibility with the Ego-Futurists and belonging more, on account of their concern with verbal innovation, to the body of works by the Cubo-Futurist painter-poets, his poetry and plays are, above all, Futurist in their provocative rejection of the past and their subjectivist approach to the renewal of poetic language.

During the 1920s, Marinetti and those around him gravitated toward fascism, whereas the Soviet communist regime became increasingly intolerant of what it dismissed as avant-garde Formalism. While relations between Italian and Russian Futurism were, on the whole, strained, the Italian Futurists exercised a strong influence on German Expressionism, English Vorticism, and international Dada.

See the original post:

Futurism - Literature | Britannica

Scientists Say There Could Be Life on Mercury – Futurism

Posted on by

Mercurious

According to a study published last week in the journal Scientific Reports, theres a minuscule chance that Mercury, our Suns closest neighbor, has all it needs to host life.

It is possible that as long as there was water, the temperatures would be appropriate for the survival and possibly the origin of life, co-author Jeffrey Kargel from the Planetary Science Institute told The New York Times.

In the study, the team of researchers suggest that the Mercurys chaotic surface isnt the result of earthquakes, as the prevailing theory holds. Instead, they argue, cracks in the surface are rather caused by volatiles elements that can quickly switch from one state to another such as a liquid turning into a gas bubbling up from below.

Volatiles such as water could provide an environment friendly to life underground the surface itself is far too hot, heating up toaround 800 degrees Fahrenheit during the day.

The idea of life on Mercury is still a long shot, but the researchers are hopeful.

I thought [co-author] Alexis [Rodriguez] had lost it at some point, Kargel told the Times. But the more I dug into the geologic evidence and the more I thought about the chemistry and physical conditions there, the more I realized that this idea well it might be nuts, but its not completely nuts.

READ MORE: Life on the Planet Mercury? Its Not Completely Nuts [The New York Times]

More on Mercury: Mercury Is Every Planet in the Solar Systems Closest Neighbor

See the rest here:

Scientists Say There Could Be Life on Mercury - Futurism

Mexican Protesters Complain That Americans Are Spreading COVID-19 – Futurism

Posted on by

Border Patrol

Mexican protesters shut down the border with the United Stateson Thursday by blocking roadways, fearing American travelers spreading the deadly coronavirus pandemic to their country.

There are no health screenings by the federal government to deal with this pandemic, protester Jose Luis Hernandez told USA Today. Weve taken this action to call on the Mexican President Andrs Manuel Lpez Obrador to act now.

The protesters, wearing facemasks, told theBBC that although the border is supposed to be closed to all but essential business, travelers from the United States are still being allowed through with no health screening.

Its an ironic reversal, as the U.S. has cracked down on border security under the Trump administration. But now, flipping that dynamic, the U.S. has more confirmed cases of COVID-19 than anywhere on Earth whereas Mexico only had 500 as of Thursday, according to the BBC.

The protesters are also angry at Mexican president Andrs Manuel Lpez Obrador, who they say isnt taking the outbreak seriously.

Public health officials in Mexico are calling for strict measures to limit community transmission, according to USA Today, but Lpez Obrador has refused to tell residents to stay home a move that could mean the virus will spread regardless of whether the country cracks down on its Northern border.

READ MORE: Protesters in Mexico block lanes at Arizona border crossing to demand stricter coronavirus screenings [USA Today]

More on the future of cities: Professor: Pandemic Will Force the Rich Into Hiding

Originally posted here:

Mexican Protesters Complain That Americans Are Spreading COVID-19 - Futurism

The Coronavirus Holy Grail: Testing Whether You’re Immune – Futurism

Posted on by

One of the strangest aspects of the coronavirus outbreak has been the unknown:

Have I gotten it yet? Did I already get it? Am I immune now?

In other words, was that cough you had a couple weeks back just a regular bug, or was it a mild case of COVID-19? You felt pretty sick, but you never noticed a fever. And then you got better. Should you still be hiding indoors?

If youre experiencing symptoms and youre exceptionally lucky or well-connected, you might be able to get swab-tested to detect whether or not you currently have the virus. Thats useful info, because it means that after youve self-quarantined, your body has produced disease-fighting antibodies it needs to slap the virus down.

But if you didnt get tested while you were sick and if youre like most people, as of right now you wont be able to and then you got better, youre currently left in the strange position of not knowing whether or not you could still catch the bug, and spread it to others.

Thats why its such an exciting, hopeful development that a number of research teams are zeroing in on a blood test that specifically identifies whether your body has developed an immunity against the coronavirus, as Reuters is reporting.

Ultimately, this [antibody test] might help us figure out who can get the country back to normal, Florian Krammer, a professor in vaccinology at Mount Sinais Icahn School of Medicine whos working on one such test, told Reuters. People who are immune could be the first people to go back to normal life and start everything up again.

Krammers team has already developed a promising test, according to Reuters, and theyre in the process of sharing the procedure with other labs and Mount Sinai, which plans to start using it to test patient samples.

Even more promising, the news agency reports, is that body fluid tests dont need exhaustive approval from the Food and Drug Administration, meaning that tests like Krammers could end up in circulation soon.

Its worth pointing out, as Reuters did, that there are several lingering questions about COVID-19 immunity. Its not clear how long it lasts, for instance, or how accurate the new tests might be.

There have even been scattered reports of people already catching the coronavirus twice, though scientists say the question merits further study.

But if the new tests do pan out, they could be an absolute game changer in the fight against the pandemic. For one thing, theyd allow people whod already caught the virus knowingly or otherwise to go out and rejoin society, breathing life back into the stalled world economy.

And theyd be invaluable for health care providers, who would be able to treat sick patients knowing they were unable to catch the virus themselves.

If I ever get the virus and then get over it, Ill want to get back to the front lines ASAP, Adams Dudley, a pulmonologist and faculty member at the University of Minnesota School of Medicine. I would have a period in which I am immune, effectively making me a corona blocker who couldnt pass the disease on.

Long story short, this could be the closest thing we would have to a vaccine for a while. Watch this space.

Go here to read the rest:

The Coronavirus Holy Grail: Testing Whether You're Immune - Futurism

Scientists Discover That a Squid Can Edit Its Own Genetic Code – Futurism

Posted on by

Tentacle Hack

The next generation of genetic medicine may be inspired by a bizarre genetic trick that a small squid species uses to edit its own genome on the fly.

The longfin inshore squid can edit the RNA inside its nerve cells, Wired reports, meaning that it can drastically alter the behavior of its biological machinery as needed perhaps to help the animal rapidly adapt to new environments. Its a bizarre discovery, and one that could potentially lead to better genetic treatments for humans.

Researchers from the Marine Biological Laboratory found that the squid alters the RNA within its axons instead of the DNA within its nuclei, according to research published Monday in the journal Nucleic Acids Research. Thus far, its the only animal known to do so.

RNA editing is a hell of a lot safer than DNA editing, lead researcher Joshua Rosenthal told Wired. If you make a mistake, the RNA just turns over and goes away.

Because it happens outside the nucleus, RNA editing would be an improvement over modern genetic treatments, Wired reports. To gene-hack a patient with CRISPR, the new genetic information needs to breach not only a cells membrane but also the membrane of that cells nucleus to reach its DNA.

But it will be some time before medical doctors start to use the longfin inshore squids weird gene-hacks on people. For now, researchers still arent even sure why, exactly, the squid alters its genes.

READ MORE: Squids Gene-Editing Superpowers May Unlock Human Cures [Wired]

More on gene-hacking: George Church Told us Why Hes Listing Superhuman Gene Hacks

See the original post:

Scientists Discover That a Squid Can Edit Its Own Genetic Code - Futurism

Meanwhile, The Great Barrier Reef Had a Horrible Bleaching Event – Futurism

Posted on by

Dying Off

The Great Barrier Reef just suffered its third mass coral bleaching event in just five years, and officials are now giving even more dire predictions for the reefs future.

Australian officials have now downgraded the long-term outlook for the Great Barrier Reef to very poor, reports Agence France-Presse. The bad news drives home yet again that we are already facing very real consequences of the climate changecrisis.

The new bleaching event is particularly troubling because its far more widespread than the two that occurred in 2016 and 2017, AFP reports.

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, the agency that updated the reefs prognosis, reports that there was moderate or severe bleaching even in areas that hadnt yet been damaged at all during previous bleaching events.

The Australian government says that its exceeded its emission goals and is ahead of the pack, as far as keeping to the Paris climate agreement is concerned, but experts told AFP that it still needs to do more.

Theres an urgent need for reef-safe climate policies, Shani Tager of the Australian Marine Conservation Society told AFP.

READ MORE: Great Barrier Reef suffers mass coral bleaching event [Agence France-Presse]

More on the Great Barrier Reef: Scientists Testify: The Great Barrier Reef Cant Be Saved Through Current Efforts

Read more here:

Meanwhile, The Great Barrier Reef Had a Horrible Bleaching Event - Futurism

Spreading COVID-19 on Purpose? You Could Be Charged With Terrorism. – Futurism

Posted on by

All for the Gram

The grossness and casual brutality of online prank culture has been on full display during the coronavirus pandemic, with kids pulling stunts ranging from from licking toilet seats to coughing in the face of the elderly in search of viral fame.

Now these idiots have yet another reason to think twice: Politico reports that the Justice Department may charge people who spread the deadly virus intentionally with terrorism charges.

Politico obtained a memo by Jeff Rosen, the Justice Departments second-in-command, that calls for a crackdown on intentionally infecting others.

Because Coronavirus appears to meet the statutory definition of a biological agent such acts potentially could implicate the Nations terrorism-related statutes, Rosen wrote in the memo. Threats or attempts to use COVID-19 as a weapon against Americans will not be tolerated.

The Justice Department isnt the only domestic law enforcement trying to curtail neer-do-well who are spreading the virus on purpose. In Missouri, for instance, cops arrested a man who filmed himself licking containers of deodorant at a local Walmart and charged him with making a terrorist threat.

In other words, YouTubers, drop the camera the extra views arent worth ending up with authorities treating you like Al Qaeda.

READ MORE: Those who intentionally spread coronavirus could be charged as terrorists [Politico]

More on COVID-19: Even Snopes Has Been Overwhelmed by Coronavirus Misinformation

Excerpt from:

Spreading COVID-19 on Purpose? You Could Be Charged With Terrorism. - Futurism

Texas Lt Governor Supports Euthanasia by Virus for Gramps and Granny to Save the Economy – Patheos

Posted on by

Texas Lt Governor Dan Patrick. Photo Source: Wikimedia Commons share alike.

So now some of the so-called pro life people in the Republican Party are pushing for indirectly euthanizing elderly people for the sake of the economy.

This isnt coming from rank and file pseudo pro life people. Its coming for the top tier of political pro lifers who got elected by singing the song of the sanctity of human life.

The Lt Governor of Texas got on national tv and went all-out backing it.Texas Lt Governor Dan Patrick went on Tucker Carlson Tonight, a program on Fox News, and suggested that we end the fight to stop the Coronavirus in order to save the economy. His logic? Not that many people are dying and most of the people his proposal would kill would be older Americans.

In the course of the interview, he made this entirely specious statement:

Tucker, no one reached out to me and said, As a senior citizen, are you willing to take a chance on your survival in exchange for keeping the America that all America loves for your children and grandchildren? And if thats the exchange, Im all in, Patrick said, later adding, My message is, lets get back to work. Lets get back to living. Lets be smart about it, and those of us who are 70-plus, well take care of ourselves.

First of all, the claim that somehow or other this would apply to him and endanger his little life is, in plain language, bull. Hes the Lt Governor of Texas. Hes already protected. If he gets sick, hell go to the head of the line for medical care, and he knows it.

What this pro life Republican what all the pro life Republicans who are talking this talk are doing is to promote a new kind of eugenics and euthanasia by neglect of a large segment of the population. He didnt mention useless eaters, but I imagine some heavily air-brushed and refitted form of that argument is coming.

The fact that this powerful man is using a stupid-as-a-stump appeal to patriotism and love of grandchildren to propose this atrocity just makes it more disgusting.

If you truly value the sanctity of human life, you dont support euthanasia by virus for large numbers of people for money. You just dont.Killing people is wrong. Killing people for money may just be even more wrong.

Im not surprised by how crude this mans argument is. Ive known for a long time that a lot of politicians and clergy who say they are pro life dont have the first clue what that means.

Im also not surprised by the smarmy way it is being presented. Open up a phony pro-lifer, and youll find a cesspool of smarm and phony piousness.

I understand that we are standing between an enraged tiger and an attacking bear. Its the economy on one side and the virus on the other, and the future is in the middle. I know that we are in a really tough situation. But I expect a bit more from our elected officials than sanctimonious claptrap and slimy appeals to a large segment of the population to march willingly into the arms of the Baals as human sacrifices to the stock market.

We could also use some religious leadership here. Are Franklin Graham, Jerry Falwell Jr, and Fr Pavone going to jump out there and say Lets forfeit the lives of all the old people or will they stand up to this attack on the sanctity of human life?

Im not holding my breath. I learned at the Kavanaugh confirmation that our religious leaders are highly selective when it comes to how they apply moral teachings. It appears that our religious leaders view morality as grind-you-down absolute for little people and those on the wrong political side. For those in power on the right political side, its all relative and not as important as serious issues of state.

Our liar president got us into this mess by flying around the country holding rallies and claiming the Coronavirus was a Democratic hoax instead of doing his job and taking action early on.

Now he wants to throw in the towel and let the virus loose in order to save the economy. He does not have the brains to get us out of the disaster he demagogued us into. He evidently cant think of any other way to sail the ship of state except by jettisoning large numbers of its citizens. He seems perfectly willing to kill lots of Americans.

Hes got his political hacks going on the Trump media and making appeals to euthanasia-by-virus for large numbers of the American people. Their solution is to deliberately and knowingly sacrifice the lives of a lot of Americans.

All the pious nonsense about how they would give their lives are lies. None of this applies to them.

Euthanasia is wrong boys and girls. Its murder.

From Yahoo News:

As the coronavirus continues to spread in the United States, forcing people to stay in their homes and causing an economic downturn, Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick joined Tucker Carlson Tonight where he became a top-trending topic by suggesting we get back to our normal lives to save the economy even at great risk to the countrys senior citizens. Patrick, who turns 70 next week, believes its up to older Americans to take that risk.

Tucker, no one reached out to me and said, As a senior citizen, are you willing to take a chance on your survival in exchange for keeping the America that all America loves for your children and grandchildren? And if thats the exchange, Im all in, Patrick said, later adding, My message is, lets get back to work. Lets get back to living. Lets be smart about it, and those of us who are 70-plus, well take care of ourselves.

Read the original post:

Texas Lt Governor Supports Euthanasia by Virus for Gramps and Granny to Save the Economy - Patheos

Remember the Party of Terri Schiavo? – New York Magazine

Posted on by

Protesters demanding political intervention to keep Terri Schiavo on life support. Photo: Matt May/Getty Images

You dont have to know much political history to become deeply unsettled by the recent public muttering by selected conservative voices that the benefits of reopening the economy might justify the otherwise avoidable deaths of a lot of unproductive old and sick folk who could succumb to the coronavirus pandemic. As my colleague Sarah Jones argued compellingly:

The views expressed by [Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan] Patrick and [First Things editor Rusty] Reno and [Trump adviser Stephen] Moore separate human life into categories. In one box, there are people worth saving. In the other, there are people we ought to let die What they contemplate is not quite mass murder, but a sort of planned negligent homicide. Patrick doesnt want to build gas chambers. He just wants to let nature take its course. The fit will survive the cull.

And here history is instructive. Eugenics, as a form of human culling, was a pseudoscientific movement that gained lethal strength in the early 20th century and became official state doctrine in various regimes where murdering or starving useless eaters was regarded as essential to the public welfare or even to the health and welfare of the human species. Horror of human culling was deeply bred into the generations of Americans and Europeans who sought to identify civilization itself with the rejection of mass homicide. That this horror might be fading is disturbing enough. But that the idea is posting a comeback among American conservatives is particularly shocking, since not that very long ago that political tribe habitually accused liberals of an openness to euthanasia as a byproduct of legalized abortion.

Remember Terri Schiavo, whose cause embroiled the country during the spring of 2005? She was the severely brain-damaged Florida woman whose agonized husband became embroiled in a legal battle with her parents as he sought to terminate life support, which he felt certain she would have wished. That legal battle became intensely political as Terri Schiavo was adopted as a sort of mascot by the anti-abortion movement as evidence of its claim that the indifference to life exhibited by legalized abortion would eventually lead to euthanasia. Florida governor Jeb Bush spearheaded a state government intervention in her case in 2003 to force reinsertion of a feeding tube, and later Jebs brother signed emergency legislation, enacted during a remarkable March 2005 special session of the Republican-controlled Congress, to assert federal jurisdiction over Schiavos fate. She was finally allowed a dignified death when federal courts refused to overrule a local judges decision to let the poor woman go.

Wheres that Republican Party as some of its opinion leaders express equanimity about tolerating, if not encouraging, mass death in the cause of giving the economy a nice lift prior to the 2020 elections? Whos the Party of Death (a common epithet for Democrats among anti-abortion activists) now?

Its particularly striking that there are elements of the very anti-abortion movement that fought to keep Schiavo alive that are expressing pleasure over the net effect of the coronavirus, since it has allowed some GOP lawmakers to halt abortions as a byproduct of elective surgery bans:

Texas Republican congressional candidate Kathaleen Wall thanked Governor Greg Abbott for signing an executive order last week that deemed abortions medically unnecessary, with Wall claiming the coronavirus may now save more lives than it will take.

Wall, who advanced from the 22nd Congressional District Republican primary earlier this month, has posted several articles discussing pregnancy and coronavirus and touting President Donald Trumps ability to put partisan politics aside as he fights the COVID-19 pandemic. But Walls March 24 Facebook post claiming coronavirus will save more lives this week than it takes created exactly that type of partisan fighting between pro-choice and anti-abortion residents.

Im not calling Republicans generally eugenicists or fans of euthanasia. But it is a sign of the cult of personality into which this party and its ideological allies have succumbed that the desire to lift Trump to reelection on the wings of economic recovery is so powerful, pro-life values be damned. And conservatives who do know their history need to shout down the Evangelists of GDP ber alles with special determination.

Daily news about the politics, business, and technology shaping our world.

More here:

Remember the Party of Terri Schiavo? - New York Magazine

Legalise voluntary euthanasia, Queensland government health panel recommends – The Guardian

Posted on by

Queensland should legalise voluntary assisted dying for terminally ill adults, the governments health committee has found.

A year-long investigation to gauge public opinion on voluntary euthanasia has determined most Queenslanders are in favour of it. It is the first time the state has ever considered voluntary assisted dying.

Currently, theres no option to help terminally ill Queenslanders die.

The committee found that every four days in Queensland, a terminally ill person takes their own life.

This must stop, the committee chair and Labor MP Aaron Harper wrote in a report tabled in parliament on Tuesday. Suicide should never be the only option for Queenslanders suffering at end of life.

This is just one of the many reasons the majority of our committee chose to support a recommendation for more choice for people suffering from an advanced progressive or neurodegenerative condition, through access to a voluntary assisted dying scheme.

A sample bill has already been drafted by Queensland University of Technology professors Ben White and Lindy Wilmot.

Its an excellent bill, the president of Dying with Dignity Queensland, Jos Hall, said.

Advocates want to see voluntary assisted dying legislated before Octobers state election, but understand the response to the Covid-19 pandemic takes priority.

It needs to be dealt with as a matter of priority at the first available opportunity, Hall said. Knowing that over 80% of Queenslanders support voluntary assisted dying, regardless of who forms the next government, we would like to see this dealt with.

We would be pleased to work with whichever party forms government if this is not dealt [with] in this parliamentary term.

The work to draft a bill could start now, said the chief executive of Go Gentle Australia, Kiki Paul. Obviously, the worlds attention is, rightly, on the coronavirus emergency. But regardless, Covid-19 should not stand in the way of good, evidence-based law reform.

The state government must accept these recommendations and begin the necessary work to fulfil the wishes of the Queensland people.

The committee of parliamentarians recommended euthanasia be limited to Australian citizens or permanent residents in Queensland with the capacity to make decisions.

To be eligible, patients must be diagnosed with an advanced or progressively terminal chronic or neurodegenerative condition that cannot be eased. Those with a mental health illness should not be ruled out, so long as they can make decisions.

Timeframes for a persons assisted death should not be proposed, the committee recommended, in recognition of the complex, subjective and unpredictable nature of terminal illnesses.

Continued here:

Legalise voluntary euthanasia, Queensland government health panel recommends - The Guardian

EuthanasiaPro and Con | The Nation

Posted on by

Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue.

Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!

IT SEEMS inconceivable that in a happier world of the future no provision should be made for putting out of their misery persons suffering from an excessively painful and incurable disease. We shall have to find some legal way to accord to human beings the relief we accord to animals.Ad Policy

Euthanasiaor mercy killingcan be practiced by commission, which is illegal, or by omission, which is not. A doctor cannot he punished for intentionally neglecting to administer some remedy or stimulant which might prolong life, although he may be accused of incompetence and malpractice. I shall consider here only euthanasia by commission.

The present situation is utterly unfair to the individual physician who believes that the relief of suffering is one of his principal duties. Many medical practitioners undoubtedly resort to euthanasia, but since they do so secretly it is impossible to say how many. They feel compelled to commit a technical murder even though they must bear the whole responsibility. That is the unfair part. Situations like the recent one in New Hampshire must arise frequently, and why in that case the doctor reported his act is difficult to understand. (Why, too, did he inject air instead of merely giving an overdose of morphine?) Bigots and sticklers for legal technicalities will always try to prevent or punish humanitarian action by an individual physician. Since the decision rests with him alone, the doctor will rarely ask for the consent of either the patient or the relatives. The mercy killing is therefore done furtively, when it should be done candidly, serenely, and lawfully.

None of the various arguments against euthanasia have ever shaken my belief in its truly humane purpose. In the space at my disposal I can refer only to a few. One of the most frequently heard but also most superficial objections is that the Nazis practiced euthanasia. What loose thinking! The Nazis never asked the consent of patients or relatives. There was no mercy in their killings, only expediency.

The contention that a seemingly incurable condition might some day be cured by a new medical discovery hardly holds water. How can the hopeless cancer victim or the imbecile child of today benefit by a discovery of tomorrow? The laws regulating euthanasia must of course be flexible, and requirements based on present knowledge may be changed in the future.

Another objection to euthanasia stems from the possibility of fraud and abuse. But if the decision on merciful release is left to a government-appointed board of at least three personsfor instance, two medical men and one lawyer, who must be unanimous in its favorthis seems a weak argument. Surely legal experts can devise adequate safeguards.

There will always remain the opposition of those who ding to sentimental superstitions about the sacredness of life. Such an emotional attitude cannot be changed by any reasoning. But let me give an example of the sacredness of life.

A friend of mine, a professional man in his late sixties, suffered from an inoperable cancer of the liver which caused great accumulation of water in the abdominal cavity. At least once a week his abdomen had to be tapped to relieve the pressure. He suffered also from a chronic inflammation of the heart muscle, and the resulting circulatory weakness added to the complete hopelessness of the case. Bedridden in a hospital, he was kept alive by medical skill and expert nursing. Physicians and nurses did their duty. Sedatives were used, but in small doses they were often ineffective, and large doses were deemed contra-indicated.

My friend was not a man of means but had managed to save a few thousand dollars for his wife and for a handicapped child. His savings dwindled from week to week. The hospital expenses were high. The bill for oxygen alone, which he required frequently, was more than $20 a week. He was anxious to die to end his suffering and to preserve at least part of his savings. But he was a religious man and rejected any idea of suicide. He did not approve of euthanasia. He could only pray that death might come soon. When he was down to his last few dollars and had to worry how he would pay his next hospital bill and how his wife would pay the next months rent, then and only then did death come. There was not enough money left to bury him.

In this case even legalized euthanasia would have been out of the question since the religious convictions of the patient himself, and probably also of his wife, would have prevented him from making the application or giving his consent. But in innumerable cases such religious convictions do not exist.

I could have made this story a more effective argument for euthanasia by having the patient beg in vain for release, but I wanted to report a true experience. It is easy for the reader to visualize the increased suffering and the heightened tragedy when euthanasia is desired and unmercifully denied by society.

Euthanasia has been called pagan and indecent. One may well ask, which is betterpagan mercifulness, indecent compassion, or devout inhumanity?

EUTHANASIA is humane and merciful as an idea. It might be inhumane and dangerous as a practice. A progressive society should limit its power over human beings instead of expanding it. Strangely enough, many people who denounce capital punishment are in favor of euthanasia.

Legalizing euthanasia would be a disservice to the medical profession in that it would expand the power and responsibility of physicians, which are already almost unbearably great. The legal conditions proposedconsent of the patient or his family, decision by a state commissionwould create psychological and technical situations beyond human endurance.

Millions of people today live a hopeless and painful, even a socially useless, life without the benefit of an incurable disease. Should they be permitted to be candidates for euthanasia? Suffering is more easily accepted by the patient who really has a painful disease than by the neurotic person who produces his misery and pain by emotional processes. Even the incapacitated, agonized patient, in despair most of the time, may still get some joy from existence. His mood will change between longing for death and fear of death. Who would want to decide what should be done on such unsafe ground?

Last summer in Germany I witnessed a number of so-called euthanasia trials. The Nazis and their medical hangmen had murdered many thousands of mental patients, epileptics, feeble-minded, physically handicapped, asocial persons. Of course these crimes had no resemblance to the euthanasia some people want legalized. There was no consent, no indicationin most casesof unbearable suffering. However, the mass murder was justified as euthanasia, and one cannot help being deeply disturbed by the attitude of apparently honest physicians toward the orders of a perverted government and by the potential dangers of euthanasia as an instrument of public health.

Hopeless or incurable disease is an outmoded medical concept. We have seen in our lifetime a great number of incurable diseases become curable. Cancer may be curable the day after our application for euthanasia is signed.

It is also possible that undue influence would be exercised by the patients family. Suffering may seem more unbearable to the sensitive onlooker than to the sufferer himself. Chronic disease is always a social catastrophe whether death is imminent or not. Families are disrupted; their economic security is destroyed. But it is a sinister thought that economic considerations might influence the decision as to life or death. Death; in our society, has already too much taken on the character of an important financial transaction; a physician must frequently deal with patients who insist that they can afford death because of their insurance provisions, but not life with an incapacitating incurable disease. It seems clear to me that a public health insurance system should lessen the risk and the tragedy of chronic disease, but euthanasia is not a tolerable substitute for social and medical assistance.

The weapons of medicine for fighting pain and alleviating unbearable suffering have increased beyond any expectation. There is, indeed, no place for unbearable pain in modern medicine. If people die in torment it is because qualified medical or nursing care is unavailable. I have often been appalled by the undignified and careless way in which people are forced to die. Help in making birth easier is today a matter of routine, and almost no child comes into the world without expert assistance. Dying is often very difficult. It seems to me there ought to be well-trained death helpers among doctors and nurses just as there are birth helpers. But what is needed is wise guidance in the tremendous human experience of death, not the fulfillment of a more or less self-imposed death sentence by euthanasia.

Much can be done to integrate death into everybodys existence, to make our departure from human society as natural an event as our entrance. But I greatly doubt that legalized euthanasia is the best means. As a physician, I feel I would have to reject the power and responsibility of the ultimate decision.

Originally posted here:

EuthanasiaPro and Con | The Nation

Margaret Somerville: Withdrawing artificial hydration and nutrition – The Catholic Weekly

Posted on by

Reading Time: 8 minutesCaring for our elderly and terminally ill is expensive. But it is also a non-negotiable, fundamental duty of government.

It can be unethical to withdraw artificial hydration and nutrition and doing so can constitute a form of euthanasia that is, when its withdrawn with a primary intention to cause death. But withdrawal is not always unethical. Just as there are situations where it is justified to turn off a ventilator, so too there can be situations where it is justified to withdraw artificial hydration and nutrition.

Australias ABC networkrecently reported a storyof an elderly South Australian woman with dementia and breast cancer, who was not mentally competent and was being given hydration and nutrition through a nasogastric tube.

The tube fell out and the Public Advocate, who was the legal guardian of the patient and decision maker for her, determined that it should not be replaced. The reasons given included that the tube was burdensome, that it was prolonging suffering, and that replacing it would be contrary to the presumed wishes of the patient which is to say, if she were able to decide for herself, she would refuse replacement.

Two of the patients daughters, a Catholic bishop and the patients Catholic priest all disagreed with the Public Advocates decision and sought to change it. The daughters argued that the patient would want to live as long as possible and that replacing the tube was consistent with her Catholic faith.

The tube was not replaced, and the patient died five weeks later.

Now, despite being a truism, a very important principle in applied ethics is that good facts are essential for good ethics. The story as reported does not provide sufficient facts to judge whether or not the cessation of artificial feeding by means of a nasogastric tube was an ethically acceptable decision.

Its worth noting that hydration wasnotwithdrawn, but was delivered by intravenous line. So a pertinent question is: what justification was there for withdrawing nutrition, but not hydration? Either both hydration and nutrition were ethically appropriate life-prolonging treatment, or neither were.

One reason for the different approach to hydration as compared with nutrition could be that delivering total parenteral nutrition is a far more invasive procedure and more burdensome for the patient than, as occurred in this case, delivering hydration by way of an intravenous drip. The hydration might also have been continued as comfort care rather than life-prolonging treatment.

I was once consulted on a comparable case.

A young woman, who was diabetic and on haemodialysis for kidney failure, had a sudden cardiac arrest. She was revived and placed on a ventilator, but several days later, when she was due for dialysis, was diagnosed as being in a deep and irreversible coma.

Her parents decided that she should not receive dialysis, but they did not want the ventilator to be removed. We complied with their wishes in order to avoid further sufferingto them, not because we believed it was necessary treatment for the young woman. We explained in the case notes that was the reason the ventilator was continued. The young woman died a natural death from renal failure, at which time the ventilator was stopped.

What often causes great emotional trauma for a patients family, as was true in the South Australian case, is the thought of starving and dehydrating the patient to death in withdrawing artificial hydration and nutrition. There is, however, research that shows the hunger and thirst mechanisms in our brains shut down when we are dying.

The reflections of the Catholic Church on medical ethics are a frequently used reference point for bioethicists around the world. Even if they reject them, bioethicists respond to its concerns. This is especially true in a case such as the one we are considering, in which the patient and her carers are of that faith.

The Catholic Church teaches that food and fluids must always be offered and supplied if the person can take these orally. Pope John Paul II (now Saint Pope John Paul II) declared in a 2004 address that the same requirement of mandatory provision applies to artificial hydration and nutrition for people in a permanent vegetative state that is, hydration and nutrition not taken orally but delivered by other means.

With great respect, I believe that this statement needs to be nuanced. In that particular document its clear that the Pope wanted to protect vulnerable patients receiving artificial hydration and nutrition who are in a stable medical condition.

There are thousands of such patients in nursing homes and they have a right to humane basic care, as the Pope says. But the Pope might not have been thinking of the acceptability of withdrawal of artificial hydration and nutrition fromallpatients in a permanent vegetative state.

One problem is that if we apply this criterion to all such patients, it actually supports the euthanasia movement, as I shall explain below. But let me first attempt to make some distinctions that could help us to decide when withdrawal of artificial hydration and nutrition is ethical and when it is not.

It depends, first, on how we classify artificial hydration and nutrition: as simply food and water, or as medical treatment for a failed alimentary system (just as a ventilator is medical treatment for a failed respiratory system). If its just food and water and basic care, then ethically itmustbe provided. If it is medical treatment, that is not always the case.

I propose that, just as there are situations where it is justified to turn off a ventilator, so too there can be situations where it is justified to withdraw artificial hydration and nutrition. Both are forms of medical life-support treatment. And what if, for instance, a PEG feeding tube is painful or has become infected? What should doctors do then?

One distinction that is sometimes made in order to determine whether a given medical treatment must be offered is whether the intervention is ordinary or extraordinary medical treatment. The Catholic moral teaching is that the former must be provided, whereas the latter need not be.

Bishop Gregory OKellyis quotedas saying in his letter to the Office of the Public Advocate that, To deny food or drink, no matter how it is delivered, to such a person is to deny themordinary[emphasis added] means for sustaining life.

But this distinction betweenordinaryandextraordinarymedical treatment is not always clear cut. It can be that the patients quality of life is being judged and not the treatment. When a patient is in very fragile health in ICU, a certain treatment can be judged as extraordinary; but when the patient improves and is living in a nursing home, thesame treatmentfor the same personcan be characterised as ordinary.

In short, circumstances need to be taken into account. Moreover, whether a treatment is judged ordinary or extraordinary can be a very subjective and discretionary decision, which can leave it open to abuse.

Justifications for withdrawing life support treatment include that withdrawal is required to respect a patients right to refuse medical treatment, including through an advance directive that is, withdrawing treatment is required in order to respect a patients rights to inviolability (the right not to be touched without ones informed consent) and competent patients rights to autonomy.

Artificial hydration and nutrition would not be forcibly imposed on such a patient. Justifications also include: that the treatment is medically futile; that the burdens of continuing treatment outweigh any benefits; and that the treatment is prolonging dying, not living.

The Public Advocatedescribed the patient in questionas pre-terminal, which might or might not mean that she was dying, although her daughters denied that she was. With respect to the burden of the nasogastric tube, they are admittedly very uncomfortable, but its at least an open question whether the suffering involved for the patient could have justified not replacing it. Further questions include how the tube fell out (did the patient pull it out?) and whether, if the tube had not fallen out, its removal would have been justified?

To repeat, these decisions about providing or withdrawing artificial hydration and nutrition can be very difficult ones in relation to determining the right ethical path to take. Every case (and person) is different; assessments must be made on that basis and, importantly, in the light of all the relevant facts.

As I said, advocates of legalising euthanasia use cases such as the one describedin the ABC reportto promote their cause. They argue that withholding artificial hydration and nutritionis euthanasia often called slow euthanasia or passive euthanasia; therefore, we are already practising euthanasia and, if we are to be consistent, should recognise the legal right to do so by means of lethal injection.

Consequently, people who oppose the withdrawal of artificial hydration and nutrition when this withdrawal could be justified, and object to such a withdrawal on the grounds that it would be euthanasia, sadly help the pro-euthanasia cause.

Moreover, when members of the public think euthanasia isanyfailure to useallpossible means to prolong life and believe thatallrefusals of medical treatment that could prolong life are euthanasia, they respond positively to survey questions that ask, Do you agree with legalising euthanasia? because they want to have the right to refuse treatment. The publics responses are even more compromised when asked, If someone is in terrible pain and suffering should they be able to consent to euthanasia?

The option of saying yes to fully adequate pain and suffering management and no to euthanasia adopting a position that we must kill the pain and suffering, but not the personwiththe pain and suffering is often not possible in surveys. They tend to pose conjunctive questions (rather than two disjunctive ones)that is, do you agree with fully adequate pain and suffering managementandas a separate question, do you agree with euthanasia?.

It bears always keeping clearly in mind when discussing withdrawal of artificial hydration and nutrition that it can be employed unethically, when it does become a form of euthanasia that is, when its used with a primary intention to cause death.

This is most likely to occur when it is paired with an unwarranted use of palliative sedation, where the patient is unjustifiably deeply sedated until they die. Such a use is better called terminal sedation to differentiate it from the ethical use of palliative sedation, that is, when sedation is necessary and used appropriately to relieve a patients pain and suffering and not to hasten their death.

Margaret Somervilleis Professor of Bioethics in theSchool of Medicine and the Institute for Society and Ethics at the University of Notre Dame Australia.

This article was originally published at Mercatornet.com.

Related articles:

Sisters struggle reveals risk to disabled elderlyACSJC head backs aged care crackdown

Go here to see the original:

Margaret Somerville: Withdrawing artificial hydration and nutrition - The Catholic Weekly

Past Pandemics Exposed Chinas Weaknesses – Foreign Affairs Magazine

Posted on by

When the novel coronavirus first emerged in Chinas Hubei Province, foreign reactions to the countrys handling of the epidemic swung between extremes. At a press conference held in Beijing in late February, Bruce Aylward, who co-led the World Health Organizations (WHO) joint mission with China on the disease now known as COVID-19, praised what he described as probably the most ambitious, and I would say, agile and aggressive disease-containment effort in history. Pointing to a graph that showed a steep decline in cases, he commented, If I had COVID-19, Id want to be treated in China.

Others have been far more critical. In a Wall Street Journal opinion piece titled China Is the Real Sick Man of Asia, Walter Russell Mead, a professor at Bard College, suggested that Chinas less than impressive management of the crisis would reinforce a trend for global companies to de-Sinicize their supply chains. The use of the term sick man of Asia in the headline caused particular umbrage and provided a pretext for the expulsion of three Wall Street Journal reporters from China. Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Geng Shuang condemned the use of racially discriminatory language, to which U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo responded with a defense of the free press.

The rapid politicization of the new coronavirus, and particularly of Chinas role in containing it, has historical precedents. From the bubonic plague at the end of the nineteenth century to HIV/AIDS in the 1990s to SARS in 20023, Western observers have long viewed Chinas responses to epidemic crises as indices of its relative political and economic openness. Chinas management of disease has also been crucial to how Chinese citizens have viewed their nation and how the Chinese state has reaffirmed its authority.

Between 1894 and 1950, an estimated 15 million people died of bubonic plague in a pandemic that began in China. The disease spread from Yunnan, on Chinas southwest border, to the Pearl River Delta, with Hong Kong serving as its global launch pad. Many Western commentators were convinced that the plague germ had incubated in Chinas crowded cities. These critics took the absence of modern sanitation as an indication that the Qing dynasty was incapable of governing. Disease, they concluded, had revealed the political system for what it was: moribund and in need of fundamental reform.

The plaguehit China at a time when rival imperial powers were competing to enlarge their spheres of influence. In 1894, Japan went to war with the Qing over control of the Korean Peninsula. Chinas defeat and its loss of Korea as a vassal state exposed the countrys inability to modernize; the Qing army and navy were simply no match for Japans remodeled forces. Then, in 1899, U.S. Secretary of State John Hay published his Open Door Note, which attempted to create a framework for competing foreign interests in China and protect Chinas recently weakened territorial integrity. But the proliferation of imperial networks and the push to open up Chinas markets had an unintended consequence: they provided the conditions for infections to globalize and a rationale for further foreign intervention in Chinese affairs.

Disease had revealed the political system for what it was: moribund and in need of fundamental reform.

The term sick man of Asia was coined in this postwar context. There was much soul-searching in China as to what had caused the countrys ignominious defeat in the Sino-Japanese War. Many reformers pointed to a pervasive cultural and political malaise, drawing on social evolutionary ideas to emphasize Chinas moral and physical atrophy. Foremost among these critics was the Chinese scholar Yan Fu, an esteemed translator who was educated in the United Kingdom. In On Strength, an article published in a Tianjin newspaper in 1895, he likened China to a sick man in need of radical therapy. The Chinese needed to jettison debilitating habits, including opium smoking and foot-binding. The nation was a living organism locked in a competitive struggle for survival; citizens were the cells that formed this vital whole, so their physical and moral well-being was paramount.

Calls for reform grew louder in the late 1890s. The intellectual Liang Qichao reiterated Yans claim that as a country inhabited by sick people, China was a sick nation. Ground down by an autocratic and incompetent state, the Chinese had become sick not only morally but also physically: rampant diseasesamong them plague, leprosy, tuberculosis, and smallpoxwere sapping the people. Reformers called for restoring the health of Chinas citizenry and rejuvenating the decrepit body politic.

Sickness and health thus provided the basis for justifying reforms that extended from the susceptible Chinese body to the enervated state. In 1923, Sun Yat-senthe first president of the Republic of Chinavisited Hong Kong to give a lecture. Describing his graduation from medical school some 20 years before, Sun told his audience, I saw that it was necessary to give up my profession of healing men and take up my part to cure the country.

A portrait of Yat-Sen in Tiananmen Square in Beijing, China, April2005 Jason Lee / Reuters

Efforts to reform Chinas political and public health would outlast the Qing dynasty and the bubonic plague. In 1910, as Qing rule crumbled, the British-educated, Penang-born physician Wu Lien-teh was sent by the Chinese government to curtail the spread of pneumonic plague across Northeast China. He enacted stringent containment strategies based on modern scientific teachings: postmortems, bacteriological investigations, and mass cremations, to name a few. Wus program was markedly different from the response to the bubonic plague just two decades prior, when endeavors to halt the contagion were left to local charitable organizations or to the foreign officials who staffed the Imperial Maritime Customs Service with minimal oversight from the viceroy at Canton.

Just as before, however, Chinas handling of the outbreak within its borders would have geopolitical implications. During the pneumonic plague outbreak, China, Japan, and Russia vied for political and economic dominance over Manchuria. With Japan rapidly modernizing and Russia bullishly expanding eastward, Chinas management of the disease was an opportunity to showcase its newfound efficiency and reinforce its territorial claims. But reform came too late. In 1911, the Xinhai Revolution overthrew the Qing dynasty. Coincidentally, the springboard for the rebellion was Wuhan, the city that would become the epicenter of the COVID-19 epidemic.

The relative openness of Chinas republican period, from 1911 to 1949characterized by freer markets, a flourishing press, newfound liberties, and lively engagement with the worldwas also reflected in the countrys health sector. Chinese scientists took part in international meetings, new opportunities opened for women in health care, medical schools expanded, and a Ministry of Health was established in 1928, in part to address the rural-urban disparity in health.

That age came to an end with the communist seizure of power, led by Mao Zedong in 1949. Although the Peoples Republic, like previous governments, focused on disease prevention, health, and national strength, it acted upon these concerns altogether differently. The communist government viewed health through a statist lens and as an important rationale for one-party rule. Maos war on disease was a case in point. Ostensibly a health campaign, the war was actually part of an ambitious social program that sought to extract undesirables, promote unity, and fight against capitalist imperialism.

The communist government viewed health through a statist lens and as an important rationale for one-party rule.

During the Korean War, for example, North Korea and the Soviet Union alleged that the United States was using biological weapons to spread infectious diseases. China supported the charges, claiming that U.S. planes were dropping insects and other disease vectors to spread plague, cholera, encephalitis, and anthrax. Mao responded with a Patriotic Hygiene Campaign in 1952, admonishing citizens to root out and destroy invading pests: flies, mosquitoes, rats, fleas, and even dogs. Anti-bacteriological warfare measures were put in place, including quarantine stations. Although the veracity of the biological warfare allegations continues to be debated, compelling evidence suggests that the charges were fabricated as part of a concerted propaganda campaign. The accusations provided the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party with a pretext for pushing a domestic political agenda under the guise of biosecurity.

Mao continued to leverage health as a political tool during the Cultural Revolution, which was initiated in 1966 as a war against bourgeois institutions, including modern medicine. In 1964, Mao had attacked the Ministry of Health as an elite establishment; during the Cultural Revolution, he proceeded to persecute doctors and starve hospitals of support. The Cultural Revolution also created ideal conditions for infectious diseases to flourish. An outbreak of meningitis in Beijing in the late summer and fall of 1966 was soon spread across the country by the student paramilitarythe Red Guardstraveling on the railways. Chinese authorities made no attempt to contain the epidemic, since doing so would have put the brakes on the Cultural Revolution, which depended on the mass mobilization of the Red Guards to purge society of recalcitrant bourgeois elements. The United States offered assistance, which China flatly declined. By the spring of 1967, more than 160,000 people had died.

A Red Guard reenactor in Beijing, China, April 2006 Jason Lee / Reuters

And yet, even as his government cracked down on bourgeois medicine, Mao pursued an antidisease program directed at schistosomiasis, or snail fever, an infectious disease caused by a species of parasitic flatworm. The anti-schistosomiasis campaign involved rallying large numbers of rural workers to laboriously collect and destroy snails in central and southern China. In his poem Farewell to the God of Plague, Mao celebrated the campaigns success with a vision of restoring to life ghostly villages choked with weeds. Ultimately, however, the campaign failed to live up to Maos expectations: schistosomiasis remains endemic in China.

The communist state offloaded its responsibility for health onto the collective. In 1968, the barefoot doctor program became national policy. Villagers were recruited as part-time paramedics and underwent basic health-care training. They were given access to vaccines but otherwise received minimal state support. This putative from-the-ground-up vision of health helped inspire a global shift: in 1978, the countries that gathered at the WHO International Conference on Primary Health Care adopted the Declaration of Alma-Ata, which upheld health as a basic human right and emphasized community-based health care for all. Ironically, this affirmation of Maos legacy took place precisely as his successor, Deng Xiaoping, was introducing economic reforms. Chinas health-care system would be one of the first areas earmarked for change.

Chinas reform era coincided with the rise of new infectious diseases, such as HIV/AIDS. The first indigenous cases of HIV/AIDS in China appeared in Yunnan among heroin users, but by the early years of this century, infection was increasingly sexually transmitted. A booming plasma economy in the 1990s further fueled the epidemic. Third parties paid donors in impoverished rural areas for blood, from which they extracted plasma to sell to biotech companies. The residual blood was then returned to donors. As a cost-saving practice, blood from different donors was often mixed in the same centrifuges. The result was a sharp increase in infectious diseases contracted through cross-contaminated blood. More than one million people in China are estimated to have contracted HIV/AIDS.

The blood contamination scandal set the pattern for future infectious disease crises: rumors of an epidemic, attempts at a cover-up, an expos by a medical whistleblower, followed by an official admission of the problem and draconian containment measures to mitigate the damage. In the case of the plasma scandal, the whistleblower, medical researcher Shuping Wang, brought contamination to the attention of officials in Henan, the worst-affected province. The officials attempted to deny and cover up the crisis, but news soon leaked to the international media. The plasma collection centers were finally closed for rectification in 1996.

The Western media, however, had already portrayed the contamination scandal as illustrative of Chinas poor regulation and endemic corruption. Moreover, the episode exposed the awkward cohabitation of rampant capitalism and authoritarianism in post-Mao China: a toxic mixture of unregulated markets, patchy provincial oversight, and overregulated governance.

A travel checkpoint during the SARS outbreak in Xinjiang, China, May 2003 Alessandro Digaetano / LUZphoto / Redux

Similar concerns about the state greeted a different health crisis in November 2002, when the deadly SARS virus was detected in Guangdong Province. The SARS outbreak also played out on the public stage through leaked information, cover-ups, and crackdowns. Jiang Yanyong, a physician in Beijing, revealed the states efforts to conceal the true number of SARS cases in an interview with The Wall Street Journal. That same day, the reporter Susan Jakes published a searing expos in Time magazine, based on a signed statement by Jiang, under the headline, Beijings SARS Attack. These reports catalyzed a policy U-turn in China. The mayor of Beijing and the minister of public health resigned, and the government embarked on a concerted and much-publicized campaign to contain the epidemic.

SARS was a major test for Chinas leadership. The outbreak threatened to derail Chinas export economy. And at least initially, Beijings bungled response set off a panic that undermined the governments international aspirations. China had joined the World Trade Organization in 2001, and that same year, Beijing was chosen to host the 2008 Summer Olympic Games. Membership in the WTO and hosting the Olympics were both viewed by the Chinese leadership as important platforms for promoting Chinas role as a global player and for ensuring foreign investment. SARS jeopardized that. As Premier Wen Jiabao declared, the health and security of the people, overall state of reform, development, and stability, and Chinas national interest and international image are at stake.

Not surprisingly, many commentators have drawn parallels between SARS and the current epidemic. As with SARS, officials in the province where COVID-19 broke out first downplayed the problem, and the public accused them of a cover-up. The government cracked down on whistleblowers, such as Li Wenliang, a doctor who had tried to share information about the virus. Li was hounded by the police and died of the disease.

Chinese President Xi Jinping has set out to contain the epidemic through a campaign strikingly reminiscent of the one against SARS. The Chinese government has marshaled tens of thousands of health-care workers and military personnel in what Xi has described as a total war. Ding Xiangyang, the deputy secretary-general of the State Council, has called the epidemic a battle for China and a risk to the nation unprecedented since the founding of the Peoples Republic.

This war has challenged Xis authority in some respects, but it has also provided an occasion for Xi to reaffirm his credentials as Maos heir. By emphasizing the scale of the crisis, Xi can affirm his reputation for resourceful and clearheaded leadership when he overcomes it. For the moment, at least, Xis strategy appears to be working, bolstering his support in many parts of China, if not in Hubei Province, where the disease first emerged. As Chinas citizens watch the chaotic scenes of COVID-19 panic across Europe and the United States, Xis response to the virus suddenly looks proportionate.

Paramilitary containing the spread of coronavirus in Beijing, China, March 2020 Carlos Garcia Rawlins / Reuters

See more here:

Past Pandemics Exposed Chinas Weaknesses - Foreign Affairs Magazine

‘All Of This Panic Could Have Been Prevented’: Author Max Brooks On COVID-19 – NPR

Posted on by

A reporter wearing a latex glove raises his hand to ask President Trump a question during a coronavirus briefing at the White House on March 16. Win McNamee/Getty Images hide caption

A reporter wearing a latex glove raises his hand to ask President Trump a question during a coronavirus briefing at the White House on March 16.

Apocalyptic novelist Max Brooks is something of an expert on planning for pandemics and other disasters. The author, whose books include World War Z, Germ Warfare and the forthcoming Devolution, has toured the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and has reviewed government response plans related to various emergency situations all in the course of research.

"We have a network in place that we as taxpayers have been funding to get us ready for something just like this," Brooks says of the U.S. response to the COVID-19 pandemic. But, he adds, "we have been disastrously slow and disorganized from Day 1."

Brooks says the notion that the U.S. government was blindsided by the pandemic is "an onion of layered lies."

"What could have happened when this virus exploded even when Wuhan was locked down is we could have put the word out," he says. "The government could have put the word out to ramp up emergency supplies to get them ready and then have an information strategy in place."

Instead, Brooks says, President Trump was slow to acknowledge the virus as a real threat. And thus far, the president has resisted using the Defense Production Act to force private companies to manufacture masks, gloves and other essential supplies in the fight against the coronavirus. Many government task forces that plan for disasters have yet to be activated in this crisis.

"One of the biggest problems we're facing now is panic. You see it in the stock market. You see it in panic buying," he says. "All of this panic could have been prevented. ... If the president had been working since January to get the organs of government ready for this, we as citizens could have been calmed down knowing that the people that we trust to protect us are doing that."

On the task forces that plan for situations like this

Max Brooks has researched disaster preparedness for his novels and has lectured on the subject at the U.S. Naval War College. He has also been a nonresident fellow at the Modern War Institute at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. His new book, Devolution, will be published May 2020. Michelle Kholos/Penguin Random House hide caption

Max Brooks has researched disaster preparedness for his novels and has lectured on the subject at the U.S. Naval War College. He has also been a nonresident fellow at the Modern War Institute at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. His new book, Devolution, will be published May 2020.

I can tell you that the federal government has multiple layers of disaster preparedness who are always training, always planning, always preparing, regardless of how much their budget gets cut. I have toured the CDC, and I've seen all their plans. I have witnessed what was called a "vibrant response." This is the homeland nuclear attack scenario, which was a coordination of FEMA, the Army, the National Guard, state and local officials, all working together in a massive war game to prepare us for a nuke. I have also witnessed what was called a "hurricane rehearsal of concept drill," where not only did the same players come in, but also bringing in our allies from Canada and Mexico. So I have seen that we have countless dedicated professionals who think about this constantly and they're ready to go. And they have not been activated.

On why these task forces haven't been activated yet

There is no excuse not to mobilize the full forces of the federal government right now and to centralize the response.

Max Brooks

This all has to come from the federal government. This is why we have big government. Politically, you can argue about the role of big government in everyday society, but this is not every day. This is an emergency. The entire reason that we have these networks is when the bells start ringing and they have not been activated. I don't know. I'm not sitting in the White House. I don't know whether the president is being lied to, whether he is holding onto a political ideology. I honestly don't know. But there is no excuse not to mobilize the full forces of the federal government right now and to centralize the response.

On how the Defense Production Act works when mobilized properly

What is supposed to happen is the federal government has to activate the Defense Production Act immediately. Now, what Defense Production Act does is it allows the federal government to step in and aggressively force the private sector to produce what we need. And what is so critical in this is timing. Because you can't simply build factories from scratch; what you can do is identify a supply chain in order to make it work.

For example, if New York needs rubber gloves, New York cannot simply build rubber glove factories overnight. However, there might be a rubber glove factory in Ohio that could produce it, but they might not have the latex. So therefore, the Defense Production Act allows the federal government to go to the condom factory in Missouri and say, "Listen, you have barrels of latex we need. We are requisitioning those. We are giving them to the rubber glove factory in Ohio. And then we are transporting the finished rubber gloves to New York." That's how it is supposed to work.

On how Trump warns about nationalizing private industry but that's not how it works

President Trump is spinning some sort of tale about, I don't know, the federal government black helicopters coming in and taking over factories. That's not how it works at all. What happens is the federal government has the network to identify where the production chain is and how to help the private sector work through this, because the private sector doesn't know.

And as an example, I have a World War II rifle made by the Smith Corona typewriter company. Smith Corona worked with the federal government to then partner up with the Winchester company, to then share resources and to share tools and talent to then produce the rifles that we needed. That's how it works. It's not some sort of KGB coming in and taking over everything. It is guidance and streamlining. And only the federal government has the experience to know how to do that.

On what the U.S. military would do in a pandemic

I can tell you that the military has a vast transportation network here in the United States that is ready to go. We don't have to put truck drivers or private individuals at risk, because the military is already trained to do this. And I've watched them do this. The military spent years working out the legal framework of how to transport goods from one place to another around this country, because it's not like Afghanistan, where the army builds a road and then they own the road. The army has had to go through a tremendous amount of training and adaptation to work within state and local governments to make sure everything is done legally and safe without infringing on our rights. And they have done this. The Army's logistics corps can deliver anything that we need anywhere in this country within a matter of hours or days.

When it comes to sheer massive might, getting stuff done, getting stuff produced and getting stuff moved from Point A to Point B, there is no greater organ in the world than the United States military. We did it in World War II. We've done it all over the world. We can do this now. This is the thing the military is good at, and we need to let them do that.

On how the pandemic is revealing flaws in our social structure

I think there are massive gaps in our systems that are being exposed right now, which, by the way, this is not news to the experts. Anybody who works in these fields could have told you years ago that we were vulnerable to this. It's going to rip through our prisons. It's going to rip through our homeless population. God willing, it doesn't rip through our nursing homes. But what no one is talking about, what terrifies me, what keeps me up at night are the secondary casualties that will occur because of hospital overflow. What I mean is we're only talking about now how many people are going to die if the coronavirus really rips through our country. What is not being talked about enough or what needs to be talked about are the people who are still going to die of cancer, of accidents, of other diseases, because they simply can't get into the hospitals because the hospitals are choked with coronavirus patients.

On how we share some of the blame for this mismanagement as voters in a democracy

In China, every single death will be laid directly at the feet of the Chinese Communist Party. They have all the power; therefore, they take all the responsibility. When we look back at this, we all of us individual citizens are going to have to take a measure of personal responsibility, because we are the government. If we don't like our leaders, we shouldn't have put them there. And as much as we would love to blame this historically incompetent captain of our ship of state, we have allowed the ship to rust underneath us. It's not just President Trump's fault that institutions like the CDC have been defunded for years. It's not just President Trump's fault that we have allowed anti-vaxxers to spread misinformation throughout this country. It's not just President Trump's fault that we are continuing to build a society in support of a tech world that is based on comfort and not on resilience. We as voters and we as taxpayers must accept our share of the blame.

When this is all over, when the dead are buried and the sick are healed, there will be a reckoning.

Max Brooks

There is a massive amount of blame that will be laid at the feet of Donald Trump and his enablers. And when this is all over, when the dead are buried and the sick are healed, there will be a reckoning. But there were systemic issues way before Donald Trump. When Donald Trump was a carnival barker on a reality show, we as a people, as a nation, were dismantling the systems that were put in place to keep us safe. And we need to look at that damage, because the one thing we don't want to do is assume that when Donald Trump goes away, that the problems will go with him.

On the difference between panic and preparation

Panic never helps. Panic implies that you lose your mind, and that in a war even a war against a microscopic enemy gives aid and comfort to the enemy. When you panic, you don't think rationally, and in times of crisis, rational thought is the greatest weapon you could possibly have. So preparing, No. 1, means clearing your mind and thinking about what you have to do. It means making a list of what you need to buy, prioritizing what needs to come first, thinking about how you're going to take care of the people around you. That is preparing. Panicking is freaking out and getting in a fistfight in the grocery store over bottled water when you don't even need the water, when the tap is already running. That's panic.

Right now we have to be so careful about who we listen to, because panic can spread much faster than a virus.

Max Brooks

I think right now we have to be so careful about who we listen to, because panic can spread much faster than a virus. And I think in addition to social distancing, we have to practice good fact hygiene. What I mean is we have to be careful what we listen to, what we take in just as if it were a virus. And we have to be careful also what we put back out, as if we were spreading the virus. So we cannot pass along rumors. We cannot pass along misinformation. We must be critically careful not to scare people into doing irrational and dangerous things. So we need to listen to experts, the CDC, Dr. Fauci [director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases], the World Health Organization, our local public health officials. These are the front-line soldiers that are doing everything to keep us safe and are literally putting their lives on the line. These are the people we need to listen to. What we cannot listen to is random facts on the Internet supposedly, things that people are passing along to us, conspiracy theories. And I'm very sorry to say this, but I think that everything our president says at this point must be fact-checked.

Lauren Krenzel and Seth Kelley produced and edited this interview for broadcast. Bridget Bentz, Molly Seavy-Nesper and Meghan Sullivan adapted it for the Web.

More:

'All Of This Panic Could Have Been Prevented': Author Max Brooks On COVID-19 - NPR

State Department marks bioweapons accord with reference to pandemic – Washington Times

Posted on by

The State Department on Thursday hailed the anniversary of an agreement limiting biological weapons by noting the spread of the Wuhan coronavirus pandemic.

Today we observe the 45th anniversary of the #BiologicalWeaponsConvention and reaffirm the importance of #BWC Parties commitments to preventing biological weapons, the Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation stated in a tweet.

The #Covid-19 pandemic highlights the importance of #BWC Parties commitments to reducing all biological risks, the tweet noted.

The coronavirus outbreak has been traced to Wuhan, China, but details about the exact origin have not been determined. Most virology experts believe it was not engineered as a biological weapon.

Experts have voiced differing views on whether new bat-origin virus mutated naturally to humans from a wild animal market in Wuhan, or may have escaped from a research lab studying coronaviruses.

The Biological Weapons Convention first entered into force on March 26, 1975.

The multilateral convention prohibits the 183 states that are signatories from developing, producing or stockpiling biological and toxin weapons.

The Wuhan virus, known officially as the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, or SARS-CoV-2, first surfaced in Wuhan and has since December spread rapidly throughout the world.

Biological warfare experts say the virus is not an ideal biological weapon because of difficulties of controlling its spread.

The main toxin and biological weapons that are studied by the U.S. military are called the big six by Dr. Mark Kortepeter, a retired Army colonel who is an expert at germ warfare and worked at the Armys Fort Detrick biological warfare defense research lab.

The six are botulism toxin, tularemia, Ebola and other hemorrhagic viruses, plague, smallpox and anthrax.

Each pathogen has unique skills and attack strategies to outmaneuver humans and rain death and destruction on individuals or societies, Dr. Kortepeter wrote in his book Inside the Hot Zone: A Soldier on the Front Lines of Biological Warfare.

The State Department said in its latest annual report on arms control compliance that the United States has compliance concerns with respect to Chinese military medical institutions toxin research and development because of the potential dual-use applications and their potential as a biological threat.

China signed the convention but the report said there is no available information to demonstrate that China took steps to fulfill its treaty obligations to give up its offensive biological weapons program.

Continued here:

State Department marks bioweapons accord with reference to pandemic - Washington Times

For China and Russia, coronavirus hoaxes are another strain of disinformation warfare – The Globe and Mail

Posted on by

Moscow, March 25: A woman watches a live address to the nation from Russian President Vladimir Putin about the coronavirus pandemic.

KIRILL KUDRYAVTSEV/AFP via Getty Images

Russia and China have launched what experts say are disinformation campaigns against the West, seeking to change the global narrative about where the coronavirus pandemic originated, and which countries are leading the fight against it.

The subplot to the stories Moscow and Beijing are selling is one of Western societies in decline, with authoritarian systems proving themselves superior to democratic ones in managing the crisis.

A report prepared earlier this month for the European Union pointed the finger at both Russia and China for their roles in feeding an infodemic of untrustworthy information about COVID-19.

Story continues below advertisement

State-sponsored disinformation is different from some of the simpler hoaxes being spread online including a lot of bad, or unproven, advice about how to avoid or treat the virus in that it is being spread to advance geopolitical aims.

As of Friday, the European External Action Service, an arm of the EU tasked with combating propaganda, had compiled a list of 162 examples of coronavirus-related disinformation, which it traced to pro-Kremlin media outlets or social-media accounts.

One report on a pro-Kremlin website said those with money had unleashed secret germ warfare on the rest of the world. Another claimed that the pandemic had forced the closing of the metro in the Ukrainian city of Lviv. Lviv does not have a metro.

For Russia, the effort to sow chaos is seen as an extension of the hybrid war an undeclared conflict fought in the military, economic and information spheres that it has been waging against the West since 2014, when Moscows annexation of the Crimean Peninsula from Ukraine made it the target of crippling economic sanctions imposed by Canada, the United States and the European Union. Victory for Moscow means breaking Western solidarity, and bringing the sanctions to an end, while keeping Crimea.

Analysts say Beijings aims are even loftier, with an eye to replacing Washington as the preeminent global power the capital other countries look to for leadership.

Russia would like to see the EU divided, and to pick off some of the countries like Italy, turning them from pro-U.S. to pro-Kremlin, said Agnieszka Legucka, a senior research fellow on Russia at the Polish Institute of International Affairs.

Russia is also transferring Chinese disinformation and propaganda that Western democracies are not able to help and save their people, that only strong countries like Russia and China are able to manage the coronavirus.

Story continues below advertisement

Wuhan, March 10: A screen at a near-empty shopping centre broadcasts Chinese President Xi Jinping's visit to the epicentre of China's COVID-19 epidemic.

Thomas Peter/Reuters

Zhao Lijian, a spokesman for the Chinese foreign ministry, has amplified conspiracy theories on Twitter that the virus was introduced to Wuhan by the U.S. military.

Twitter

A key piece of disinformation spread by both China and Russia and then repeated by friendly governments such as Irans is a baseless accusation that the coronavirus, which originated in December in a seafood and live animal market in the Chinese city of Wuhan, was instead a U.S. military bioweapon gone awry.

In Chinas favoured telling of that story, COVID-19 was actually brought to Wuhan by infected U.S. military personnel who attended the Military World Games in October. That version was given prominence by Zhao Lijian, a spokesman for the Chinese foreign ministry, who retweeted an article published by a Montreal-based website known for propagating conspiracy theories and pro-Russian disinformation.

It might be US army who brought the epidemic to Wuhan. Be transparent! Make public your data! US owe us an explanation! Mr. Zhao wrote in another tweet.

Russian media have pushed out a similar tale with a local twist. REN TV, a channel controlled by Kremlin-friendly businesspeople, carried its own evidence-free report blaming the U.S. government for coronavirus, but switched the point of origin to the U.S.-funded Lugar Research Center in the former Soviet republic of Georgia, a country where Washington and Moscow have spent decades wrestling for influence.

This is propaganda. What can we do? Paata Imnadze, the director of Lugar, told Coda Story, a news website based in the Georgian capital city of Tbilisi. The Lugar lab has actually led the Georgian governments response to the coronavirus pandemic.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has called the EU report on Russian-sponsored coronavirus disinformation unfounded allegations which in the current situation are probably the result of an anti-Russian obsession.

Tehran, March 22: Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei addresses Iranians in a televised speech.

Office of the Iranian Supreme Leader via AP

The unfounded allegations about the U.S. military creating COVID-19 have also been pushed along by Irans Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who said it was one of the reasons his country could not accept an American offer of help dealing with the crisis.

Youre accused of having created coronavirus. I dont know how true it is. But when theres such an allegation, can a wise man trust you? read a posting on his English-language Twitter account.

Bill Bishop, an expert on Chinese media, said Beijing was equally keen to muddy the waters about the origins of COVID-19, both for domestic political purposes, and to protect the countrys international reputation.

At home, the Communist Party regime had successfully via social-media networks that are tightly controlled by state censors persuaded many Chinese to blame a foreign enemy for the outbreak, rather than their own government.

The fact that an official foreign ministry spokesman helped spread the same disinformation on Twitter (a platform that is blocked inside China), suggests that the effort to push out an alternative narrative about the origins of COVID-19 was directed from the very top.

Zhao Lijian would not be doing this if he didnt believe that he had approval to do this stuff, said Mr. Bishop, who edits the Sinocism e-newsletter, which is popular with China-focused academics. And if you look at how the system works people who censor all the time are not censoring this.

Story continues below advertisement

U.S. President Donald Trump has frequently called COVID-19 a 'Chinese virus' despite advice that this inflames anti-Asian racism.

Twitter

The Chinese effort to rewrite the viruss origin story were partly defensive. Mr. Zhaos inflammatory tweets came two days after U.S. President Donald Trump first retweeted a post referring to COVID-19 as the China Virus. Mr. Trump has since made a point, on Twitter and during televised news conferences, of referring to the disease as the Chinese virus.

Mr. Trump promised this week to stop using such language after a rise in racist attacks targeting Asian-Americans but he made it clear that he believed he was only fighting his corner in a propaganda war. I dont regret it, but they accused us of having done it through our soldiers, they said our soldiers did it on purpose, what kind of a thing is that? he told Fox News on Tuesday.

But a day after Mr. Trump made his promise to stop using the racially charged term, G-7 foreign ministers were unable to agree on a joint statement on the coronavirus outbreak because of a U.S. insistence on including the term Wuhan virus.

Mr. Trump has himself been accused of spreading unproven and unsafe medical ideas by using his press conferences to talk about potential coronavirus remedies that have not yet been tested. However, experts say that his remarks have generally fallen into the category of bad advice, rather than a state-sponsored propaganda campaign.

Belgrade, March 21: Crew members wave Chinese and Serbian flags after medical experts from China arrived with supplies to help the Balkan nation fight the coronavirus.

Marko Djurica/Reuters

Beyond blurring the origin story, Russian and Chinese outlets as well as social-media accounts that reliably parrot them have also sought to give the impression that Moscow and Beijing are leading the world both in terms of managing the pandemic, and in lending a helping hand to others.

China, the country that was hit first and, initially, hardest, is now keen to show that it has the virus under control, with cities such as Beijing and even Wuhan returning to normal as the rates of deaths and new infections slow.

Story continues below advertisement

The Kremlin, meanwhile, had until this week resisted the lockdown measures adopted by many other countries, pointing to its relatively low infection rate, and the fact that only one death in Russia has been officially attributed to coronavirus. That narrative has changed only in the past few days, as the number of infections has shot up, causing President Vladimir Putin to order a one-week work stoppage next week to contain the spread of the virus.

Mr. Putin also indefinitely postponed an April 22 referendum on constitutional changes, which, if the measures pass, would give him the ability to remain in power until 2036.

Maria Snegovaya, a post-doctoral research fellow at Johns Hopkins University who focuses on Russia and Eastern Europe, said the public should be skeptical about both Chinas and Russias versions of the story.

Definitely, we should not trust the data that comes from authoritarian regimes. This is somewhat true about China, and particularly true about Russia, she said, pointing to how the Soviet Union initially denied there had been nuclear disaster at Chernobyl in 1986, and how Mr. Putins own government lied for days about the sinking of the Kursk nuclear submarine in 2001.

Tied into the idea that China and Russia are handling their own coronavirus problems better than the West are their showy donations of medical aid to crisis-stricken Italy and Spain, which have seen the worlds deadliest outbreaks to date.

The way this is portrayed in pro-Russian media is, See, the EU is so weak and the U.S. is unreliable. Only Russia and China are coming to help them, said Ms. Snegovaya. Its a typical [Russian security services] disinformation campaign. Its very convenient that the West is weakened at this moment, so you try to undermine it further.

Story continues below advertisement

But after days of headlines about Russia and China helping where Brussels could not, Italys La Stampa newspaper reported Thursday that 80 per cent of the medical help delivered by Russia, which included disinfection equipment, was useless. Spains Health Ministry, meanwhile, found that test kits donated by China werent sensitive enough to detect most coronavirus cases, and decided to return them.

Sources: GOVERNMENT WEBSITES, UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO AND JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY

Show all

How many coronavirus cases are there in Canada, by province, and worldwide? The latest maps and charts

See the original post:

For China and Russia, coronavirus hoaxes are another strain of disinformation warfare - The Globe and Mail