Senate Passes Ban Of Russian Uranium Imports, Risking Market “Havoc” And Soaring Prices
With shares of CCJ tumbling earlier today after the company reported soggy Q1 earnings, despite its recent initiating coverage report by an enthusiastic Goldman Sachs which sees the Uranium company at the forefront of the “Next AI trade” and slapped it with a $55 price target (as we reported previously), the uranium trade suddenly found itself in need of a miracle.
It got that after hours, when the Senate voted late on Tuesday to approve legislation banning the import of enriched uranium from Russia –the same Russia which supplies 25% of the uranium used by the 90 US commercial nuclear reactors – and sending the measure to the White House which has said it supports efforts to block the Kremlin’s shipments of the reactor fuel and is expected to sign the deal, guaranteeing that uranium prices will soar.
The Prohibiting Russian Uranium Imports Act, approved by unanimous consent and which must be sign by Biden before becoming law – would bar US imports 90 days after enactment while allowing temporary waivers until January 2028.
Some context for what this ban would mean for the US: Russia provided almost a quarter of the enriched uranium used to fuel America’s fleet of more than 90 commercial reactors, making it the No. 1 foreign supplier, according to US Energy Department data. Those sales provide an estimated $1 billion a year to Russia, but replacing that supply could be a challenge and risks raising the costs of enriched uranium by about 20%.
The White House had called for a “long-term ban” on Russian imports, which is needed to unlock some $2.7 billion to stand up a domestic uranium industry made available by Congress earlier this year, contingent on there being limits on the import of Russian uranium in place.
“This is a national security priority as dependence on Russian sources of uranium creates risk to the US economy and the civil nuclear industry that has been further strained by Russia’s war in Ukraine,” the White House said earlier in a fact sheet. “Without action, Russia will continue its hold on the global uranium market to the detriment of US allies and partners.”
The House bill was approved by voice vote in December amid growing congressional support to cut off Russia in the wake of its invasion of Ukraine. The US has banned imports of Russian oil and worked with Group of Seven allies to impose a price cap on seaborne exports of crude and petroleum products.
To be sure, there are loopholes: the legislation, which expires at the end of 2040, permits the Department of Energy to issue waivers authorizing the entire volume of Russian uranium imports allowed under export limits set in an anti-dumping agreement between the Department of Commerce and Russia through 2027.
Without those waivers, an approximate 20% jump is possible from the current enrichment spot price of $165 per separative work unit to a record high of as much as $200 per SWU, according to Jonathan Hinze, president of nuclear fuel market research firm UxC. Enriched uranium is measured in separative work units, or SWU, which account for the volume and enrichment density of the radioactive metal.
“But if there is an immediate ban it could be even more extreme,” Hinze said. “There are very limited supplies available.”
Still, since the government is now intimately involved in every aspect of the uranium procurement, it is virtually guaranteed that prices will soar, which is why CCJ stock recouped almost all of its losses after hours.
And while the Biden admin’s decision may be mostly posturing, it’s possible Russia will respond with a unilateral export ban if the US bars imports. Last December, Tenex, a Russian state-owned uranium company, warned American customers that the Kremlin may preemptively bar exports of its nuclear fuel to the US if lawmakers in Washington pass legislation prohibiting imports starting in 2028.
Tenex’s US subsidiary told electric companies including Constellation Energy Corp., Duke Energy Corp. and Dominion Energy to prepare for such an outcome.
“Tenex completely refutes as inaccurate the information regarding the alleged ‘warnings’ of a potential ‘pre-emptive’ ban on enriched uranium supplies to the United States,” Rosatom’s press office said in an emailed statement.
As Bloomberg reported at the time, “a move to bar exports would risk wreaking havoc in uranium markets, causing prices to spike for the nuclear reactor fuel that may be harder for smaller utilities to absorb.”
An import ban will take some time to affect operators of US nuclear power plants. Reactors are typically refueled every 18 months to 24 months, and fuel purchases are negotiated long in advance. That means most but not all utilities have already lined up enough uranium to keep their reactors running for at least the next few years. Still, negotiations for subsequent commodity procurement take place all the time, and while there is no immediate risk of scarcity, once the 2026 refueling negotiations take place, watch as Uranium stocks explode to new all time high.
The NYPD stormed Columbia University Tuesday evening at around 9pm local time, where they began arresting students occupying Hamilton Hall and cleared a nearby protest encampment on the college’s lawn.
Around 50 students were arrested and moved out of Hamilton Hall after activists took it over nearly 24 hours earlier amid two weeks of campus protests over the Israel-Gaza war.
🚨#BREAKING: New York police tactical teams can be seen raiding and clearing out students and protesters inside the Hamilton Hall building⁰⁰📌#Manhattan | #Newyork ⁰⁰New footage has been released by the New York Police Department, showing tactical teams fully equipped in riot… pic.twitter.com/kC93cAlN3a
🚨#BREAKING: The New York Police Department has just announced that they have declared a riot as they make their way into Columbia University, where violent protests are expected to break out as mrap swat vehicle can be seen rolling into the University pic.twitter.com/0MdnAhhErO
While early reports suggested the use of tear gas, NYPD Assistant Commissioner of Public Information, Carlos Nieve, denied it – telling Axios, “The NYPD does not use tear gas.”
🚨#BREAKING: Police have begun entering the Hamilton Hall building through a second-floor window, deploying tear gas inside. Reports indicate there is an unconscious student in front of Hamilton Hall pic.twitter.com/IgoXOi6ZI6
NYPD Riot Cops are officially storming Columbia University! I was just chased off the sidewalk! Thank you so much for keeping us all safe from non-existent Anti-Semitism! Hopefully now Israel can continue to pulverize Gaza in peace! @JoeBiden @SpeakerJohnson pic.twitter.com/jf4E7NKZvY
Columbia officials said that the hall was “occupied, vandalised and blockaded,” and that “we were left with no choice.”
Some of the kids are being a tad dramatic…
NYC — As police attempt to clear the violent siege of Hamilton Hall at @Columbia, far-left rioters pretend to be injured in slapstick-style performances for cameras. A person rolls down the stairs while another on the ground snaps to her feet to fight. pic.twitter.com/udWcHg0rus
— Wall Street Silver (@WallStreetSilv) May 1, 2024
* * *
Dozens of Columbia University students broke into Hamilton Hall on the New York campus early Tuesday and barricaded themselves inside, hours after the school began suspending students who violated a deadline to disperse from a pro-Palestinian encampment.
“The safety of every single member of this community is paramount,” said Ben Chang, vice president for communications at Columbia University, in an emailed statement to The Epoch Times, adding “In light of the protest activity, we have asked members of the University community who can avoid coming to the Morningside campus to do so; essential personnel should report to work according to university policy.”
Taking over Hamilton Hall as done in 1968, Columbia students unfurl a banner that reads “Hind’s Hall,” in reference to Hind Rajab, a six-year-old girl killed by Israeli forces.
Hundreds of students cheer as the banner is revealed, erupting into chants to “Free Palestine.” pic.twitter.com/Oi8WgdZmqf
As the Epoch Times‘ Katabella Roberts notes further; According to The New York Times, the students began occupying the hall at around 12:35 a.m.
The protesters linked arms and blocked off the main entrance to the building at the Ivy League institution after previously marching around campus to chants of “free Palestine,” according to the publication.
A statement shared on the social media platform Instagram by student groups said the protesters had “taken matters into their own hands,” and would remain in the building until the university “divests from death.” Protesters have been urging the university to pause its investments in companies that, they claim, are profiting from Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza.
The statement included video footage that appeared to show the students carrying metal barricades into Hamilton Hall as other students cheered them on.
“This escalation is in line with the historical student movements of 1968, 1985, and 1996 which Columbia repressed then and celebrates now,” the statement read. “This action will force the university to confront the blood on its hands.”
In the statement, the student group further accused the university of having been “complicit” in “Israel’s ongoing genocidal assault on the Gaza strip” for the past seven months.
“The students are on the right side of history,” the statement continued. “We know that the university will remember them as anti-apartheid, anti-genocide activists with moral clarity.”
Protesters Make Demands
According to Politico, protesters hung a sign reading “intifada,” which is Arabic for uprising, from the front of the building.
A spokesperson for the New York Police Department told Politico that law enforcement officers were outside the university campus as of Tuesday; however, they declined to elaborate further on exactly how many officers were on site or whether they had authorization to enter the school grounds.
The Epoch Times has contacted a spokesperson at Columbia University and the New York Police Department for further comment.
The takeover of Hamilton Hall occurred just hours after the university confirmed that it had begun suspending some students. The pro-Palestinian students failed to disband before Monday’s 2 p.m. deadline.
Students have occupied the lawn in the middle of campus—in which graduation ceremonies are scheduled to take place for roughly 15,000 students on May 15—for nearly two weeks while calling on the university to disclose and divest from any of its financial ties to Israel.
They are also calling for an end to alleged “land grabs” in the Harlem neighborhood of New York City and Palestine, no more policing on the university campus, and no academic ties with Israeli universities.
However, negotiations between university officials and student protest leaders broke down earlier in the day when the university rejected their demands, prompting officials to issue the 2 p.m. deadline.
In a statement, Minouche Shafik, Columbia’s president, said that ultimately, the university will not divest from Israel, adding that the school is committed to maintaining its core principles and shared values, which include ensuring no students suffer from harassment and discrimination and no anti-Semitic language is used.
“Both sides in these discussions put forward robust and thoughtful offers and worked in good faith to reach common ground,” Ms. Shafik said. “We thank them all for their diligent work, long hours, and careful effort and wish they had reached a different outcome.”
While the University will not divest from Israel, it has offered to “develop an expedited timeline for review of new proposals from the students by the Advisory Committee for Socially Responsible Investing, the body that considers divestment matters,” Ms. Shafik noted.
“The University also offered to publish a process for students to access a list of Columbia’s direct investment holdings, and to increase the frequency of updates to that list of holdings,” she added.
Ben Chang, vice president for communications at Columbia University, confirmed the suspensions had begun in a press conference late Monday, USA Today reports.
He added that students had been notified in advance that they would face disciplinary action, including suspension if they did not vacate the encampment by 2 p.m. ET and sign a form committing to abide by student politics until either June 30, 2025, or until their graduation, whichever came first.
The site of the protests has created an unwelcoming environment for many Jewish students and faculty members, he said. It has also been a source of loud noise.
“We’ve been suspending students as part of this next phase of our efforts to ensure safety on campus,” Mr. Chang said.
Mr. Chang did not provide further details regarding how many students from Columbia and its affiliate Barnard College have been disciplined. However, he confirmed that those suspended would not be able to finish the semester or graduate, Axios reports.
They will also be banned from entering any campus housing or academic buildings, he added.
… the Biden administration appears to have gotten its Soros marching orders to pour gasoline into the fire, with CBS reporting that the White House is considering bringing “certain Palestinians” to the U.S. as refugees, a move that would offer a permanent safe haven to some of those fleeing war-torn Gaza, and would also drastically escalate what has already been the 2024 equivalent of the 2020 BLM summer of violence, only this time with spoiled, rich Marxist kids pretending they live in the 1960s and their actions can stop the war in Vietnam Middle East.
According to the report, in recent weeks senior officials across several federal U.S. agencies have discussed the practicality of different options to resettle Palestinians from Gaza who have immediate family members who are American citizens or permanent residents.
One of those proposals involves using the decades-old United States Refugee Admissions Program to welcome Palestinians with U.S. ties who have managed to escape Gaza and enter neighboring Egypt, according to the inter-agency planning documents.
Top U.S. officials have also discussed getting additional Palestinians out of Gaza and processing them as refugees if they have American relatives, the documents show. The plans would require coordination with Egypt, which has so far refused to welcome large numbers of people from Gaza.
Those who pass a series of eligibility, medical and security screenings would qualify to fly to the U.S. with refugee status, which offers beneficiaries permanent residency, resettlement benefits like housing assistance and a path to American citizenship.
While the eligible population is expected to be relatively small, the plans being discussed by U.S. officials could offer a lifeline to some Palestinians fleeing the Israel-Hamas war, which local public health authorities say has claimed the lives of more than 34,000 people and displaced hundreds of thousands of civilians in Gaza.
Needless to say, this comes from the same admin which a few days ago decided against a ban of menthol cigarettes over fears it would alienate the black vote, and today targeted the pot-smoking voters with a report the DEA was preparing to reclassify marijuana to a less dangerous drug category. The same admin which in the past 2 years has welcomed over 20 million illegals with the hope that they will illegally vote for Biden and the Democrats, and thus enshrine the current kleptofascist regime in perpetuity. So it is hardly a surprise that Biden, desperate to avoid losing the vote of the ultra-left progressive wing of the Democrat party which just happens to sympathize with Hamas, will pander to this group whose votes may end up deciding the November election.
Naturally, news of the proposal spread like wildfire with prominent republicans slamming the idea…
Biden wants to bring to America the same Gazans who elected and support Hamas?
… although as with most things republicans oppose, or at least pretend to oppose, it is guaranteed that Biden will once again get his way, even though – as so many have noted – the US is on the verge of accepting Palestinians from Gaza when not a single Arab nation is doing so.
The Biden Administration is considering bringing in Palestinians from Gaza as refugees into the US. But not a single Arab nation is welcoming their own brothers from Gaza. Why is that?
As the administrative state implements more regulations on Americans, a team of legal veterans has come together to fight the expansion of unelected government agency power.
The New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA), which consists of a team of 27 lawyers and support staff, including former judges, had four of the cases they litigated go before the Supreme Court in 2023. One case was decided in their favor, the remaining three are pending.
Founded by Columbia Law professor Philip Hamburger six years ago, the NCLA targets cases where they believe federal agencies have blatantly overstepped their authority or violated civil liberties..
“Normally, administrative power is understood as a separation of powers question, but it’s also a civil liberties problem because it dilutes our voting rights,” Mr. Hamburger told The Epoch Times. “We all get to vote, but the ability to make legislation is no longer in the hands of the people we elect.”
The U.S. Constitution vests Congress with law-making authority. However, government agencies are not only making laws today, he said, they also enforce those laws, then act as judge and jury over alleged violations. Taking a historical view on this issue, Mr. Hamburger argues that such administrative “absolutism” is not a new phenomenon, but merely a modern expression of absolute power once wielded by medieval kings.
The group’s clients include Drs. Jay Bhattacharya, Martin Kulldorff, and Aaron Kheriaty, and Ms. Jill Hines, plaintiffs in the case of Murthy v. Missouri, which is currently before the Supreme Court. This case involves alleged violations of the doctors’ First Amendment rights by the White House, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the FBI, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, and the Surgeon General.
“It deprives us of the right to a jury; it deprives us of ordinary burdens of proof; it deprives us of having an unbiased judge,” he said. “We have ALJs and commissioners instead.”
ALJ’s are “executive judges for official and unofficial hearings of administrative disputes in the federal government,” according to a Cornell Law School definition.
“Administrative law judges are considered part of the executive branch, not the judicial branch, and ALJs are appointed by the heads of the executive agencies.”
In this way, Mr. Hamburger said, the administrative state has not only accumulated powers explicitly vested in other branches of government; it has consolidated within itself the power of all three branches.
Supreme Court Taking Notice
The NCLA’s actions have been resonating in America’s court system, particularly the Supreme Court.
“In 2018, we started filing briefs at the Supreme Court and almost immediately we were having an effect on the discussions of administrative power,” Peggy Little, senior counsel at the NCLA, told The Epoch Times.
In one case, SEC v. Cochran, which Ms. Little led, appellate courts took the side of the SEC. This case challenged the lifetime tenure of ALJs, who act as judges for federal agencies.
“We battled that for five years, and we had six circuit courts of appeals against us,” she said. “We got to the Supreme Court and we won unanimously.”
Ms. Little said she is optimistic that the tide of expanding agency power can be turned back.
“I think we are in a very important time for rethinking how our government should operate,” Ms. Little said, “and restoring the separation of powers and guardrails on agency power, that limit it to what Congress has actually empowered the agency to do, not what the agency itself thinks would be a good idea.”
Mr. Hamburger said the NCLA has several advantages when arguing their cases.
“We have the truth on our side, and I think the justices understand that,” he said. “Second, we take the Constitution seriously, while many agencies view it as a minor impediment to what they want to do in regulation.”
In addition, “the administrative state has changed,” he said..
“It isn’t like the 1930s where it was just an addition to the law; it is now the primary mode of controlling us,” he said. “It may eventually unravel our republic.”
The Supreme Court decision in that case gave broad discretion to federal agencies to interpret for themselves how much authority Congress had given them. This led to a concept known as “Chevron deference,” where courts tended to defer to agencies regarding the scope of their power.
There appeared to be a reversal of this doctrine with the 2022 Supreme Court Decision in West Virginia v. EPA, in which the court ruled that “the Government must point to ‘clear congressional authorization’ to regulate.” This case involved the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) attempt to regulate CO2 emissions by power generators, effectively compelling them to shift from coal and gas to so-called renewables, like wind and solar energy.
But while this ruling may have slowed the expansion of the administrative state, it has by no means halted it. On April 25, the EPA set down a new regime for CO2 emissions, mandating that new gas and existing coal plants cut their greenhouse gas emissions by 90 percent by 2032.
While many U.S. presidents have pushed for greater powers for the executive branch, the Biden administration has been particularly aggressive. This includes a 2021 edict from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requiring employees of large companies to take the COVID-19 vaccine; a Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) mandate requiring all listed companies to submit audited reports on greenhouse gas emissions; EPA mandates designed to phase out coal plants and gas-fired cars and trucks; new restrictions on consumer appliances from the Department of Energy; and several executive orders to transfer student loan debt to taxpayers.
“House Destocking”: China Politburo Hints New PLan To Fix BIggest Drag On The Economy
China’s Politburo meeting on economic policy took place today, and as SocGen’s Wei Yao reports, the most important takeaway from the meeting is that policymakers are shifting their attention to housing destocking, as they pledged to ‘study measures’.
As usual about 3 years behind the curve, Beijing policymakers – who burst China’s housing bubble sparking unprecedented wealth destruction across the country once the world’s largest asset class (as the chart from Goldman shows)…
… went into freefall 3 years ago, have been alarmed by the drop in housing sales and home prices in recent months, and finally sense the urgency to provide more measures to avoid a sustained downturn, which can be harmful for household wealth and confidence, not to mention can lead to sporadic revolutions which overthrow the ruling “communist” kleptocracy made up of billionaire oligarchs.
According to the SocGen strategist, “this change of attitude is important and with sufficient measures could help put a floor on housing. This may be THE catalyst to extend the recovery in confidence and equity markets, at least cyclically.“
Below we excerpt several more key points from the SocGen report:
Growth has improved but it’s not the time to reduce support. Policymakers acknowledged that the economy has improved, but demand remains insufficient and external uncertainty has risen notably. That is probably related to recent complaints from various countries on China’s overcapacities and the upcoming US election. Hence, economic policies need to avoid tightening too quickly. So we shouldn’t be concerned that policies will be less accommodative even with the improvement in 1Q GDP.
The focus is on faster implementation of announced policies. Policymakers pledge to frontload and effectively implement macro policies that have been announced. That is in line with our expectations that no fresh stimulus will be added. These involve speeding up the utilisation of special CGBs and special LGBs, flexibly using interest rates and RRR cuts to lower financing costs, as well implementing the replacement of consumer goods and equipment. Therefore, we should see a continued recovery in infrastructure investments, while the strength of replacement policies is more uncertain as it depends on local policies. We also expect the PBoC to cut the the RRR and the 5y LPR further.
Government to help on housing destocking? Beside countercyclical policies, the most important change is on the property sector. Policymakers pledge to study policies to support housing destocking, with no details announced. This is mentioned by policymakers for the first time, and follows more easing measures at a local level recently (e.g. relaxing purchase restrictions in Chengdu and promoting new home sales by tasking local SOEs to purchase existing homes from potential buyers). While it remains to be seen how the policies will be funded with local governments under fiscal pressure, this change of attitude is important, and can help reduce the chance of a sustained decline in house prices.
The statement also mentioned other key policy goals, such as resolving local government debt risks (good luck). The government is focusing on reducing debt in high risk provinces, but it also stresses on growth stability, which means it will not push too hard since all growth in China is debt-funded.
It is also interesting to note that the tasks to support low-income groups and to build a social safety net are mentioned, but without concrete details. Other tasks include promoting new productivity, resolving smaller banks’ risks, promoting capital market development and implementing measures to reach peak carbon.
Separately, it was also announced that the Third Plenum, which had been delayed, will take place in July and will discuss reform directions to promote “modernization of the economy.” The confirmation of the date in itself is likely to be viewed as a positive sign, even though we do not have high expectations from the plenum yet.
The World Health Organization is urging the U.S. and 193 other governments to commit next month to a new global treaty to prevent and manage future pandemics. Current estimates suggest over $31 billion per year will be needed to fund its obligations, a cost most lower income countries cannot afford. But that isn’t the only reason to oppose it. Validating this treaty is a vote for the disastrous policies of the Covid years. Rather than taking time for deep reflection and serious reform, those pushing the pandemic treaty are set on ignoring and institutionalizing the WHO’s mistakes.
From the Spring of 2020, many experts warned that the panic begun in Wuhan’s unprecedented lockdown would cause wide-ranging damage—and indeed they did. School closures deprived a generation of children—especially poor children—of access to basic education. Businesses were shuttered. Vaccine and mask mandates made public health an authoritarian exercise of power devoid of science. Border quarantines promulgated the idea that the rest of the world is unclean.
But few experts care to seriously dissect these errors. How many schools of public health—in America or Europe—held serious debates during the Covid response, or since? Very few.
Opposing the treaty is a signal to the WHO and global health community that they cannot whitewash these mistakes. Next time, we need to ensure a better balance between trade-offs, evidence-based policies, and democratic rights. Such a view seeks to restore the WHO’s own definition of health into pandemic response: “a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.”
Yet the governing philosophy of the WHO emergency program is the exact opposite. Its leaders chastise the world to “move faster’ and “do more.” Bill Gates, the agency’s single largest private donor, is convinced lockdown benefits vastly outweighed their harms. He’s wrong.
Read through the current draft of the treaty itself and you will find a whole section dedicated to “fighting misinformation.” There is no section focused on preventing harm. Those speaking out about these dangers have been subjected to harsh censorship. Once esteemed professionals were summarily fired for describing the reality of what was happening. The authors of the anti-lockdown Great Barrington Declaration—professors at Stanford, Harvard, and Oxford—were subject to a “devastating takedown” at the hands of Dr. Fauci and top scientific bureaucrats at the National Institutes of Health and the WHO.
Public health came to resemble the police, and those pushing the new WHO treaty want to go further. It calls for more mandates, more vaccine passports, and more censorship—our new global health “Lockdown Doctrine.”
Proponents of the treaty would have you believe that it is merely a tool that countries can use to guide future pandemic response efforts, that it cannot trump national sovereignty or be used to force failed policies on entire populations. But the lifeblood of international treaties is not in the dried ink. Treaties are constantly ignored. Nonetheless, they do one thing very well: they create an illusion of consensus, signaling to those with power and influence. These priorities are then filtered down into national laws and plans where they can do tremendous damage.
How can national governments seriously endorse an international agreement when their own domestic Covid evaluations are ongoing? The UK Covid Inquiry is set to end in 2026. Australia’s commission is ongoing. Italy and Ireland have only recently announced them. Most have none planned.
The rush needs to slow down. The U.S. should avoid signing until a thorough, bipartisan review of WHO’s Covid pandemic management is accomplished. Until then, a vote for a pandemic treaty is a vote against real, positive change.
Kevin Bardosh is Director and Head of Research at Collateral Global. Jay Battacharya is a Professor at Stanford School of Medicine.
Meet The Lifelong Felon Who Killed Four Cops In North Carolina
A neighborhood in Charlotte, North Carolina, was transformed into a warzone on Monday afternoon when a lifelong felon, illegally owning firearms, ambushed a US Marshals Fugitive Task Force and police officers as they were serving a warrant.
Three US Marshals and an officer from the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department were killed in the shootout. Additionally, four police officers and one Marshal were injured.
During a Monday evening press conference, police identified lifelong felon 39-year-old Terry Clark Hughes, Jr., who was also killed in the shootout.
Has leftist corporate media identified the felon? Maybe not, because it doesn’t fit the narrative.
CNN has not. Fox News has.
According to police, US Marshals attempted to serve Hughes a warrant for firearm possession. He was also wanted for two counts of felony flee to elude out of the Charlotte area.
Police believe there were two other shooters in the home. A 17-year-old and a woman, both of them, were taken into police custody.
“We have two people of interest at the police station that are being questioned right now,” Police Chief Johnny Jennings told reporters.
Jennings said, “And we have confirmed that the individual that was set up that we were serving the warrant on was the individual who fired the initial shots and was deceased in the front yard at the end of all of this.”
America needs to restore law and order, and leftist corporate media outlets must report the news fairly. Perhaps this is why their ratings are imploding, as everyday Americans begin to see through their narrative control of misinformation and disinformation.
Canada’s drug regulator asked Pfizer to provide data on the size of DNA fragments in its COVID-19 vaccine, due to genomic integration concerns, shortly after learning the pharma giant withheld information on DNA sequences contained in its product.
“Concerning the residual plasmid DNA in the drug substance, provide data/information characterizing […] the size distribution of the residual DNA fragments [and] residual intact circular plasmid,” says a request for clarification Health Canada issued to Pfizer on Aug. 4, 2023.
The information was released as part of records obtained through an access-to-information request. It shows, in part, that a Health Canada official was keeping the department’s counterparts in the United States and Europe apprised of the department’s interactions with Pfizer, in a bid to harmonize the regulators’ approaches regarding the recently discovered DNA fragment impurities.
“As you are aware, the fragment size is related to the probability of integration, and the WHO guidance assumes a fragment size of generally less than 200 bp,” Dr. Dean Smith, a senior scientific evaluator in Health Canada’s Vaccine Quality Division, wrote in an October 2023 email to counterparts at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA).
DNA plasmids are used in the manufacturing process of mRNA vaccines and residual elements are supposed to be cleaned out below a certain threshold. Pfizer said DNA in its products is below the 10ng/dose guideline established by the World Health Organization (WHO) and followed by Health Canada, according to the official records.
This assertion has been challenged by independent scientists, who found quantities of DNA in the vaccines to be above the threshold. They have also found the DNA fragments are larger than 200 base pairs (bp).
Virologist Dr. David Speicher, who has studied Canadian mRNA vials, told The Epoch Times the average size of fragments his study found is 214 base pairs (bp), with some as large as 3.5 kilobase (kb).
While small fragments frequently integrate spontaneously into the genome, these mutations are stopped through either DNA repair mechanisms or cellular death, Dr. Speicher said.
“Larger fragments are much more problematic, especially if attached to an SV40 enhancer, because they can integrate into the genome where they can get transcribed and then translated into proteins,” he added. Independent scientists like Dr. Speicher found the undisclosed SV40 enhancer in Pfizer shots, a piece of biotechnology used to drive gene expression.
Depending on the DNA fragment size, it can produce functional or aberrant proteins, Dr. Speicher explains. “These proteins can affect cellular metabolism, an immune response, as well as an increased risk for cancer. The risk of integration and associated health problems increases with the number of shots.”
The Florida State Surgeon General Dr. Joseph A. Ladapo has called for a halt of mRNA shots, citing concern about these risks. Dr. Philip Buckhaults, professor of cancer genomics and director of the Cancer Genetics Lab at the University of South Carolina, has initiated a study to investigate the risks.
Health Canada has not studied those risks, but told The Epoch Times last summer “the presence of residual plasmid DNA in the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines does not change the safety assessment of these vaccines.”
Seeking Clarifications
Despite providing this answer to media in the summer of 2023, Health Canada scientists were privately discussing working with international partners to have Pfizer remove DNA fragments and SV40 sequences from its vaccines and they prepared several requests for clarification to the company.
In an August 2023 email to a colleague providing information to relay to Pfizer, Health Canada senior biologist evaluator Dr. Michael Wall said his department would “continue to work with international regulatory partners to achieve harmonization regarding removal of these sequence elements from the plasmid for future strain changes.”
Records show Health Canada was blindsided by the presence of undisclosed genetic substances in the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines, almost four years after the initial emergency authorization.
After Pfizer filed its submission for the authorization of its updated Omicron XBB.1.5 shot on July 21, 2023, Health Canada sent the company several Quality Clarifax—requests for additional information if deficiencies are identified in drug submissions—with the first one dated Aug. 4, 2023.
Regarding the residual plasmid DNA in the COVID-19 vaccines, Health Canada asked Pfizer to provide data on the size distribution of the DNA fragments and on residual intact circular plasmid.
Pfizer said this data was “not readily available and will require time to generate,” in a response on Aug. 11, 2023. The pharma giant added that Pfizer, the drug sponsor, and BioNTech, the manufacturer, had not been previously requested to provide this data across global markets.
Pfizer committed to provide the data by Dec. 1, but the response is not captured in the information package released under the access-to-information regime.
In a subsequent request for information sent on Aug. 22, 2023, Health Canada noted Pfizer’s commitment to provide the information and added a request by asking Pfizer to address “whether the residual DNA plasmid is capable of replication in bacteria.”
Virologist Dr. Speicher, commenting on the agency’s request, noted that plasmids need to be circular to be replicated in a bacterial host, and that fragments can’t do so.
“So if they were intact circular plasmids and injected, they could be taken up by our host bacteria, especially in the gut,” he said. “If the plasmid could propagate in bacteria into our body it could lead to a bacterial spike factory and drive kanamycin/neomycin resistance.”
“This would cause an increase in antibiotic resistance of the bacteria including pathogens and increase spike production, and we know that spike is toxic on so many levels,” he said.
Dr. Speicher added that Pfizer should have tested for this before putting its products to market. The fact that it did not have the data indicates it did not test for it, he said.
SV40 Enhancer
The request for information that Health Canada sent to Pfizer mainly focused on the presence of the Simian Virus 40 (SV40) enhancer-promoter in the Pfizer-BioNTech shots.
Health Canada and other regulators like the FDA and EMA were not aware of its presence, since Pfizer “chose not to” disclose it, according to a separate email from Health Canada scientist Dr. Smith.
Many sections of the Clarifax are redacted under the Access to Information Act, with reasons such as content containing proprietary information or which could lead to a material gain or loss for a third party, in this case Pfizer and BioNTech.
The information disclosed shows that Health Canada challenged Pfizer on SV40 and asked for a “justification for the SV40 regulatory elements in the plasmid.”
Pfizer responded that the “SV40 regulatory region sequences [redacted] in the submission since this [redacted] is relevant neither for plasmid production in E. coli nor for production of mRNA.”
This is the position that has been adopted by Health Canada. In response to questions by the media and parliamentarians, the regulator has stated the SV40 enhancer-promoter is “inactive” and has “no functional role.”
But Pfizer and Health Canada have not addressed why the SV40 enhancer-promoter is present in the vaccine if it is not used in the production of mRNA and has no functional role. Genomics expert Kevin McKernan has questioned this when faced with responses from regulators.
Mr. McKernan made the initial DNA and SV40 fragments discovery and published his study in April 2023. His pre-print paper on the matter appears twice in the Health Canada information package released via access-to-information.
Mr. McKernan has pointed out that regulators could have discovered the SV40 sequences themselves had they run the plasmid through a computer annotation tool.
“If you ever used plasmid annotation tools, they annotate everything on the map and they don’t leave anything unannotated,” he told the International Covid Summit in February.
He provided his assessment to the summit of why Pfizer went this route. “They’re hiding the fact that this tool [SV40 enhancer] is used as a gene therapy tool and would classify their system as a gene therapy,” he said. “Because it’s a nuclear targeting sequence it moves DNA directly to the nucleus within hours in all cell lines.”
The American Society of Gene and Cell Therapy (ASGCT) classifies the mRNA injections as gene therapy, whereas Health Canada does not.
“The mRNA from the vaccines does not enter the cell nucleus or interact with the DNA at all, so it does not constitute gene therapy,” said Health Canada in a response to a parliamentarian on Dec. 13. The ASGCT also says the mRNA doesn’t alter the “recipient’s generic material” and is only present in the body “transiently.” However, because the vaccine introduces “new genetic material into cells for a short period of time to induce antibodies,” the American organization considers it gene therapy.
Pfizer said in a response to the Aug. 4 Health Canada request for information that the “SV40 promotor/enhancer DNA does not contain known oncogenes, infectious agents, or regions that could lead to functional transcripts, the DNA does not present any specific safety concerns.”
Health Canada also said in a document tabled in Parliament in March that “any claims the presence of the SV40 promoter enhancer sequence is linked to an increased risk of cancer are unfounded.” Health Canada itself has not studied the risks.
‘Drive Gene Expression’
A senior Health Canada’s scientist’s view on the role of SV40 fragments is captured in an Oct. 26 email written in response to questions from Chief Medical Officer Dr. Supriya Sharma.
Dr. Tong Wu of Health Canada’s Vaccine Quality Division responded that the “SV40 promoter enhancer is widely used to drive gene expression in mammalian cells.” He added, however, that it “serves no purpose in the manufacturing of Pfizer COVID-19 vaccines.”
Dr. Wu said it was unexpected to find the sequence in the finished product, since “Pfizer did not identify the presence of SV40 promoter enhancer on the plasmid template used to produce mRNA, in their original filing.”
Dr. Wu also said that “to the best of our knowledge,” no other vaccine approved in Canada contains the SV40 sequence.
Pfizer was contacted for comment, but the company hasn’t responded to inquiries.
The Biden administration has rolled out a set of new guidelines, under which an employer would be deemed liable for harassment for referring to a worker by an unwanted pronoun or requiring the worker to use a restroom that aligns with his or her biological sex.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) published the new workplace harassment guidelines on Monday after approving them in a party-line 3–2 vote on Friday. The new document enshrines gender identity as a category protected against harassment, just like sex, race, religion, or disability.
“Harassing conduct based on sexual orientation or gender identity includes … repeated and intentional use of a name or pronoun inconsistent with the individual’s known gender identity (misgendering) or the denial of access to a bathroom or other sex-segregated facility consistent with the individual’s gender identity,” the new guidelines state.
Joining Chairwoman Charlotte Burrows to vote in favor of the updated harassment guidance were two other Democrat commissioners, Jocelyn Samuels and Kalpana Kotagal. The two Republican members, Keith Sonderling and Andrea Lucas, voted against the changes.
“Women’s sex-based rights in the workplace are under attack—and from the EEOC, the very federal agency charged with protecting women from sexual harassment and sex-based discrimination at work,” Ms. Lucas said in a statement on Monday.
“The commission’s guidance effectively eliminates single-sex workplace facilities and impinges on women’s rights to freedom of speech and belief,” she added, accusing her Democrat colleagues of disregarding “biological realities, sex-based privacy and safety needs of women.”
Legal Implications
A guideline is not legally binding in the same way as laws passed by Congress or rules issued by government agencies. The EEOC website describes guidance as “official agency policy and explains how the laws and regulations apply to specific workplace situations.”
However, Monday’s guidance communicates the EEOC’s position on legal issues, meaning an employee could potentially refer to the new guidelines in the event of a restroom or pronoun dispute.
“Harassment, both in-person and online, remains a serious issue in America’s workplaces,” said Ms. Burrows in a statement Monday. “The EEOC’s updated guidance on harassment is a comprehensive resource that brings together best practices for preventing and remedying harassment and clarifies recent developments in the law.”
The new federal guidance comes about three years after the EEOC suffered a legal defeat in its attempt to create exceptions for employees identifying as LGBT from workplace policies on restrooms, locker rooms, and dress codes.
In August 2021, a coalition of attorneys general from 20 states sued to have the LGBT exception blocked, arguing that authority over such policies “properly belongs to Congress, the States, and the people.”
“The guidance purports to resolve highly controversial and localized issues such as whether employers … may maintain sex-separated showers and locker rooms, … and whether individuals may be compelled to use another person’s preferred pronouns,” the complaint read. “But the agencies have no authority to resolve those sensitive questions, let alone to do so by executive fiat without providing any opportunity for public participation.”
The lawsuit was led by Tennessee Attorney General Herbert Slatery. He was joined by attorneys general of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, and West Virginia.
In July 2022, a federal judge in Tennessee ruled in favor of the coalition to enjoin the EEOC guidance from going forward. Later that year, a separate federal court in Texas vacated and set aside the proposed guidance, determining that the EEOC misinterpreted the scope of the U.S. Supreme Court landmark 2020 ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County, which concluded that it is unconstitutional for sexual orientation and gender identity to be considered as factors in employment decisions.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled against two state-level health policies that exclude so-called “gender-affirming” treatments, teeing up potential review by the U.S. Supreme Court…
Judge Roger Gregory, an appointee of Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, wrote in his majority opinion that the policies’ exclusion of surgeries such as vaginoplasties for certain diagnoses violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
“The coverage exclusions facially discriminate on the basis of sex and gender identity, and are not substantially related to an important government interest,” he said.
The 8–6 decision affirmed lower court decisions against West Virginia’s Medicaid policy and the North Carolina State Health Plan for Teachers and State Employees. Both aimed to preclude coverage of procedures or treatments pursuant to attempts at changing one’s gender.
During oral arguments in September, at least two judges said it’s likely the case will eventually reach the U.S. Supreme Court.
Judge Gregory’s opinion rejected the idea that the policies didn’t discriminate on the basis of gender identity merely because they focused on diagnoses rather than individuals experiencing that condition.
“Appellants argue that the district courts’ equal-protection analyses were flawed because, they say, the exclusions distinguish on the basis of diagnosis,” he said.
He added that “in this case, discriminating on the basis of diagnosis is discriminating on the basis of gender identity and sex.”
Later in the opinion, Judge Gregory wrote that “gender dysphoria is so intimately related to transgender status as to be virtually indistinguishable from it. The excluded treatments aim at addressing incongruity between sex assigned at birth and gender identity, the very heart of transgender status.”
He later added that in “addition to discriminating on the basis of gender identity, the exclusions discriminate on the basis of sex.”
“Certain gender-affirming surgeries that could be provided to people assigned male at birth and people assigned female at birth are provided to only one group under the policy. Those surgeries include vaginoplasty (for congenital absence of a vagina), breast reconstruction (post-mastectomy), and breast reduction (for gynecomastia).”
Criticism
Judge Gregory’s opinion encountered three separate dissents, including one in which Judge Harvie Wilkinson, an appointee of President Ronald Reagan, argued “the science behind gender dysphoria care is far from settled.”
He suggested the majority overstepped its authority in encroaching on state decisions about health care.
“Providing the best possible care to adults and youth struggling with gender dysphoria is a challenging task for our States,” he said.
“But it is one that they are entitled to perform without premature judicial interference.”
Andrea Picciotti-Bayer, director of the Conscience Project, said in a statement to The Epoch Times that the decision “cries out for reversal from the Supreme Court.”
She warned that Judge Gregory’s reasoning “surely will be cited in attempts to force private insurance plans to do the same.”
Judge Marvin Quattlebaum, an appointee of President Donald Trump, said the majority “improperly” declared statements from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and the World Professional Association for Transgender Health “to be facts.”
“Individually and combined, these missteps improperly stack the deck, effectively ignoring the fair-minded debate about the medical necessity and efficacy of the treatments the plaintiffs seek,” he added.
Lambda Legal, which challenged both states’ policies, declared victory.
“We are pleased with the Court’s decision, which will save lives. It confirms that discriminating against transgender people by denying critical medical care is not only wrong but unconstitutional,” Lambda Legal Senior Counsel Tara Borelli said in a press release.
“No one should be denied essential health care, but our clients in both cases were denied coverage for medically necessary care prescribed by their doctors just because they’re transgender.”
