Continuing one of the more surprising comebacks of the digital age, vinyl album sales in the United States have grown for the 17th consecutive year.
As Statista’s Felix Richter reports, according to Luminate, 43.5 million LPs were sold in the U.S. last year, up more than 48-fold compared to 2006 when the vinyl comeback began.
Factoring in streaming and downloads of single tracks, however, that number drops to less than 5 percent of album equivalent music consumption, which puts things in perspective.
However big or small the impact of rising LP sales on the music industry’s bottom line may be, it’s fascinating to witness a hundred year-old technology come back from near extinction. Physical goods, it appears, still hold value for many people, even in the digital age.
Interestingly, vinyl LPs appear to have become a bit of collectors’ item for fans, who listen to music digitally but still want to own a physical object: according to Luminate, only 50 percent of vinyl buyers actually have a record player.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved an unprecedented number of emergency use authorizations (EUAs) for drugs, tests, and medical devices since the beginning of the pandemic.
Between March 2020 and June 2021, more than 600 EUAs were authorized, according to Fortune.
This has caused concern among healthcare professionals, with some studies claiming that overreaction by regulators may have led to a decline in industry standards (1, 2).
As clarified in the journal Yale Medicine, “An EUA can only be granted when no adequate, approved, available alternatives exist, and when the known and potential benefits outweigh the potential risks. A EUA also only lasts as long as the public health emergency for which it was declared.”
Prior to 2020, the public health emergency that allowed the highest number of EUAs was the 2009 H1N1 pandemic, with 22 EUAs overall for personal protective equipment (PPE), antivirals, and diagnostic tests. The only emergency-authorized vaccine prior to the 2020 pandemic was the anthrax vaccine.
Given the drastic increase in EUAs, experts worry that this time, the FDA has gone too far.
The Normalization of EUA Drugs and Lack of Informed Consent
Cardiologist Dr. Jack Askins has pointed out that the unprecedented onslaught of emergency authorizations in drugs, vaccinations, medical devices, COVID tests, and PPE has normalized EUA drugs and products as being fully FDA-approved rather than being investigational.
Prof. Linda Wastila from the University of Maryland School of Pharmacy, whose expertise is in pharmacotherapy and drug policy, told The Epoch Times that the torrent of 600 EUAs makes it very difficult for healthcare professionals to remain informed of the approval statuses of new drugs.
For example, Askins previously told The Epoch Times that he noticed some of his colleagues who prescribe Paxlovid lacked adequate awareness of the many interactions and contraindications Paxlovid has with other drugs.
Paxlovid can interact with 43 different drug classes and over 550 active drug ingredients.
Even before the pandemic, it was hard for clinicians and pharmacists to keep up, given that around 40 novel therapeutics are approved by the FDA yearly, not counting generic drugs.
Wastila said that compared to traditional FDA-approved products, there has been less informed consent with the EUA products during the pandemic.
Informed consent is defined as “the process in which a health care provider educates a patient about the risks, benefits, and alternatives of a given procedure or intervention,” and patients must make their own voluntary decision.
Informed consent is especially important with EUA products as they are investigational products. Articles on EUAs have compared taking these products to participating in experimental trials (1, 2).
Part of informed consent is letting patients know that what they are taking is experimental and that they have the right to refuse.
But Askins highlighted that very few patients were provided informed consent when they took EUA products such as the vaccine.
He said that three patients, each of whom received the bivalent booster as a fourth shot, were admitted to his clinic. He asked all three if they were given information on the potential risks and the emerging data on concerns and problems with it.
“All three said no,” he said, “I do not think they understand emergency use authorization versus full FDA approval.”
It also should be noted that EUAs do not come with long-term safety data.
While drugs fully approved by the FDA come with a densely written package insert on side effects and drug mechanisms, for many EUA products, such as the COVID-19 vaccines, these sections are left blank.
A Johnson & Johnson spokesperson said this was intentional, leaving it to consumers to search online for the most up-to-date information on safety and effectiveness as the data is published.
However, Wastila sees this lack of information as potentially dangerous.
“To me at least, [it] conveys the fact that they don’t really know whether a product is safe and effective when it’s an EUA product.”
The Erosion of Drug Safety Standards
Dr. David Bell, formerly a medical officer with the World Health Organization, said that the overuse of EUAs during the pandemic has lowered drug safety standards put in place to protect patients.
EUA products are very different from FDA-approved drugs. However, public health agencies’ encouragement to use EUAs has blurred the separation between EUAs and FDA-approved drugs.
Wastila fears that EUA is replacing FDA approval as the norm.
“[EUAs] have lost all meaning,” said board-certified internist and nephrologist Dr. Richard Amerling. “People don’t hear ‘emergency use;’ they only hear ‘authorized.’”
Askins argued that there has been intentional public messaging from the FDA to make EUA appear just as safe and equivalent to a fully tested and licensed product.
In August 2021, the FDA approved the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine under the label of Comirnaty.
Having an FDA-approved vaccine should have nullified the EUA for other COVID-19 vaccines, or at the very least, the Pfizer EUA vaccine.
Yet, the Pfizer EUA vaccine remains on the U.S. market. The FDA also wrote that for the Pfizer vaccine, “doses distributed under the EUA are interchangeable with the licensed doses.”
An order issued in November 2021 by Judge Allen Windsor of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida rejected this claim, stating that while the two versions may be medically interchangeable, they are not legally interchangeable.
Judge Windsor’s order also mentioned that FDA officials could not prove that Comirnaty vaccines even exist in the United States.
Nevertheless, the full FDA approval of Comirnaty has led many health providers to assume that the Pfizer injections being administered are the licensed versions.
Wastila recounted an experience at her former local pharmacy.
She was picking up some antibiotics and, while chatting with the pharmacist, she asked about the uptake of Pfizer and Moderna vaccines.
“[The pharmacist] goes, ‘Oh, they’re great. Everyone’s so happy that they’re FDA approved,’” Wastila recounted. “That’s literally a quote from the pharmacist’s mouth.”
“I said, ‘They’re not FDA approved, though.’ She goes, ‘Oh, Pfizer is.’”
So Wastila asked to see an unopened package of the vaccine, and the pharmacist showed the doctor a vial.
The pharmacist presented an EUA vaccine; it did not have the Comirnaty label, which would be printed according to labeling requirements.
Wastila told the pharmacist that the pharmacy was still using the EUA vaccines.
“[The pharmacist] was just like kind of amazed,” said Wastila, “But there’s no informed consent if even your dispensers aren’t aware that it is EUA or FDA approved.”
More Emergency Declarations and EUAs Likely To Come
Health experts argue that COVID-19 pandemic management has already lowered the standards for future emergency declarations and EUAs.
Dr. Robert Malone, biochemist and one of the inventors of the mRNA drug platform, said that monkeypox, which was declared a public health emergency in August 2022 with no deaths in the U.S. at the time, is a good example of this reduced standard.
Given that the disease almost exclusively affects men who have sex with men, a specific population demographic, and has led to 20 deaths in the United States thus far, Bell and Wastila both said that it was ludicrous that it was deemed a public health emergency.
“Now the cat’s out the bag, [public health emergency declarations] can be used really easily now because there are precedents [such as] COVID-19 and monkeypox that were not very severe,” Bell said.
The smallpox vaccine, commercially labeled as JYNNEOS, was also rapidly given EUA approval in a matter of days.
The FDA wrote that it was “inferred” that a smallpox vaccine would be effective against monkeypox, given that both viruses are from the same family.
However, according to a statement made by the CDC on Oct. 19, 2022, there was no data on the effectiveness of JYNNEOS or ACAM2000, an alternative to JYNNEOS, for monkeypox.
The vaccine also has cardiological side effects. Pooled data across 22 studies showed that of the more than 7,800 people vaccinated, six developed cardiac-related adverse events that were determined to be causally related to vaccination.
Concerns have been raised about the respiratory syncytial virus, known as RSV, in children. Though the virus has not been declared a national public health emergency, declarations have been made in Oregon and Colorado, and some health experts have urged a national declaration.
“We’ve had RSV and the flu every year, and all of a sudden, it’s become a big issue again, and it’s because we’re afraid of every viral infection, [we’re] normalizing being fearful of every contagion,” said Wastila.
Loss of Trust in Public Health
As a pharmacotherapy professor who is in contact with pharmacists and staff working with the FDA, Wastila confessed that the pandemic has been a “rude awakening” for her.
“Physicians, dispensers, and pharmacists just blindly follow the safety and effectiveness of a product just because it has the FDA seal of approval, even if that ‘approval’ is an EUA.”
Though financial backdoor dealings have been suspected and discussed for decades, Malone argues that the pandemic has brought “corruption” to the surface.
Financially, 65 percent of the FDA’s budget comes from pharmaceutical companies, with a large proportion of this money coming through sponsorship for drug approval applications.
The 1992 Prescription Drug User Fee Act, also known as the PDUFA, requires pharmaceutical companies to pay the FDA for drug approvals.
Wastila said that after speaking to colleagues and students who work in the FDA, she senses that the PDFUA may have established “a culture of entitlement” from the drug companies to have their drugs approved and marketed.
“The sponsors feel like, hey, we’ve paid for this,” she said, “It’s like a pay-for-play situation.”
Many members of drug evaluation boards also receive financial payments from drug companies.
When evaluating a drug, there needs to be “zero conflict of interest,” said Amerling. “Declaring that you have a financial conflict of interest doesn’t make it go away.”
“They [The FDA] were unable to produce any solid data showing that there’s an all-cause benefit to those children,” said Bell.
For healthcare professionals and members of the public who once trusted the FDA, some feel that they no longer have a place to go for advice on treatments.
Amerling said this would force clinicians to be very conservative with their treatment.
As the Chief Academic Officer at The Wellness Company, Amerling educates doctors to prescribe only medications with a safety record of at least several years.
“Don’t be that person to jump on the bandwagon with a new product,” he said, “Post-marketing experience can reveal unanticipated adverse events, and you’re not going to see them even with the initial studies, even if they’re well done.”
“When medium and long-term risk is unknown, it’s best to err on the side of caution, especially if benefits are small.”
Wastila added that there has been a considerable information gap on drug safety since the pandemic, with little scrutiny from drug regulators.
These Are North America’s Biggest Sources Of Electricity By State And Province
On a national scale, the United States and Canada rely on a very different makeup of sources to generate their electricity.
The U.S. primarily uses natural gas, coal, and nuclear power, while Canada relies on both hydro and nuclear. That said, when zooming in on the province or state level, individual primary electricity sources can differ greatly.
Natural gas is widely used for electricity generation in the United States. Known as a “cleaner” fossil fuel, its abundance, coupled with an established national distribution network and relatively low cost, makes it the leading electricity source in the country.
In 2021, 38% of the 4120 terawatt-hours (TWh) of electricity generated in the U.S. came from natural gas. Not surprisingly, more than 40% of American states have natural gas as their biggest electricity source.
Here are some states that have the largest shares of natural gas-sourced electricity.
In Canada, natural gas is only the third-biggest electricity source (behind hydro and nuclear), accounting for 11% of the 632 TWh of electricity produced in 2019. Alberta is the only province with natural gas as its main source of electricity.
Nuclear
Nuclear power is a carbon-free energy source that makes up a considerable share of the energy generated in both the U.S. and Canada.
19% of America’s and 15% of Canada’s electricity comes from nuclear power. While the percentages are close to one another, it’s good to note that the United States generates 6 to 7 times more electricity than Canada each year, yielding a lot more nuclear power than Canada in terms of gigawatt hours (GWh) per year.
As seen in the map, many states and provinces with nuclear as their main source of electricity are concentrated in the eastern half of the two countries.
In the U.S., Illinois, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina are top producers in terms of GWh/year. Illinois and South Carolina also have nuclear as their primary electricity source, whereas Pennsylvania’s electricity production from natural gas exceeds that from nuclear.
The vast majority of Canada’s nuclear reactors (18 of 19) are in Ontario, with the 19th in New Brunswick. Both of these provinces rely on nuclear as their biggest source of electricity.
Renewables: Hydro, Wind and Solar
Out of the different types of renewable electricity sources, hydro is the most prevalent in North America. For example, 60% of Canada’s and 6% of the U.S.’s electricity comes from hydropower.
Here are the states and provinces that have hydro as their biggest source of electricity.
Wind and solar power collectively comprise a small percentage of total electricity generated in both countries. While no state or province relies on solar as its biggest source of electricity, Iowa, Kansas, Oklahoma, and South Dakota rely primarily on wind for their electricity, along with Canada’s Prince Edward Island (PEI).
Coal and Oil
Coal and oil are emission-heavy electricity sources still prevalent in North America.
Currently, 22% of America’s and 7% of Canada’s electricity comes from coal, with places such as Kentucky, Missouri, West Virginia, Saskatchewan, and Nova Scotia still relying on coal as their biggest sources of electricity.
Certain regions also use petroleum to generate their electricity. Although its use for this purpose is declining, it is still the biggest source of electricity in both Hawaii and Nunavut.
Over the next few years, it will be interesting to observe the use of these fossil fuels for electricity generation in the U.S. and Canada. Despite the differences in climate commitments between the two countries, lowering coal and oil-related emissions may be a critical part of hitting decarbonization targets in a timely manner.
We hear a great deal today about the “protection of democracy.”
For Democrats, it is all about voter suppression and election denial, and for Republicans, election fraud. But the great irony, and far greater threat to democracy, comes from both political parties as they routinely thwart the will of the majority of American people to satisfy their primary base voters and the special interests that finance their parties.
Neither really give a tinker’s damn about what the majority of Americans want.
Case in point. In 2019, Texas passed a near total ban on abortion after fertilization. The law became effective on the overturning of Roe v. Wade. There is an exception for a serious health risk to the mother but there is no exception for cases of rape or incest.
A recent University of Texas poll showed that only 13% of Texans thought there should be no exception in cases of rape or incest. 87% supported such an exception up to six weeks into the pregnancy and 64% up to twelve weeks. Only 29% supported the exception at any time during the pregnancy.
Yet, the Texas legislature passed a bill without a rape/incest exception, notwithstanding that 87% of Texans think the law should include one. How can that be described as anything other than undemocratic?
Of course, the same is true with Democrats. Polling has consistently shown that a supermajority of Americans oppose President Biden’s immigration policies since he was elected. Nonetheless, it took him two years to even acknowledge there was a problem and then offer only half-hearted measures.
On issue after issue, contrary to the popular media narrative that Americans are hopelessly divided and polarized, the truth is a majority of Americans agree with centrist, common-sense policies. Morris Fiorina, in his book, Unstable Majorities, uses American National Election Survey data going back over five decades to show that “normal Americans continue to be centrists.”
Both Democrats and Republicans are correct: Our democracy is under siege. But it is not under siege from voter suppression, election denial, or election fraud. It is under siege because our historic two-party system has been perverted by primaries that seek to discourage participation by anyone but “true believers,” by computer-driven gerrymandering, and by a media industry that profits by pandering to the extremes of the ideologic spectrum. As Jason Altmire so vividly explained in his book Dead Center, any elected official that tries to buck the system is punished, frequently by being voted out of office by primary voters. As result, our two legacy parties represent the views of the voters that show up for their primaries, not the views of the majority of Americans.
When it comes to threats to our democracy, both parties should be reciting the words of the great American philosopher, Pogo (aka Walt Kelly): “We have met the enemy and he is us.”
As Statista’s Katharina Buchholz details below, depending on which country you are in, this question is more or less likely to be met with a shrug or even an objection to religious belief.
In China, the highest percentage of people among the 56 countries and territories included in the Statista Global Consumer Survey is non-religious or atheist, the latter describing people rejecting the idea that there is a God.
Among European countries, Germany ranks high for the share of its non-religious and atheist population, which stands at around a third of survey respondents aged 18 to 64.
Even in a country often associated with religiousness – Italy – a quarter of people between these ages are not religious today.
Religion has a somewhat stronger hold on the United States, Russia and Brazil, while in South Africa, the non-religious are in the single digits at just 9 percent of adults under the age of 65. In India, finally, being non-religious or atheist is virtually unheard of, with just two percent of survey respondents saying they fell into one of the two categories.
The jury trial of Richard Barnett, the man famously photographed with his feet on a desk in Nancy Pelosi’s office on January 6, 2021, is underway in Washington, D.C.
Nearly two years to the date of his arrest, Barnett finally had a chance to defend himself in court on multiple charges, including obstruction of an official proceeding.
But it was not the fiery, outspoken Barnett who provided the most jaw-dropping testimony in the trial so far.
To the contrary, one of the government’s own witnesses confirmed under defense cross-examination that “agents provocateur” were heavily involved in instigating the events of January 6.
Captain Carneysha Mendoza, a tactical commander for U.S. Capitol Police at the time, testified Wednesday how a group of agitators destroyed security barriers and lured people to Capitol grounds that afternoon:
Defense Counsel Brad Geyer: Isn’t it true that you had a lot of people, a large quantity of people walking down two streets that dead-ended at the Capitol?
Mendoza: Yes, sir.
Geyer: And would it be fair to say that at least at some of the leading edges of that crowd, they contained bad people or provocateurs; is that fair?
Geyer: Highly trained violent people who work and coordinate together?
Mendoza: Yes
It was a stunning admission, representing the first time a top law enforcement official stated under oath (to my knowledge) that a coordinated, experienced group of agitators engaged in much of the mischief early that day. Under further questioning, Mendoza acknowledged those same individuals “pushed through barriers, removed barriers, threw barriers over the side, removed fencing, and eased the flow of people into places where they shouldn’t be.” This happened around 1:00 p.m., the same time the joint session of Congress convened to debate the results of the 2020 presidential election.
Hiding the pivotal role of still unidentified—and uncharged—agitators on January 6 is just one reason why the government has successfully sought to conceal thousands of hours of footage captured by the Capitol police’s security system before, during, and after the protest.
As I explained in May 2021, Capitol police immediately designated roughly 14,000 hours of surveillance video as “security information” that should not be released to the public.
Thomas DiBiase, general counsel for Capitol police, the technical owner of the video trove, signed an affidavit in March 2021 objecting to the widespread dissemination of footage “related to the attempted insurrection.” DiBiase claimed the agency wanted to prevent “those who might wish to attack the Capitol again” from accessing interior views of the building.
The Department of Justice subsequently labeled the footage as “highly sensitive government material” subject to strict protective orders in court proceedings. Defendants must comply with onerous rules before viewing any surveillance video associated with their case.
There are, of course, exceptions for any party helping to enforce the “insurrection” narrative. For example, the House committee handling Donald Trump’s post-January 6 impeachment was allowed to use portions of the super-secret reel. So, too, was HBO in producing its January 6 documentary. The January 6 select committee aired extensive if highly selective surveillance footage during their televised performances.
And that brief clip of Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) running in a hallway on January 6? It was clearly an image intended to mock his alleged cowardice that day. And, of course, it was Capitol surveillance video.
If it’s safe to place the video in the hands of Representative Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the biggest deceiver in Congress, and random HBO film producers, then it’s safe to place all the footage in the hands of the American people. Which is why calls by Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) to fully release the surveillance video are a welcome, and necessary, step in providing a complete account about the events of January 6 to the public.
(The Committee on House Administration, now under Republican control, is one of two congressional committees with access to the full library of video.)
The recordings, Gaetz said in an interview this week, “would give more full context to that day rather than the cherry-picked moments that the January 6 committee tried to use to inflame and further divide our country.”
That demand undoubtedly will be met with fierce resistance by the same lawmakers, government agencies, and media organizations incessantly bleating about the need to “tell the truth” about what happened before and on January 6.
So, what exactly will the tapes reveal?
The footage, which captured the inside and outside of the building, will show how many agitators and/or federal assets were staged at various locations early in the day. Rep. Clay Higgins (R-La.) might finally get an answer to the question that FBI Director Christopher Wray refused to answer during a congressional hearing last year—whether FBI informants disguised as Trump supporters were planted inside the building prior to the initial breach.
To that end, the video could show who instructed two men how to open the two-ton Columbus Doors on the east side of the Capitol Building, creating an access point for hordes of protesters.
Ditto for entry points at other locations.
Will the video identify the individuals who erected the “gallows” featuring an orange noose allegedly built to “hang” Vice President Mike Pence? Just like the identity of the suspect who allegedly planted the pipe bombs at the DNC and RNC, no one has been identified or charged with constructing that stage on government property—another unanswered question the footage will answer.
The public undoubtedly will be shocked to see police officers from Capitol police and D.C. Metropolitan Police Departments viciously attacking crowds of people assembled outside the Capitol. Mendoza’s testimony also confirmed that Capitol police officers used nonlethal “munitions” on hundreds of individuals beginning shortly after 1:00 p.m. Weaponry included pepper balls—projectiles containing a chemical irritant shot from a launcher similar to a paintball gun—gas, rubber bullets, and flashbangs, a less-than-lethal grenade that likely caused the fatal heart attacks of two Trump supporters that afternoon.
Not only will the public see what happened to those two men, Kevin Greeson and Benjamin Phillips, but they will also see evidence of the numerous, serious injuries inflicted on dozens of people, including children and elderly women, at the hands of police. Are Americans prepared to see how law enforcement handled the dead bodies of Ashli Babbitt and Rosanne Boyland?
It will be tough to watch.
More importantly, the footage will indicate which cameras were disabled before the protest. The government’s claim that security cameras are not installed outside the Columbus Doors is questionable at best. A full comparison between the Capitol’s closed-circuit television system and the cameras operable on January 6 is a must.
House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) on Thursday endorsed Gaetz’s calls to release the footage.
“I think the American public should actually see all what happened,” McCarthy told reporters.
“Yes, I’m engaged to do that.”
If McCarthy follows through on his promise, the world will see the biggest inside job—an actual coup—in U.S. history unfold before their eyes.
Not only is it necessary to expose the truth of January 6 but to exonerate innocent Americans whose lives have been destroyed in the aftermath.
An icy visitor from the far reaches of the solar system is expected to shoot past Earth and the sun in the coming weeks and it might be visible with the unaided human eye. This visitor from afar is a comet believed to have brushed by Earth before – some 50,000 years ago.
Discovered in March 2022, the comet recently passed within Jupiter’s orbit and is heading for the inner solar system. Our witnessing the flyby soon to occur could be a once-in-a-lifetime astronomical occasion.
Bright Enough for Naked Eyesight?
Dubbed C/2022 E3 ZTF, the comet displays a greenish coma, the nebulous envelope surrounding a comet’s nucleus, and a yellow-tinged tail of dust and ion particles in its wake.
Initially showing a stellar magnitude of 17 when it was discovered, according to EarthSky, C/2022 E3 ZTF’s brightness will increase as it approaches the sun, as the frozen matter of a comet’s nucleus sublimates when exposed to solar radiation sometimes causing a spectacular green “glow.”
Just today the comet reached its perihelion, its closest distance from the sun, and currently shines with a magnitude of 7.4—The lower an object’s magnitude the greater its brightness. It’s magnitude is expected to increase to 5 or 6, the range visible to the naked eye, next month when it reaches its closest distance from Earth.
So with dark skies and minimal moonlight or streetlight, C/2022 E3 ZTF might be seen without binoculars or a telescope. However, comets are notoriously unpredictable; it could be even brighter.
C/2022 E3 ZTF exhibits a green coma and yellow-tinged ion tail. (Courtesy of Jose Francisco Hernandez)
Optimal Viewing Geometry
Typically, as comets near the sun, they are drowned out by sunlight and banished from sight but unlike other comets C/2022 E3 ZTF’s trajectory presents great geometry for viewing from Earth. Appearing slightly past midnight over the coming weeks, it will stay visible despite its proximity to the sun—This holds true for stargazers in the northern hemisphere at least.
Originally appearing in the north, the comet arced northwest to southwest and then seemed to loop as our vantage point on Earth changed while we orbited the sun. The comet then shot northward in early October, vanishing entirely from view for comet watchers in the southern hemisphere.
C/2022 E3 ZTF is currently careening toward the Northern Crown and by month’s end will have neared Polaris, all the while getting brighter and closer to Earth. It will become visible to viewers south of the equator again in early February when it pops above their northern horizon.
The comet will reach its closest distance from Earth on Feb. 2 and you can find it transiting in between the constellations Draco and Camelopardalis just south of Polaris. As it travels in a retrograde orbit (the opposite way as Earth’s orbit), it will be moving very quickly. Try spying it with your naked eye, otherwise use a pair of good binoculars.
How Close?
As for the size of this comet, its nucleus was measured to be about 1 kilometer across, according to AFP—relatively small compared to more famous comets such as NEOWISE, which appeared in 2020; more famously, Hale-Bopp appeared in 1997 exhibiting a diameter of 60 miles (37 kilometers). But what C/2022 E3 ZTF lacks in size, it compensates for in closeness.
Comet C/2022 E3 ZTF presents optimal geometry in its trajectory, facilitating excellent viewing opportunities from Earth. (Courtesy of Jose Francisco Hernandez)
C/2022 E3 ZTF grows brighter as it approaches its perihelion, closest distance from the sun. (Courtesy of Jose Francisco Hernandez)
Having just reached its perihelion today, the comet now lies roughly 103 million miles (1.11 AU/166 million kilometers) from the sun. When it “grazes” by Earth on Feb. 2, it will be 27 million miles (0.29 AU/42 million kilometers) away, before it swerves outbound toward the outer solar system again.
This is the first time said comet has entered our solar system since the Upper Paleolithic period 50,000 years ago. Scientists say it could be permanently ejected once it makes its departure from the solar system, AFP reported.
Particularly for first-time comet spotters, C/2022 E3 ZTF presents a great sighting opportunity on Feb. 10 when it will appear extremely close to Mars. You can try taking a long-exposure photo for 20 to 30 seconds which might yield a fuzzy, tailed object beside the rust-red planet.
As for where C/2022 E3 ZTF is headed, we might ask where it came from. The comet is believed to originate from the Oort Cloud, a theoretical vast sphere that surrounds the solar system inhabited by mysterious icy objects.
The comet is set to near Mars as it makes its departure from the inner solar system. (Courtesy of Jose Francisco Hernandez)
As for the comet’s unwieldy name, here’s the story behind that. It was first discovered during a survey on March 2, 2022, by astronomers Bryce Bolin and Frank Masci using the Zwicky Transient Facility (ZTF), located at Mt. Palomar in Southern California. Its name denotes the facility where it was discovered (ZTF), the year of its discovery (2022), and that it was the third (3) such object found in the year’s fifth half-month (A, B, C, D, E), hence C/2022 E3 ZTF.
This visitor from afar will vanish from view by late April 2023.
Gallup: Americans Split On Companies Taking Political, Social Stands
Americans are almost evenly split on whether companies should take public stands on social and political issues. Anew Bentley University/Gallup poll finds that 52% of U.S. adults disapprove of such public posturing, while 48% support it.
We hasten to note that the pollsters don’t seem to approach the topic from an impartial perspective. That’s initially evident from the name of the undertaking: “The Force for Good Survey.” Then there’s this language on the survey website:
“Business can be a powerful force for positive change in our society. But are businesses doing enough to live up to that potential and make the world a better place?”
That said, even if the survey seems prone to cultivating the leftist stance on this question — which is asked among a variety of others — it surely provides directional insights, so let’s have a look.
While the big picture shows a roughly even split, differences start to emerge when results are sorted by age, with younger adults more prone to support corporate stances on current events. The poll found 59% of those 18 to 29 years old approve, compared to 43% of those 60 and over.
Those substantial gaps turn into enormous divides when you get to party affiliation: 75% of Democrats want companies to share their beliefs, compared to 18% of Republicans. Only 40% of independents want companies spouting off on current events.
Turning to other crosscuts, strong majorities of Asians (74%) and blacks (72%) support corporate pontification, while just 49% of Hispanics and 41% of whites do.
Meanwhile, women are more likely to back corporate preaching than men, by a 52% to 43% margin.
The findings show the predicament companies face in deciding if they should speak out on everything from racism to LGBT activism and Covid policy, with substantial portions of the population on each side of that question. The pressures aren’t only external: businesses face pressure from their employees too.
It is late 2024, and the special agent in charge of the COVID Misinformation Compliance Task Force begins her daily brief by disseminating a list of the days’ five targets to her team of ten sworn peace officers on special assignment from local law enforcement agencies.
The team reviews the targets’ criminal histories and firearm ownership records, takes note of logistical concerns, and employs a host of social media and “not to be mentioned” electronic data gathering tools. Warrants are confirmed and onsite surveillance is initiated, providing real-time information to the incoming arrest team.
The law enforcement team exits their vehicles at a safe distance and approaches the suspect’s location with caution. As the team makes its approach, verbal commands are given to the women and children entering and exiting the pediatric clinic to clear a path in front of the office door and vacate the area immediately.
After the team enters, clerical and medical staff are ordered to take seats and provide their doctor’s location. The doctor is located in the hallway between patient rooms, placed in restraints, searched for weapons, and immediately taken to the transport vehicle idling outside.
Witnesses state they could hear the doctor protesting loudly, “My license appeal is still under review!”
Could This Happen?
Of course you’re asking, “What the heck is this guy talking about?” Please, allow me to explain. Using the same perfect pitch that George Orwell used to author “1984,” the California State Senate authored another piece of legislation that summoned the intertwined spirits of Josef Mengele and Joseph Goebbels. As you may already know, the current Sacramento political lineup is the gift that keeps on giving.
Governor Newsom signed Assembly Bill 2098 on Sept. 30, 2022, and it became state law effective Jan. 1. The bill, titled “Physicians and surgeons: unprofessional conduct,” adds the following section to California’s Business and Professions Code:
2270. (a) It shall constitute unprofessional conduct for a physician and surgeon to disseminate misinformation or disinformation related to COVID-19, including false or misleading information regarding the nature and risks of the virus, its prevention and treatment; and the development, safety, and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines.
It defines misinformation as “false information that is contradicted by contemporary scientific consensus contrary to the standard of care.”
In a nutshell, if you are a doctor who deviates from the established CDC talking points or even attempts to assess and advise their patient as an individual, you may be guilty of COVID misinformation and thus be guilty of unprofessional conduct.
What are the potential penalties? Well, let’s just say that the student loan forgiveness plan won’t be helping you, as the $10,000 forgiveness limit won’t even cover the lab fees you incurred with your now worthless medical degree.
The Medical Board of California has been imbued with expanded authority to investigate, review, and refer for disposition to the State Attorney General’s Health Quality Enforcement Section’s office, complaints against “COVID misinformation.” The outcome of this completely vaporous virtue-signaling trope may include having your medical license pulled by the state, as well as exposure to fees and other sanctions. Don’t forget that this assault on the pursuit of the truth came out of a change in business code!
I hear you saying, “What’s this have to do with the dystopian scene above?”
Ah, good reader! Yes, what happens if you don’t comply and continue to practice medicine anyway?
Business and Professions Code 2052 nicely dovetails into the above by making this an arrestable offense with with the potential of a year in county jail.
I cannot possibly know the percentage of doctors who will either submit to a CCP-style tyranny or adopt skillful wordplay like 15th century astronomers wrestling with heliocentric revelations that the dominant church of their day forbid. But I can predict the number will not be zero.
What Consensus?
Obviously I am not a doctor, but I do have a memory and do archive the articles I read, especially when I’m making medical decisions. I generally review the same sources that AB 2098 references when regarding consensus, for example the American Medical Association. The only consistencies I’ve seen surrounding COVID-19 and the “vaccine” are the consistent inconsistencies. Wait a week and it will change.
Remember the “protect grandma and get the jab” mantras? Or “do your part for herd immunity?” Now we learn that mRNA vaccination doesn’t accomplish either, and the new goal is “reduce severe illness and hospitalization.” I won’t mention some of the latest data regarding that claim, but it doesn’t look good. And I won’t speak more on the issue of defining the undefinable, because I run the risk of losing focus on the real problem. Sacramento power-hungry politicians have pulled off the ultimate gaslighting. We have been debating the way government is going to intercede in our lives rather than focusing on the fact that they don’t have the authority to do so.
The inherent desire for government to give itself additional authority is one of the reasons our Constitution and Bill of Rights were constructed the way they were. The founders made individual liberty the underpinning of much of their writing and have warned future generations to protect it at all costs.
Public Health Overreach
Unfortunately, the California Legislatures’ penchant to rely on questionable medical “consensus” is nothing new. During the 1920s, California adopted “model laws,” in which law enforcement conducted the proactive arrest of women suspected to have sexually transmitted diseases—all in the name of public health. Literal law enforcement sweeps, arrests, and forced gynecological exams would happen with no probable cause needed.
California relied on the U.S. Attorney General’s published opinion that these proactive public health efforts were constitutional and that the public’s interest trumped individual liberty. One of the reasons that this unbelievable and sick overreach is even known is that during a particular morality sweep, of the 22 women arrested and inspected that day, two of the arrestees were sisters, one of whom was Margaret Hennessy. The wife of a Standard Oil manager, she was recovering from influenza and was out for some fresh air with her sister, which was a common practice in that day.
Mrs. Hennessy had the courage to go to the news media and let her outrage be known, which should be an example to all of us. California’s “morality policy” using public heath concerns to expand the power to investigate, detain, and arrest individuals was illegal then and is still illegal now.
The first step in combating authoritarian overreach is not debating what or why they are doing something. It’s making the government identify where their authority to impose a mandate or new law comes from and then impose the constitutional test. You already know the answer, don’t you? They don’t have the authority to do what they are doing.
Since 1850, California has suffered through innumerable attempts to exceed its own constitutional authority, not to mention the Constitution of the United States. Historically, we seem to work things out and get as close to what’s right as possible. However, I’m afraid that much of today’s public has forgotten what freedom looks like and is suffering from Stockholm Syndrome.
The U.S. government has now collected a total of 510 UFO reports, according to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), marking a relatively significant increase in recent months of such reports.
That’s compared to 144 – the number of UFO reports confirmed in June 2021 in the DNI’s preliminary assessment that covers reports of sightings in the 17 years spanning 2004 to 2021.
The updated figure of 510 is logged as of Aug. 30, 2022 in the “2022 Annual Report on Unidentified Aerial Phenomena,” which was published Jan. 12.
It marks an increase of 366 reports in the 17 months since the preliminary assessment. That’s 247 new reports, as well as 119 reports that were either discovered or reported late that fell within the original 17-year period but weren’t included in the preliminary assessment.
The DNI on Jan. 11 delivered the annual report to Congress, as required by the the annual military funding bill—the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022.
The increase in reporting of UFOs—or what the DNI calls “UAP” (Unidentified Aerial Phenomena—now Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena)—is “partially due to a concentrated effort to destigmatize the topic of UAP and instead recognize the potential risks that it poses as both a safety of flight hazard and potential adversarial activity.”
Many Cases ‘Unresolved’
The report states that while more UAP are being reported and sent for analysis, many cases “remain unresolved.”
Most of the 366 new cases were reported by the U.S. Navy and U.S. Air Force aviators and operators while on duty. “Many reports lack enough detailed data to enable attribution of UAP with high certainty,” the report reads.
More than half of the new 366 cases reported were initially judged as “exhibiting unremarkable characteristics,” according to the report. These 195 sightings comprise 26 characterized as Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS)—drones—or “UAS-like entities;” 163 characterized as balloon or balloon-like entities; and six attributed to clutter.
The 171 remaining UAP reports are “uncharacterized and unattributed,” the report states, adding that some of the uncharacterized UAP “appear to have demonstrated unusual flight characteristics or performance capabilities” and need to be analyzed further.
The DNI has been working with the All-Domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO), which was established in mid-July 2022 by the Pentagon to “detect, identify and attribute objects of interest” in all domains, including air, ground, sea, or space, to help address “any associated threats to safety of operations and national security.”
According to the report, AARO is the “single focal point” for all efforts from the Pentagon regarding UAP. AARO is leading a “whole-of-government approach to coordinate UAP collection, reporting, and analysis efforts” throughout the Pentagon, the Intelligence Community, and other government agencies.
No Collisions, Adverse Health Effects Reported
While UAP “continue to represent a hazard to flight safety and pose a possible adversary collection threat,” the increased reporting of such phenomena has enabled “a greater awareness of the airspace and increased opportunity to resolve UAP events,” reads the report.
It notes that there have been no reported collisions between U.S. aircraft and UAP.
The report adds that there have been “encounters with UAP confirmed to contribute directly to adverse health-related effects to the observer(s).”
“Acknowledging that health-related effects may appear at any time after an event occurs, AARO will track any reported health implications related to UAP should they emerge,” the report reads.
“The safety of our service personnel, our bases and installations, and the protection of U.S. operations security on land, in the skies, seas, and space are paramount,” Pentagon press secretary Air Force Brig. Gen. Pat Ryder said in a statement, commenting on the UAP report. “We take reports of incursions into our designated space, land, sea, or airspaces seriously and examine each one.”
Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-Va.), the chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, said the 2022 UAP report “reflects a step forward in understanding and addressing risks to aviators.”
“Overall, I am encouraged to see an increase in UAP reporting—a sign of decreased stigma among pilots who are aware of the potential threat that UAPs can pose,” he said in a statement.
