

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

National Nurses United today raised a caution flag on the Trump administration's rush to promote a COVID-19 vaccine by late October or early November without assurances that the vaccine will meet the highest test of public safety as its top priority, not political considerations.
"Any vaccine that is developed and widely distributed must first undergo a full scientific evaluation," said NNU President Zenei Cortez, RN.
National Nurses United today raised a caution flag on the Trump administration's rush to promote a COVID-19 vaccine by late October or early November without assurances that the vaccine will meet the highest test of public safety as its top priority, not political considerations.
"Any vaccine that is developed and widely distributed must first undergo a full scientific evaluation," said NNU President Zenei Cortez, RN.
"With 184,000 U.S. lives lost to COVID-19 under the watch of a president and administration that have left people exposed and dying even when known prevention measures, as other nations have proven, are available, placing an insufficiently tested product on the market will surely look like a dangerous experiment on the American people," said NNU President Jean Ross, RN.
Nurses share a widespread concern of the timing of a pledge to have millions of vaccines distributed by late October or early November, said Ross.
NNU, she said, concurs with the concerns voiced by Saskia Popescu, an infection prevention epidemiologist, in the New York Times Wednesday about the "politicization of public health and potential safety ramifications" that "it's hard not to see this as a push for a pre-election vaccine."
"Any therapeutic intervention must first be subject to rigorous oversight," said NNU Executive Director Bonnie Castillo, RN. Those measures include "voluntary participation in clinical trials, assurances of close monitoring for adverse events, and inclusion of a vaccine injury compensation program."
Cortez said there are "multiple reasons for doubts about the rush to judgment on a vaccine."
She noted the months of President Trump's dismissal of greater availability of tests, promotion of masks and social distancing, the failure to fully invoke the Defense Production Act for mass production of personal protective equipment (PPE) and other needed equipment, and the drumbeat to end all limits on business and school reopenings. Pandemic relief bills also allotted billions in funding for big corporations instead of for increased safety measures.
In addition to the Trump administration's record on COVID-19, "there is the amply demonstrated corruption of the lead federal agencies on the vaccine," said Cortez.
"With both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), we have already seen far too many examples of the erosion of scientific integrity and the subversion of public health through political intervention and pressure by the Trump administration and corporate employers," said Cortez.
As far back as April, NNU has challenged revised CDC guidelines ignoring science and rolling back protective standards on PPE for nurses and other health care workers, hospital infection control measures, and encouragement of a premature return to work by infected staff.
Since then, Cortez noted, 1,500 health care workers, including more than 200 nurses, have died of COVID-19. And just last week, the CDC issued new guidelines proposing a reduction in testing, even for asymptomatic people exposed to the virus, converging with frequent statements by Trump denouncing COVID-19 testing.
Critics have also cited FDA overreliance on emergency use authorizations (EUAs) for tests and other decisions that circumvented full scientific review and regulation in conflict with a priority on public safety. And just last week, FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn said the agency would consider an EUA or approval of a COVID-19 vaccine before completion of clinical trials.
"As anxious as the country is for health security and protection against COVID-19, we cannot subject people to greater risk to score political points for a president who has, for months, demonstrated his abandonment of public health and safety in the face of this terrible pandemic," Castillo said.
"We must have a vaccine, but one that meets all the scientific criteria for public safety. The last thing patients and the public need is a placebo cure that will end existing safety precautions and only accelerate the pain, suffering, and death from COVID-19," she said.
"Nurses, as the most trusted profession, understand the importance of trust," said Ross. "Whether it is listening to our patients or helping to guide them in decisions about their care, we know that trust is fundamental to achieving the best outcomes. It is no different when it comes to public health advocacy; trust in the scientific process is central to moving forward and successful implementation of any COVID-19 treatment or vaccine."
National Nurses United, with close to 185,000 members in every state, is the largest union and professional association of registered nurses in US history.
(240) 235-2000"This is our God: Jesus, King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war."
Pope Leo XIV used his Palm Sunday sermon to take what appears to be a shot at US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
In his sermon, excerpts of which he published on social media, the pope emphasized Christian teachings against violence while criticizing anyone who would invoke Jesus Christ to justify a war.
"This is our God: Jesus, King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war," Pope Leo said. "He does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war, but rejects them."
The pope also encouraged followers to "raise our prayers to the Prince of Peace so that he may support people wounded by war and open concrete paths of reconciliation and peace."
While speaking at the Pentagon last week, Hegseth directly invoked Jesus when discussing the Trump administration's unprovoked and unconstitutional war with Iran.
Specifically, Hegseth offered up a prayer in which he asked God to give US soldiers "wisdom in every decision, endurance for the trial ahead, unbreakable unity, and overwhelming violence of action against those who deserve no mercy," adding that "we ask these things with bold confidence in the mighty and powerful name of Jesus Christ."
Mother Jones contributing writer Alex Nguyen described the pope's sermon as a "rebuke" of Hegseth, whom he noted "has been open about his support for a Christian crusade" in the Middle East.
Pope Leo is not the only Catholic leader speaking against using Christian faith to justify wars of aggression. Two weeks ago, Cardinal Pierbattista Pizzaballa, the Latin patriarch of Jerusalem, said "the abuse and manipulation of God’s name to justify this and any other war is the gravest sin we can commit at this time."
“War is first and foremost political and has very material interests, like most wars," Cardinal Pizzaballa added.
"Trump’s problem is that whatever the claims he might make about the damage to Iran’s nuclear and military capacity, which is substantial, the regime survives, the international economy has been severely disrupted, and the bills keep on coming in."
President Donald Trump is reportedly preparing to launch some kind of ground assault on Iran in the coming weeks, but one prominent military strategy expert believes he's heading straight for defeat.
The Washington Post on Saturday reported that the Pentagon is preparing for "weeks" of ground operations in Iran, which for the last month has disrupted global energy markets by shutting down the Strait of Hormuz in response to aerial assaults by the US and Israel.
The Post's sources revealed that "any potential ground operation would fall short of a full-scale invasion and could instead involve raids by a mixture of Special Operations forces and conventional infantry troops" that could be used to seize Kharg Island, a key Iranian oil export hub, or to search out and destroy weapons systems that could be used by the Iranians to target ships along the strait.
Michael Eisenstadt, director of the Military and Security Studies Program at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, told the Post that taking over Kharg Island would be a highly risky operation for American troops, even if initially successful.
“I just wouldn’t want to be in that small place with Iran’s ability to rain down drones and maybe artillery,” said Eisenstadt.
Eisenstadt's analysis was echoed by Ret. Gen. Joseph Votel, former head of US Central Command, who told ABC News that seizing and occupying Kharg Island would put US troops in a state of constant danger, warning they could be "very, very vulnerable" to drones and missiles launched from the shore.
Lawrence Freedman, professor emeritus of war studies at King's College London, believes that the president has already checkmated himself regardless of what shape any ground operation takes.
In an analysis published Sunday, Freedman declared Trump had run "out of options" for victory, as there have been no signs of the Iranian regime crumbling due to US-Israeli attacks.
Freedman wrote that Trump now "appears to inhabit an alternative reality," noting that "his utterances have become increasingly incoherent, with contradictory statements following quickly one after the other, and frankly delusional claims."
Trump's loan real option at this point, Freedman continued, would to simply declare that he had achieved an unprecedented victory and just walk away. But even in that case, wrote Freedman, "this would mean leaving behind a mess in the Gulf" with no guarantee that Iran would re-open the Strait of Hormuz.
"Success in war is judged not by damage caused but by political objectives realized," Freedman wrote in his conclusion. "Here the objective was regime change, or at least the emergence of a new compliant leader... Trump’s problem is that whatever the claims he might make about the damage to Iran’s nuclear and military capacity, which is substantial, the regime survives, the international economy has been severely disrupted, and the bills keep on coming in."
"The NY Times saves its harshest skepticism for progressives," said one critic.
The New York Times is drawing criticism for publishing articles that downplayed the significance of Saturday's No Kings protests, which initial estimates suggest was the largest protest event in US history.
In a Times article that drew particular ire, reporter Jeremy Peters questioned whether nationwide events that drew an estimated 8 million people to the streets "would be enough to influence the course of the nation’s politics."
"Can the protests harness that energy and turn it into victories in the November midterm elections?" Peters asked rhetorically. "How can they avoid a primal scream that fades into a whimper?"
Journalist and author Mark Harris called Peters' take on the protests "predictable" and said it was framed so that the protests would appear insignificant no matter how many people turned out.
"There's a long, bad journalistic tradition," noted Harris. "All conservative grass-roots political movements are fascinating heartland phenomena, all progressive grass-roots political movements are ineffectual bleating. This one is written off as powered by white female college grads—the wine-moms slur, basically."
Media critic Dan Froomkin was event blunter in his criticism of the Peters piece.
"Putting anti-woke hack Jeremy Peters on this story is an act of war by the NYT against No Kings," he wrote.
Mark Jacob, former metro editor at the Chicago Tribune, also took a hatchet to Peters' analysis.
"The NY Times saves its harshest skepticism for progressives," he wrote. "Instead of being impressed by 3,000-plus coordinated protests, NYT dismisses the value of 'hitting a number' and asks if No Kings will be 'a primal scream that fades into a whimper.' F off, NY Times. We'll defeat fascism without you."
The Media and Democracy Project slammed the Times for putting Peters' analysis of the protests on its front page while burying straight news coverage of the events on page A18.
"NYT editors CHOSE that Jeremy Peters's opinions would frame the No Kings demonstrations and pro-democracy movement to millions of NYT readers," the group commented.
Joe Adalian, west coast editor for New York Mag's Vulture, criticized a Times report on the No Kings demonstrations that quoted a "skeptic" of the protests without noting that said skeptic was the chairman of the Ole Miss College Republicans.
"Of course, the Times doesn’t ID him as such," remarked Adalian. "He's just a Concerned Youth."
Jeff Jarvis, professor emeritus at the CUNY Graduate School of Journalism, took issue with a Times piece that offered five "takeaways" from the No Kings events that somehow managed to miss their broader significance.
"I despise the five-takeaways journalistic trope the Broken Times loves so," Jarvis wrote. "It is reductionist, hubristic in its claim to summarize any complex event. This one leaves out much, like the defense of democracy against fascism."
Journalist Miranda Spencer took stock of the Times' entire coverage of the No Kings demonstrations and declared it "clueless," while noting that USA Today did a far better job of communicating their significance to readers.
Harper's Magazine contributing editor Scott Horton similarly argued that international news organizations were giving the No Kings events more substantive coverage than the Times.
"In Le Monde and dozens of serious newspapers around the world, prominent coverage of No Kings 3, which brought millions of Americans on to the streets to protest Trump," Horton observed. "In NYT, an illiterate rant from Jeremy W Peters and no meaningful coverage of the protests. Something very strange going on here."