In Memoriam: A Tribute To The Stupidest Moments Of The Three-Year Unmasking Saga

Pour one out for Devin Nunes. And Lindsey Graham. And Rand Paul. 

Pour a great big cold one out for Bill Barr, who, after all of his dutiful political investigating, is now going the way of a Jeff Sessions in the President’s eyes as his carefully publicized unmasking probe collapses in a whimper.

Let us have a moment of silence for the hundreds of hours of Fox News programming devoted to blowing open the BOMBSHELL unmasking revelations, the cubic tons of carbon dioxide expelled by Sean Hannity as he tried to impress upon his viewers the wickedness of the Obama administration officials involved.

We are gathered here today to remember our constant, dependable companion of the last three years who, even after losing touch for months at a time, always came back into our lives at the most politically advantageous moments: the completely fake and stupid unmasking conspiracy theory.

Continue reading “In Memoriam: A Tribute To The Stupidest Moments Of The Three-Year Unmasking Saga”

WH Installs Political Operatives at CDC In Effort To Muzzle Agency

NEW YORK (AP) — The Trump White House has installed two political operatives at the nation’s top public health agency to try to control the information it releases about the coronavirus pandemic as the administration seeks to paint a positive outlook, sometimes at odds with the scientific evidence.

The two appointees assigned to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Atlanta headquarters in June have no public health background. They have instead been tasked with keeping an eye on Dr. Robert Redfield, the agency director, as well as scientists, according to a half-dozen CDC and administration officials who spoke to The Associated Press on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal government affairs.

The appointments were part of a push to get more “politicals” into the CDC to help control messaging after a handful of leaks were “upsetting the apple cart,” said an administration official.

When the two appointees showed up in Atlanta, their roles were a mystery to senior CDC staff, the people said. They had not even been assigned offices. Eventually one, Nina Witkofsky, became acting chief of staff, an influential role as Redfield’s right hand. The other, her deputy Chester “Trey” Moeller, also began sitting in on scientific meetings, the sources said.

It’s not clear to what extent the two appointees have affected the agency’s work, according to interviews with multiple CDC officials. But congressional investigators are examining that very question after evidence has mounted of political interference in CDC scientific publications, guidance documents and web postings.

The White House declined to comment. A CDC spokesperson confirmed that Witkofsky and Moeller were working at the agency reporting to Redfield, but did not comment further.

Moeller said in an email to The AP, “I work for Dr. Redfield who is 100% committed to the science and the thousands of incredibly dedicated employees at the CDC working on behalf of the American people.”

During previous pandemics such as Ebola or SARS, the CDC was the public face of the U.S. response, offering scientifically driven advice to doctors and patients alike. The agency played the same role at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, but stumbled in February when a test for the virus sent to states proved to be flawed. Then, in late February, a top CDC infectious disease expert, Dr. Nancy Messonnier, upset the administration by speaking frankly at a news conference about the dangers of the virus when the president was still downplaying it.

Within weeks, the agency was pushed offstage as President Donald Trump and other administration officials, during daily news briefings, became the main sources of information about the U.S. epidemic and the attempts to control it.

Still, CDC persisted in assembling science-based information that conflicted with the White House narrative. In May, a series of leaked emails and scientific documents obtained by The AP detailed how the White House had buried CDC’s detailed guidelines for communities reopening during a still-surging pandemic. The emails revealed that the administration was vetting CDC’s science through the Office of Management and Budget, rather than relying on its medical experts on the White House coronavirus task force. The resulting news stories of the shelving of the documents angered the administration, and sparked renewed efforts to exert control over CDC, according to current and former officials.

On a Monday in June, the new faces arrived at CDC’s Atlanta offices. One was Witkofsky, who according to federal election records had a minor role in Trump’s presidential campaign.

Witkofsky was installed initially as a senior adviser to Redfield. In a few weeks, she would take over as the agency’s acting chief of staff and gradually become the person at CDC headquarters who has the most daily interactions with him, the CDC officials said.

Senior CDC staff found out about the appointments the week before they happened, according to a CDC official who also spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal agency affairs. They had no office, and no one knew their role.

“They just showed up on a Monday,” the official said.

Presidential administrations appoint CDC directors. And there’s nothing new about a White House seeking a better handle on information released by the CDC, said Glen Nowak, a University of Georgia professor who ran the agency’s media relations for more than a dozen years. But past administrations placed overtly political appointees at HHS in Washington; the Trump administration has taken it to a new level by placing other people in CDC’s Atlanta headquarters, Nowak said.

Before Witkofsky and Moeller, the Trump administration had appointed others at CDC in Atlanta who were viewed by staff with some suspicion. But none of the predecessors’ roles was so clearly to report internal agency business up to Washington, according to officials who talked to The AP.

And Witkofsky seemed a particularly strange fit for the nation’s top public health agency. She studied finance and business administration in college and graduate school, and at one point worked as a publicist and talent booker for Turner Broadcasting’s Cartoon Network. Her political work included being an events director during the George W. Bush 2000 presidential campaign. As a State Department official, she developed an international engagement program for U.S. athletes and coaches.

Her lack of familiarity with the CDC, and how it worked, quickly became clear in meetings, according to multiple agency officials. At one, Witkofsky expressed surprise that the CDC had a supporting foundation, one agency official recalled.

Though Witkofsky was largely unknown, she had met a few CDC workers months earlier. In March, on behalf of the administration, she had worked communications when Trump visited a CDC lab. Clad in a red “Keep America Great” baseball cap, Trump had praised the CDC and assured the public “we’re prepared for anything.” Trump asserted that he has a terrific grasp of public health. “Maybe I have a natural ability,” he boasted.

In her new role, Witkofsky communicated regularly with Michael Caputo, chief of communications for CDC’s parent agency, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, two administration officials said. At the time Caputo’s office was attempting to gain control over the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, or MMWR, a CDC scientific weekly known for publishing authoritative and unvarnished information about disease-fighting efforts, according to multiple accounts.

Witkofsky’s deputy, Moeller, who began work on the same day, is a longtime GOP supporter who worked on the Bush-Cheney presidential campaign in 2004. The most recent post on his Facebook page was a “Make America Great Again” Trump campaign banner.

They wanted him to sit in meetings and “listen to scientists,” said a former CDC official.

Witkofsky was added to CDC’s website when she became acting chief of staff, but Moeller’s name appears nowhere on either the HHS or CDC sites.

An HHS spokesperson said both Witkofsky and Moeller report to Redfield but refused to comment further on personnel matters.

Some CDC officials noted that a pandemic like this involves many parts of the government, and the political people sent to Atlanta have at times helped speed the flow of information coming to the agency from Washington.

But there has been a huge downside, public health experts and former CDC staffers say: damage to the once-venerated CDC.

The agency’s guidance for how to reduce viral infections has been largely ignored by the Trump White House, where officials have refused to wear masks and continued to hold large gatherings with few protective measures.

Witkofsky and Moeller are among officials the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis is seeking to interview as part of a probe it launched in mid-September into allegations the Trump administration blocked the CDC from publishing accurate scientific reports during the pandemic.

The subcommittee’s investigators want to know more about Witkofsky and Moeller’s roles in reported attempts by Caputo and administration officials to gain editorial control over the MMWR and other CDC publications. The investigators are also interested in whether Witkofsky and Moeller were involved in making changes to CDC COVID-19 guidance for schools, as well as agency information that has been changed multiple times on how the virus spreads through the air.

Caputo took a leave of absence from HHS after he described government scientists as the “resistance” against Trump in a video posted online. In an HHS podcast, Caputo accused Democrats in the government, along with the news media, of not wanting a vaccine so as to punish the president. After the incidents gained news coverage, one of Caputo’s top advisers, Dr. Paul Alexander, resigned.

The apparent meddling and political pressure from the Trump White House, and from HHS, have caused even scientific experts to question some CDC decisions. And they have made an already trying job of responding to the worst pandemic in a century even harder, according to multiple CDC officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

“I don’t trust the (political appointees) that they’ve dropped into the CDC,” said Dr. Rick Bright, a federal vaccine expert who filed a whistleblower complaint alleging he was reassigned to a lesser job because he resisted political pressure to allow widespread use of hydroxychloroquine, a malaria drug pushed by Trump as a COVID-19 treatment. Bright said CDC scientists should be the face of the federal response, as has been the tradition, and the absence of their counsel to the public has contributed to confusion.

“That is absolutely frightening,” he said. “(It) leads to the mixed signals to the public. And I think that is increasing the magnitude and duration of this entire pandemic.”

Bright resigned last week from his post at the National Institutes of Health, saying his superiors had ignored a national coronavirus testing strategy he’d developed.

All of the added political pressure is contributing to a high burnout rate for CDC scientists working on the coronavirus response. One agency official said it “creates distractions from the real threat” of the virus, and extra work.

From March through September, there has been a constantly changing organizational structure and leadership in CDC’s COVID response, according to internal organizational charts obtained by The AP.

In a chart from March, Messonnier was listed as a “Senior Official,” one step below the director, Redfield. But in the following chart, posted weeks after the press conference that angered the White House, her name disappeared completely from the top ranks. A new box had appeared on next to Redfield’s name: the White House Coronavirus Task Force led by Vice President Mike Pence.

In previous pandemics and outbreaks like Ebola that lasted for months or years, records and interviews show that the CDC’s leadership remained largely stable to create a consistency that staff could rely upon.

The appearance of political interference and disarray are hurting the agency’s standing, experts say.

“There’s a cumulative effect. And each one of them is doing its own damage to the agency’s credibility,” Nowak said.

___

Lardner reported from Washington.

___

To contact AP’s investigative team, email investigative@ap.org

Town Hall Attendee Who Kept Nodding Behind Trump Was Pro-Trump Candidate In ’18

The woman who went viral for repeatedly nodding at President Donald Trump’s remarks in the background during his town hall on Thursday turns out to be a former congressional candidate who ran on a pro-Trump platform in 2018.

Continue reading “Town Hall Attendee Who Kept Nodding Behind Trump Was Pro-Trump Candidate In ’18”

Who Decides When Vaccine Studies Are Done? Internal Documents Show Fauci Plays a Key Role.

This story first appeared at ProPublica. ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.

Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation’s top infectious disease official, will oversee most of the ongoing COVID-19 vaccine trials in the U.S., but not that of the current front-runner made by Pfizer, documents obtained by ProPublica show.

According to a draft charter spelling out how most of the advanced COVID-19 vaccine trials will be monitored, Fauci is the “designated senior representative” of the U.S. government who will be part of the first look at the results. That puts Fauci in the room with the companies — including Moderna, Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca — in deciding whether the vaccines are ready to seek approval from the Food and Drug Administration.

Fauci’s role, which has not been previously reported and was confirmed for ProPublica by the National Institutes of Health, could offer some reassurance in the face of widespread concerns that President Donald Trump wants to rush through an unproven vaccine. As Sen. Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee for vice president, put it at last week’s debate, “If the public health professionals, if Dr. Fauci, if the doctors tell us that we should take it, I’ll be the first in line to take it.”

But there’s a big caveat. Fauci doesn’t have the same hands-on role for the vaccine that seems poised to show results soonest: Pfizer’s. That’s because Pfizer opted not to accept government funding and participate in the federal program to develop a coronavirus vaccine, known as Operation Warp Speed. (The government did make an almost $2 billion deal with Pfizer to preorder up to 600 million doses of the company’s vaccine, but it isn’t contributing money to the vaccine’s development like it is for other companies.)

“(We) offered opportunities for collaboration with Pfizer,” said a spokesperson for the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, a branch of the NIH. “Pfizer chose to conduct their Phase 3 study without Operation Warp Speed or NIH support.”

Pfizer’s CEO, Albert Bourla, said Friday that the earliest his company would be ready to apply for authorization would be the third week of November. While Pfizer might know by the end of October if its vaccine is effective, it would need additional time to gather sufficient safety data to present to the FDA, Bourla said in an open letter on the company’s website.

Fauci’s role in overseeing the companies that are participating in Operation Warp Speed arises from a unique arrangement that the government set up to monitor the trials. Typically, clinical trials set up their own independent panels of scientists, known as a data safety monitoring board or DSMB, to watch out for safety concerns or early signs of success. But all of the vaccine trials in Operation Warp Speed are sharing a common DSMB whose members were selected by Fauci’s agency, the NIAID. They’re also sharing a network of clinical trial sites where some volunteers are recruited for the studies.

A DSMB is responsible for making recommendations such as halting the trial if there is a safety concern or letting the manufacturer know that there’s enough evidence to submit an application to the FDA. Ordinarily, a DSMB’s recommendation goes to the company running the trial. In this case, the U.S. government — which gets two representatives, one from the NIAID and one from the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority — will also have a seat at the table in deciding what to do next.

“Once the DSMB makes a decision, the DSMB provides the recommendation to not only the study sponsor but also to the” U.S. government, whose “designated senior representative” is Fauci, the NIAID confirmed in an email. Fauci declined to be interviewed.

That’s not the same as saying Fauci has the last word. The company and the government are supposed to reach a consensus, the agency said. But if they can’t all agree, the ultimate decision belongs with the company.

Still, it would be an improbably brazen move for a company to move ahead over Fauci’s objection, given his public stature, experts said. “These are the most important trials in medical history, this is the ultimate fishbowl,” said Dr. Eric Topol, director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute. “I don’t think any sponsor would dare defy the DSMB’s recommendation.”

While the mechanics of a DSMB may be unfamiliar to most members of the public, people probably know and trust Fauci, according to Amy Pisani, executive director of the national nonprofit organization Vaccinate Your Family. “(He’s) the sweetheart of the nation right now,” Pisani said. “I do think people have faith in Anthony Fauci.”

“Having Fauci with oversight is terrific,” Topol added. “The more people who are experts looking at it, the better. You can’t be careful enough.”

Other members of the DSMB for the COVID-19 vaccines, though not as well known as Fauci, are also widely respected in their fields. DSMB members are typically kept confidential to shield them from outside influence, but ProPublica has been able to identify a few members. The charter obtained by ProPublica described the group, which has about a dozen members, as having expertise in “biostatistics, clinical trials, infectious diseases, vaccine development and ethics.”

The panel’s chair is Dr. Richard Whitley, a professor of pediatrics, microbiology, medicine and neurosurgery at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. His role became public when the university announced it, though the webpage was later taken down.

His leadership provides another level of comfort in the trustworthiness of the trials to those who know him. “He is not only famously bright but he is famously independent and outspoken,” said Dr. William Schaffner, professor of preventive medicine and infectious diseases at Vanderbilt Medicine. “He’ll look at the data and tell you exactly what he thinks.”

Whitley didn’t respond to requests for an interview.

Susan Ellenberg, professor of biostatistics at the University of Pennsylvania and a former director at the FDA, told ProPublica in an interview that many people, including herself, were worried the NIH might be “pushed by the political leadership at HHS to release data” from trials prematurely, which could undermine the integrity of a trial. HHS, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, is the NIH’s parent agency. Her concern was that political leaders might not understand scientific arguments to not disrupt the trials when wanting to have data “to be able to move quickly in an urgent situation,” she said.

At the time of the interview, Ellenberg had not identified herself as a member of the NIH’s DSMB, but later acknowledged that she was a member.

Dr. Malegapuru William Makgoba, an immunologist based in South Africa, is one of a few international members of the DSMB. Makgoba is well known for his work on public health initiatives around HIV/AIDS, including the South African AIDS Vaccine Initiative. Makgoba confirmed his role on the DSMB but declined to comment further.

The common DSMB appears to be unprecedented, if only because there have not previously been multiple vaccines in development for the same disease at the same time. Experts said the arrangement offers benefits such as bolstering the evidence available to show that any one shot is safe and effective.

Standardizing trial measurements should make the vaccines easier to compare head to head, which may be useful for knowing whether one is better or worse than another in certain subgroups, such as the elderly or people with compromised immune systems, according to Vanderbilt’s Schaffner.

“To me, it’s better for public health to have a fairly common assessment,” said Dr. Gregory Glenn, president of research and development at Novavax, which has received $1.6 billion from Operation Warp Speed and hopes to begin its Phase 3 trial in the U.S. this month as part of the NIH’s clinical trial network.

There may also be some benefits from a safety perspective.

If a potential safety issue appears in one trial, having a common data safety monitoring board for multiple trials means that the board knows to look out for that same issue across all the trials, said Dr. Tal Zaks, chief medical officer of Moderna. “When AstraZeneca had an adverse side effect, we have a DSMB looking at our trial — the fact that it’s the same DSMB means that there’s not one DSMB that has to go educate another DSMB,” Zaks said. (ProPublica’s board chairman, Paul Sagan, is a member of Moderna’s board and a company stockholder.)

AstraZeneca’s trial has been put on hold in the U.S. while the company and the FDA investigates what happened with a participant who had a bad reaction. It’s not yet clear whether the reaction was due to the vaccine or unrelated.

“AstraZeneca is committed to working with governments and key partners to ensure we develop and gain regulatory approval for an effective vaccine as quickly as possible,” the company said in a statement.

AstraZeneca added that another benefit of joining the government’s consortium was that its large network of trial sites can help reach minority communities that are historically less represented in clinical trials and also more vulnerable to COVID-19.

Pfizer’s decision not to participate means that it and the other companies may miss out on some of these benefits of pooling resources. “It’s at least unfortunate, and not very sporting, as the British would say,” Schaffner said.

At the same time, there could be advantages to Pfizer’s going solo. “One of the greatest risks to this process is the perception of political influence, and in that regard, having parallel efforts, especially efforts seen as independent of one another and/or independent of perceived sources of political influence, is a good thing,” said Mari Foroohar, an analyst at the investment bank SVB Leerink.

Pfizer declined to comment on its decision not to join the government’s shared DSMB and trial network.

Whether it’s Pfizer or one of the companies participating in Operation Warp Speed, the final say on whether a vaccine is ready for public use belongs to the FDA.

The FDA has promised to present the data to an advisory committee of external experts in a public meeting. A preliminary meeting will be held on Oct. 22 to discuss, generally, the standards the FDA will seek to see before authorizing any vaccine. The agency has also committed to holding advisory committee meetings to review data from individual vaccine candidates.

Between the independent trial safety monitoring boards and the public advisory committee meetings, “any kind of hanky-panky there that people are worried about is going to (go through) multiple checkpoints,” Fauci said in an interview with Dr. Howard Bachner on the JAMA Network podcast on Sept. 25. “The big elephant in the room is, is somebody going to try to make a political end run to interfere with the process? … If you look at the standard process of how these things work, I think you can feel comfortable that it is really unlikely that that is going to happen.”

Filed under:

 

Here’s Where The President Got His Latest Dumb Anti-Mask Talking Point

President Donald Trump on Thursday night cocked his head and spewed viral misinformation all over the American people, potentially infecting millions with a bit of anti-mask propaganda completely void of scientific substance. 

Continue reading “Here’s Where The President Got His Latest Dumb Anti-Mask Talking Point”

Second GOP Governor Bucks Trump In Final Days Of Campaign

Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan (R) said he “voted for Ronald Reagan” in this year’s presidential election after deciding he could support neither President Donald Trump nor Democratic nominee Joe Biden for the job.

In an interview with The Washington Post on Thursday, the governor said he voted by mail last week. He said he wrote Reagan’s name on his ballot to make a statement and felt he could comfortably do so in a state where Biden holds a significant lead in polls.

The move comes as he works to expand his national profile that has gained momentum as he establishes himself as a prominent Trump critic. He delivered a scathing review of the President Trump’s bungled response to the COVID-19 crisis in a book published earlier this year, and there have been whispers that he’s contemplating a potential 2024 presidential bid. 

Hogan is the second GOP governor in recent days who has formally decided against a vote for Trump, after Massachusetts Gov. Charlier Baker (R) made a similar declaration earlier this week.

Last month, Hogan did endorse Sen. Susan Collins (ME), who is in a tough race to keep her seat and has also broken with the President on a number of issues, including a decision to barrel ahead with a Supreme Court nomination as voting in the election gets underway. 

In his interview with the Post on Thursday, Hogan called Reagan “my hero in politics” alongside his late father, Larry Hogan Sr., whom he wrote in for president in 2016 after deciding that he could not support Trump or then-Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. 

Hogan described himself as a “lifelong conservative Republican” to the Post on Thursday, saying that back in his college days “Reagan was the guy.” 

“I know it’s simply symbolic. It’s not going to change the outcome in my state. But I thought it was important to just cast a vote that showed the kind of person I’d like to see in office,” Hogan said.

Pfizer Announcement All But Ends Worries About Pre-Election Day Vaccine Campaign Prop

Pfizer said that it would likely seek emergency approval for a COVID-19 vaccine in late November, citing recent federal guidance that toughened approval standards for a vaccine, despite President Trump’s efforts to push for a shot by the “special day” of Nov. 3.

Continue reading “Pfizer Announcement All But Ends Worries About Pre-Election Day Vaccine Campaign Prop”

Christie: Trusting WH On COVID Safety ‘Cost Me In A Significant Way’

Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) on Friday pushed back on President Donald Trump’s lukewarm attitude toward mask-wearing after he was hospitalized for coronavirus days after failing to wear a mask at several recent White House events.

“You know, I heard the president say last night that he has no problem with masks. I think we should be even more affirmative about it. That’s why I put out the statement I did,” Christie told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos in an interview Friday.

The comments come after Christie was hospitalized after being diagnosed with COVID-19  on Oct. 3, just days after attending a nomination ceremony at the White House on Sept. 26 for Trump’s Supreme Court pick Amy Coney Barrett. The gathering has been called a “super-spreader event” by Dr. Anthony Fauci, a leading infectious-disease expert who has repeatedly warned against large gatherings, especially where masks are not worn.

“I let my guard down for a couple of days inside the White House grounds and it cost me in a significant way,” said Christie, who was seen without a mask at the event.

Amid his recovery from the disease, the former governor has also expressed regret for failing to wear a mask while helping the President to prepare for the first presidential debate against Democratic nominee Joe Biden.

White House Strategic Communications Director Alyssa Farah has insisted that the White House has been strict on protocol amid the cluster of cases that emerged in the weeks following the Barrett event, which included an indoor reception. Farah claimed to reporters last week that staffers “always take precautions” with events hosted on White House grounds.

Christie is among a group of at least eight people who tested positive for coronavirus in the aftermath of the Barrett nomination ceremony. He was discharged on Saturday after spending a week in intensive care at New Jersey’s Morristown Medical Center. He has reversed a previously cavalier attitude on masking ever since.

“When you have seven days in isolation in an ICU though, you have time to do a lot of thinking.” Chirstie said in a statement to The New York Times on Thursday.

In the statement he admits he had been “wrong” not to wear a mask.

“I believed that when I entered the White House grounds, that I had entered a safe zone, due to the testing that I and many others underwent every day. I was wrong,” Christie told the Times.

The comments stand in contrast with remarks made by President Trump, who told “Today” show anchor Savannah Guthrie during an NBC town hall on Thursday night that he was “good with masks” and “okay with masks” — fueling ongoing criticism of his refusal to promote their use.

Christie doubled down on Friday,  in an apparent challenge to Trump’s failure to enthusiastically endorse masking, by urging leaders to tell people “that there is no downside to you wearing masks and, in fact, there can be a great deal of upside.”

Biden Campaign Says He ‘Intends To Show Up’ At Next Debate With Trump

Democratic candidate Joe Biden is ready to face off with President Donald Trump at the final presidential debate next week, the former vice president’s campaign said on Friday morning.

Continue reading “Biden Campaign Says He ‘Intends To Show Up’ At Next Debate With Trump”