Article 43



Wednesday, April 05, 2023

Double Whammy Rate Hikes For Floridians

image: energy company gouging

Rate hikes approved for Tampa Electric, Duke Energy Florida, and Florida Power and Light
A collaboration of at least 10 advocacy organizations in Florida have launched a campaign to mobilize the Hillsborough County Commission to push back against rate hikes driven by fossil fuel prices.

By Jessica Meszaros
March 7, 2023

The FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, which regulates private utilities, APPROVED RATE INCREASES for three electric companies that serve the state during its Tuesday meeting.

Two new rate hikes for TAMPA ELECTRIC, or TECO, were permitted: one is due to the volatile cost of the fossil fuels it uses to generate electricity, and the other is to recoup nearly $131 million of storm expenses from seven weather events in 2022. Although, clean energy activists point out that only two severe weather events impacted the utility’s service area.

Tampa Electric customers can expect their energy bills to increase by 9.8% starting in April. By then, the average customer’s bill will have risen 62% from 2019 - from $99.53 to $161.13.

In April, the Tampa utility will submit their 10-year plan, which advocates consider a key opportunity to see what other fossil fuel projects and rate hikes they have in store

The commission also approved an increase of 15.1% spread over 21 months for DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA. Due to that longer time frame, the actual monthly increase visible on energy bills will be 3.8%.

In addition, FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT will increase rates in their northwest territories by 8.3%, and in the peninsula by 10.3%.

“Florida’s stubborn reliance on fossil fuels is gouging residents and businesses, as Floridians pay through the nose to keep our corporate utilities profitable at any cost,” Brooke Ward, senior Florida organizer for Food & Water Watch, said in a press release. “As our energy bills rise, so too does the sea level and our climate emissions. We need less fracked gas not more - Floridians can’t keep footing the bill for more costly fossil fuel infrastructure.

“Rising rates are only the latest symptom of our fossil fuel-dominated system that privileges corporations over communities and climate. In Tampa Bay, our local governments have passed bold resolutions to keep fossil fuels out of our communities and push back against TECO’s profiteering - it’s time for the Hillsborough County Commission to follow suit.”

Food and Water Watch launched a campaign last month to mobilize the Hillsborough County Commission to push back against “the fossil fuel and corporate greed driven rate hikes that have been lashing not only Tampa Bay residents, but Floridians statewide.”




Florida homeowners will face a projected 40 percent increase in property insurance rates
Floridians are bracing for additional rate hikes as they are already paying higher monthly payments than homeowners in other states.

By Gabriella Paul
April 4, 2023

Property insurance rates in Florida are predicted to jump at least 40 percent in 2023, according to the INSURANCE INFORMATION INSTITUTE.

Mark Friedlander, the institute’s director of communications, said these increases come as Floridians are already paying more than homeowners in other states.

“Right now, Floridians pay arguably the highest average premium in the U.S.,” he said.

Friedlander said the average Florida homeowner is paying $4,231 for their property insurance, which is nearly triple the national rate of $1,544.

The growing cost of catastrophes has led to increased rates across the country. In Florida, the roughly $60 billion in INSURED LOSSES from Hurricane Ian and the fact many insurers have left the state have caused property insurance rates to increase.

In February, Tampa-based United Property & Casualty Insurance Co. was the seventh private insurer to face insolvency in Florida. Of the roughly 135,000 policies with UPC, Friedlander said its estimated there’s around 20,000 outstanding claims from Hurricane Ian.

The state-backed Citizens Property Insurance Corp. absorbs policies that are dropped by private insurers. It is predicted to hit a record of 2 million policies in 2023.

“So, it’s a really bad situation for so many Florida homeowners right now,” he said.

Florida’s projected rate hikes are also outpacing national increases.

In Florida, homeowners are bracing for property insurance rates to climb by double digits for the second year in a row, according to Friedlander. In 2022, rates climbed 33 percent compared to the national rate increase of 9 percent.

Pinellas County had the highest rates in the greater Tampa Bay region last year, at nearly $3,000, and it is expected they will rise further in 2023. In Hillsborough County, annual premiums for property insurance are estimated to jump from an average of $2,500 to $3,500.

Insured homeowners can expect renewal notices, including any rate increases, to be delivered 60 days before their policy start date.

Projected increases to property insurance premiums in 2023, by county

Florida homeowners are expected to see their property insurance rates jump 40 percent in 2023, according to the Insurance Information Institute.

Arrows point left to right for seven counties listed. They show the forty percent increase in property insurance rates between 2022 and 2023.

image: florida insurance rates 2022-2023

The prospect of another year of increases has left many Florida homeowners feeling financially vulnerable.

“How many Floridians are living paycheck to paycheck?” Friedlander asked. “They can’t afford to see these mass increases every year.”

At this rate, Friedlander said the climbing cost of property insurance is not sustainable for some Floridians to maintain their homes.

Ahead of the 2023 hurricane season, which begins June 1, Friedlander urges Floridians to resist reducing or dropping their coverage. Although saving money on the front end is tempting, he warns that being underinsured or uninsured after a storm like Ian can leave homeowners in a lurch.

“We saw this happen to many homeowners that were hit by Hurricane Ian,” he said. “They had reduced their coverage because it was getting too expensive, and now theyre in a much worse financial position than they were before the storm.”

Legislative changes made during December’s emergency special session could cause the rate increases to slow, Friedlander said.

“The 2022 legislation will move the Florida property/casualty market toward stabilization, but policyholders’ premium rates will not be coming down any time soon,” according to the REPORT from the INSURANCE INFORMATION INSITUTE.

“It could take as long as 18 months for consumers to feel the real impact of the rule changes,” he said.

To reduce the cost of premiums in the meantime, Friedlander advises homeowners to bundle home and auto insurance, increase deductibles for a lower monthly rate and inquire about deals like loyalty or senior discounts.

Gabriella Paul covers the stories of people living paycheck to paycheck in the greater Tampa Bay region for WUSF. She’s also a REPORT FOR AMERICA corps member. Heres how you can SHARE YOUR STORY with her.


Posted by Elvis on 04/05/23 •
Section News • Section Dying America • Section Next Recession, Next Depression
View (0) comment(s) or add a new one
Printable viewLink to this article

Thursday, October 13, 2022

Social Security 2023 COLA

image: social security card

The 2023 COLA is based on the increase in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners (CPI-W) between the third quarter of 2021 and the third quarter of 2022 meaning it looks backwards at inflation and was sealed this morning when the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported September’s inflation rate. 
- Social Securty 2023 Jump, Forbes, October 13, 2022


How the CPI-E Compares With the CPI-W for the Annual Social Security COLA

By Devin Carroll
Social Security Intelligence
October 13, 2022

If the annual cost of living adjustments to benefits would have been based on the CPI-E, instead of the current CPI-W, the benefit increase in 2022 would be 1.1% lower!

Recently, the Social Security Administration announced yet another Social Security cost of living adjustment. And once again, the amount of the adjustment left some wondering why it wasn’t higher.

The announcement ignited the same conversation and questions as it does every time. In the comments of my videos, MY FACEBOOK GROUP, and on my website, many people say things like, “My expenses have increased a lot more than this cost of living adjustment,” or, even more commonly, “There has to be a better way to measure the increases to living expenses than the way it’s being done now!|

Given that it’s such a common response to the usual Social Security cost of living increases, I want to cover the proposal that may change how these adjustments are calculated.

How Social Security Benefits Cost of Living Adjustments Are Made Today

Right now, Social Security benefits are automatically adjusted every year. The Social Security Administration uses a certain measurement of inflation to determine if benefits should be increased or not.

The measurement they currently use is the CPI-W, which stands for the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers. This inflation gauge is compiled and published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Although they release this on a monthly basis, the Social Security Administration (SSA) only uses the data for the third quarter when making the adjustment to Social Security benefits. That means they look at the data for July, August, and September each year.

To determine a potential increase in Social Security benefits to match an increased cost of living, the SSA adds the sum of the index for the prior years third quarter and compares it to the sum of the third quarter index for the current year. If the difference between the two numbers is positive, Social Security benefits increase. If there is no increase in the CPI-W, then there is no cost of living adjustment for the year.

ItҒs really pretty simple but some folks believe itŒs not very effective.

Theres an argument against this way of determining cost of living adjustments for Social Security benefits.

Some say the CPI-W measurement method may not be the best because retirees spend their money very differently than individuals who are not retired. Retirees tend to spend more on healthcare and housing, and less on gasoline, education, and consumer electronics.

As a fix for this, it has been widely suggested that the Social Security Administration should discontinue basing the annual cost of living adjustments on the CPI-W and instead start using a measurement known as the CPI-E.

Considering Costs Specific to Retirees: The CPI-E Proposal

This version of the CPI is meant to track the expenses specifically for Americans who are 62 years of age or older. While both of these indexes measure the same categories of goods and services, they have different weightings to the categories.

So for example, the CPI-E factors in around 11% of its index to healthcare cost. The CPI-W, however, only counts 5.6% of the overall index as healthcare expenses. Since statistically, seniors spend more of their money on healthcare, an index that assigns a higher weighting should be more accurate to the way they spend money and experience inflation.

There are some other differences in weightings between the CPI-W and the CPI-E that may be significant for determining cost of living adjustments for Social Security benefits. In total, each index measures 8 main categories:

· Housing

· Transportation

· Food and beverages

· Medical care

· Recreation

· Education and communication

· Apparel

· Other goods and services (for the stuff that doesnt fit anywhere else)

As you can see from this chart the two big differences are the weightings assigned to housing expense and medical care:

image: cpiw cpi-e weighing scales

The big question here is, how does this affect the actual cost of living adjustment for benefits? Would it result in a larger benefit increase for seniors?

Using the CPI-E data available from December 1982, we can go back and do a year-by-year comparison with the CPI-W, the version thats currently being used.

When viewed side by side, you can see that there are some years where the CPI-W was ahead, those are the red bars, but in most years the CPI-E was slightly higher.

image: cpi-w cpi-e compared

If you average the difference between the two measurements since 1984, the CPI-E has been about 0.2% higher per year. So yes, in most years the CPI-E would yield a higher cost of living adjustment than the CPI-W, but there are some years (like the COLA announced for 2022) where the CPI-W was higher than the CPI-E.

The CPI-E Is Not A Magic Formula

This highlights the reluctuance of legislators to make this switch. On paper, it sounds good. An index that more accurately represent the expense of retirees should work better. But no politician wants to be responsible for making this switch in a year where the new method results in worse results.

Additionally, there are a few problems with the measurement method. First, the Bureau of Labor Statistics is very blunt about this being an “experimental” index. The Government Accountability Office also released a report this year that identified several issues with the potential accuracy of the CPI, and specifically mentioned the small sample size of the CPI-E as a factor.

The CPI-E sounds great to many folks who receive Social Security benefits and feel like their costs go up more than their Social Security income does. But ultimately, there is no magic formula that works well enough to keep everyone happy.

I know that with the current fiscal challenges that the Social Security system is facing, I wouldn’t expect a more generous formula for increasing benefits. But as this conversation continues to develop, I’ll keep you informed right here.

If you still have questions, you could leave a comment below, but what may be an even greater help is to join my FREE FACEBOOK MEMBERS GROUP. It’s very active and has some really smart people who love to answer any questions you may have about Social Security. From time to time Ill even drop in to add my thoughts, too.



Five things to know about todays Social Security COLA

By Tobias Burns
The Hill
October 13, 2022

Social Security payments will increase by an average of $140 per check as the national pension plan is set to receive its biggest cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) in 40 years.

The hike came in at 8.7 percent, an attempt to close the gap caused by inflation that reached as high as 9.1 percent in June before tapering off slightly over the summer. Between 2010 and 2020, Social Security COLAs averaged just 1.7 percent.

Social Security is adjusted in the third fiscal quarter every year and is the primary source of income for most of AmericaҒs seniors, according to the agency. In June, nearly 50 million retired workers and their families received more than $80 billion, with the average monthly benefit totaling $1,670.

Many disabled workers are also supported by Social Security. In June, they received more than $10 billion for an average payment of $1,362.

In total, the program pays out more than a trillion dollars each year from a dedicated payroll tax, making up 17 percent of the national budget in 2021, according to the Treasury Department.

More than 70 million Social Security beneficiaries will be affected by the adjustment, which will go into effect over December and January.

Here are five takeaways from Thursdays COLA.

The COLA allows recipients to break even

While an additional $140 per month is a sizable increase for people who receive a Social Security check, the extra money is really just a break-even number to offset the cost of high inflation.

The consumer price index report released Thursday showed annual inflation increased 8.2 percent, remaining near 40-year highs and showing little sign of slowing down.

While energy prices slackened by 2.1 percent in September, theyҒre still 19.8 percent higher than they were last year. Prices for food are also continuing to increase, up 0.8 percent on the month and 11.2 percent on the year.

Consumer inflation has been above 8 percent since March, eating into paychecks and diminishing the value of Social Security payments. So while the 8.7 percent COLA will come as a relief to seniors, it will only normalize their standard of living back to where it was a year ago rather than giving them surplus income.

“This is not a benefit increase, its an adjustment to keep pace with inflation, and of course prices are rising to very high levels right now,Ҕ Nancy Altman, a Social Security advocate and co-director of the nonprofit organization Social Security Works, said in an interview. But the COLA is an extremely important feature, because without it benefits would erode over time.”

The COLA is especially important amid stock market declines

Many seniors receive benefits from private pension plans such as 401(k)s that are widely invested across the stock market in addition to Social Security.

The stock market has been performing poorly lately due to interest rate hikes by the Federal Reserve that are intended to cool inflation, so the performance of many broad-based investment vehicles has been diminishing. 

This makes the COLA, which is a monetary modification thats independent of market performance, especially powerful by comparison.

|The whole concept of a COLA is a big deal,| Altman said. “It often gets ignored because theres normally just a small cost-of-living increase, or sometimes there’s none. But if inflation goes up 20 percent, you get a 20 percent increase. It’s not capped, and that’s an important concept, especially now”

Since the Fed started raising interest rates back in March, the big stock indices have seen major declines, falling more than 20 percent into bear market territory and taking many retirement plans with them.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average is down 7,781 points, 21.51 percent, since the beginning of the year. The S&P 500 is down 26.62 percent and the technology-heavy Nasdaq index, whose companies tend to carry a lot of debt and so are particularly susceptible to interest rate hikes, has fallen more than 35.43 percent.

Medicare premiums are decreasing

ThursdayԒs COLA announcement follows a drop in the price of the premium for Medicare Part B, which covers hospital and doctor visits another boon for seniors, though a smaller one.

In September, Medicare determined that the Part B premium would be 3 percent lower in 2023, dropping to $164.90 from $170.10 in 2022. Those payments are usually taken directly out of Social Security checks, so that could mean an additional $5 dollars a month on average for seniors on top of the $140 COLA boost.

Part B deductibles will also drop to $226 in 2023, a decrease of $7 from the annual deductible of $233 in 2022.

These changes are especially significant for people who don’t have much income, since their Social Security payments can often be eaten up by their Medicare premiums as part of the same effective payment.

But the rising COLA together with the falling premium means that people on the lower end of the income spectrum could feel a significant increase in monthly payments beginning in 2023.

The COLA will help more people than just retirees

Millions of children in the U.S. with retired or deceased parents also receive Social Security benefits each month.

דEach month during 2021, we paid an average of $2.8 billion in benefits to 4 million children whose parents (one or both) were retired, deceased, or were disabled, the Social Security Administration said in a statement back in June.

And that number excludes children who are taken care of by grandparents receiving Social Security benefits. As many as 2.5 million grandparents in the U.S. have the primary responsibility of caring for grandchildren, according to research from North Dakota State University.

“Economic hardship in the U.S. and recent social challenges have contributed to the increase in multiple-family generations living together to save costs and share resources,” a 2021 report from the university found.

Grandparents living in multigenerational homes are “quite common” and are often “providing help with financial difficulties and working to provide basic needs and save economic resources,” the report found.

Congress considering inflation measurement specifically for seniors

The COLA is based on a measure of inflation called the CPI-W, which measures the spending habits of urban wage earners and clerical workers. Accordingly, experts refer to the COLA as wage-indexed.

The Labor Department also measures the spending habits of seniors in a metric known as the CPI-E - EӔ for elderly - but the Social Security Administration doesn"t use that number to figure out by how much it should adjust its checks.

Congress would need to authorize the use of the CPI-E for the COLA, which could affect how much seniors pay on important expenses like prescription drugs.

Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.) has one such proposal, which he says |would help seniors who spend a greater portion of their income on health care and other necessities.”

In a Thursday statement released along with the COLA, Larson touted his legislation, encouraging the “new measure of inflation that takes into account actual expenses incurred by seniors.”


Posted by Elvis on 10/13/22 •
Section News
View (0) comment(s) or add a new one
Printable viewLink to this article

Sunday, March 27, 2022

UK living standards to fall at fastest rate since mid-1950s

image: middle class squeeze

UK living standards to fall at fastest rate since mid-1950s

“Like US, UK economy very bad shape: inflation outruns wages, workers’ living standards drop fast and far, Brexit’s disastrous results, a botched Covid response, etc. Some major UK papers, politicians say so. Not US where Biden’s media chorus says ‘great economic recovery.’
- Richard Wolff

By Richard Partington
The Guardian
March 23, 3022

Living standards in Britain are expected to fall at the fastest annual rate since the mid-1950s and will take until at least 2024 to return to pre-Covid levels, according to the governments independent economic forecaster.

Despite the measures announced by Rishi Sunak at his spring statement, the OFFICE FOR BUDGET RESPONSIBILITY (OBR) said real household disposable incomes per person would fall by 2.2% in 2022-23 as earnings from work fail to keep pace with soaring inflation.

It said the fall would be the biggest in a single financial year since modern records began in 1956-57, and that it would take until 2024-25 for inflation-adjusted living standards to return to their pre-pandemic level.

Highlighting an unprecedented squeeze on households as inflation soared after the Covid pandemic, made worse by the further rise in global energy prices after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the OBR said the damage for families would mean lower levels of consumer spending in the UK economy.

With households expected to tighten their belts as wage growth fails to match high rates of inflation, the tax and spending watchdog issued a sharp growth downgrade for this year to 3.8%, down from a previous estimate for growth of 6%.

Inflation is forecast to peak at 9% later this year, its highest rate in four decades, the OBR said. The figure was calculated a week after the Russian invasion of Ukraine - meaning the estimate takes into account the large increases in global energy prices triggered by the conflict and retaliatory sanctions.

Oil and gas prices have fallen back on international markets in recent days amid hopes for a breakthrough in peace talks, although they remain at historically high levels.

In his update to the Commons, Sunak said he would ‘stand by’ households by launching an immediate cut in fuel duty and raising the threshold at which workers begin to pay national insurance contributions.

With households expected to tighten their belts as wage growth fails to match high rates of inflation, the tax and spending watchdog issued a sharp growth downgrade for this year to 3.8%, down from a previous estimate for growth of 6%.

Inflation is forecast to peak at 9% later this year, its highest rate in four decades, the OBR said. The figure was calculated a week after the Russian invasion of Ukraine - meaning the estimate takes into account the large increases in global energy prices triggered by the conflict and retaliatory sanctions.

Oil and gas prices have fallen back on international markets in recent days amid hopes for a breakthrough in peace talks, although they remain at historically high levels.

However, the OBR said the support measures worth a combined L17.6bn - would only cushion about a third of the hit to living standards, while the chancellors tax cuts would only undo about one-sixth of the total tax increases he had previously announced.

Despite a stronger than expected performance in the public finances over recent months, analysts suggested Sunak had banked much of the gains for future, potentially for a pre-election giveaway.

Government borrowing in the current financial year would come in about L55.2bn lower than it estimated in October, the OBR said, suggesting Sunak would still have about L30bn of headroom within his self-imposed tax and spending limits.

However, it warned borrowing was expected to rise next year as high inflation pushes up the cost of servicing the UKҒs national debt to L83bn, double its previous estimate and the highest level on record.

Although Sunak sought to position himself to the nation as a tax-cutting chancellor by promising a 1p reduction in income tax from 2024, the OBR said that other changes would more than offset the giveaway by lifting the UK tax burden to the highest level since the 1940s.

The watchdog warned the inflation risk from Ukraine meant there was a high degree of uncertainty about its forecasts.

However, it suggested the squeeze on living standards would ease in future as global energy prices eventually drop back.

“Although low rates of unemployment after the end of furlough are likely to persist as companies struggle to find workers p fuelling growth in wages this year of about 5.3% - a wage-price spiral was unlikely to take hold,” the OBR said, “with inflation forecast to fall back below 2% in late 2023.”


Posted by Elvis on 03/27/22 •
Section News
View (0) comment(s) or add a new one
Printable viewLink to this article

Wednesday, September 02, 2020

The Bradykinin Hypothesis

image: coronavirus

A Supercomputer Analyzed Covid-19 and an Interesting New Theory Has Emerged
A closer look at the Bradykinin hypothesis

By Thomas Smith
September 1, 2020

arlier this summer, the Summit supercomputer at Oak Ridge National Lab in Tennessee set about CRUNCHING DATA on more than 40,000 genes from 17,000 genetic samples in an effort to better understand COVID-19. Summit is the SECOND-FASTEST computer in the world, but the process which involved analyzing 2.5 billion genetic combinations - still took more than a week.

When Summit was done, researchers analyzed the results. It was, in the words of Dr. Daniel Jacobson, lead researcher and chief scientist for computational systems biology at Oak Ridge, a ”EUREKA MOMENT.” The computer had revealed a new theory about how Covid-19 impacts the body: THE BRADYKINKIN HYPOTHESIS. The hypothesis provides a model that explains many aspects of Covid-19, including some of its most BIZARRE SYSPTOMS. It also suggests 10-plus potential treatments, many of which are already FDA approved. Jacobsons group PUBLISHED THEIR RESULTS in a paper in the journal eLife in early July.

According to the team’s findings, a Covid-19 infection generally begins when the virus enters the body through ACE2 receptors in the nose, (The receptors, which the virus IS KNOWS TO TARGET, are abundant there.) The virus then proceeds through the body, entering cells in other places where ACE2 is also present: the intestines, kidneys, and heart. This likely accounts for at least some of the diseases cardiac and GI symptoms.

But once Covid-19 has established itself in the body, things start to get really interesting. According to Jacobson’s group, the data Summit analyzed shows that Covid-19 isn’t content to simply infect cells that already express lots of ACE2 receptors. Instead, it actively hijacks the bodyҒs own systems, tricking it into upregulating ACE2 receptors in places where they’re usually expressed at LOW OR MEDIUM LEVELS, including the lungs.

In this sense, Covid-19 is like a burglar who slips in your unlocked second-floor windowand starts to ransack your house. Once inside, though, they donҒt just take your stuff they also throw open all your doors and windows so their accomplices can rush in and help pillage more efficiently.

The renin-angiotensin system (RAS) controls many aspects of the circulatory system, including the body’s levels of a chemical called bradykinin, which normally helps to regulate blood pressure. According to the team’s analysis, when the virus tweaks the RAS, it causes the body’s mechanisms for regulating bradykinin to go haywire. Bradykinin receptors are resensitized, and the body also stops effectively breaking down bradykinin. (ACE normally degrades bradykinin, but when the virus downregulates it, it can’t do this as effectively.)

The end result, the researchers say, is to release a bradykinin storm a massive, runaway buildup of bradykinin in the body. According to the bradykinin hypothesis, it’s this storm that is ultimately responsible for many of Covid-19s deadly effects. Jacobson’s team says in their paper that the pathology of Covid-19 is likely the result of “Bradykinin Storms rather than cytokine storms,” which HAD BEEN PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED in Covid-19 patients, but that the two may be intricately linked. OTHER PAPERS had previously identified bradykinin storms as a possible cause of Covid-19s pathologies.

As bradykinin builds up in the body, it dramatically increases vascular permeability. In short, it makes your blood vessels leaky. This aligns with recent clinical data, WHICH INCREASINGLY VIEWS COVID-19 PRIMARILY AS A VASCULAR DISEASE, rather than a respiratory one. But Covid-19 still has a massive effect on the lungs. As blood vessels start to leak due to a bradykinin storm, the researchers say, the lungs can fill with fluid. Immune cells also leak out into the lungs, Jacobson’s team found, causing inflammation.

And Covid-19 has another especially insidious trick. Through another pathway, the teams data shows, it increases production of hyaluronic acid (HLA) in the lungs. HLA is OFTEN USED IN SOAPS AND LOTIONS for its ability to absorb more than 1,000 times its weight in fluid. When it combines with fluid leaking into the lungs, the results are disastrous: It forms a hydrogel, which can FILL THE LUNGS IN SOME PATIENTS. According to Jacobson, once this happens, “its like TRYING TO BREATHE THROUGH JELL-O.”

This may explain why ventilators PROVEN LESS EFFECTIVE in treating advanced Covid-19 than doctors originally expected, based on experiences with other viruses. It reaches a point where regardless of how much oxygen you pump in, it doesn’t matter, because the alveoli in the lungs are filled with this hydrogel, Jacobson says. “The lungs become like a water balloon. Patients can suffocate even while receiving full breathing support.”

The bradykinin hypothesis also extends to many of Covid-19’s effects on the heart. About ONE IN FIVE HOSPITALIZED COVID-19 PATIENTS have damage to their hearts, even if they never had cardiac issues before. Some of this is likely due to the virus infecting the heart directly through its ACE2 receptors. But the RAS also controls aspects of cardiac contractions and blood pressure. According to the researchers, bradykinin storms could create arrhythmias and low blood pressure, which are often seen in Covid-19 patients.

The bradykinin hypothesis also accounts for COVID-19’S NEUROLOGICAL EFFECTS, which are some of the most surprising and concerning elements of the disease. THESE SYMPTOMS (which include dizziness, seizures, delirium, and stroke) are present in AS MANY AS HALF OF HOSPITALIZED COVID-19 PATIENTS. According to Jacobson and his team, MRI studies in France revealed that many Covid-19 patients have evidence of leaky blood vessels in their brains.

Bradykinin - especially at high doses - can also lead to a ;." rel="nofollow"]BREAKDOWN OF THE BLOOD-BRAIN BARRIER. Under normal circumstances, this barrier acts as a filter between your brain and the rest of your circulatory system. It lets in the nutrients and small molecules that the brain needs to function, while keeping out toxins and pathogens and keeping the brain’s internal environment tightly regulated.

If bradykinin storms cause the blood-brain barrier to break down, this could allow harmful cells and compounds into the brain, leading to inflammation, potential brain damage, and many of the neurological symptoms Covid-19 patients experience. Jacobson told me, “It is a reasonable hypothesis that many of the neurological symptoms in Covid-19 could be due to an excess of bradykinin. It has been reported that bradykinin would indeed be likely to increase the permeability of the blood-brain barrier. In addition, similar neurological symptoms have been observed in other diseases that result from an excess of bradykinin.”

Increased bradykinin levels could also account for other common Covid-19 symptoms. ACE inhibitors - a class of drugs USED TO TREAT HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE - have a similar effect on the RAS system as Covid-19, INCREASING BRADYKINKIN LEVELS. In fact, Jacobson and his team note in their paper that “the virus - acts pharmacologically as an ACE inhibitor… almost directly mirroring the actions of these drugs.

By acting like a natural ACE inhibitor, Covid-19 MAY BE CAUSING the same effects that hypertensive patients sometimes get when they take blood pressure lowering drugs. ACE inhibitors are known to CAUSE a dry cough and fatigue, two textbook symptoms of Covid-19. And they can potentially increase blood potassium levels, which has also been OBSERVED IN COVID_19 PATIENTS. The similarities between ACE inhibitor side effects and Covid-19 symptoms strengthen the bradykinin hypothesis, the researchers say.

ACE inhibitors are also known to cause a LOSS OF TASTE AND SMELL. Jacobson stresses, though, that this symptom is more likely due to the virus “affecting the cells surrounding olfactory nerve cells than the direct effects of bradykinin.”

Though still an emerging theory, the bradykinin hypothesis explains several other of Covid-19;s seemingly bizarre symptoms. Jacobson and his team speculate that leaky vasculature caused by bradykinin storms could be responsible for COVID-TOES, a condition involving swollen, bruised toes that some Covid-19 patients experience. Bradykinin can also MESS WITH THE THYROID GLAND, which could produce the THYROID SYMPTOMS recently observed in some patients.

The bradykinin hypothesis could also explain some of the broader demographic patterns of the diseases spread. The researchers note that some aspects of the RAS system are sex-linked, with proteins for several receptors (such as one called TMSB4X) located on the X chromosome. This means that “women would have twice the levels of this protein than men,” a result borne out by the researchers data. In their paper, Jacobson’s team concludes that this could explain the lower incidence of Covid-19 induced mortality in women.Ғ A genetic quirk of the RAS could be GIVING WOMEN EXTRA PROTECTION against the disease.

The bradykinin hypothesis provides a model that contributes to “a better understanding of Covid-19” and “adds novelty to the existing literature,” according to scientists Frank van de Veerdonk, Jos WM van der Meer, and Roger Little, who PEER-REVIEWED THE TEAMS’ PAPER. It predicts nearly all the disease’s symptoms, even ones (like bruises on the toes) that at first appear random, and further suggests new treatments for the disease.

As Jacobson and team point out, several drugs target aspects of the RAS and are already FDA approved to treat other conditions. They could arguably be applied to treating Covid-19 as well. Several, like danazol, stanozolol, and ecallantide, reduce bradykinin production and could potentially stop a deadly bradykinin storm. Others, like icatibant, reduce bradykinin signaling and could blunt its effects once its already in the body.

Interestingly, Jacobson’s team also suggests VITAMIN D as a potentially useful Covid-19 drug. The vitamin is involved in the RAS system and could prove helpful by reducing levels of another compound, known as REN. Again, this could stop potentially deadly bradykinin storms from forming. The researchers note that vitamin D has already BEEM SHOWN TO HELP THOSE WITH COVID-19. The vitamin is readily available over the counter, and AROUND 20% OF THE POPULATION IS DEFICIENT. If indeed the vitamin proves effective at reducing the severity of bradykinin storms, it could be an easy, relatively safe way to reduce the severity of the virus.

Other compounds could treat symptoms associated with bradykinin storms. Hymecromone, for example, could reduce hyaluronic acid levels, potentially stopping deadly hydrogels from forming in the lungs. And timbetasin could mimic the mechanism that the researchers believe protects women from more severe Covid-19 infections. All of these potential treatments are speculative, of course, and would need to be studied in a rigorous, controlled environment before their effectiveness could be determined and they could be used more broadly.

Covid-19 stands out for both the scale of its global impact and the apparent randomness of ITS MANY SYMPTONS. Physicians have STRUGGLES TO UNDERSTAND the disease and come up with a unified theory for how it works. Though as of yet unproven, the bradykinin hypothesis provides such a theory. And like all good hypotheses, it also provides specific, testable predictions in this case, actual drugs that could provide relief to real patients.

The researchers are quick to point out that the testing of any of these pharmaceutical interventions should be done in well-designed clinical trials. As to the next step in the process, Jacobson is clear: “We have to get this message out.” His team’s finding wont cure Covid-19. But if the treatments it points to pan out in the clinic, interventions guided by the bradykinin hypothesis could greatly reduce patients’ suffering and potentially save lives.


Posted by Elvis on 09/02/20 •
Section News
View (0) comment(s) or add a new one
Printable viewLink to this article

Tuesday, January 22, 2013

Marvel At The Beast - Part 10


“Obama’s biggest blemish remains the ongoing tragedy of mass unemployment. Not only does this have a human element - the countless lives harmed or destroyed by poverty and desperation - but it is a huge drag on our economy. Mass unemployment reduces spending - the engine of our economy - which in turn, reduces growth. And without meaningful growth, there’s no way to reduce long-term debt without inflicting a large dose of harmful austerity. That, in my view, is unacceptable.”
- Obamas Biggest Blemish, Jamelle Bouie, American Prospect, January 3, 2013

The central problem is not an inadequate supply of educated workers; it is inadequate demand. The Bureau of Labor Statistics now projects that of the ten occupational groups that will add the most jobs between 2010 and 2020, five do not even require a high-school education.
Who Will Save The Middle Class, Prospect, May 2012

I can tell you tell you one thing I like about The President - his speeches are GREAT.
I only wish this time THERE IS SOME REAL SUBSTANCE behind his EMPTY words.


Obama speech reveals a different leader

By Dan Balz
January 21, 2013

President Obama has never lacked for confidence, but rarely has that attribute been on display as clearly as on Monday in an inaugural address that underscored the distance he has traveled after four contentious years in office.

This was not the politician who campaigned in 2008 on themes of transcending the divisive politics of the past, though there were ritual calls for the country and its political leaders to seize this moment together. Instead, it was a president who has accepted the reality of those divisions and is determined to prevail on his terms.

Obamas first campaign was aspirational, and he came to office believing, or at least hoping, that through force of personality he could gently guide the opposing sides to consensus on issues that had long resisted resolution. Monday’s speech conveyed the ambitions of a president looking at his next four years with a sense of frustration and impatience, and who now believes that a different style of leadership is required.

In his speech, Obama set out his priorities for a second term, goals that will cheer the liberal wing of the Democratic Party and probably alarm many on the right. He challenged Republicans to meet him partway, though not exactly in the middle. If there was an underlying message Monday, it was not “Come, let us reason together.” It was “Follow me.” The question is whether he will be any more successful in his second term than he was in his first.

Pressure on Republicans

There are reasons for the president setting a different tone in his second inaugural than in his first. Two years after he and his party took a beating in the midterm elections, he now holds the strongest hand in Washington. His approval ratings have climbed above 50 percent, while his Republican opponents in Congress remain mired in disapproval ratings almost three times as high as their approval ratings.

Obama once hoped that he could overcome the united opposition of congressional Republicans, whose militant House members set the partys tone during the battles of the past two years, through negotiation with GOP leaders. Now he is looking to the country to pressure his opponents to compromise in ways that they would not during his first term.

Republicans have already tested the reelected president and discovered the limits of their power. Their decision not to pick a fight - for now - over the debt ceiling signaled their recognition of that reality. It was an acknowledgment that the tactic of opposing Obama at almost every turn may be self-defeating.

Obama appears ready to try to split the Republican coalition by setting pragmatists against ideologues. On Monday, he rebuked those who have been most aggressive in their opposition when he said, “We cannot mistake absolutism for principle, or substitute spectacle for politics, or treat name-calling as reasoned debate.”

REPUBLICANS will have to choose their battles more carefully, and they may prevail in some cases. Obama knows that he won’t get all he wants, but the balance of power at the start of his second term is far different from what it was 24 months ago.

The year ahead promises more debates over the size and scope of government, issues that dominated the past two years in Washington. Obama acknowledged the need to deal with spending and the deficit, but he also set out terms for the coming fight over federal entitlements.

During the campaign, Obama talked about the philosophical divide between Republicans and Democrats on these issues, as he condemned the broken politics of Washington. He said the American people could break the tie with the election.

But the election returned a majority of Republicans to the House, and on Monday the president seemed to suggest that there were grounds for compromise. “Progress,” he said, “does not compel us to settle centuries-long debates about the role of government for all time, but it does require us to act in our time.”

Addressing his coalition

Obama’s second inaugural address also reflected a changing America and the coalition that reelected him to office. The nation’s first African American president leads an ever-more diverse population and a country in which attitudes and mores continue to change, particularly among the youngest segment of society.

The policy agenda he put forth, and the values he enunciated, spoke directly to that coalition. Never before has a president used an inaugural address to speak so openly about the cause of gay rights, linking the 1969 Stonewall uprising that led to the gay rights movement with Selma and civil rights and the 1839 Seneca Falls Convention and womens’ rights.

Not all Americans agree with these changes, and as president, Obama must attempt to speak for them and to them. But his remarks Monday suggest that he believes history is on his side on these issues.

The president’s second inaugural address was notable also for what he talked about only in brief. Four years ago, he stood on the Capitols West Front with the country facing an economic crisis. Output was falling, the stock market had plunged, many Americans were threatened with housing foreclosures, and unemployment was rising rapidly. He talked about “a sapping of confidence across our land.”

On Monday, he touched only lightly on that crisis and spoke of the economy in positive terms. “An economic recovery has begun,” he said. At a time when jobs remain a top priority for most Americans, he chose neither to highlight that problem nor to offer any new solutions - though, ultimately, he will be judged on his effectiveness in restoring the economy to its full strength.

Opponents will find much to dislike about what Obama said Monday, for this was not a speech aimed at mollifying those who lost the election. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who lost the presidential race four years ago, expressed disappointment that Obama was not more explicit about bringing the two sides together. “I would have liked to have seen more on outreach and working together,” McCain said. But the senator added, “It’s his privilege to say what he wants.”

Obama risks overreaching or over-interpreting his mandate, which can be an affliction of newly reelected presidents. His victory in November was decisive but not overwhelming. Self-confidence can slip over the line to arrogance or hubris. Second terms often disappoint. So there are dangers ahead for the president.

On Monday, he set out his ambitions for a second term in clear language. What follows will define how history judges both those priorities and his ability to turn them into action.



Politico has a sad because it doesn’t think Obama has done enough to cut Medicare or Social Security

By Jed Lewison
Daily Kos
January 22, 2013


The President has never precisely defined what hard choices he would be willing to make on Medicare and Social Security. Its not even clear what he would do if he had the power to remake the programs on his own, without worrying about opposition from Republicans or Democrats.

How incredibly sad. President Barack Obama just isn’t willing to make hard choices on Medicare and Social Security. And, as everybody knows, with an unemployment rate of 7.8 percent, America’s top priority is making “hard choices” to cut not just those programs, but Medicaid as well.

If only the president had done something courageous, like passing landmark health care reform legislation that will achieve $716 billion in Medicare savings over the next decade. If only he had been willing to take such a step despite the virtual guarantee that the Republican presidential nominee would run ads ATTACKING HIM FOR IT. If only he’d been willing to do something bold, like taking the risk of having Republicans claim that he had created death panels when what he really did was create an Independent Payment Advisory Board aimed at reducing Medicare costs.

But no, our lousy president hasn’t been willing to make any TOUGH CHOICES at all. In fact, as Politico “reports” in the very same article that I quoted above:

Obama infuriated Democrats by proposing controversial changes to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security during his failed 2011 grand-bargain talks with Boehner. The president was ready to make some entitlement concessions in the fiscal cliff negotiations last month, but that effort fizzled, too.

Wait. Hold on. You mean Obama has proposed additional cuts to Medicare and Social Security?

Now at this point you might be a bit confused, because on the one hand Politico is ripping Obama for being unwilling to cut Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, but on the other hand, they are pointing out that he angered his own party when he proposed cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Fortunately, your confusion will be short-lived, because Politico explains why Obama STILL SUCKS. The short version: the tax cliff deal made it impossible for him to get entitlement cuts because Republicans aren’t willing to raise taxes again.

The FISCAL CLIFF DEAL, which raised $600 billion in new revenue, may have actually made it more difficult to strike a grand bargain. That’s because Republicans aren’t willing to consider further tax hikes a White House prerequisite to weighing any controversial cuts to entitlements.

Well, I guess that settles that. As we all know, if Republicans say no to something, then it’s off the table. It should never be considered. Why? Because Republicans said no, that’s why. And when they say no, they mean it. EXCEPT:

A senior Republican tax aide confirmed that Representative Dave Camp of Michigan, the Ways and Means chairman, planned to push forward this year with “revenue-neutral” tax reform, with the revenue target adjusted upward to the amount raised by the higher tax rates on the wealthy approved this month to resolve most of the so-called fiscal cliff.

The Republican aide said if the Senate can approve tax changes that raise revenues, it is possible that difficult negotiations between the two chambers could produce a final deal that would produce more tax revenue - but not as much as the Senate wants.

Huh. Maybe assuming Republicans say what they mean and mean what they say isn’t really the best assumption to make. Maybe it’s time to realize that Republicans like to bluff. And as long as Politico is going to perpetuate its misguided obsession with 20-year budget projections for Social Security, maybe they should give President Obama some credit for having done what they say he refuses to do.

Of course, what would really be nice would be to see the same level obsession on an issue like unemployment and economic growth, or maybe even climate change. After all, the fanciest projection in the world doesn’t mean a damn thing without economic growth. And if we don’t do anything to confront climate change, the only thing we can say for sure about the demographic forecasts for the future of Social Security and Medicare is that they are going to be wrong.



Americas Vanishing Economic Freedom

By Michael D. Tanner
National Review
September 19, 2012

The 2012 Economic Freedom of the World report was RELEASED this week by the Cato Institute and CanadaҒs Fraser Institute, and it showed that the United States has plummeted to 18th place in the ranked list, trailing such countries as Estonia, Taiwan, and Qatar. Even such notorious welfare states as Finland and Denmark, not to mention Canada, have freer economies than we do.

Actually, the decline began under President George W. Bush. For 20 years the U.S. had consistently ranked as one of the worlds three freest economies, along with Hong Kong and Singapore. By the end of the Bush presidency, we were barely in the top ten.

And, as with so many disastrous legacies of the Bush era, Barack Obama took a bad thing and made it worse.

During the past four years, the U.S. saw significant declines in nearly all categories of the economic-liberty index. Most significant - and this should come as no surprise to anyone paying attention - is that the size of government grew substantially, particularly when measured by size of government subsidies and transfers and by government consumption as a share of national consumption.

As recently as 2005, the U.S. ranked 45th in size of government among the 144 nations surveyed. That was bad enough, but it still had us in the top third of the 144 countries surveyed. Today, government has grown dramatically, and our ranking has fallen to 61st place. By the metrics used, the U.S. now has a bigger government than Ukraine or Syria.

The United States has also seen a substantial increase in business regulations, labor-market restrictions, and barriers to trade. Our standing fell in all those categories, and we have undergone a long-term deterioration in ranking on property rights as well.

To anyone wondering why the U.S. is having such a hard time recovering from this recession, the 2012 report provides a pretty devastating diagnosis. We are clearly headed in the wrong direction.

Yet discussion of economic freedom seems curiously missing from the presidential campaign. President Obama, in fact, would further restrict economic liberty. He proposes a host of new subsidies and regulations. And donגt forget that the largest parts of Dodd-Frank kick in next year.

Meanwhile, when it comes to defending economic liberty, Mitt Romney has spent most of his time in a defensive crouch. He occasionally breaks form to promise he wont really reduce taxes on the wealthy, wonҒt cut Medicare, and wants to keep some parts of Obamacare. Hes actually running ads attacking the president for not confronting China over trade.

Americans instinctively know the importance of economic freedom. They know that it is their ability to invest, start businesses, and hire workers that builds a prosperous country. They know that millions have come to this country and prospered because they had freedom to pursue their economic aspirations as well as their personal ones. And they find this freedom now slipping away.

They need a candidate to speak for them҅ and for freedom.


Posted by Elvis on 01/22/13 •
Section News
View (0) comment(s) or add a new one
Printable viewLink to this article
Page 1 of 32 pages  1 2 3 >  Last »


Total page hits 12770173
Page rendered in 3.0555 seconds
41 queries executed
Debug mode is off
Total Entries: 3583
Total Comments: 341
Most Recent Entry: 12/09/2023 11:34 am
Most Recent Comment on: 06/14/2023 06:21 pm
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 9
Total anonymous users: 1
The most visitors ever was 588 on 01/11/2023 03:46 pm

Current Logged-in Members: 

Email Us


Login | Register
Resumes | Members

In memory of the layed off workers of AT&T

Today's Diversion

We can hardly call a beggar an obstacle to generosity. - Dalai Lama


Advanced Search



December 2023
         1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Most recent entries

Must Read

RSS Feeds

BBC News

ARS Technica

External Links

Elvis Favorites

BLS and FRED Pages


Other Links

All Posts



Creative Commons License

Support Bloggers' Rights