Piers Morgan Uncensored&nbsp;host Piers Morgan last week blamed “anti-vaxxers” after he contracted a “rough” COVID-19 infection, despite being vaccinated and boosted.“UPDATE: I’ve tested positive for Covid, and feel as rough as a badger’s a*se, but in the spirit of ‘The Show Must Go On’, I’m going to have a go at anchoring tonight’s @PiersUncensored⁩ live from my home. Tune in at 8pm, because anything could happen….” Morgan wrote on X.<div class="raw-html-embed"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">UPDATE: I’ve tested positive for Covid, and feel as rough as a badger’s a*se, but in the spirit of ‘The Show Must Go On’, I’m going to have a go at anchoring tonight’s <a href="https://twitter.com/PiersUncensored?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@PiersUncensored</a>⁩ live from my home. Tune in at 8pm, because anything could happen…. <a href="https://t.co/aEiGLIOkzV">pic.twitter.com/aEiGLIOkzV</a>— Piers Morgan (@piersmorgan) <a href="https://twitter.com/piersmorgan/status/1732084889367847045?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 5, 2023</a></blockquote> <script async="" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>X users pointed out the vaccine’s poor&nbsp;<a href="https://frontline.news/pedia/vaccine-effectiveness">efficacy</a> and challenged the talk show host for his extreme support for vaccines during the pandemic when he advocated for the unvaccinated to be denied health care.Some users asked Morgan why those who are vaccinated seem to contract COVID-19 at <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10654-021-00808-7#Bib1" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">higher rates</a>, to which Morgan replied that the unvaccinated are “incredibly stupid.”“I heard — from someone on the internet — it’s because Covid doesn’t infect incredibly stupid people due to the lack of available brain cells to infiltrate,” he wrote.<div class="raw-html-embed"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">I heard - from someone on the internet - it’s because Covid doesn’t infect incredibly stupid people due to the lack of available brain cells to infiltrate. <a href="https://t.co/sbg49MiJBO">https://t.co/sbg49MiJBO</a>— Piers Morgan (@piersmorgan) <a href="https://twitter.com/piersmorgan/status/1732093256974864722?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 5, 2023</a></blockquote> <script async="" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>Then, in response to a comment from influencer Andrew Tate, Morgan blamed “anti-vaxx imbeciles” for his decision not to get the latest booster shot, which he believed would protect him from COVID-19.“Thanks for your concern, Andrew. Ironically, if I’d had another covid booster I wouldn’t have caught the damn thing again and wouldn’t be feeling so rough. That’ll teach me for listening to ill-informed anti-vaxx imbeciles on the internet… !”<div class="raw-html-embed"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">Thanks for your concern, Andrew. Ironically, if I’d had another covid booster I wouldn’t have caught the damn thing again and wouldn’t be feeling so rough. That’ll teach me for listening to ill-informed anti-vaxx imbeciles on the internet… ! <a href="https://t.co/YzlOSEQIvD">https://t.co/YzlOSEQIvD</a>— Piers Morgan (@piersmorgan) <a href="https://twitter.com/piersmorgan/status/1732805411848241263?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 7, 2023</a></blockquote> <script async="" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>The remarks came over a year after the former&nbsp;CNN&nbsp;host tried to&nbsp;<a href="https://frontline.news/post/piers-morgan-tries-to-whitewash-violent-and-vicious-remarks-against-unvaccinated">walk back</a> his hostile vitriol toward anyone who refused the shots.&nbsp;“I’ve got no problem with those refusing to have the covid vaccines, so long as they have no problem with history recording them as selfish pr*cks who only cared about themselves in a global pandemic,” wrote Morgan in July 2021.&nbsp;That same month, Morgan pushed for those who refused the shots to be denied health care.&nbsp;“Those who refuse to be vaccinated, with no medical reason not to, should be refused NHS care if they then catch covid. I’m hearing of anti-vaxxers using up ICU beds in London at vast expense to the taxpayer. Let them pay for their own stupidity &amp; selfishness.”&nbsp;Morgan had previously&nbsp;<a href="https://metro.co.uk/2021/06/21/piers-morgan-fully-vaccinated-people-should-get-freedom-back-14805342/">suggested</a> that those who declined the injections should be “thrown in a cave” and denied work.&nbsp;During an October 2022 interview on&nbsp;Piers Morgan Uncensored&nbsp;with celebrity physicist Neil Degrasse Tyson, Morgan said he “took quite firm views.”“It seemed to me, Neil, when this was all happening – the pandemic – I took quite firm views throughout it, like a lot of people, I guess – one of which was when it was believed when the vaccines when the vaccines first came along that they would stop transmission, it seemed to me if you refused to be vaccinated, you shouldn’t be entitled to the same rights to go to nightclubs and stuff as those who’d taken the vaccine and were therefore not able to transmit it.”&nbsp;Morgan falsely claimed he changed his mind on the vaccine once it was determined that it did not stop transmission.&nbsp;“However, when it was established that vaccines didn’t actually stop transmission, they just stopped all the people getting very sick and dying, the argument to then suppress any liberties or freedoms of the unvaccinated, to me, it went away. Because in that instance, if the ability to pass it on is pretty well the same if you’ve been jabbed or not, then really it’s down to the individual if they want to protect themselves from this virus. So I changed my mind,” Morgan claimed.&nbsp;However, over a year earlier by July 2021, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) had already publicly&nbsp;<a href="https://www.stardem.com/news/national/cdc-covid-vaccines-won-t-stop-transmission-fully-vaccinated-can-still-get-spread-delta-strain/article_5f83d0cb-8b0a-535d-bbad-3f571754e5ae.html">admitted</a> the vaccines did not prevent transmission. That didn’t stop Morgan from attacking anyone who refused the injections.&nbsp;“Imagine being scared of having a safe, well-regulated, 4-second vaccine shot, when previous generations braved gun shots for years on end to save us all from tyranny? Anti-vaxxers really are a bunch of spineless pussies,” tweeted Morgan in November 2021.&nbsp;In September 2021, Morgan publicly blasted superstar rapper Nicki Minaj for questioning the vaccine and suggesting that getting injected should be a personal choice, saying “She’s peddling lies that will cost lives.”&nbsp;In December 2021, the former&nbsp;Good Morning Britain&nbsp;presenter&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsweek.com/piers-morgan-sarah-palin-vaccine-dead-body-1661142">told</a> his nearly 8 million followers that former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin was “unfathomably dumb” for refusing to get the experimental injections. He also attacked Trump supporters as “anti-vaxxers” and “vaccine sceptics.”In January 2022, Morgan&nbsp;<a href="https://www.insider.com/piers-morgan-australia-novak-djokovic-covid-vaccine-visa-2022-1">supported</a> Australia’s decision to bar world champion tennis player Novak Djokovic from entering the country to play in the Australian Open due to his injection status.&nbsp;On his show months later with Tyson, Morgan laughed as he tried to play the victim.&nbsp;“I got pilloried when I said my original statement, I got pilloried when I changed my mind. I got pilloried by everyone during the pandemic about all of it,” he said laughing as Tyson joined in. “And yet to me it seemed perfectly logical, honestly, to just change my mind because facts change."But despite his “change of mind,” Morgan’s continued rhetoric against those who refused the shots confirms researchers’ findings that the unvaccinated are the most hated group in the world, and have been even before the COVID-19 pandemic.A&nbsp;<a href="https://psyarxiv.com/t2g45/">study</a> last year from Denmark’s Aarhus University sought to determine the level of prejudice against people who did not get the COVID-19 shot. This was measured by asking participants how they would feel about someone not vaccinated against COVID-19 marrying a member of their family.Among 10,740 respondents across 21 countries, people who are vaccinated would not want an unvaccinated person marrying a close relative, which the study classifies as “antipathy.” In fact, respondents had 2.5 times more antipathy towards the unvaccinated than towards Middle Eastern migrants, “a group battling high levels of discrimination globally.”&nbsp;&nbsp;Notably, the unvaccinated were not found to have antipathy towards the vaccinated.&nbsp;“[W]e find that discriminatory attitudes towards the unvaccinated is as high or higher than discriminatory attitudes directed towards other common and diverse targets of prejudice including immigrants, drug-addicts and ex-convicts,” concluded the researchers. “At the same time, the results demonstrate that prejudice is mostly one-sided.”&nbsp;&nbsp;Along with antipathy, respondents supported stripping the unvaccinated of their political rights and subjecting them to familial exclusion.According to criminal justice and social policy expert Dr. Josh Guetzkow, this is nothing new. In fact, this mindset has been around for decades.&nbsp;&nbsp;“The fact is that ‘anti-vaxxers’ are one of the only groups that people are now allowed, even encouraged, to hate openly,” wrote Guetzkow in a Substack&nbsp;<a href="https://jackanapes.substack.com/p/the-ugly-demonization-of-the-unvaccinated?s=r">article</a>. “This was true before COVID and has only worsened in the last year, as politicians, gov't officials and journalists ramped up incitement against ‘anti-vaxxers’.”&nbsp;&nbsp;“Perhaps the most amazing thing about these statements is that people felt that it was OK to express these opinions ‘out loud’ in public on-line settings and were often encouraged and congratulated by others,” continued Guetzkow. “This is in contrast to other forms of prejudice that people have become more reluctant to express openly as such views are seen as illegitimate or not acceptable in polite society. But here they felt no shame.”&nbsp;

2023-12-14.png

Vaccines

Sports & Entertainment

'That’ll teach me for listening to ill-informed anti-vaxx imbeciles'

TV personality blames ‘anti-vaxxers’ for COVID bout

In docs we trustA recent <a href="https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/poll-finding/kff-health-misinformation-tracking-poll-pilot/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">survey </a>conducted by KFF (formerly the Kaiser Family Foundation) on “Health Misinformation” has found that the overwhelming majority of Americans trust their doctors' healthcare advice. The findings hold true among both Republicans and Democrats.<figure class="image"><img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/aflds/image/upload/v1714606005/trust_docs_c16369c905.png"></figure>&nbsp;In CDC, we don't necessarily trustThe difference in level of trust between supporters of the two parties varied greatly, though, when they were asked about the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), with 87 percent of Democrats and 49 percent of Republicans saying they trusted information deriving from the CDC. Republicans tended to trust their local health officials more, with the figure rising to almost 60 percent.Lunna Lopes, the lead author of the report and the senior survey analyst at KFF, concluded that family physicians are therefore best situated to produce behavioral changes espoused by public health officials:<blockquote>Doctors are particularly well positioned to be the messengers when it comes to health recommendations that people really trust.</blockquote>The survey also revealed that even people who use social media a great deal are relatively skeptical when it comes to accepting healthcare-related advice from any of the various platforms, and indeed, from media of any kind. People are far more ready to place their trust in a healthcare professional with whom they are acquainted, and this will have come as no surprise to governments across the globe who directed a good deal of their messaging toward GPs during the COVID period.&nbsp;You paid your doctor. But someone else paid moreTrust in one's doctor can seem intuitive; after all, the physician is being paid to take care of your health. Few people consider that they are not the only people paying doctors, though, and that their admittedly considerable bills are often dwarfed by what physicians receive from other sources.In 2014, the government decided to make some of this information freely available to the public, with the passage of the Physician Payments Sunshine Act. As the title of the legislation indicates, the intent of the legislators was not only to reveal how much money doctors and other healthcare workers were receiving from the pharmaceutical companies, but also to enable people to use this information to reduce corruption.&nbsp;How many people, however, have ever heard of <a href="https://openpaymentsdata.cms.gov/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">CMS Open Payments</a>? Not many, despite their website being extremely user-friendly. If you want to look up your local doctor and see who, aside from his patients, has been paying him, it is very simple to do so. A random inquiry into one Dr. Robert D. Abbott, of Virginia, for example, reveals that in 2021, he was paid $11.49 by AbbVie Inc. for “food and beverage.”Was $11.49 enough to change Dr. Abbott's prescribing practices? AbbVie, the maker of Humira for the treatment of autoimmune diseases, clearly believes that giving doctors money for food and drink is a worthwhile investment, however. In 2022, the pharma company handed out $17 million for “food and beverage” to doctors, in just over 870,000 payments, representing almost 15 percent of its total payments to healthcare workers that year.This sum is not atypical of pharma companies; Pfizer, for instance, handed out around $3.5 million to physicians that same year in almost 200,000 individual payments. Merck spent around $2.5 million in the same category of expenses — other categories include “travel and lodging,” “education,” “charitable contribution,” and compensation for serving as a speaker.<figure class="image"><img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/aflds/image/upload/v1714607691/abbvie_4d796864cd.png"></figure>&nbsp;Patients talk, but money talks louderIdentifying a clear cause-and-effect relationship between Pharma money and pharma prescriptions is not at all simple. However, some effect between money and physicians' actions has been acknowledged by at least one government. In 2017, the British National Health Service (NHS) decided to <a href="https://academic.oup.com/jac/article/73/10/2883/5043144?login=false" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">award</a> local health authorities £5 per person in their area if they managed to reduce the local level of antibiotic prescribing by at least one percent. The result? Prescriptions for antibiotics <a href="https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/186968/financial-incentives-help-drive-down-unnecessary/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">dropped</a> by at least three percent following the implementation of the scheme.This was doubly significant, because already several years before the financial incentive scheme, a huge campaign against over-prescribing of antibiotics was launched in the U.K., with very limited success, even though GPs were trained in the potential danger of antimicrobial resistance (AMR). According to an <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/soft-touch-gps-told-to-stop-giving-antibiotics-to-pushy-patients-so-as-to-curb-rise-of-drugresistant-superbugs-10459183.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">article </a>dating from 2015,&nbsp;<blockquote>Nine out of ten GPs say they feel pressurised to issue the prescriptions and 97 percent of patients who ask for them are prescribed them … As many as 10 million prescriptions, about a quarter of the annual total, are being given unnecessarily to patients who will not benefit from the drugs.</blockquote>&nbsp;Singling out physicians works as wellIn Australia, authorities tried a different approach to cutting the number of antibiotic prescriptions: <a href="https://theconversation.com/no-antibiotics-arent-always-needed-heres-how-gps-can-avoid-overprescribing-213981" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">“feedback letters”</a> sent out by the Health Department to certain doctors, telling them that they were prescribing far more antibiotics than the national average. The result of this campaign was apparently a drop of around nine percent in prescriptions.&nbsp;Name and shameThe personal approach has also been tried with some success in the U.S. back in 2018, when researchers in conjunction with the CDC and Medicare launched a <a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/08/07/636184559/dear-doctor-letters-use-peer-pressure-government-warning-to-stop-overprescribing?utm_campaign=KHN%3A%20First%20Edition&amp;utm_source=hs_email&amp;utm_medium=email&amp;utm_content=65018734&amp;_hsenc=p2ANqtz-_uAza7T_wksDL41S6Uwt8IHsD1diJAaI02thw5QgBLtjojWkYVMuYZvZqwLx8AH5zjOKUivuIVpbCBJhaMGT2ERlADCA&amp;_hsmi=65018734" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">“Dear Doctor” study</a> with the aim of cutting the number of prescriptions for Seroquel being handed out by GPs. Seroquel is a commonly prescribed neuroleptic ("antipsychotic") drug which is often used off label (that is, to treat symptoms and/or conditions for which it was not originally licensed).In this study, individual physicians received letters from Medicare telling them that they were writing many more prescriptions for the drug than the state average. The doctors were also told that they were “flagged”:<blockquote>You have been flagged as a markedly unusual prescriber, subject to review by the Center for Program Integrity.</blockquote>The study found that doctors cut back Seroquel prescriptions by around 16 percent as a result.&nbsp;Misguided compassion?Seroquel has its uses, of course, but when prescribed, for example, to the elderly population, it can frequently hasten a patient's demise. Don't doctors know this? Of course they do. The FDA issued a <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC556368/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">warning</a> on use of Seroquel in the elderly as far back as 2005. But perhaps many GPs simply find it hard to say “no” to someone who is exhausted from looking after an elderly parent with dementia and wants to give them something to “make them a bit easier to deal with.”&nbsp;In more notorious cases, doctors have been documented handing out antipsychotics to help parents deal with “difficult" children, with sometimes fatal results, as with the case of <a href="https://www.lubinandmeyer.com/news/psych_drugs.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Rebecca Riley</a>, who was just two when a doctor prescribed her Clonidine, Seroquel, and Depakote for “bipolar disorder.”&nbsp;Lots and lots of black boxesSeroquel is hardly the only dangerous drug being overprescribed. Most psychiatric drugs are handed out not by psychiatrists but by GPs, though it is unclear whether restricting the ability to prescribe these drugs to psychiatrists would have an impact on the number of prescriptions issued.What do GPs know about the dangers of psychiatric medication? <a href="https://www.madinamerica.com/2015/06/tail-wags-dog-eventually-dog-bites/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">According </a>to one recent medical school graduate, what she was taught about psychiatry amounted to:<blockquote>Elicit a list of symptoms, pick any diagnosis that seems to fit, and write a prescription for any SSRI.</blockquote>SSRIs, the most commonly prescribed class of antidepressants, have “boxed warnings” (once known as “black box warnings”). Horrific as the side effects can be, the withdrawal effects can be far worse. Do GPs know the extent of these adverse events? As recently as last year, the British Journal of General Practice published <a href="https://bjgp.org/content/73/728/138" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">advice </a>to GPs on antidepressant withdrawal. But SSRIs have been around for decades. Why do doctors still need to be educated on this topic?Apparently they do. In Australia, where <a href="https://www.madinamerica.com/2021/04/overprescribing-madness/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">around 90 percent</a> of all antidepressants are prescribed by GPs, clinical guidance is <a href="https://www.madinamerica.com/2021/12/family-physicians-must-change-antidepressant-prescribing-practices/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">not followed</a> in the majority of cases, with the average duration of “therapy” lasting for four years when the official recommendation is for between six and twelve months of treatment, and that only in moderate-to-severe cases.&nbsp;The gold still glitters in the sunshineWill more education help? Antibiotics and antidepressants remain among the most prescribed drugs. Even the Sunshine Act hasn't helped, according to a <a href="https://www.madinamerica.com/2021/04/transparency-not-enough-stem-tide-pharma-influence-medicine/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">study </a>conducted in 2021 which found that,<blockquote>… the mandated financial disclosures have not prevented physicians from being influenced by pharmaceutical industry money … Leading experts on financial conflicts of interest … investigated the policy's impact over the seven years it has been in effect. They found no evidence that physician behavior regarding financial conflicts of interest has changed in that time.</blockquote>The authors of the study concluded that,<blockquote>Disclosure is necessary but not sufficient to address the damage that industry relationships cause to medical knowledge and public health.</blockquote>&nbsp;Get it (the message) or dieCloser to “home,” how many GPs told their patients about the many reasons to doubt the safety of the COVID jabs? How many GPs were sufficiently well educated on the dangers, the multiple studies coming out, the background to the mRNA platform, and more, to be able to provide the possibility of informed consent?More alarmingly, a <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277953623005075" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">study</a> published in 2023 surveying primary care physicians on the methods they used to persuade hesitant patients to agree to be jabbed found that three percent of doctors admitted using “guilt/fear messaging” to “motivate” people, including making statements such as “get it or die.”

doctor money.jpg

Malpractice

Doctors, like the rest of us, often succumb to pressure — or money

95 percent of both Republicans & Democrats trust their personal physicians' advice. Should they?

<h2>Who controls your car?</h2>Could your car be controlled by someone or something other than yourself? This question is real, not imaginative, and may become more relevant to more drivers in the coming years. As Frontline News <a href="https://frontline.news/post/kill-switch-to-be-mandated-in-cars-by-2026-with-software-deciding-if-you-re-too-impaired-to-drive" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">reported</a>, infrastructure bill H.R.3684, Section 24220, Drunk and Impaired Driving Prevention Technology, mandates that by 2026 all new cars must include technology to passively monitor drivers for drunk or impaired driving.&nbsp;Should a car's software algorithm determine that the driver is impaired, it is required to “prevent or limit motor vehicle operation.” Although the bill does not explicitly use the term “kill switch,” most readers understand it to be just that.Former Congressman Robert Barr <a href="https://dailycaller.com/2021/11/29/barr-bidens-infrastructure-bill-contains-backdoor-kill-switch-for-cars/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">discussed</a> the bill with the Daily Caller in November 2021, shortly after Biden signed it. Among other issues, Barr raised concerns about data being stolen and cars being hacked and controlled by unauthorized parties.<blockquote>Everything about this mandatory measure should set off red flares.First, use of the word “passively” suggests the system will always be on and constantly monitoring the vehicle. Secondly, the system must connect to the vehicle’s operational controls, so as to disable the vehicle either before driving or during, when impairment is detected. Thirdly, it will be an “open” system, or at least one with a backdoor, meaning authorized (or unauthorized) third-parties can remotely access the system’s data at any time. (Emphases added.)</blockquote>Barr questioned who would have access to the data, how it could be accessed, and by whom — police without a warrant . . . private entities . . . hackers?<blockquote>Ironically, or perhaps intentionally, there also is no detail in the legislation about who would have access to the data collected and stored by the system. Could it be used by police, and could they access this information without a warrant? What about insurance companies, eager to know with what frequency their customers drove after drinking alcohol, even if it was below the legal limit? Such a trove of data presents a lucrative prize to all manner of public and private entities (including hackers), none of which have our best interests at heart.</blockquote><h2>Auto lenders already use kill switches</h2>Others have also expressed concern about hackers taking control of cars, for good reason.Kill switches have already been used, by companies providing sub-prime auto loans, to disable the cars of delinquent payers. Borrowers who have their cars disabled, without laws in place to protect drivers, face a variety of problems, some life-threatening.Is it likely that drivers affected by the 2026 mandate will face situations such as those described below?<h3>Cars permanently disabled</h3>Andy Grimm, writing for the Chicago Sun-Times, <a href="https://chicago.suntimes.com/2022/7/13/23206224/car-lot-lender-deactivated-cars-with-kill-switch-after-borrowers-fell-behind-on-payments-lawsuit" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">told</a> of a 2022 lawsuit being brought against a lender for using a kill-switch to permanently disable the cars of two individuals who lost their jobs in the spring of 2020, fell behind in their car payments, “and found their vehicles had stopped working thanks to a “vehicle starter interrupter switch” installed by their car dealers and lender.” Their cars have been sitting in front of their homes for two years.&nbsp;<h3>Car stopped while driving on the highway</h3>The HuffPost <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20220306012916/https://www.huffpost.com/entry/late-payment-a-kill-switch-can-strand-you-and-your_b_5bfd9668e4b052aa1843d8be" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">detailed</a> the dangerous situation one woman faced when her car was turned off while she was driving on a highway:<blockquote>[Las Vegas resident T. Candice] Smith in 2013 testified to the Nevada legislature that her car’s kill switch activated as she was driving down Interstate 15.“All of a sudden the steering wheel locked up and the car shut off,” she testified. “I was barely able to make it to the left shoulder. I was scared and shaking and had no idea what just happened.”</blockquote><h3>Few laws to protect car owners</h3>According to the HuffPost, few states have enacted laws regulating the use of kill switches.<blockquote>But only half a dozen states have enacted regulations on kill switches, including California, Colorado, Connecticut, Nevada and New Jersey. The laws vary, but all, at the least, require telling the borrower that the devices, which also have GPS tracking, are installed.The Colorado law specifically prohibits stopping the vehicle if doing so would pose a danger to its occupants, such as when it’s in motion. Most of the other laws call for 24 or 48 hours’ notice before the vehicle is disabled, and many allow grace periods or emergency overrides.Sophia Romero, staff attorney in the Consumer Rights Project at the Legal Aid Center of Southern Nevada, said it took years and a series of lawsuits for the law in her state to catch up with the practice of installing the devices on cars. (Emphasis added.)</blockquote><h3>Hackers could stop your car, too</h3>Vintage race car driver Lauren Fix reported on 'kill switches' for Car Coach Reports (in the below video @3:05), noting the potential for hackers to retrieve a driver's data stored by the system and even take control of a vehicle.<blockquote>. . . tracking that data also makes it possible for bad actors to retrieve that because it's open.&nbsp;More pressing than the privacy concerns though are the safety issues included is an automatic kill switch with internet access. Now we all know that hackers have accessed cars before and they can access this system and this represents an obvious scenario that a malicious agent could disable your vehicle remotely with no warning.</blockquote>&nbsp;<div class="raw-html-embed"><iframe width="1046" height="523" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/meTUTfliL9o" title="Biden's Bill Has BACK DOOR KILL Switch On YOUR CAR by 2026" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen=""></iframe></div>&nbsp;Commenters on a FrontPage Magazine article about the law governing kill switches were likewise <a href="https://www.frontpagemag.com/the-kill-switch/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">concerned</a> about cars being stopped/hacked while being driven:<blockquote>What happens when someone like China hacks the system and shuts all the cars down?This is a really bad idea. What happens in an emergency? No fleeing from criminals, violent mobs, natural disasters, or dashes to the hospital. These things take more than 15 seconds. [This refers to a California law requiring technology to prevent cars from going10 miles above the speed limit: “New cars will have a special button on the dash. If you suddenly need to speed and manage to find the button when trying to drive out of some bad situation, and it lets you speed for 15 seconds.”] Cars losing power on busy freeways already cause accidents, and just traffic jams, if you’re lucky. I can also foresee people’s cars being shut down just when they’re driving and eating. (Emphasis added,)________________________________________I’m a non-driver, but even my non-existent expertise would lead me to question how any manufacturer can guarantee that shut-down would occur in a safe and controlled way. What if the car stops itself suddenly and the driver behind you rams your car? Unless an on-board computer can evaluate all of the external factors, there is no way that this is any safer than relying on human judgement (most people want to survive, which is the sort of consideration that is unlikely to be factored into a computer’s processes)________________________________________. . . imagine an interstate highway, where the cars cruise along at 70 mph, and some hacker, or misguided government employee hist this kills switch? There would be a 40 car pileup, with dead and injured all over the place. Terrorists wouldn’t have to use car bombs anymore, just shut off some cars on a busy, fast moving highway, and enjoy the carnage from an overpass. . . . I wonder how long before the aftermarket will start selling a way to kill for the kill switch, along with the surveillance equipment, if they are not already? (Emphases added.)</blockquote><h2 style="margin-left:0px;">Congress won't defund mandate implementation</h2>In his article, Barr said that, after the law is implemented we would lose “the freedom of the open road" that individual car ownership brought to the American Dream."&nbsp;Representative Thomas Massie <a href="https://repcloakroom.house.gov/amendment/amendments-to-h-r-4820-transportation-housing-and-urban-development-and-related-agencies-appropriations-act-2024/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">attempted</a> to preserve that freedom, this past November, with a proposed amendment to the Congressional bill that would remove funding for enforcing the law: &nbsp;<blockquote>Amendment No. 60 – Prohibits funds from being used to implement Sec. 24220 of the IIJA, which mandates new vehicles include a kill switch to monitor diver performance and prevent vehicle operation.&nbsp;</blockquote>As Massie explained in the video below, he wants to feel confident that the car will continue operating when he takes his family on trips.&nbsp;<blockquote>Allowing the car to disable itself I think is troublesome. We don’t have a lot of time. This is supposed to be implemented in 2026. And I don’t know about you all, but I would like to know when I put my family in the car and I’m taking a trip somewhere, the car is not going to disqualify me.&nbsp;</blockquote>&nbsp;<div class="raw-html-embed"><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/1DIZJEWE6KE?si=d3Xt52Vqny4R-A_i" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen=""></iframe></div>&nbsp;Massie's amendment, to defund the ‘kill switch’ mandate, ultimately failed to pass as nineteen House Republicans joined Democrats to <a href="https://100percentfedup.com/update-19-house-republicans-vote-against-defunding-kill-switch-mandate-for-new-vehicles/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">defeat</a> the amendment, allowing the law to pass in its original form with provisions for implementing the “kill switch” mandate.Related articles:&nbsp;<a href="https://frontline.news/post/kill-switch-to-be-mandated-in-cars-by-2026-with-software-deciding-if-you-re-too-impaired-to-drive" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">'Kill Switch' to be mandated in cars by 2026 with software deciding if you're too impaired to drive</a><a href="https://frontline.news/post/cars-to-be-programmed-to-limit-speed-if-california-bill-becomes-law">Cars to be programmed to limit speed if California bill becomes law</a>

car hacker.jpg

Technology

surveillance

Auto loan company activated 'switch' as woman drove down Interstate 15

Will hackers be able to stop your car with mandated 'Kill Switch?'

<h2>How much of your safety should you delegate to government?&nbsp;</h2>In the name of safety, the government has taken steps that critics say have denied citizens what used to be considered inalienable constitutional rights.Citizens are concerned that their right to freedom of speech under the First Amendment is being <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-social-media-sites-government-content-misinformation-censorship/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">denied</a>, ostensibly, to keep citizens safe from "harmful misinformation," and fear that the Second Amendment right to bear arms is being <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/US/amendment-losing-relevance-gun-debate/story?id=79474562" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">infringed</a> upon to combat gun violence. Watchdogs further contend that citizens are being denied the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination and the Sixth Amendment's right to face one's accuser when technology is used to gather evidence.&nbsp;The fear now is that increased use of technology will soon mean an even greater loss of privacy and further erosion of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, due to certain provisions in Joe Biden's infrastructure bill which will soon become mandatory. Under the guise of keeping citizens safe by preventing drunk driving, it may amount to ceding the freedom to travel to government control.<h2>H.R.3684 - Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act</h2><h3>Drunk and Impaired Driving Prevention Technology&nbsp;</h3>The infrastructure bill, <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3684" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">HR. 3684</a>, passed by both chambers of Congress and signed by Biden on November 15, 2021, includes a provision for several vehicle monitoring technologies to be installed in cars, which have recently or will soon be required in new vehicles, including technology to determine if a driver is drunk or impaired.&nbsp;The Center for Automotive Research's Eric Paul Dennis <a href="https://www.cargroup.org/a-brief-overview-of-the-light-vehicle-safety-provisions-of-the-infrastructure-investment-and-jobs-act/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">reviewed</a> the bill and summarized “key sections.” Dennis, a senior transportation systems analyst, reviewed the section on “Drunk and Impaired Driving Prevention Technology” (HR 3684 Section 24220) and explained that Congress gave the NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) the role of determining exactly what this section means and how it will be implemented:<blockquote>This provision directs NHTSA to issue a rule to require “advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology” in new light vehicles.<ul><li>Congress tasked NHTSA with interpreting this law, including establishing the statutory meaning of “impaired.”</li><li>The legislation directs NHTSA to adopt a new safety mandate by 15 November 2024 and begin enforcing it by September 2027 (at the latest) if this is feasible. [Emphasis added.]</li></ul></blockquote><h3>Impaired driving not defined</h3>Others, such as Michael Satterfield, writing as The Gentleman Racer®, were more detailed in their review of the legislation. Satterfield <a href="https://www.thegentlemanracer.com/2022/01/infrastructure-bill-includes-kill.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">poured</a> through the 1,039-page infrastructure bill. He agreed that good roads, bridges, and safety are important to automotive enthusiasts, but wrote that he uncovered some concerning legislation "buried deep within HR.3684." The legislation calls not only for changes in crash testing and advanced pedestrian crash standards but also for a "kill switch" to be standard for all new vehicles by 2026.Satterfield explained that all new vehicles will be required to have passive monitoring systems for the driver's behavior and an algorithm will determine if the driver is too impaired to operate the vehicle. If the algorithm decides that the driver is too impaired to operate the car, the program will have some means of taking control of the vehicle. But what constitutes impairment and what the program will actually do was not explained by the legislation, as Satterfield noted:<blockquote>What is not outlined in the bill is what constitutes impairment, outside of the blood alcohol standard, how does the software determine the difference between being tired and being impaired? Passive blood alcohol testing won’t detect impairment from prescription painkillers or other narcotics.&nbsp;The bill also doesn’t outline what happens when a vehicle detects a driver may be impaired other than that the system must “prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if an impairment is detected” which is all well and good in a bar’s parking lot. But what will this system do if an “impairment is detected” while traveling at 75 mph on the highway? [Emphasis added.]</blockquote><h3>Accused by your own car's surveillance system</h3>Satterfield's greatest concern was the question of individual privacy that a vehicle that monitors the driver raises, including who will have access to the data, and other issues such as the right not to self-incriminate under the Fifth Amendment and the Sixth Amendment right to face your accuser.&nbsp;He also expressed concern that most drivers will not be aware of the new technology until it affects them in some way:<blockquote>Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the legislation is the lack of detail. The main concerns expressed by many, including former U.S.Rep. Bobb Barr, come down to privacy. Who will have access to the data? How long will it be stored? Will this capability be exploitable by third-party or government agencies to shut down vehicles outside of the function of preventing impaired driving?&nbsp;Privacy concerns and the 5th Amendment’s right to not self-incriminate, and the 6th Amendment’s right to face one’s accuser, have already been used to challenge data collection from license plate readers and redlight cameras. Automakers have little choice but to comply with new federal mandates and the majority of consumers will likely be unaware of this new technology until it impacts them in some way. [Emphasis added.]</blockquote><h3>Freedom or control?</h3>John Stossel recently <a href=" https://www.frontpagemag.com/the-kill-switch/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">interviewed</a> former vintage race car driver Lauren Fix (video below) about what she believes are the implications of the soon-to-be-implemented impaired driving technology, as reported on FrontPage Magazine.&nbsp;Fix pointed out that the algorithm cannot determine what exactly is happening in the car and with the driver and asks Stossel how much control over his life he is willing to give up:&nbsp;<blockquote>Are you willing to give up every bit of control of your life? &nbsp;Once you give that up, you have no more freedom. This computer decides you can’t drive your vehicle. Great. Unless someone’s having a heart attack and trying to get to the hospital.”</blockquote>California, Fix pointed out, already requires vehicle software to limit excess speed to 10 miles over the limit, legislation about which Frontline News <a href="https://frontline.news/post/cars-to-be-programmed-to-limit-speed-if-california-bill-becomes-law" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">reported</a>.Fix also revealed to Stossel that some companies already collect and sell driver data and proceeded to outline further abuses that could occur as a result of computer surveillance technology such as charging for mileage or monitoring your “carbon footprint” and deciding that you maxed out on your monthly carbon credits so you can't drive anymore till the following month. Or perhaps the car won't start because the software determines you may be on your way to purchase a firearm.<div class="raw-html-embed"><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/N29AaHnzGGM?si=NFbrmdgVVYm75xvs" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</div>&nbsp;<h2>What about hackers?</h2>Can hackers access a vehicle's software and take control of someone's car? This possibility is another worrying aspect of the infrastructure bill, which Frontline News will discuss in an upcoming report.&nbsp;Related articles:&nbsp;<a href="https://frontline.news/post/cars-to-be-programmed-to-limit-speed-if-california-bill-becomes-law">Cars to be programmed to limit speed if California bill becomes law</a>

car tech.jpg

Questions not answered - how can it be sure, what will happen next, and what about your privacy?

'Kill Switch' to be mandated in cars by 2026 with software deciding if you're too impaired to drive 

Raisman.jpg

US News

More than 100 claims that DOJ grossly mishandled allegations of sexual assault but aggressively prosecuted J6 trespassers

Taxpayers foot $138.7 million bill for DOJ's failure to stop sexual assaults; hush money silenced victim

TV personality blames ‘anti-vaxxers’ for COVID bout

'That’ll teach me for listening to ill-informed anti-vaxx imbeciles'

Related Articles

'As a live virus, the MMR can cause measles' - Dr. Lawrence Palevesky

Are crowded and unsanitary conditions responsible for Chicago shelter measles outbreak?

Measles by the numbers - perspective to the panic

US military active duty corps to drop to smallest size since WWII, says Pentagon

Latest Articles

95 percent of both Republicans & Democrats trust their personal physicians' advice. Should they?

Will hackers be able to stop your car with mandated 'Kill Switch?'

'Kill Switch' to be mandated in cars by 2026 with software deciding if you're too impaired to drive

Taxpayers foot $138.7 million bill for DOJ's failure to stop sexual assaults; hush money silenced victim