The Theo Von Gaza Problem, Brain-Dead Pregnant Woman Forced To Stay Alive, & Today’s News
PDS Published 05/21/2025
-
That is the conversation that is happening after he shared a clip where he expressed sympathy and heartbreak for those in Gaza, and called the conflict a genocide.
“There is a conflict that has been happening in the middle east, people know about it, that is between Israel and Palestine and some of the areas over there, the Gaza area they talk about. And it just think it, it feels to me that it’s a genocide that is happening while we are alive here in front of our lives. Sometimes I wonder if I should say something, I’m not a geologist or geographer, so I don’t know a lot of the…some of it I do know, though. Like I know the basics of the issues over there. But for me, it’s how I feel.” (0:19-1:09)
Right, saying he has seen photos of people and children and families with their body parts hurt or scattered, and it feels hard to watch this without speaking out about it.
With him adding:
“I think we are watching, probably like, one of the sickest things that has ever happened. And I’m sorry if I haven’t said…I’ve tried to talk about it and learn about it.” (1:40-1:53)
“And it’s crazy because our country is also complicit in it. And it has been for a long time. (2:03-2:09)
And he shared that clip on Twitter and TikTok yesterday with the caption: “What are we doing? 💔”][
Though, he actually originally said all this during an episode of his podcast earlier this month, but he got a whole new wave of responses after sharing the clip on social media.
With some shocked he shared this opinion, especially since he is often considered part of the podcasting “manosphere,” or at least as overlapping with that community, some even seeing him as a Joe Rogan heir-apparant.
Right, he also attended Trump’s inauguration alongside people like the Paul brothers.
So some on the left were pleasantly surprised that he felt this way about Gaza, writing:
“It’s so important for people like Theo von to be saying this stuff with their demographic.”[]
“say what you will about theo but this really does speak to how a majority of americans feel about what’s happening in gaza and how powerless we feel watching our own government take part in it.”
But he also got a ton of backlash for a ton of different reasons.
Right, you had some mad he is speaking out against this, but was not as vocal about October 7. [][]
Others on both sides of this issue kind of just thinking he did understand this conflict enough to be delivering a take on it. []
The likes of Tim Pool saying:
“It's one thing to criticize the war. It's another to call it a genocide. Massive swing to one side on an issue he doesnt know much about.”[]
With some especially pointing to the fact that he said he’s not a “geologist” as evidence that he is not educated here, and writing:[]
“Unpopular opinion: This is why not every content creator should speak out/give their opinion on stuff like this. ‘Im not a geographer or geologist’ like what the fuck is this. If you really care then use the platform to spread educated peoples voices on it, not whatever this is.”[]
But others did defend him against this backlash, saying:
“I think it's fair to say that what he is expressing here is a normal, fair, and relatable reaction. It is easy to dunk on him for the ‘geologist’ comment or to ask about the hostages, but the reality is Theo is like most people who just see suffering — kids buried in rubble, parents weeping over dead bodies, neighborhoods destroyed — and want it to stop. His feelings and empathy seem entirely genuine. This is a deeply human and good thing, and we shouldn't demean him or anyone else for having them.”[]
But that is not where the controversy ended, because people were also frustrated that he said this even though he associates himself with Trump.
Right, he was just in Miami with Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner, and made an appearance during Trump’s visit to Qatar, doing a stand-up set before the president delivered remarks. []
So some say that he’s not just MAGA-adjacent, he is fully part of Team Trump.
And as you probably know, Trump is not seen as very Gaza-friendly, to put it lightly, and even shared a video reimagining the Gaza strip as like, a giant Mar-a-Lago.
So you had some thinking Theo is a hypocrite for condemning the U.S. government’s actions one minute, then playing buddy with Trump and his family the next, writing:
“Theo you voted for and attended an inauguration of a man who joked about building hotels over the top of the wreckage… you supported the man who funded it with a smile.”[]
Arguing that no one should fall for his “crocodile tears” and that his sympathy for Gaza in that clip is just performative.[][]
Others just saying:
“I don’t entirely understand Theo Von as a person or character; he stays within undefined lines that keep him from committing to any idea or belief. I’ve seen him talk about Gaza a few times, very earnestly. But he remains muted with his words, does not bring on dedicated guests who could give necessary context to him & his audience. He is one of the biggest podcasters in the country right now, he just was flown out by Trump to perform at the U.S. base in Qatar and he hangs w/Ivanka and Jared. He’s not just some helpless everyday guy as he presents himself here.”[]
And so I would love to know your thoughts on what Theo said, where you think his place is in speaking out about this, and what you think of the responses and the backlash regarding his ties to Trump.
-
OnlyFans users could now be going to prison in Sweden!
Right, the Swedish Parliament just passed a law equating the purchase of sexual content online with purchasing sex from a prostitute. []
Which is already illegal in Sweden - with a punishment of up to a year in prison for the buyer. []
And under this new law - which is set to take effect July 1st - it will be illegal to pay someone to carry out a sexual act remotely for the specific purpose of that act being viewed by the buyer. []
Or in other words, it isn’t a complete ban on internet porn - it’s meant to target live, specially-commissioned interactions.
Watching prerecorded content is still legal and you can even watch lives as long as you’re not paying for a specific act. []
But the type of content that they have made illegal here spells some serious trouble for sites like OnlyFans.
Because those live, specially commissioned interactions are both incredibly popular and incredibly lucrative for performers. []
Now, if you’re out there asking yourself what beef the Swedish government has with OnlyFans, it’s not quite that simple.
During parliamentary debate, lawmakers argued that this law is meant to address the dangerous aspects of online sex work - with one MP saying,
“This is about digitalized prostitution, where the boundaries between pornography and human trafficking are blurred but where exploitation and abuse are present.” []
With another MP saying after the bill passed,
“This is a new form of sex purchase, and it’s high time we modernize the legislation to include digital platforms.” []
And we’re seeing a lot of people both celebrating and heavily criticizing this move.
With advocates saying the new law makes the standard on sex work in Sweden uniform and clear - what’s illegal in person, is now illegal digitally. []
And the digital world can no longer be an “entry point” for prostitution.
But the criticism of this is coming from a couple different places -
With some saying it’s just born of moral panic while others say that it doesn’t go far enough and have called for the ban of platforms like OnlyFans altogether. []
Then there are concerns that this law could end up arbitrary as performers and fans find loopholes. []
And if performers decide not to search for those loopholes, they could find themselves in a rough spot legally.
So we’re just going to have to wait and see how things play out from here.
In the meantime, I’d love to know your thoughts about this in those comments down below.
-
And then, let’s talk about abortion.
Or, more specifically, let’s talk about this recent wave of advertising and messaging we have seen from reproductive healthcare nonprofits, starting with Planned Parenthood.
Because the group just got backing from dozens of big stars for a campaign that started today with a full page ad in the New York Times.
It is dubbed the “I’m For Planned Parenthood” initiative, and per Rolling Stone, it comes in response to the Trump administration’s attacks on Planned Parenthood. ]]
Right, back in April, they announced plans to freeze family planning funds for the group, a move that will cut access to birth control, cancer screenings, and more.
So this new campaign highlights the threats reproductive healthcare is facing, []
And it also states that:
“1 in 4 people in the U.S. have been to a Planned Parenthood health center for care: birth control, cancer screenings, wellness exams, STI testing and treatment, abortion, gender affirming care, and more.”
With big names signing onto it, including Pedro Pascal, Olivia Rodrigo, Addison Rae, Harry Styles, Megan Thee Stallion, and more.
With Planned Parenthood thanking those stars on Instagram and writing that “healthcare decisions should be made by patients, not politicians.” []
And Planned Parenthood is not the only group trying to raise awareness here lately.
With Axios reporting that a group called the Brigid Alliance is rolling out campaigns in Florida, Louisiana, and Georgia. []
The Brigid Alliance’s specific focus is helping people who need to travel out of state for abortion care, helping to cover transportation, lodging, coordination, childcare, and more.
And in Florida, the group will target internet users on Facebook, Instagram, and more with digital and audio ads about their services. []
In Georgia, the group will run two static billboards around the Atlanta area for a month, posting these billboard trucks in front of universities and crisis pregnancy centers. []
And it comes as right now, there is a ton of focus on abortion laws in Georgia because of the case of Adriana (A-dree-on-uh) Smith.
She is a 30-year-old nurse in Atlanta, and according to her family, she was about nine weeks pregnant when she was declared brain dead in February.[]
And her story started getting a lot of attention over the last week after her family told local news Adriana (A-dree-on-uh) has been on life support for more than 90 days since she was declared brain dead, and is now 21 weeks pregnant.
With the hospital telling her family they are keeping her alive until the baby can be delivered due to the state’s abortion ban.
And as you can imagine, this has sparked outrage and a ton of debate on how strict abortion laws should be interpreted in cases like this.
Because this most likely just ends in all around tragedy, right, medical experts told the Washington Post that they know of no cases where a mother who was declared brain dead this early in pregnancy but kept on life support was able to have a healthy and successful delivery.
With Adriana (A-dree-on-uh)’s family saying that they don’t know what will happen, and they don’t know what choice they would have made if they had been given any options, but what is frustrating is that they have no say at all. []
With a Democratic state senator also writing that:
“This is a grotesque distortion of medical ethics and human decency. That any law in Georgia could be interpreted to require a brain-dead woman's body to be artificially maintained as a fetal incubator is not only medically unsound — it is inhumane."
The state’s Attorney General, Chris Carr, has denied that Georgia's abortion law mandates this, with his office writing that:
"There is nothing in the LIFE Act that requires medical professionals to keep a woman on life support after brain death. Removing life support is not an action 'with the purpose to terminate a pregnancy.’"
But the hospital, Emory Healthcare, maintains it:[]
“uses consensus from clinical experts, medical literature, and legal guidance to support our providers as they make individualized treatment recommendations in compliance with Georgia's abortion laws and all other applicable laws.”
And some legal experts can see how they landed here.
With a professor at Drexel University telling the AP that the hospital is likely concerned about the part of the law that gives fetuses legal rights as “members of the species Homo sapiens.”[]
Meaning the hospital likely feels it has to consider Adriana (A-dree-on-uh) and the fetus as two separate patients, meaning there is an obligation to keep the fetus alive even if she is dead.
With that professor adding:
“These are the kind of cases that law professors have been talking about for a long time when they talk about fetal personhood.”
And even though Carr slammed this interpretation of the law, Republican state Sen. Ed Setzler supported it, saying:[]
“I think it is completely appropriate that the hospital do what they can to save the life of the child. I think this is an unusual circumstance, but I think it highlights the value of innocent human life. I think the hospital is acting appropriately.”
And so the public outrage in this case has just been massive, with her family starting a GoFundMe for medical costs that has raised nearly $100,000, with people writing things like:[]
“It is a misuse of power, a violation of dignity, and a painful delay of sacred closure. Your daughter’s soul deserves peace.”
“You should have been given a choice. We should all be rioting outside of that hospital and demanding this broken law be rectified.”
But I would love to know your thoughts on any of this here.
Click here Seed and use code DEFRANCO25 to get 25% off your 1st month’s supply of Seed’s DS-01®️ Daily Synbiotic + Free shipping!
-
House Speaker Mike Johnson says Trump’s “big, beautiful” tax bill could go up for a vote as soon as tonight, and the president himself claimed that the GOP is “tremendously unified.”
But key members of the party are saying the exact opposite.
Right, we’ve talked about the bill several times over the last few weeks.
But the top-level TLDR is that the measure — which was drafted by House Republicans — would set key parts of Trump’s legislative agenda.
With the bulk of the initial legislation being composed of more than $4 trillion in tax cuts.
Which include the extension of the 2017 cuts made under the first Trump administration.
But in order to pay for that, the GOP has proposed a series of cost-cutting measures.
Including, among other things, massive cuts to food stamps and Medicaid that will force millions of poor Americans to lose their health insurance and other key benefits.
But, even then, a preliminary analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that the proposal would add roughly $2.3 trillion to the debt over the next decade.
A figure that many economists and Wall Street investors find incredibly alarming.
And one that would force officials to mandate across-the-board spending cuts, including slashing Medicare by nearly $500 billion over ten years.
What’s more, the CBO also found that Republicans’ “big, beautiful bill” would hurt the poorest Americans as it benefits the richest.
Estimating that, in 2027, the bottom 10% would lose the equivalent of 2% of their income, largely thanks to reduced benefits.
But meanwhile, the top 10% is projected to see an increase of 4% thanks to the Trump tax cuts.
So, needless to say, Democrats wholeheartedly oppose this legislation, leaving Republicans scrambling to cobble together enough of their slim majority — and scramble they have.
Right, it’s been an absolute nightmare trying to get the divided party to hash out the final details.
On one side, you have hard-line conservatives urging deeper cuts to offset the trillions of dollars of tax cuts, with them specifically pushing to slash Medicaid and other federal benefits programs even more.
But more moderate members and representatives from blue states or swing districts have rejected further cuts to programs that their constituents rely on.
Additionally, another major sticking point for that group is the cap on the state and local tax deduction — also known as SALT — which allows taxpayers to write off the amount they paid in local taxes when they file federal taxes.
But many conservative hawks have been skeptical of or outright opposed to any additional increases to the cap, which the initial legislation already bumped from $10,000 to $30,000.
And with all this, yesterday we saw Trump going to the House to throw his weight around, trying to persuade members to get his party to rally behind this bill — and seemingly at times even threatening them.
Right, when asked if lawmakers who oppose the bill should face primary challengers, Trump responded, “possibly,” and later added:
“They wouldn’t be a Republican much longer. They would be knocked out so fast.”
Trump also went on to single out Rep. Thomas Massie — a libertarian who has been outspoken about his opposition to the bill’s spending levels — with the president telling reporters:
“He doesn’t understand government. He should be voted out of office.”
But, more generally speaking, Trump played to the middle of his caucus, reportedly telling more hawkish members not to “f--- around with Medicaid benefits,” while also instructing moderates to just accept the SALT deduction cap as-is.
With Trump emerging from the meeting expressing confidence that his party will pass the tax bill, declaring that the GOP is “tremendously unified.”
But, in reality, that does not seem to be the case — and it’s unclear how much of an impact Trump actually had in swaying members.
Right, according to The Washington Post, despite Trump’s visits, the GOP’s narrow majority remained “far from unified around the proposal.”
And even after the meeting, things were still so tenuous that the House Rules Committee — which needs to pass the measure first before it can go to a full floor vote — had to hold a rare, overnight meeting to hash out the final details.
With members convening at 1 a.m. and debating well into the morning.
And as the Rules Committee debated, Speaker Johnson and other GOP leaders worked behind the scenes to negotiate with the remaining holdouts.
With Johnson reportedly promising the Rules Committee at the beginning of their overnight meeting that he would get them a new version of the bill built on his ongoing negotiations.
But, according to The New York Times, after eight hours of debate, Johnson had failed to deliver any modifications.
Now, that said, the Speaker did announce that he had indeed reached a deal with moderate Republican holdouts who wanted an increase on the SALT deduction cap.
Confirming that they had agreed to raise the cap to $40,000 beginning in 2025 for taxpayers earning less than $500,000.
And this morning, while speaking about the agreement, he expressed very high optimism that the tax bill would pass — and soon — telling reporters:
“We plan to do it tonight if possible.”
But you also had the more hawkish Republicans disputing that, with Rep. Andy Harris — the chair of the ultra-conservative House Freedom Caucus — telling Newsmax:
“I think, actually, we're further away from a deal because that SALT cap increase upset a lot of conservatives.”
“We actually stopped negotiating before midnight because we actually had a deal that was then pulled off the table, so again this bill actually got worse overnight.”
And then explicitly adding: “There is no way it passes today.”
Though, notably here, he did appear to walk back those statements a little after a private meeting with Johnson.
Saying that the fiscal-hardliners in the party saw “a pathway forward” and were “greatly encouraged by the progress that’s been made in the last 24 hours.”
But also reiterating that he still doesn’t think the legislation can be passed today or even this week.
And to that point, you also had another conservative leader indicating that the bill may not get passed by the Memorial Day deadline Johnson has set.
Calling it a “a completely arbitrary deadline” and arguing that it is “more important to get this right, to get it correct than to get it fast.”
Though, that said, there is sort of a deadline — right, a big element of this bill is that it also raises the debt ceiling, which sets the amount of money the government can borrow to pay its bills.
And the Treasury Secretary has said that lawmakers have until mid-July to increase the debt limit or risk a disastrous default.
But regardless, what we’re hearing from key Republicans on the ground here seems to fly in the face of everything Johnson and Trump have said.
But for now, we’ll just have to wait and see how this plays out and if they can actually get this bill to the House floor.
But even if that does eventually happen, the measure still faces weeks of debate in the Senate, where changes are expected.
And while Republicans are trying to pass this bill using a reconciliation process, which allows them to bypass the filibuster, the complicated rules that come with that process could still threaten its chances of success.
Though very notably here, on the topic of the Senate, we also saw the chamber unexpectedly passing the No Tax on Tips Act.
Which is exactly what you think: a bill that would eliminate the federal income tax for tips.
And specifically, the legislation — which was introduced by Sen. Ted Cruz and a bipartisan group of senators — would create a federal income tax deduction of up to $25,000 a year for tips given in cash, credit and debit card, and checks.
So, as a result, eligible employees will be able to claim a 100% deduction in their tax filings for up to $25,000 in earned tips each year.
Though, notably, there is a cap for employees who made more than $160,000 in the last tax year —a limit that increase with inflation.
And the fact that this measure passed the Senate was surprising for a few reasons.
First of all, it’s just a miracle when any legislation can pass with bipartisan support.
Right, while the idea of taxing tips has garnered widespread support from across the political spectrum, it is something that was actually really popularized by Trump, who made it a key promise during his campaign.
In fact, part of the reason we’re talking about this now is because Trump’s “big, beautiful” tax bill also includes a provision that would pause taxes on tipped wages and overtime pay.
But Democrats — who oppose the bill — have argued that this effort would be doomed if it stays in the tax package.
What’s more, this also presents an opportunity for them to show that they support this particular idea, just not the rest of the tax proposal.
Which brings us to the second reason this vote came as a surprise, which is that the way the No Tax on Tips Act was passed was very unusual.
Right, Democratic Sen. Jacky Rosen — who co-sponsored the bill — brought it up for approve through a process called “unanimous consent.”
Which allows any lawmaker to go Senate floor and seek passage of legislation as long as no other member objects.
And normally, unanimous consent is used for more routine and procedural matters — with POLITICO explaing that “unanimous consent success rates are not high for major changes to the tax code.”
And while you had many applauding the move — and particularly the rare show of bipartisanship — many experts have also said this proposal won’t actually do much to help working Americans.
Even though some projections show it will cost the federal government between $10 billion to $15 billion in lost revenue every year.
Right, according to an analysis by Yale’s Budget Lab, tipped workers “do not make up a large share” of the labor force.
And those who do tend to be “much younger than non-tipped workers” and do not make enough to pay federal income tax anyway.
In fact, some economists have even said this move could end up hurting low-income tipped workers because it would increase their total income enough to make them ineligible for other, more significant tax benefits.
With some progressive groups further warning that this plan could just distract from other policies that could more successfully benefit working-class and low-income Americans.
But, as far as what happens next, the No Tax on Tips Act will still need to be passed by the House and signed by Trump.
Though, with that, you had Senator Cruz indicating that the measure could be passed as part of the broader tax bill.
And because a version of it is already included in that legislation, it seems like House leaders would probably opt to keep it that way rather than hold a whole separate vote.
But that decision will ultimately depend on the fate of the “big, beautiful bill” — which brings us back full circle to where we started.
And so we’ll have to see how this plays out, but I’d really love to know what you think about all this.
The tax bill in general, but also the tipped wages debate — especially if you have ever been a tipped worker.
-
The Japanese minister of agriculture has been forced to resign after saying he doesn’t buy his own rice because he gets it for free.
And while that may seem like an odd or out-of-touch comment to many of us, in Japan, at least right now? It’s fucking blasphemy.
And that’s because the country is in the middle of a major rice shortage that’s massively raising the price of its staple crop –
All while there’s a broader cost of living crisis to contend with.
And with this also all happening only a couple months before a pivotal election that could seriously shake up Japanese politics.
But before we get into all that, let’s start with this minister’s controversial comment about where he gets his rice.
Basically, while speaking at a fundraiser over the weekend, he claimed he had “never bought rice [himself] because [his] supporters donate so much to [him] that [he] can practically sell it”. []
With this quickly sparking widespread outrage across the country, and one opposition leader describing the comment as “extremely inappropriate, out of touch and intolerable.” []
And with that, the opposition threatened to submit a no-confidence motion against him if he didn’t resign voluntarily.
And that’s exactly what he did, with him apologizing for what he described as his“extremely inappropriate remark.” []
But then also seemingly trying to defend his words, reportedly claiming he does actually buy white rice himself and that his comment referred only to brown rice –
Which he wants people to become interested in because it can reach the market faster. []
And to be fair, any option may be on the table, because even after a couple years, the situation just does not seem to be getting any better.
Right, the country has been struggling with rice shortages ever since hot weather messed with the harvest in 2023.
It got worse last summer after the government issued its first ever “megaquake” warning – which led to panic buying – with the crisis also more broadly being blamed on global warming, overtourism, and higher fertilizer and production costs.
And then, on top of that, wholesalers and distributors are reportedly thought to be hoarding rice stocks to get ready for more potential shortages. []
And maybe most notably, you have many experts saying this ultimately all goes back to the government.
With them specifically pointing to decades-old polices purportedly meant to protect small-scale farmers but which have actually kept newcomers from buying or using agricultural land – leaving thousands of acres uncultivated.
And with that, they say efforts to reform the system have been stopped by the national farming cooperative and other rural interests, which solidly support the ruling Liberal Democratic Party. []
Which, notably, has governed the country almost continuously since 1955.
In snap elections last year, however, the party lost its majority in the lower house of parliament for the first time in fifteen years – with prime minister Shigeru Ishiba (PRONUNCIATION) forced to work with the opposition to form a coalition in order for the party to hang on to power.
And in July, there’ll be another election – this one for the upper house in parliament – and another big loss could mean the prime minister has to step down. []
And the rice situation – and everything connected to it? It seems to be one of the major issues on voters’ minds, especially as the government has tried and failed again and again to do something about it.
Right, in February, for example, announcing unprecedented plans to release up to 210,000 tons of rice from emergency stockpiles.
And in April, when the situation still hadn't improved, importing rice from South Korea for the first time in 25 years.
But still, earlier this month, the average price of rice sold at supermarkets reached a record-high 4,268 yen for 5 kilograms, or about $29 for 11 pounds – around double the price of the previous year. []
And with that, according to one recent poll, the prime minister’s approval rating dropped more than 5 percentage points in just one month. []
Notably, with the same poll revealing that 87% of respondents viewed the government's response to rising rice prices as inadequate. []
And so now you have the guy replacing the former agriculture minister telling reporters that he was “ told to put rice before anything” – saying:
“At this difficult time, I will do my utmost to speedily tackle the high rice prices that people feel and worry about in their everyday lives.” []
But of course, we’ll have to wait and see what they try next, if it actually works, and what kind of impact it has on the election.
-
Members of the World Health Organization have overwhelmingly voted to adopt the first treaty aimed at preventing, preparing for and responding to any future pandemic.
And notably, of course, the United States isn’t one of them since Donald Trump signed an executive order pulling the country out of the organization on his very first day back in office.
And in fact, with that, his administration is now also reportedly poised to restrict access to COVID-19 vaccines – which is notable because the COVID-19 pandemic?
It’s the whole reason we have this treaty in the first place.
Right, starting there, these talks started way back at the end of 2021, with the head of the WHO claiming the previous year and a half had “shone a light on the many flaws in the global system to protect people from pandemics.”
And notably, since then, we’ve seen the whole effort almost fall apart thanks to false claims that the treaty would involve countries ceding sovereignty to the WHO or give it the power to impose lockdowns and vaccine mandates –
Which, to be clear, is not the case.
Right, the treaty establishes a framework for preventing pandemics from even starting – including by boosting surveillance of animals to lower the risk of viruses spilling over to humans.
And it also lays out steps for responding more effectively once pandemics do happen – like getting protective equipment to health care workers and aligning regulatory systems to expand access to treatments. []
And after years of negotiations to work all that out, no country voted against the agreement.
With 124 voting in favor and 11 abstaining. []
Now with that, the treaty won’t go into effect until at least 60 countries have signed and ratified it.
And that can’t happen until a few final issues are resolved, with one of the big remaining sticking points having to do with the creation of a so-called Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing system –
Which would basically be a way for countries to share genetic information and other data about dangerous pathogens in their territory in exchange for access to vaccines and treatments. []
And beyond that, the agreement also outlines a goal of having pharmaceutical companies donate or make more affordable 20% of the pandemic products they produce. []
With Helen Clark, the former prime minister of New Zealand and co-chair for the WHO’s panel on pandemics, saying:
“Many gaps remain in finance, equitable access to medical countermeasures and in understanding evolving risks. Don’t wait to get started. Dangerous pathogens are looming, and they certainly will not wait.”
Although with that, I will say, not everyone agrees.
Right, a lawyer with the Third World Network, for example, which is an international NGO focused on health and development issues?
They said the WHO’s “insistence on concluding negotiations at any cost” had pressured lower-income countries into “giving in” on key elements of the deal. []
And notably, despite the US not being involved, Trump may still be to blame for that.
With one person involved in the negotiations pointing to the escalating bird flu epidemic in the US and the anti-science approach of the White House as a reason for rushing things – with this person saying:
“Everyone [felt] like we need to get something … you don’t know when the pandemic will happen.”
“We can’t wait for another three, four years.” []
But with that, the agreement's ultimate impact remains unclear, and again, that’s largely due to the Trump administration.
Right, the US has historically been the WHO’s biggest funder.
And even before this treaty, you had public health experts saying that Trump’s decision to leave could have a major impact on its ability to respond to outbreaks as well as achieve long-term public health goals like eliminating malaria.
And now, you have his Health and Human Services Secretary RFK Jr. speaking out against the new treaty and instead calling for a “reboot [of] the whole system.”[]
With him claiming “The WHO has not even come to terms with its failures during covid, let alone made significant reforms” – and continuing:
“Instead, it has doubled down with the Pandemic Agreement, which will lock in all of the dysfunctions of the WHO pandemic response.”[]
And with that, he encouraged other states’ health ministers to consider joining him in a “new era of cooperation” outside the “limits of a moribund WHO.”[]
And all this, as I mentioned, within the United States, we’re seeing the FDA now limiting access to the Covid-19 vaccine – specifically for most healthy Americans under 65.
With the agency saying that manufacturers would have to conduct randomized, controlled clinical trials before updated vaccines would receive approval for healthier people.[]
And there, to be clear, health experts say there are legitimate questions about how necessary or beneficial it would be for everyone to get vaccinated if they’re low-risk.
With one former federal vaccine official telling NPR:
"The FDA is signaling a major departure from the one-size-fits-all approach that's largely defined the U.S. vaccination policy until now. Not everyone is at equal risk and public policy should reflect that reality." []
On the flip side, of course, you have critics saying there are a number of issues with this decision and the way it’s being made.
Right, for one, this is happening without the usual input from independent outside advisers – and that’s even though there actually is a CDC panel scheduled to debate which vaccines should be recommended to which groups in June.[]
Two, there’s concern that this could make insurance less likely to cover covid vaccines. []
And three, connected to that, they say that given the overwhelming evidence that COVID vaccines are safe and effective, what this policy is really doing is robbing people of choice.
Right, some people might want to get it just to be extra safe, and some might want it to protect other people, such as older family members and those with weak immune systems. []
And so you have one doctor telling the New York Times that he thinks “changes like this will lead to more unnecessary deaths.”
And ano another saying that It “does seems to be based more on this administration’s h” – adding:
“I think this is setting a dangerous precedent.” []
But ultimately, there’s still a lot that’s unclear about exactly how this will affect vaccine access, and of course, what kind of bigger impact it may or may not have.
Go to Ground News to see beyond the headlines and stay fully informed without feeling overwhelmed. Subscribe today through my link for 40% off unlimited access.
Use code “PHIL” for $20 OFF your first SeatGeek order & returning buyers use code “PDS” for $10 off AND your chance at weekly $500 prizes!
