Government data show that, compared with the Pfizer vaccine, there have been 43% more reports of injuries related to the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine in the UK, including 77% more adverse events and 25% more deaths — but no red flags from UK regulators.
Between Dec. 9, 2020 (when the first COVID vaccine was administered in the UK) and Feb. 14, 2021, 402 deaths following COVID vaccines have been reported to YellowCard, the UK government’s system for reporting side effects to COVID-related medicines, vaccines, devices, and defective or falsified products.
So far, only the Pfizer-BioNTech and Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccines have been administered in the UK. The Pfizer vaccine was deployed during the second week of December 2020, and Oxford-AstraZeneca at the beginning of January. (Moderna’s COVID vaccine is approved for emergency use in the UK, but the country has not as of yet obtained any vaccines from the company).
The MHRA has expressed no concern about the number of reports of adverse events connected with these new products, even failing to note how much worse the Oxford product has performed in comparison to the Pfizer vaccine.
Similarly, the accumulation of hundreds of deaths has failed to register a flicker of concern from them.
In January, the deaths of 23 frail elderly in Norway made international news — and raised questions about whether we should even be vaccinating people who are already near death. While it’s true that thousands of frail elderly people inevitably die every week, the lack of evidence of an active attempt to find out what is going on in individual cases is troubling.
The MHRA responded to the Norwegian report by saying “it did not currently anticipate any specific concerns,” a highly prejudicial statement. At the time The BMJ (formerly the British Medical Journal) permitted a short on-line response from me under the title “Is the MHRA up to it?”:
“But the MHRA also did not detect concerns with narcolepsy and the Pandemrix vaccine in 2009 and was unapologetic nine years on in these columns (while Clifford Miller going through the available data found as many as 178 potentially related reports in the first 67 days) … More recently they did not anticipate problems with PEG and anaphylaxis before the rollout of the Pfizer BioNTech vaccine, though these were already identified by others…”
However, it is even more worrying that even after 400 reported deaths the British Medical Journal will not publish my letter critiquing the MHRA data.
A major difficulty is that the MHRA system breaks down the data so that it is impossible to connect these deaths with preceding adverse events, although most reports are said to include multiple reactions.
Yet it is reasonable to assume that the preponderance of these reported deaths were preceded by a sequence of events — otherwise no one would have thought to make a report. However, the YellowCard format masks this information.
As with any passive reporting database we are met with the paradox that no single vaccine death is confirmed (and any doctor who confirmed one would likely say good-bye to their career in the UK). We also know vaccine-related injuries are generally under-reported by many times.
Nevertheless, the very distinct event profiles of two products filtered through the same same system after 15 million vaccine administrations would suggest that there is something to be investigated and explained.
The BMJ has declined to publish my successive letters on the subject of investigating COVID vaccine injuries and deaths, but here’s my latest (unpublished) letter to the publication:
Dear Editor:
Paul Thacker raises important concerns over transparency and the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine, but I believe there are also questions about safety.
In January, eyebrows were raised because of 23 deaths in frail elderly Norwegian patients following the Pfizer vaccine. Since then we seem to have come a dangerous distance.
It is also remarkable how unfavorably the Oxford-AstraZeneca data compare with the Pfizer data. MHRA data show 26,823 reports related to Pfizer vaccines, including 77,207 reactions, and 31,427 reports related to Oxford-AstraZeneca, including 114,625 reactions.
Thus the Pfizer reports run at ~3.2 per 1,000 while the Oxford-AstraZeneca reports run at ~4.6 per 1,000: which translates to 43% more reports associated with the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine compared with Pfizer.
However, the Pfizer reports have an average of 2.9 reactions per report compared with 3.6 for the Oxford-AstraZeneca (again Oxford 24% higher) — so the rate of reactions reported is actually 77% higher overall for the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine.
When it comes to fatalities, the Oxford-AstraZeneca product records a rate of 3 in 100,000 while Pfizer has 2.4 in 100,000 which is again 25% higher for Oxford-AstraZeneca.
Tabulated, as of 14 Feb:
Pfizer BioNTech: 26,823 reports, 77, 207 reactions and 197 deaths (per 8.3 million doses).
Oxford Astra Zeneca: 31,427 reports, 114,625 reactions and 205 deaths (per 6.9 million doses)
Pfizer BioNTech:
Reports 1 in 309.5 doses
Reactions 2.9 per report
Fatal reactions 1 in 42,131
Oxford AstraZeneca:
Reports 1 in 219.5 doses
Reactions 3.6 per report
Fatal reactions 1 in 33,659
It is important to recognize that these data are by no means random: The reports are filtered through the same system (even though it is passive and likely to represent only a fraction of cases) and these products have quite distinct profiles.
The Oxford-AstraZeneca safety profile should also be borne in mind considering that the company is planning to conduct trials with children.
Whether it is ethical to administer vaccines with such open safety issues is one thing, but it is another when the data from one product seems to be so markedly inferior to the other.
Note that the linked MHRA documents (here, here and here) have a rolling update and this data will only be correct for the week Feb. 26 – March 4, 2021.
Finally, I would be grateful to have any errors of transcription or mathematics pointed out to me.
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott says President Joe Biden is “recklessly releasing” illegal aliens into the state of Texas after they have tested positive for the Chinese coronavirus.
A report by NBC News this week confirmed that Biden’s Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is releasing border crossers into the U.S. interior who then are testing positive for the coronavirus. Even after border crossers test positive, they are not required to quarantine.
Abbott, in a statement on Wednesday evening, wrote that the Biden administration “must immediately end” the Catch and Release policy.
“The Biden Administration is recklessly releasing hundreds of illegal immigrants who have COVID into Texas communities,” Abbott wrote in a post. “The Biden Admin. must IMMEDIATELY end this callous act that exposes Texans & Americans to COVID.”
The Biden Administration is recklessly releasing hundreds of illegal immigrants who have COVID into Texas communities.
The Biden Admin. must IMMEDIATELY end this callous act that exposes Texans & Americans to COVID.
In Brownsville, Texas, DHS is sending border crossers into the community where local health officials then must test them. Regardless of a negative or positive test result, the border crossers are allowed to continue traveling into the U.S. interior — many heading to Maryland, New Jersey, and North Carolina.
Since Brownsville officials started testing released border crossers, about 6.3 percent or nearly 110 have tested positive for the coronavirus and are sent on their way.
Similarly, Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL) called Biden’s Catch and Release policy an “anti-America First and anti-science” iniative.
“Illegal aliens with COVID-19 are being caught and then released into the United States,” Brooks wrote in a post. “This is anti-America First and anti-Science. Socialist Dems have built a wall around the Capitol to protect themselves, but won’t protect you!”
Illegal aliens with COVID-19 are being caught and then released into the United States. This is anti-America First and anti-Science. Socialist Dems have built a wall around the Capitol to protect themselves, but won't protect you! https://t.co/FyXmvcdds9
As Breitbart News noted, millions of Americans remain under business restrictions, mask mandates, and quarantine requirements due to the coronavirus crisis, even as coronavirus-positive border crossers are not held to any requirements except public mask mandates where they are enforced.
Biden’s Catch and Release policy has proven unpopular with Americans. In a Harvard/Harris poll conducted last month of nearly 1,800 registered voters, 67 percent said border crossers should be returned to Mexico — as they were under the Remain in Mexico policy that Biden ended — while just 33 percent said they should be released into the U.S. interior.
“In other words, the goal is to censor those with whom the authors of the bill disagree,” wrote the attorneys general.
Twenty Republican state attorneys general signed a letter denouncing the House Democrats’ controversial election reform bill as unconstitutional for a slew of reasons just hours before the measure was expected to be voted on.
The letter — led by Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita — tore into H.R. 1, the “For the People Act,” a massive election reform bill and a leading priority for House Democrats this Congress.
“This monstrosity of a bill betrays the Constitution, dangerously federalizes state elections, and undermines the integrity of the ballot box,” Rokita said in a statement to Fox News. “As a former chief election officer, and now an Attorney General, I know this would be a disaster for election integrity and confidence in the processes that have been developed over time to instill confidence in the idea of ‘one person, one vote.’”
The attorneys general said the bill “betrays several Constitutional deficiencies and alarming mandates” that would “federalize” statewide elections across America and that “states have principal —and with presidential elections, exclusive — responsibility to safeguard” how they hold elections under the Constitution.
“The Act would invert that constitutional structure, commandeer state resources, confuse and muddle elections procedures, and erode faith in our elections and systems of governance,” they wrote.
They then warned lawmakers that they “may wish to consider the Act’s constitutional vulnerabilities as well as the policy critiques of state officials.”
The twenty attorneys general marched on in their letter, arguing that the For the People Act “implicates the Electors Clause” of the Constitution. The Electors Clause guarantees each state legislature the right to “direct allotment of presidential electors, and separately affords Congress only the more limited power to ‘determine the Time of chusing the Electors.’”
The attorneys general argued that this “exclusive division of power” outlined in the Constitution “differs markedly” from the Election Clause in Article I of the Constitution, “which says that both States and Congress have the power to regulate the ‘time, place, and manner’ of congressional elections.”
“That distinction is not an accident of drafting,” wrote the multi-state legal team. “After extensive debate, the Constitution’s Framers deliberately excluded Congress from deciding how presidential electors would be chosen in order to avoid presidential dependence on Congress for position and authority.”
The group then pointed to the 1892 Supreme Court case McPherson v. Blacker that “[upheld] a Michigan statute apportioning presidential electors by district.”
“The exclusivity of state power to ‘define the method’ of choosing presidential electors means that Congress may not force states to permit presidential voting by mail or curbside voting, for example,” the group wrote.
The group pointed to a 2019 opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts, where Roberts “noted with respect to congressional elections, the Framers ‘assign[ed] the issue to the state legislatures, expressly checked and balanced by the Federal Congress.'” They then blasted the bill as not having Congress act “as a check, but is instead overreaching by seizing the role of principal election regulator.”
The attorneys general torched the bill’s “constitutional deficiencies” as “only the beginning of the Act’s problems” and that, “[a]s a matter of election administration policy, it is difficult to imagine a legislative proposal more threatening to election integrity and voter confidence.”
They took aim at the For the People Act’s “limitations” on voter identification laws, roasting the act as doing “little to ensure voters say who they are” and pointing out that “requiring” a government ID to vote in an election “represents nothing more than a best practice for election administration.”
“Government-issued photo identification has been the global standard for documentary identification for decades,” the lawyers wrote, saying that “nearly twenty years ago” the Help America Vote Act required proof of identification for “first-time voters who register by mail without proof of identification.”
They continued on to say that Help America Vote Act “required” said voters to “present identification either to the county voter-registration office or at the polls.”
“Worse, it vitiates the capacity of voter ID requirements to protect against improper interference with voting rights,” the letter reads. The attorneys general went on to say the act was “not a fair election law” as it does not “treat all voters equally.”
The letter also argued that the bill would “limit how states maintain voter registration rolls” while ensuring integrity in elections, saying that “under the act,” states “could not use a combination of voter inactivity and unresponsiveness to maintain voter lists.” Instead, under the act states may “remove illegitimate voter registrations” when officials have “some other unspecified ‘objective and reliable evidence'” that the person isn’t eligible to vote.
The attorneys general wrote that “this attack on reliable methods” states have been using to “maintain voter lists without specifying any reasonable permissible alternatives belies any actual interest in preventing voter fraud.”
“The objective, rather, seems to be to prevent meaningful voter list maintenance altogether,” the letter read.
The lawyers then slammed the “so-called ‘independent’ commissions” that states would be required to use when redrawing congressional district lines after each census under the For the People Act. The attorneys wrote that the “aim” of the “provision” was to end “‘political gerrymandering'” and that the reason behind the provision was the “incoherent supposition that drawing congressional districts is something other than a political act.”
They argued that, “as with any legislation,” redrawing congressional districts “requires officials to balance legitimate competing considerations, and in so doing advance some political interests over others.”
“At least when legislatures draw boundary lines voters may punish egregious behavior at the next election; not so with government-by-commission, which trades accountability for mythical expertise and disinterest,” the team wrote.
“With respect to political redistricting, no ideal, perfectly balanced congressional boundaries exist, so we should let the people decide, through their elected officials, where to place them,” they continued.
To round off their letter calling on Congress to rethink H.R. 1, the attorneys general blasted the bill’s “requirement that political speakers disclose their donor lists.” The group said the bill “reflects an objective to name, shame, and blacklist” those who have “different or minority viewpoints.”
“In other words, the goal is to censor those with whom the authors of the bill disagree,” wrote the attorneys general.
“In the American tradition, the antidote for bad speech is more speech, not less,” they continued. “When people and organizations carry their chosen messages into the public arena, government should not cater to those who would intimidate or disrupt that same speech.”
The group of twenty attorneys general finished the letter promising that, should the For the People Act become law, they would “seek legal remedies to protect the Constitution, the sovereignty of all states, our elections, and the rights of our citizens.”
The House of Representatives on Wednesday canceled scheduled votes for Thursday amid reports of potential security threats against the Capitol. Lawmakers are expected to vote late into the night.
More than 20 years ago, a group of former salesmen for Houston software entrepreneur Robert Brockman sued their old boss, claiming in court that he had deprived them of commissions by directing a portion of customer payments to a Cayman Islands entity.
Mr. Brockman twice appealed to the Texas Supreme Court as he tried to avoid answering detailed questions about the offshore entity, and he settled the case in 2001 under confidential terms.
Although the salesmen didn’t realize it at the time, they had stumbled onto early signs of what the government later called the largest criminal case ever brought against a person accused of evading U.S. taxes. Federal prosecutors in October charged Mr. Brockman with using a web of offshore entities to conceal about $2 billion in income from the Internal Revenue Service.
Mr. Brockman has pleaded not guilty to 39 criminal counts, including tax evasion, wire fraud, money laundering and evidence destruction. He and his attorneys didn’t respond to requests for comment.
Prosecutors allege the bulk of the tax evasion stemmed from profits Mr. Brockman made from investments with Vista Equity Partners, a private-equity firm he helped launch in 2000 and which now manages $73 billion in funds dedicated to software investments.
Vista founder Robert Smith, the wealthiest Black person in America, settled his own tax-evasion case with the government, which was made public on the day of Mr. Brockman’s indictment. Mr. Smith has agreed to testify against his former mentor, one of at least two Brockman confidants to turn on him.
Some of the money in the criminal case against Mr. Brockman originated with the same Cayman Islands entity that the salesmen complained about years earlier, according to an IRS affidavit unsealed in December. The link between the two cases hasn’t been previously reported.
Robert Brockman and Dorothy Brockman at a 2011 Rice University event in Houston.
The record-setting case pits Mr. Brockman, a billionaire with a reputation as a relentless litigant, against the immense resources of the federal government. Legal specialists say the government appears to have strong evidence, but federal prosecutors may face challenges trying the case because of the complexity of tax laws governing offshore trusts.
In another potential hurdle for the government, the 79-year-old Mr. Brockman claims in court documents he can’t be tried because he is suffering from dementia and is unable to assist in his own defense. Prosecutors said in court filings that he could be faking a mental decline. A hearing on his competency is scheduled for June, and if the court sides with Mr. Brockman, the charges could be dropped or deferred.
Despite his wealth, Mr. Brockman was virtually unknown outside of a small circle in Houston and the automotive industry until his indictment was announced in the fall.
Court documents and interviews with his former employees, business associates and his younger brother portray him as a brilliant, sometimes penny-pinching executive with an antigovernment streak that led him to regard the IRS as a corrupt organization unfairly targeting taxpayers.
Mr. Brockman bought used furniture for company offices, rarely gave raises and forbade employees from smoking to save money on health insurance, according to former employees and associates. He stayed at budget hotels and ate frozen dinners in his room during monthly visits to one of his company’s offices near Dayton, Ohio, a former vice president at his software firm recalled.
Most of the wealth he gathered over the years is held in a Bermuda trust that owns, among other things, nearly all of his software company. The firm, Reynolds & Reynolds Co., provides software to auto dealerships, and it had annual revenue of about $1.4 billion, according to a now-defunct Brockman charity website. Mr. Brockman was chief executive of Reynolds & Reynolds until the indictment.
“The allegations made by the Department of Justice focus on activities Robert Brockman engaged in outside of his professional responsibilities with Reynolds & Reynolds,” a company spokeswoman said in a statement. “Throughout numerous court filings and legal proceedings, the Company has never been alleged to have engaged in any wrongdoing in any way.”
The Bermuda trust has assets of at least $7.7 billion, including $1.4 billion in Swiss bank accounts, according to a confidential affidavit from Mr. Brockman’s wife that was filed with a Bermuda court and reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. A lawyer for a former trustee suggested in a recent Bermuda court hearing the trust’s total value could be as high as $10 billion.
That level of wealth would rank Mr. Brockman around 50th on the most recent Forbes 400 list of U.S. billionaires, well ahead of Twitter Inc. CEO Jack Dorsey and Fidelity Investments magnate Edward Johnson III. Mr. Brockman never appears on the list.
Among the assets Mr. Brockman has amassed: a Bombardier private jet, a 209-foot yacht, a 17,000-square-foot residence in Houston and a 5,800-square-foot cabin in Aspen, Colo., according to public records and court documents filed by prosecutors.
The Bombardier jet used by Robert Brockman.PHOTO: BRAD T
The origin of his fortune dates back five decades, when Mr. Brockman founded a company that became a pioneer in developing software that helps automobile dealers manage nearly every aspect of their businesses, including inventory, pricing, promotion and credit reports.
He was among the first software executives to see the value of recurring revenue, locking customers into long-term contracts for a product that was essential to conducting business and difficult to substitute, former executives and customers said.
Over the years, Reynolds & Reynolds has been in litigation with numerous car dealers, some of whom alleged they were overcharged for mandatory upgrades, court documents show. The company denied the allegations and often won the cases.
Reynolds & Reynolds and its main competitor, CDK Global Inc., are the subjects of an antitrust probe by the Federal Trade Commission, according to a CDK securities filing. Reynolds & Reynolds declined to comment about the antitrust probe or past litigation. CDK didn’t respond to a request for comment.
Self-made man
Mr. Brockman and his younger brother, Thomas David Brockman, were raised in St. Petersburg, Fla. Their father, Alfred Eugene Brockman, was a gas-station owner, and their mother, Pearl, a physiotherapist, according to 1940 census records.
Dave Brockman recalled lean years growing up and said his brother “decided he didn’t love that and went out to make something of himself.”
Robert Brockman attended Centre College, a selective liberal-arts college in Kentucky, and paid his way partly by delivering laundry, his brother said. He married at age 18, according to records in Boyle County, Ky., and later divorced.
Mr. Brockman graduated from the University of Florida and after working at Ford Motor Co. shifted to International Business Machines Corp. , where he became a top salesman. He married his current wife, Dorothy, in 1968.
An aerial view of Robert Brockman’s residence in Houston.PHOTO: PICTOMETRY
The couple lived in Houston, where Mr. Brockman began teaching himself computer programming and started his software company, initially known as Universal Computer Systems Inc.
In building UCS, Mr. Brockman was particular about new hires, requiring that all job applicants take a test designed to determine their intelligence and suitability for a given role. Vista’s own employee-testing regimen is based on that.
After being hired, staffers had to account for every call at the office, and executives each week posted the names of those who made the most personal calls. Employees had to use a keypad to open doors around the building so managers could trace their movements.
Mr. Brockman would lead executives on dove-hunting trips to a ranch in Mexico. He kept a stash of guns at the company’s Houston headquarters and in the trunks of the fleet of Mercedes sedans parked in the garage at his Houston home, former employees and visitors recall.
Robert Brockman and Dorothy Brockman during a Universal Computer Systems trip to Cancún in January 1995. The photo was included in an album distributed to employees who also attended.
Mr. Brockman’s yearlong sales training program was effective, former employees said. Alumni graduated to high-level sales roles at such companies as Microsoft Corp. and Oracle Corp.
He liked to keep employees on edge, recalled a former executive, Bobby Tyson, who said Mr. Brockman once asked him “when was the last time you shot somebody between the eyes.” The phrase, Mr. Tyson learned, meant to fire an employee at random. “Everybody understands they could be next,” he recalled his boss saying.
Mr. Tyson, who described Mr. Brockman as a genius whom he still admires, said he once reluctantly carried out such a firing on orders from his boss.
Later, Mr. Tyson sued Mr. Brockman for unpaid compensation. He prevailed after a six-year court battle, which ended after Mr. Brockman’s appeal was rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court. Mr. Tyson said he ended up collecting about $2.5 million.
Mr. Brockman’s use of offshore entities started in 1981. That year, he and his late father flew to Bermuda to establish what became the A. Eugene Brockman Charitable Trust, Dave Brockman said.
The trust has given away more than $100 million to charities since 2004, court records show. It also has six human beneficiaries, according to Bermuda court documents: Mr. Brockman, his wife, their son Robert Brockman II and a grandchild, along with Dave Brockman and his wife.
Dave Brockman, who once worked for UCS, said he hadn’t had much contact with his brother for close to 20 years. He said the two had a falling out after Robert denied him a promotion he felt he deserved, and he quit.
He doesn’t believe his brother did anything illegal, he said, but doesn’t want any money connected to a criminal case. If offered money from the trust, Dave Brockman said, “I would refuse it. It’s tainted money as far as I’m concerned.”
Money moves
The IRS was alerted more than 20 years ago to Mr. Brockman’s offshore activities as a result of the litigation by his former salesmen.
In court documents, the salesmen asserted Mr. Brockman founded the Cayman Islands entity not only to evade paying commissions but also to avoid federal taxes. Mr. Brockman denied the allegations and said he had sold the entity years before, while retaining preferred stock in it.
In the late 1990s, two attorneys for the salesmen met with an IRS agent, according to people familiar with the matter. The IRS around this time began an audit of Mr. Brockman and obtained records from Bermuda about the trust, according to a different person familiar with the matter.
The outcome of the inquiry couldn’t be determined. But when the Cayman Islands entity, Computer Terminals Ltd., was liquidated in the 1990s, “a substantial sum” made its way to a company in the Caribbean called Edge Capital Investments Ltd., according to the IRS affidavit. Edge Capital was controlled by Mr. Brockman outside of the Bermuda trust structure, prosecutors have alleged.
Mr. Brockman allegedly used $30 million from Edge Capital to acquire the Aspen property and a Colorado fishing retreat, part of the purported tax evasion scheme, according to the indictment.
He also allegedly used Edge Capital to secretly purchase a portion of his own company’s debt—an act prohibited by provisions in the loan agreements—at a sharp discount in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, the indictment said. These allegations are potentially the most serious Mr. Brockman faces; each of the 20 wire-fraud counts related to the debt repurchase carries a maximum sentence of 30 years.
If Mr. Brockman’s case goes to trial, Mr. Smith, Vista’s chief executive, is expected to testify, marking a dramatic reversal in their lucrative relationship.
Robert Smith, chief executive of Vista Equity Partners, speaking during a 2018 conference in Beverly Hills, Calif.PHOTO: PATRICK T. FALLON/BLOOMBERG NEWS
The two men met in the late 1990s, when Mr. Brockman was considering selling his company and was introduced to Mr. Smith, then a Goldman Sachs Group Inc. technology banker.
After Mr. Brockman decided against the sale, he presented an idea to Mr. Smith: He would back the younger man in a private-equity fund devoted to software—a rarity at the time. Mr. Brockman agreed to make an initial pledge of $300 million, later increasing it to $1 billion, according to a statement of facts Mr. Smith signed in October as part of his deal with the government.
The arrangement carried one unusual condition. Mr. Smith had to put a portion of his share of the fund profits into an offshore structure similar to Mr. Brockman’s. Mr. Brockman said he didn’t want his own foreign trust to be dragged into a U.S. court in the event of litigation against Vista, the statement of facts said.
Robert Brockman during the Universal Computer Systems trip to Cancún in January 1995, in a photo from an album distributed to employees who attended.
Mr. Brockman was the only investor in Vista’s first fund, and became a major investor in a couple of subsequent funds. Many elements of Vista’s playbook for maximizing profits at software companies followed Mr. Brockman’s model, according to people familiar with Vista’s early years.
In 2006, Vista helped Mr. Brockman’s Universal Computer Systems finance the $2.8 billion acquisition of much larger Reynolds & Reynolds, putting Mr. Brockman atop one of the two dominant players in the auto-dealer software business.
Mr. Smith, 20 years younger than Mr. Brockman, became as high-profile as Mr. Brockman was publicity-shy. In 2019, Mr. Smith pledged to pay off the student loans held by the graduating class of Morehouse College, a historically black college in Atlanta. He owns one of Manhattan’s most expensive properties—bought for nearly $60 million in 2018—and is chairman of Carnegie Hall. He divorced his wife and married the 2010 Playboy Playmate of the Year.
Messrs. Smith and Brockman were both targets of the government’s tax probe. But in October, Mr. Smith reached a nonprosecution agreement with the government that included Mr. Smith’s admission that he evaded paying taxes on more than $200 million in income, using an offshore arrangement similar to one allegedly used by Mr. Brockman.
Mr. Smith agreed to pay $139 million in back taxes and penalties and cooperate against Mr. Brockman, the government said.
Hidden records
Prosecutors allege Mr. Brockman set up an encrypted email system to communicate with those involved in his offshore structure. They referred to each other using such fishing-related code names such as “Permit,” for Mr. Brockman, and “Steelhead,” for Mr. Smith, according to the indictment; the IRS was “The House.”
Around 2007, Mr. Brockman hired a Bermuda attorney, Evatt Tamine, to help manage the offshore structure. Mr. Tamine became Mr. Brockman’s right-hand man and acted as the trustee of the main Brockman trust. Prosecutors, citing dozens of examples, allege in the indictment that Mr. Tamine was only a figurehead, and Mr. Brockman secretly directed every move.
A trust set up by a U.S. taxpayer’s forebears—as with the Brockman trust—may not be subject to tax as long as it is run independently and no money flows to the taxpayer, according to tax specialists. By claiming that Mr. Brockman was secretly running the trust, prosecutors may be building a case that it was either a sham or a type of controlled trust that is taxable to him, said Matthew McKim, an offshore-tax lawyer at Loeb & Loeb LLP.
In one of Mr. Tamine’s early performance reviews, included in a court filing, Mr. Brockman instructed him to keep records on “an encrypted USB dongle carried in a different location in luggage when traveling” and to run a software program called “Evidence Eliminator.”
The yacht used by Robert Brockman, in Gibraltar.PHOTO: GIBFRAN46
Mr. Brockman learned of the tax investigation in June 2016, according to prosecutors. Soon after, a former UCS executive involved in the offshore structure, Don Jones, died. Mr. Tamine made several trips to the home of Mr. Jones’s widow in Mississippi to destroy documents and computer drives, according to Mr. Tamine’s account in one of his performance reviews filed with the court.
“Those efforts meant that we could rest easily that any attempt to search Don’s home would be fruitless,” Mr. Tamine reported to his boss, according to the court filing.
Bermuda authorities instead raided Mr. Tamine’s home at the request of the U.S. in September 2018. He agreed to cooperate in the case against Mr. Brockman and gave authorities access to the encrypted email server.
Prosecutors allege that Mr. Brockman began seeking medical evaluations of his mental acuity shortly after the raid.
A doctor in March 2019 said the executive was operating intellectually with an IQ of 87 and exhibited poor short-term recall, according to one of the medical reports submitted in court by Mr. Brockman’s attorneys.
Prosecutors say Mr. Brockman’s doctors have an apparent conflict of interest because they are affiliated with Baylor College of Medicine. The Brockman trust has donated millions of dollars to the school, and Mr. Brockman has served as a board trustee. A Baylor spokeswoman declined to comment.
Mr. Brockman continued to run his multibillion-dollar software company during this period, and he gave “long and cogent answers” during a two-day legal deposition in September 2019, prosecutors said.
Two weeks later, Mr. Brockman took a cognitive test in which he had trouble drawing a clock face, according to court filings, resulting in a finding of “moderate dementia.”
HR 1 mandates the most questionable and abuse-prone election rules nationwide, while banning commonsense measures to detect, deter, and prosecute election fraud.
Election reform is a national imperative, but under our Constitution, election reform must be undertaken at the state level.
The American people expect us to ensure that every eligible citizen is able to vote and also make sure that their vote is not stolen or diluted.
After an election marked by significant voting irregularities and numerous instances of officials setting aside state election law, I share the concerns of millions of Americans about the integrity of the 2020 election.
That’s why when I was serving as presiding officer at the joint session of Congress certifying the Electoral College results, I pledged to ensure that all objections properly raised under the Electoral Count Act would be given a full hearing before Congress and the American people.
The tragic events of Jan. 6—the most significant being the loss of life and violence at our nation’s Capitol—also deprived the American people of a substantive discussion in Congress about election integrity in America.
Under the Constitution, elections are governed at the state level. And each state is required to appoint presidential electors “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.”
Many of the most troubling voting irregularities took place in states that set aside laws enacted by state legislatures in favor of sweeping changes ordered by governors, secretaries of state, and courts.
While legislators in many states have begun work on election reform to restore public confidence in state elections, unfortunately, congressional Democrats have chosen to sweep those valid concerns and reforms aside and to push forward a brazen attempt to nationalize elections in blatant disregard of the U.S. Constitution.
Congress will vote this week on HR 1, the so-called For the People Act, a massive 800-page election overhaul bill that would increase opportunities for election fraud, trample the First Amendment, further erode confidence in our elections, and forever dilute the votes of legally qualified eligible voters.
In 2008, when the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Indiana’s new voter ID law, the ruling noted that America has a long, well-documented history of election fraud. The court cited the 2005 report of the bipartisan Commission on Federal Election Reform headed by former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker, which said the “electoral system cannot inspire public confidence if no safeguards exist to deter or detect fraud.”
HR 1 would eliminate those safeguards and prevent states from implementing new, needed reforms. Polling shows that large numbers of Democrats did not trust the outcome of the 2016 election and that large numbers of Republicans still do not trust the outcome of the 2020 election.
We have to do everything we can to change that and ensure that the American people, no matter which political party they favor, have confidence in the fairness and security of the election process.
HR 1 mandates the most questionable and abuse-prone election rules nationwide, while banning commonsense measures to detect, deter, and prosecute election fraud.
The bill would force states to adopt universal mail-in ballots, early voting, same-day voter registration, online voter registration, and automatic voter registration for any individual listed in state and federal government databases, such as the Department of Motor Vehicles and welfare offices, ensuring duplicate registrations and that millions of illegal immigrants are quickly registered to vote.
States would be required to count every mail-in vote that arrives up to 10 days after Election Day. States must also allow ballot harvesting—where paid political operatives collect absentee ballots from places such as nursing homes—exposing our most vulnerable voters to coercion and increasing the risk that their ballots will be tampered with.
At the same time, state and local election officials would be stripped of their ability to maintain the accuracy of voter rolls, barred from verifying voter eligibility, and voter ID would be banned from coast to coast.
Congressional districts would be redrawn by unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats. Illegal immigrants and law-abiding American citizens would receive equal representation in Congress. Felons would be able to vote the moment they set foot out of prison.
Leftists not only want you powerless at the ballot box, they want to silence and censor anyone who would dare to criticize their unconstitutional power grab.
HR 1 is also loaded with ill-advised changes to federal campaign laws that would impose onerous legal and administrative burdens on candidates, civic groups, unions, nonprofit organizations, and ordinary citizens who want to exercise their First Amendment rights to engage in political speech, including on public policy issues that are vital to the life of our nation.
Under HR 1, donations to many private organizations would be made public, exposing millions of Americans to the radical left’s cancel culture crusade.
Every single proposed change in HR 1 serves one goal, and one goal only: to give leftists a permanent, unfair, and unconstitutional advantage in our political system.
HR 1 would turn a blind eye to very real problems at the state level, exacerbate existing vulnerabilities, and further undermine the American people’s confidence in the principle of “one person, one vote.”
Election reform is a national imperative, but under our Constitution, election reform must be undertaken at the state level. Our Founders limited Congress’ role in conducting our elections for good reason: They wanted elections to be administered closest to the people, free from undue influence of the national government.
Having run for office at both the state and federal levels, I have concluded that the bedrock principles of free and fair elections are access, security, and the ability to engage in free and open debate.
HR 1 is an unconstitutional, reckless, and anti-democratic bill that would erode those foundational principles and could permanently damage our republic.
After a year in which our nation has endured a global pandemic, economic hardship, and a contentious election, now is not the time to further inflame passion and division. It is time for our nation’s leaders to help America heal.
To restore public confidence in our elections, our leaders should uphold the Constitution, reject congressional Democrats’ plan to nationalize our elections, and get about the serious work of state-based reform that will protect the integrity of the vote for every American.
The American people expect us to ensure that every eligible citizen is able to vote and also make sure that their vote is not stolen or diluted through errors, mistakes, or outright fraud.
Every citizen deserves the freedom to support, oppose, criticize, or promote the candidates and causes they believe in. And most importantly, the American people must have the utmost confidence that every voice matters, and every vote counts—or democracy cannot survive.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials said they believe the victims killed in the collision in Southern California just miles from the U.S.-Mexico border were illegal immigrants who were smuggled through a dilapidated border fence near Calexico.
A Ford Expedition carrying more than two-dozen people collided with a semi-truck in Imperial County, California, on Tuesday, leaving at least 13 dead and more injured, local officials said.
Border Patrol agents and the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) opened an investigation to see whether the car was carrying smuggled migrants.
“We pray for the accident victims and their families during this difficult time,” said El Centro Sector Chief Patrol Agent Gregory Bovino in a news conference on Wednesday. Agents, he said, believe the deceased individuals were part of a larger group of about 44 migrants who were smuggled through a hole in the fence near Calexico, a California city that lies along the border and is next to the Mexican city of Mexicali.
Bovino added that an “initial investigation into the origins of the vehicles indicate a potential nexus to the aforementioned breach in the border wall, while adding that “human smugglers have proven time and again they have little regard for human life.”
“Those who may be contemplating crossing the border illegally should pause to think of the dangers that all too often end in tragedy; tragedies our Border Patrol Agents and first responders are unfortunately very familiar with,” he said in the news conference.
Law enforcement officers work at the scene of a deadly crash in Holtville, Calif., on March 2, 2021. (Gregory Bull/AP Photo)
The deadly collision occurred on Highway 115 at Norrish Road in Holtville, located some 115 miles east of San Diego. It’s not immediately clear what caused the crash.
And Guatemalan officials on Wednesday said they received information that one Guatemalan national died and another person from the Central American country was injured, Reuters reported. Ten Mexican nationals also died in the incident, Mexican authorities said, according to the news agency.
The revelation that the Expedition was carrying smuggled illegal immigrants is sure to trigger criticism against the White House from Republicans and some Democrats who represent districts near the border over its immigration policy. Starting on Jan. 20, President Joe Biden has signed a number of immigration-related orders, which Republicans have said have triggered a crisis along the Southern Border.
Biden, in remarks to reporters on Tuesday, downplayed concerns of there being a crisis at the border. “No, we’ll be able to handle it,” he said, while confirming that he received a briefing about the border situation Tuesday.
Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, meanwhile, alleged the previous administration bears some responsibility for the crisis.
“Let me explain to you why [fixing the broken immigration system] is hard and why it is going to take time,” he said during a news conference on Monday. “I think it is important to understand what we have inherited because it defines the situation as it currently stands. Entire systems are not rebuilt in a day or in a few weeks.”
But Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), whose district lies along the border, warned that the situation needs to be taken seriously by the White House—namely due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
“It is not a crisis yet, but it will become a crisis,” Cuellar warned in a Fox News interview. “The numbers have been increasing, and as your report just said a few minutes ago, the numbers are just increasing every day. The number of unaccompanied kids, the number of families who are coming in are just increasing every day.”
(Morning Star News) Armed Hindu extremists in Madhya Pradesh, India disrupted worship services at two churches on Feb. 7, beat congregation members and pressured police to arrest more than 20 Christians on suspicion of forcible conversion, sources said.
Under a new anti-conversion ordinance that came into effect in the state on Jan. 9, Udaigarh police in Alirajpur District charged one of the two churches’ pastors with forcible conversion.
Pastor Malsingh Meda and 21 members of his church in Bhamdakhapar village were arrested, as was pastor Dilipsingh Vasunia, who leads a church in Jambukheda village. Pastor Meda was released at 1 a.m. on Feb. 8, and Pastor Vasunia was charged with forcible conversion and obtained bail on Feb.10.
Though police reached both villages before the Hindu extremist attacks on the worship services, they did nothing to stop the damage to the church buildings or the assaults on the Christians, eyewitnesses told Morning Star News.
“I was conducting the service when one of them [Hindu extremists], carrying a gun, came and slapped me twice on my face,” Pastor Meda told Morning Star News. “Then another man carrying a gun approached me and slapped me, then three others carrying wooden sticks came one after another and hit me with the sticks.”
Before attacking his church, the mob belonging to the hindu extremist Hindu Yuva Janjati Sangathan (Hindu Youth Tribe Organization, HYJS) had disrupted the Sunday service of Pastor Vasunia’s congregation. Two Hindu extremists were brandishing guns as the mob questioned worshippers and searched their belongings, video on social media shows.
The mob is seen questioning women, checking their Bibles and rummaging through their bags. Police follow the assailants but do not stop them. Officers later detained Pastor Vasunia and his nephew, Bhajan Vasunia, and took them to the Udaigarh police station on suspicion of forcible conversion, said Abhishek Ninama, a relative of the pastor.
The same mob then left for Bhamdakhapar village, where they assaulted Pastor Meda and other male worshippers while two policemen stood idle outside the church building.
“My son was stopped by two policemen from entering the church, and he witnessed that a group of Hindu extremists pushed the two policemen aside and made their way into the church carrying guns,” Pastor Meda said.
Congregation women ran to a room and locked themselves inside to escape assault, he said. Among male church members beaten with wooden sticks was a senior citizen, the pastor said.
The mob also desecrated a cross and Bible, confiscated Christian literature and damaged church property and parked vehicles, Pastor Meda said. The Hindu mob divided into groups.
“One group entered the church and, locking the door from inside, they began to assault me and all the male members, while another group damaged all the vehicles parked outside the church,” he said. “Yet another group climbed the roof and broke the roof with heavy stones. They then began to attack us with stones by throwing them from the roof. They aimed a huge stone at my wife, and she barely escaped it.”
Pastor Meda called a police hotline, and the attackers fled – to the Udaigarh police station, where they were waiting when officers brought Pastor Meda and 21 church members for interrogation, he said. HYJS members had filed a complaint of forcible conversion.
Six children, some as young as a few months old, accompanied their mothers at the police station, where church members waited for hours before they were released.
“They were asked if they were allured to attend church, and what kind of benefits they have been offered to become Christians,” Pastor Meda said. “Women boldly testified how their husbands had been drunkards, how some had had prolonged sickness, how some had been possessed by a demon, and how they had been cured by coming to church and by putting their faith in Jesus.”
Officer P.S. Damor told Morning Star News that police had made the arrests based on a complaint from a relative of a person alleged to have been converted by allurement.
Nine men including Pastor Meda were detained, with eight of them released that evening and the pastor later that night at 1 a.m.
Pastor Vasunia’s nephew was also let go, while officers put him and Pastor Meda in the same cell.
Hindu Extremist Agitation
Pastor Meda said Hindu extremists surrounded the police station clamoring for charges against the Christians well past 11 p.m.
“We could not see them, but we could hear a huge mob shouting slogans of ‘Jai Shri Ram [Hail lord Ram]’ and a lot of movement of the mob around the police station,” he said.
A local Christian who requested anonymity told Morning Star News that he visited the police station that night to enquire about the pastors.
“Around 8 in the evening, about 300 men belonging to the Hindu organizations had surrounded the police station. They were shouting slogans demanding them to be booked under stringent laws,” said the source, who fled the area fearful of attack by the agitated mob.
HYJS District President Dilip Chauhan told media that for several months the organization has gone to every police station in Alirajpur District with “proofs” to get Christian pastors arrested.
“We go to the church and catch hold of the pastor and bring him to the police station to be arrested,” Chauhan reportedly said on Feb. 7. “HYJS demands that an FIR [First Information Report] be registered against Pastor Dilip Vasunia under the new anti-conversion ordinance 2020 of forceful conversion, and if this does not happen, we will stage a protest.”
Police later that day charged Pastor Vasunia under the new anti-conversion ordinance.
Office Damor confirmed the charge.
“We have booked Dilipsingh Vasunia under the new anti-conversion ordinance 2020 on charges of forcefully converting the complainant’s relative,” Damor told Morning Star News. “We have done our investigation and found the allegation to be true.”
New Ordinance
Since the new ordinance, which replaced the state’s previous anti-conversion law of 1968, came into force on Jan. 9, official reports show 28 people have been booked, according to the Hindustan Times. More than half are Christians, according to police records.
State Home Department records show that eight cases have been registered in eight districts of Madhya Pradesh in one month; four cases are said to be against nine Muslims, and four against 19 Christians for allegedly luring and coercing people to change their faith through worship meetings, police reports showed.
The Supreme Court on Feb. 12 refused to entertain a plea by attorney Vishal Thakre challenging the validity of the “Madhya Pradesh Freedom of Religion Ordinance,” sending it back to the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
Vijayesh Lal, general secretary of the Evangelical Fellowship of India, said the new anti-conversion laws in Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh states are far more severe than laws passed earlier in Gujarat and Himachal Pradesh states, which in turn were far more severe than prior laws passed in Odisha (then Orissa) and Madhya Pradesh in the 1960s.
“These laws encourage vigilantism by extremists and increase impunity,” Lal told Morning Star News. “They have put religious minorities in a dangerous situation in which it has become very easy for just about anyone to target them just by leveling the convenient allegation of forcible conversion, because these ordinances make every conversion suspect and place the burden of proof on the accused rather than the accuser.”
The Indian constitution allows for freedom of religion, but laws and ordinances ironically entitled “Freedom of Religion” that actually curtail religious freedom are in force in eight states: Odisha (1967), Madhya Pradesh (1968 and 2020), Chhattisgarh (2000 and 2006), Gujarat (2003), Himachal Pradesh (2006 and 2019), Jharkhand (2017), Uttarakhand (2018) and Uttar Pradesh (2020).
Although a similar law was passed in Arunachal Pradesh in 1978, implementary rules have not yet been formed. Tamil Nadu passed a law in 2002 but later repealed it. Rajasthan passed a similar law in 2006, but the state governor has not signed it.
The hostile tone of the National Democratic Alliance government, led by the Hindu nationalist BJP, against non-Hindus, has emboldened Hindu extremists in several parts of the country to attack Christians since Prime Minister Narendra Modi took power in May 2014, religious rights advocates say.
India ranked 10th on Christian support organization Open Doors’ 2021 World Watch List of the countries where it is most difficult to be a Christian, as it was in 2020. The country was 31st in 2013, but its position worsened after Modi came to power.
Alabama will become one of the next states to eliminate a government-imposed mandate that requires people wear masks in public, sources close to the matter told Breitbart News.
A source familiar with state deliberations confirmed that as soon as Friday but definitely in the coming days. Alabama will join several other states nationwide in removing its mandate requiring masks in response to the coronavirus pandemic.
GOP Gov. Kay Ivey’s office has not yet confirmed what sources familiar with the state’s planning and deliberations are, but a spokeswoman for Ivey told Breitbart News she was never a fan of mandates to begin with—a sign of the coming move.
“All along, Governor Ivey has made clear that she prefers personal responsibility to government mandates. We are optimistic that our state is heading in the right direction, and we still have some work to be done. Governor Ivey will provide an update to the people of Alabama soon,” an Ivey spokeswoman said.
The governor’s spokeswoman would not deny that she intends to lift the mask mandate on Friday, when the order is set to expire–but would not confirm the news either.
While this statement does not confirm outright what Ivey has planned—again, sources familiar with the deliberations confirmed to Breitbart News that she is planning to scrap the mask mandate—this development is significant as it comes on the heels of several other states ditching their own mask mandates.
Alabama Lt. Gov. Will Ainsworth also released a statement on Wednesday urging Ivey to ditch the mask mandate once and for all:
I urge Gov. Kay Ivey to immediately lift the statewide mask mandate and allow citizens and local officials the liberty to make the decisions that best fit their circumstances.
Ivey could always back down ahead of the forthcoming announcement, and if she does it will be seen as cowering to democrats like President Joe Biden in Washington without following scientific advice and the leadership of other GOP-led states. Alabama Democrats are pressuring Ivey to cave to Biden and keep the mandate:
Today AL reaches the grim milestone of 10,000 deaths from COVID-19– now is not the time to let our guard down.
Our mask mandate is a small part of keeping Alabamians safe. We urge @GovernorKayIvey to follow CDC guidelines & not let the mandate expire. https://t.co/wTJL4UX4lt
This week, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves—both Republicans—announced they are lifting their states’ mask mandates. They join 14 other states—Florida, South Dakota, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Tennessee—in not having mask mandates.
These red states’ decisions to ditch previously implemented mask mandates are a rebuke of Democrat President Joe Biden’s push to try to get Americans to wear masks for his first 100 days in office. Biden is not even through half of his first 100 days and already losing the confidence of a growing number of U.S. states rejecting his advice and guidance.
In response to the announcements from Texas and Mississippi, Biden lashed out at the White House on Wednesday falsely calling the people in those states subhuman.
“The last thing, the last thing we need is Neanderthal thinking that in the meantime, everything’s fine, take off your mask, forget it,” Biden said about Abbott’s and Reeves’s moves.
One of the sources familiar with Alabama’s forthcoming decision told Breitbart News that Biden attacking the people of Texas and Mississippi is playing a huge role in Alabama’s move to nuke the mask mandate. In other words, this person said, Biden’s attacks on American citizens are backfiring as more and more responsible government leaders across the country reject his authority and are moving away from his recommendations as he shows disdain for Americans from states that did not vote for him for president.
“Joe Biden has fewer functioning brain cells than a Neanderthal and continues to listen to clowns like Fauci, who’s been wrong at every turn, but he’s got the nerve to criticize states who abandon mandates that aren’t supported by science? Screw him,” one source familiar with the forthcoming order changes in Alabama told Breitbart News.
Capitol Police say they are taking threats for a possible March 4 plot to breach the Capitol as “serious.”
Law enforcement officials on Wednesday warned that a militia group was discussing carrying out attacks at the Capitol on Thursday, a day tied to conspiracy theories about March 4 being a “true inauguration day.”
The police warning didn’t give specifics, citing the “sensitive nature of this information.”
Capitol Police and federal law enforcement have been criticized for not acting faster on intelligence that the Jan. 6 protests could turn violent.
“The United States Capitol Police Department is aware of and prepared for any potential threats towards members of Congress or towards the Capitol complex,” the department said in a statement. “We have obtained intelligence that shows a possible plot to breach the Capitol by an identified militia group on Thursday, March 4. We have already made significant security upgrades to include establishing a physical structure and increasing manpower to ensure the protection of Congress, the public and our police officers.
“Our Department is working with our local, state, and federal partners to stop any threats to the Capitol. We are taking the intelligence seriously. Due to the sensitive nature of this information, we cannot provide additional details at this time.”
Capitol Police have beefed up security since the Jan. 6 riot.
The Capitol remains surrounded with fencing topped with razor wire and some 5,000 National Guard troops remain on site.
After Texas and Mississippi lifted their longstanding face mask mandates, President Joe Biden fired back at their leadership on Wednesday, calling it “Neanderthal thinking.”
“The last thing we need is Neanderthal thinking in the meantime: ‘Everything’s fine, take off your masks,'” Biden told reporters at the White House. “It still matters.”
“It’s critical, critical, critical that they follow the science,” he continued. “I know you all know that. I wish to heck some of our election officials knew it.”
Biden was asked at the end of his Oval Office appearance before reporters about Texas and Mississippi both lifting face mask mandates a day earlier and removing restrictions on indoor capacities at businesses.
“I think it’s a big mistake,” Biden said. “Look, I hope everyone’s realized by now, these masks make a difference. We are on the cusp of being able to change the nature of this disease because of the way we’re able to get vaccines in people’s arms.”
BIDEN on TEXAS OPENING: ‘It’s a Mistake, The Last Thing We Need is Neanderthal Thinking’ https://t.co/Nn0zVxTKhF
Biden announced there will be enough vaccines in America by the end of May to inoculate anyone who wants to be vaccinated. The timetable was moved up from the end of summer, to July, and now to the end of spring, Biden said. There are now three vaccines approved for emergency use in America, produced by Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson.
“This entire country has paid the price for political leaders who ignored the science when it comes to the pandemic,” White House press secretary Jen Psaki told reporters at the daily press briefing.
“There’s still more work to be done. We need to remain vigilant.”
The issue of mask wearing has been a divisive one for months, with some critics calling the use excessive. Particularly as some medical experts have advocated for wearing more than one mask at a time for added coronavirus protection, some have bristled at the notion.
Masks have been recommended by many medical experts, along with social distancing and hand washing, as ways to curb the spread of COVID-19 since the start of the pandemic. At issue now is whether the arrival and dissemination of effective vaccines signals that the time is right for a relaxation of some of these restrictions.
