Articles by admin

No Image

HHS Sues Drugmaker Gilead Over PrEP Patent Infringement

The federal government is suing drugmaker Gilead for alleged patent infringement. The suit charges the company violated patents on “PrEP” drugs that are used to prevent HIV infection.



MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST:

The Trump administration is taking the highly unusual step of suing a drugmaker. Specifically, the Department of Health and Human Services has filed a lawsuit against Gilead Sciences. The issue is patent infringement. HHS says Gilead has been infringing on its patents for PrEP. This is a drug regimen that prevents HIV infection.

All right. To help us understand all this, we’re going to bring in NPR health policy reporter Selena Simmons-Duffin. Hi, Selena.

SELENA SIMMONS-DUFFIN, BYLINE: Hi.

KELLY: What exactly is PrEP?

SIMMONS-DUFFIN: So PrEP stands for pre-exposure prophylaxis. It’s recommended for people who are at high risk for HIV infection. There are only two drugs currently approved for this, and both of them are made by Gilead. Truvada is the one that’s been used for PrEP since 2012 – very few side effects. It’s a daily pill. It’s almost 100% effective in preventing HIV infection.

But only a fraction of the 1 million people who are at risk for getting HIV are on it. And a big part of that – the reason for that is the price. So the list price here is $1,800 a month. A generic overseas is about $6 a month.

KELLY: Wow. OK.

SIMMONS-DUFFIN: So – yeah. Gilead maintains it invented Truvada. It spent about a billion dollars on R&D. But the CDC worked on developing the PrEP regimen, too, with taxpayer money. So there’s an activist group called PrEP for All that has been calling for months on the government to defend its patents. And last night with this lawsuit, it seems like the Trump administration is doing what these activists wanted.

KELLY: So they must be over the moon. I’m guessing…

SIMMONS-DUFFIN: Yeah.

KELLY: …The reaction has been positive.

SIMMONS-DUFFIN: Very, very pleased; also very surprised. One activist I talked to today said it seemed like they’d been screaming into the void about this, but maybe someone was actually listening.

KELLY: And why is the government – what have they indicated about why they were listening now, and what’s their argument?

SIMMONS-DUFFIN: So this complaint is very strongly worded. I’m going to – here – read part of it to you. Gilead’s conduct was malicious, wanton, deliberate, consciously wrongful, flagrant and in bad faith.

So basically, in general, HHS has lots of patents – thousands of patents. And usually, what happens is they license these patents out to companies and get paid royalties. Gilead didn’t do that. So the Financial Times did an analysis over the summer that Gilead owes the government about a billion dollars in royalties. And this complaint asks for enhanced damages, so they could be getting a lot more than that.

KELLY: I’m trying to situate this in terms of where we are as a country with the HIV epidemic because the Trump administration set that goal – right? – that they were going to try to end the HIV epidemic by 2030. Is this a piece of that?

SIMMONS-DUFFIN: Yeah. I think that the HHS is – been trying to reach that goal, and having Gilead set this very high price for this drug that they need to use to get the epidemic to stop has been a frustration. And I think that HHS and Gilead have been negotiating in good faith, it seems like. And this strongly worded lawsuit makes it seem like the government had enough. So just to remind everybody where we are in this epidemic, 40,000 people still get HIV infections every year here in the U.S.

KELLY: New infections every year.

SIMMONS-DUFFIN: New infections every single year. And you know, this is a beginning of a lawsuit. It’s a court process. It might take a really long time to sort out, but activists I talked to today think that it could be leverage to get actual concessions from Gilead, and they’re really hopeful that that may happen.

KELLY: And real quick – statement from Gilead today.

SIMMONS-DUFFIN: So Gilead maintains that it thinks that HHS’s lawsuits are invalid.

KELLY: All right. That is NPR’s Selena Simmons-Duffin. Thank you.

SIMMONS-DUFFIN: Thank you.

Copyright © 2019 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

Australian Women’s And Men’s Soccer Will Get Equal Share Of Revenue

Members of the Australian women’s national soccer team will now earn as much as the men’s team in a historic deal that addresses the equal pay. Note: audio courtesy the Fox Sports Soccer Channel.



RACHEL MARTIN, HOST:

The U.S. women’s soccer team, the 2019 World Cup champion, is still fighting for pay equity with their male counterparts.

DAVID GREENE, HOST:

But there is one team who just made that goal a reality – the women’s team from Australia, known as the Matildas. After years of negotiations, they reached a landmark deal ensuring the women who represent Australia are paid the same as the men.

(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)

SARAH WALSH: It’s hard to not be sentimental about today because it’s a massive moment for football.

GREENE: That is Sarah Walsh, a former pro on the Matildas. She helped lead the negotiations.

MARTIN: And the deal is historic. I mean, not only does it ensure equal pay, it also gives an even split of commercial revenue. And the Matildas now have access to the same training facilities as the male players. Elise Kellond-Knight is one of the Matildas’ stars.

(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)

ELISE KELLOND-KNIGHT: This new deal is enormous. As a female footballer, it’s kind of what we’ve always dreamed of. We’ve always wanted to be treated equal. We wanted to be able to step out on that pitch with equal opportunity and the equal facilities that the men have been exposed to.

GREENE: She says this is going to enable the next crop of Matildas to shine at World Cups in the future.

KELLOND-KNIGHT: The big win is for this younger generation. So they’re looking at this new deal. Now they’re thinking – wow, I can make a go of this. I think it’s phenomenal. I think it’s just going to attract more females to the game.

GREENE: Australia joins New Zealand and Norway in placing female and male players on the same pay scale. The world champion, team USA, as we said, is still absent from that list.

MARTIN: Mediation efforts between the U.S. women’s team and U.S. Soccer fell apart. That battle is now set to head to court next year, just months before the 2020 Olympics.

(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)

Copyright © 2019 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

Boeing CEO Says He Decided Not To Quit After 737 Max Crashes And Gave Up Bonuses

Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg testifies before a Senate committee last week on the 737 Max.

Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images

The CEO of Boeing says he considered stepping down in the aftermath of two 737 Max plane crashes in the last year that killed 346 people, but he says he is committed to staying on and seeing the giant defense and aerospace company through one of the worst crises of its century-long existence.

“I think it’s fair to say I’ve thought about it,” Boeing chief executive Dennis Muilenburg said Wednesday at a business conference. “But to be frank, that’s not what’s in my character. I don’t see running away from a challenge, resigning, as the right solution.”

Muilenburg’s comments come after he and his company faced criticism from lawmakers in two congressional hearings last week on Boeing’s role in the deadly plane crashes in Indonesia Oct. 29, 2018, and in Ethiopia on March 10 of this year. In his testimony, Muilenburg acknowledged Boeing made mistakes in the design and development of flight control system on the 737 Max that contributed to the crashes, and subsequent missteps in how the company responded to the crashes.

“They happened on my watch,” says Muilenburg of his reasons for staying put. “And I feel obligated, I feel responsible to stay on it, to work with the team to fix it, to see it through.”

Muilenburg says he is giving up his bonuses this year as the company struggles regain public confidence in the aftermath of the 737 Max crashes.

The CEO took home more than $23 million in salary and bonuses last year. But this year, Muilenburg says he’s asked Boeing’s board of directors to waive his bonuses.

Speaking Wednesday at the New York Times’ Dealbook conference, Muilenburg said he felt “a sense of responsibility … and conveying to our team, to all of our customers, to the families (of crash victims), that to me, it’s not about the money. It’s about the importance of what we do and our commitment to safety as a company.”

Muilenburg met with family members of some of those killed in the two crashes last Tuesday evening, in between the Senate and House committee hearings. He says he’s “heartbroken” by their stories of the losses they’ve suffered, adding, “I wish I had gone to visit them earlier,” he said.

In congressional hearings last week, some lawmakers ripped into Muilenburg for his high salary and multi-million dollars worth of stock options and bonuses, and for at that point, not offering to give up any of that lucrative compensation.

“What does accountability mean? Are you taking a cut in pay?” Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., angrily asked Muilenburg. “Are you working for free from now on till you can cure this problem?”

Pointing to the family members of some of those killed in the 737 Max plane crashes sitting in the gallery, Cohen continued to scold the CEO. “These people’s relatives are not coming back. They’re gone. And you won’t take a pay cut? Are you giving up any money?”

In an interview with CNBC Tuesday, Boeing Board Chairman David Calhoun said that exchange affected Muilenburg.

“Dennis was very uncomfortable in that situation,” Calhoun said of the exchange during the House Transportation Committee hearing. Calhoun says Muilenburg listened “to every story that the victims families presented to him, changed him for life. Now he’s got it in his core, and in his bones. It’s had a tremendous impact.”

Calhoun says the Board still has full confidence in Muilenburg. “From the vantage point of our board,” he said, “Dennis has done everything right.”

That comment doesn’t set well with some families of crash victims.

“His words are simply an insult to humanity,” says Paul Njoroge, whose wife, three small children and mother-in-law all were killed in the Ethiopian Airlines crash on March 10.

“How can he dare say that (Muilenburg) did ‘everything right’ while it’s so apparent that the company executives knew about” the flawed design of the flight control system that contributed both crashes. Njoroge adds, “Calhoun’s words were disrespectful to me, and to all the flying public.”

As for Muilenburg’s comments that he is “heartbroken” after meeting with some families, those words, too, ring hollow.

“He is exploiting and marketing the meeting with families for Boeing’s gain,” says Michael Stumo, whose 23-year old daughter Samya was killed in the Ethiopian crash.

Stumo says the claim Muilenburg spent “a few hours with the families” is “untrue. He spent a fraction of that time with just a few families with no effort to reach out to other families.”

Stumo went on to criticize Muilenburg for not explaining why the company “failed to fix the self-hijacking 737 MAX 8 after the Indonesian crash when they had clear knowledge of the problem. They hid it from pilots, failed to fix it … (and) as a result, my daughter died. Muilenburg must resign. He is not a leader, but an actor shielding his company from accountability.”

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

Under New Deal, Australian Women’s And Men’s Soccer Will Get Equal Share Of Revenue

Australia celebrates a goal during its knockout round match against Norway during the Women’s World Cup in France in June. Football Federation Australia announced a new deal on Wednesday to improve pay and conditions for the women’s team, known as the Matildas.

Martin Rose/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Martin Rose/Getty Images

Australia’s soccer governing body says it has reached an agreement with its top-flight men’s and women’s teams that will give the teams an equal share of player-generated revenue and lift the salaries of its women’s team.

Under the collective bargaining agreement between Football Federation Australia and Professional Footballers Australia, the two teams will be granted 24% of the revenue that they generate: 19% for themselves, and 5% to be invested in their names in the country’s youth national teams. The share paid to players will rise one point a year.

Salaries for the women’s team will rise under the new deal. Top women’s players will make about $57,000 USD a year in 2020, up from about $38,000 this year.

The FFA says the deal amounts to a 90% raise in guaranteed minimum payments for the Matildas, as the women’s team is known. The men’s team is the Socceroos. (Australia has achieved relative parity in team nicknames.)

The contract promise other improvements for the women’s team. The federation says it will upgrade the parental leave policy to provide more support for Matildas both during pregnancy and when they return to the pitch. Training conditions will now match those of the men’s team. And the Matildas will travel in business class on international flights, as the Socceroos long have.

The agreement is good for four years, governing the payouts for the next men’s and women’s World Cups. Australia is among the nations vying to host the 2023 women’s tournament.

The Matildas have historically fared better on the international stage than their male counterparts. At the 2019 Women’s World Cup, the Matildas were eliminated by Norway on penalties in the round of 16, while the Socceroos finished last in their group at the 2018 men’s tournament.

Under the new deal, players will get 40% of the prize money awarded by FIFA for playing in a World Cup, rising to 50% if they qualify for the knockout round. That’s up from the 30% the teams made before.

But it also represents the contract’s limits in terms of parity, because the payouts from FIFA are so much smaller for the women’s tournament. In 2023, women’s teams will share $60 million, while in 2022 the men will divide $440 million – a pot more than seven times bigger.

Australia joins other countries in improving pay and working conditions for its women’s teams. Norway began paying its men’s and women’s teams equal salaries in 2017, and New Zealand announced pay parity and international business-class travel for its women’s team last year.

Meanwhile, the U.S. women’s team lawsuit alleging gender discrimination by U.S. soccer continues. Mediation between the two parties broke down, and the case is headed for trial in May 2020.

Alex Morgan, co-captain of the U.S. team that made “equal pay” their cry of victory at last summer’s World Cup, said in August that she’s hopeful the two sides can find a resolution before going to court.

The team’s fight for parity isn’t for themselves, she said, but for the next generation of players.

“We’re not going to reap the benefits from equal pay and what we’re fighting for,” she told NPR. “That next generation should feel confident that they’re in good hands, and that we are setting up this structure, and this compensation, and this true equality for them.”

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

Federal Judge Throws Out ‘Conscience Rights’ Rule For Health Care Workers

A federal judge has thrown out the Trump administration’s “conscience rights” rule for health care workers.



AILSA CHANG, HOST:

Religious freedom has been a major focus of the Department of Health and Human Services under the Trump administration. Today there was a major blow to those efforts. A federal judge in Manhattan has thrown out a rule from HHS designed to protect the so-called conscience rights of health care workers.

Here to explain is NPR health policy reporter Selena Simmons-Duffin. Hey, Selena.

SELENA SIMMONS-DUFFIN, BYLINE: Hi.

CHANG: So can you just first explain, what are conscience rights? What does that even mean?

SIMMONS-DUFFIN: Right. So this relates to the HHS Office for Civil Rights, and that’s an office that receives complaints in three different categories. The biggest is patient privacy, like HIPAA. It also receives complaints of civil rights violations.

And then this last court category is conscience rights. So what that means is a doctor or a nurse who has religious objections to certain procedures or services – commonly, we talk about abortion, care for transgender patients, assisted suicide – if a doctor or nurse like that is forced to participate in that kind of care, they can file a complaint that their conscience rights have been violated to the Office for Civil Rights. And the director of that office is Roger Severino. He has made clear since he came in that religious freedom and conscience rights is his priority in that role, and that’s the context for this rule.

CHANG: OK. That’s the context. So when the rule came out in May, what did this rule do?

SIMMONS-DUFFIN: So the things that it did is it expanded who could file that type of a complaint that I just described to billing staff, scheduling staff. A doctor or nurse or this other kind of health worker did not have to give their employer prior notice that they objected to give this kind of care. There were no exceptions for medical emergencies. If a hospital, for instance, was found to have violated a health care worker’s conscience rights, HHS could have taken away all of its federal funding.

CHANG: Wow.

SIMMONS-DUFFIN: Yeah. So…

CHANG: It’s a large consequence.

SIMMONS-DUFFIN: Yeah, really big consequences. So part of the justification for issuing this rule is the office said that there was this big unmet need, that providers of faith were being forced to do things all over the country. Historically, there’s only been one of these kind of complaints that’s come into the office every year. That’s been for the last 10 years or so.

CHANG: OK.

SIMMONS-DUFFIN: But Severino keeps on saying that that number of complaints has just shot up. And he said last year, the office got 343 complaints.

CHANG: Wow, that’s quite an ascent. But after this rule came out, wasn’t it immediately challenged in court?

SIMMONS-DUFFIN: Yes. It was – the HHS was sued right away in this case by Planned Parenthood, the state of New York, lots of other states and cities and organizations. And today, what happened is the U.S. District Court Judge Paul Engelmayer of the Southern District of New York vacated the rule. He found the rule’s violations of federal law were, quote, “numerous, fundamental and far-reaching.” And he also found that HHS exaggerated the need for this rule. So remember I was just talking about 343 complaints.

CHANG: Right, the number of claims that came in last year. What about them?

SIMMONS-DUFFIN: Right. So apparently, that’s an – a made-up number. The government submitted…

CHANG: Really?

SIMMONS-DUFFIN: …These complaints.

CHANG: OK.

SIMMONS-DUFFIN: And the court analyzed them and says, instead of 343, the real number is 20. A government lawyer said on the record that that is the ballpark for the complaints that have come into the office. So the judge called that admission fatal to HHS’s justification.

CHANG: Three hundred forty-three versus 20 – that’s quite a discrepancy.

SIMMONS-DUFFIN: Yes.

CHANG: OK. So what’s next in the litigation?

SIMMONS-DUFFIN: So there is weirdly another case against this rule in another district court. This one is in the Northern District of California. A ruling is expected there, but it’s not clear what happens now that the rule’s been vacated. I asked HHS what’s next, and it would not comment on a possible appeal – only said that it was reviewing this court’s opinion.

CHANG: That’s NPR’s Selena Simmons-Duffin. Thanks, Selena.

SIMMONS-DUFFIN: Thank you.

(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)

Copyright © 2019 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

FCC Clears T-Mobile/Sprint Merger Deal

Sprint CEO Marcelo Claure (left) and T-Mobile CEO John Legere on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange on April 30, 2018.

Richard Drew/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Richard Drew/AP

The U.S. Federal Communications Commission on Tuesday released its Oct. 16 order allowing T-Mobile to merge with Sprint in a $26.5 billion deal. The commissioners approved the deal last month on a closed-door, 3-2 party-line vote.

The merger was praised by Republican commissioners as a boon for rural America and by Democratic commissioners as a disaster for consumers. The merger still faces a legal challenge by a coalition of state attorneys general.

“The Commission found that the transaction will help close the digital divide and advance United States leadership in 5G, the next generation of wireless connectivity,” the FCC said in a statement. “Specifically, T-Mobile and Sprint have committed within three years to deploy 5G service to cover 97% of the American people, and within six years to reach 99% of all Americans. This commitment includes deploying 5G service to cover 85% of rural Americans within three years and 90% of rural Americans within six years.

Dissenting Democratic commissioners said the promises T-Mobile and Sprint made are not enforceable and that the merger will shrink the number of national providers from four to three, thereby reducing competition overall.

“In the short term, this merger will result in the loss of potentially thousands of jobs,” wrote Commissioner Geoffrey Starks. “In the long term, it will establish a market of three giant wireless carriers with every incentive to divide up the market, increase prices, and compete only for the most lucrative customers.”

In the states’ lawsuit, lead by New York and California, state attorneys general argue that the merger will reduce competition and lead to increased costs for consumers. Their suit goes to trial in December.

The T-Mobile and Sprint merger has been in the works since the Obama administration. But the Justice Department and FCC opposed the deal back in 2014. Regulators under the Trump administration have been more sympathetic.

Sprint is owned by the Japanese conglomerate Softbank and T-Mobile is owned by Germany’s Deutsche Telekom.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

This Ohio Addiction Recovery Program Uses Opioid Settlement Money To Help Patients

With opioid settlement money, Ohio’s Cuyahoga County created an addiction recovery program that helps patients after they’re discharged from the ER. Now, officials want to expand the program.



MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST:

Many people who survive drug overdoses spend time in emergency rooms. After being discharged, they face a high risk of overdosing again. Some communities are trying a hands-on approach to prevent that cycle by connecting patients with coaches who have gone through the rigors of addiction recovery themselves. Nick Castele reports on efforts to expand that approach by using settlement money from opioid lawsuits.

NICK CASTELE, BYLINE: This fall, two northeast Ohio counties were slated to be the first to go to trial in a nationwide lawsuit over the opioid crisis, but the defendants offered more than $300 million in cash and drug products to settle the case, and the counties accepted. While more than 2,500 other plaintiffs nationwide are still waiting for a universal settlement that could top tens of billions, Cuyahoga and Summit Counties have their settlement money on the way, and they’re planning to spend much of it on anti-addiction programs, including hiring more people like Christopher Hall. Hall is neither a doctor nor a nurse, but at MetroHealth Medical Center in Cleveland, he offers patients struggling with addiction something unique – common ground.

CHRISTOPHER HALL: I was addicted. I used heroin for 15 years. I grew up with alcoholism. I know what you’re going through, and that really gets them to let their guard down and talk. And they’re very relieved.

CASTELE: Once Hall gets patients talking, he tries to sign them up for additional help like detox or residential treatment. He’s part of a peer recovery program at MetroHealth. So far, the hospital has been happy with the results of its 2-year-old program. Dr. Joan Papp oversees opioid safety for the hospital and says it takes a lot of time and resources to support people in treatment. That’s time that hospital emergency departments rarely have.

JOAN PAPP: With the help of a peer supporter – somebody there to really guide you and hold your hand and, in many cases, drive you directly to treatment – that is just a world of difference.

CASTELE: Now this Cleveland-area county wants to use opioid settlement money to fund peer coaches at other local hospitals. If successful, that could help more people with opioid addiction like Patricia Withrow. She met her peer supporter at a local treatment center in Cleveland.

PATRICIA WITHROW: She’s a big part of my life, actually. My day – if I don’t talk to her at least once a day, I feel incomplete.

CASTELE: Withrow has been sober for 17 months. When she had a recent cancer scare, she says her supporter talked to her kids to help reassure them. That kind of stress could push someone to relapse, Withrow says, but she’s been doing well.

WITHROW: It’s taught me how to have actual relationships with people that are positive. She taught me that. She taught me how to set boundaries.

CASTELE: Withrow is referring to her peer supporter, Nicole Betzner. Betzner says she helps her clients work through the messy parts of their lives that can get in the way of recovery.

NICOLE BETZNER: If their home environment is toxic or relationships, or if they have barriers with food, clothing, shelter, transportation, all of those things – kind of unraveling that, but ultimately, also helping a person just recover from different traumas and issues of life.

CASTELE: Over the past five years, as the opioid crisis has deepened, peer support programs have been catching on, launching in New York City, Rhode Island, Indiana and elsewhere. Dr. Elizabeth Samuels at Brown University coordinates with hospitals in Rhode Island. While the results are still coming in, she says, hospital peer support programs seem to be effective.

ELIZABETH SAMUELS: They’ve been in that person’s shoes. They know what it’s like. They treat them like a human being. They give them respect.

CASTELE: As this Ohio county moves forward, other communities are still awaiting their share of settlement dollars to help bring people with addiction back from the edge of crisis.

For NPR News, I’m Nick Castele in Cleveland.

Copyright © 2019 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

California Seizes More Than $1.5 Billion In Illegal Marijuana

An illegal cannabis cultivation site in the City of Santa Maria, in San Luis Obispo County, Calif. Authorities seized 20 tons of illegal cannabis in a raid that lasted four days in June 2019.

AP


hide caption

toggle caption

AP

California authorities announced they seized more than $1.5 billion worth of illegal marijuana in fiscal year 2019, or the rough equivalent of the state’s legal market for cannabis.

More than 953,000 plants were seized from 345 raided grow sites around the state. Authorities arrested 148 people and confiscated 168 weapons under California’s Campaign Against Marijuana Planting, or CAMP program.

“Illegal cannabis grows are devastating our communities. Criminals who disregard life, poison our waters, damage our public lands, and weaponize the illegal cannabis black market will be brought to justice,” said Attorney General Xavier Becerra in a statement on Monday.

The value of the seizures was based on the estimated wholesale price of $1,600 per plant.

A cannabis industry expert quoted by the Associated Press said that wholesale costs are doubled for the retail marijuana market, so the state seizures would be worth $3 billion of illegally grown marijuana.

California’s seizures are “equal to our entire regulated market, said Jerrod Kiloh, president of the United Cannabis Business Association.

Although cannabis has been legalized for use in California, there is still a large unlicensed black market,” said Robert Paoletti, Coordinator Colonel, California National Guard Counterdrug Task Force. “Our participation works to prevent this illegal market in order to promote a fair market place for those growers, producers, and vendors who choose to operate within the system that the voters approved.”

California voters legalized recreational marijuana in 2016. However the illegal market is still alive, in part, because consumers can avoid paying taxes on their cannabis.

Industry experts say the legal market is struggling to compete with the illegal market for other reasons.

“Regulators are ambivalent, publicly supporting the value of moving cannabis out of the illicit market and redressing the harms prohibition has done—such as overincarceration of minorities for minor possession offenses—but they have often proved unwilling to allow enough stores and keep regulatory and tax costs low enough to make the legal market competitive,” according to a report by industry analysts Arcview Market Researc and BDS Analytics.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

The Infectious Joy Of Mwenso & The Shakes

  • “Know the God In You”
  • “Let’s Sing Again” (Fats Waller)

There are charismatic people, and then there’s Michael Mwenso. The leader of Mwenso & the Shakes is full of energy, charm and most importantly, joy. That joy is ever-present when he’s telling stories about growing up in Ghana and Nigeria and spending four years trying to impress James Brown. You’ll also find that joy on his debut album, Emergence [The Process of Coming Into Being], which blends jazz, R&B and spoken word in a live album that feels like a Broadway show. These songs are anthemic — an explosion of ideas and sounds wrapped around familiar instrumentation.

Michael will tell the remarkable story of moving to England as a kid, finding music after his mom was deported and how he was taken under the wing of James Brown as a teen. First though, we get started with a live performance from the stage of World Cafe Live. Hear that and more in the audio player above, and watch a special bonus video of Mwenso & The Shake’s performance of “Resolute” on this page.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

This Congolese Doctor Discovered Ebola But Never Got Credit For It — Until Now

Dr. Jean-Jacques Muyembe first encountered Ebola in 1976, before it had been identified. Since then, from his post at the Congo National Institute for Biomedical Research, he has led the global search for a cure.

Samantha Reinders for NPR


hide caption

toggle caption

Samantha Reinders for NPR

Dr. Jean-Jacques Muyembe says his story starts in 1973. He had just gotten his Ph.D. at the Rega Institute in Belgium. He could have stayed in Europe, but he decided to return to Congo, or what was then known as Zaire, which had only recently attained independence from Belgium.

If he had stayed in Belgium, he says, he would have been doing routine lab work. But in Congo, he would be responsible for the “health of my people.”

“But when I arrived here the conditions of work were not good,” he says. “I had no lab; I had no mice for the experimentation, so it was very difficult to work here.”

Being a microbiologist without mice or a lab was useless, so he took a job as a field epidemiologist. In 1976, he was called to an outbreak of a mysterious disease in central Congo.

Lots of people had died of something that presented like yellow fever, typhoid or malaria. Muyembe arrived to a nearly empty hospital. He says people thought the infection was coming from the hospital, and he found only a mother and her baby.

Muyembe says his biggest legacy won’t be discovering Ebola. It will be that in the future, another young Congolese researcher could be able to do more of their work in their home country, rather than relying on peers in the U.S. or Europe.

Samantha Reinders for NPR


hide caption

toggle caption

Samantha Reinders for NPR

“I thought that it was malaria or something like this,” he says. “But in the night the baby died, so the hospital was completely empty.”

By morning, as the people of Yambuku heard Muyembe had been sent by the central government in Kinshasa, they started lining up at the hospital hoping he had medicine for them.

“I started to make physical exam,” he says. “But at that time we had no gloves in the whole hospital.”

And, of course, he had to draw blood, but when he removed the syringes, the puncture would gush blood.

“It was the first time for me to see this phenomenon,” he says. “And also my fingers were soiled with blood.”

Muyembe says he washed his hands, but it was really luck that kept him from contracting an infection. He knew immediately this was something he’d never seen before. Some of the Belgian nuns in the village had been vaccinated against yellow fever and typhoid, but this disease was different. It was killing people fast. When he took liver samples with a long needle, the same thing would happen — blood would continue to gush.

He persuaded one of the nuns who had the disease to fly with him to Kinshasa. He took blood samples before she died and sent them to Belgium, where they had an electron microscope to try to identify the culprit. Scientists there and in the United States saw this was a new virus that caused hemorrhagic fever.

They named it Ebola, after a river near the village.

The discovery, says Muyembe, was thanks to a “consortium of research.”

But Google “Who discovered Ebola?” and you get a bunch of names — all of them white Western males. Dr. Jean Jacques Muyembe has been written out of history.

“Yes, but it is …” he pauses. He takes a breath and laughs, looking for the right way to respond.

“Yes. It is not correct,” he says. “It is not correct.”

***

The man who gets the bulk of the credit for discovering Ebola is Dr. Peter Piot. At the time, he was a young microbiologist at the Institute for Tropical Medicine in Belgium. He was the one to receive the blood samples sent by Muyembe.

He describes his experience in No Time to Lose, a book about his professional life, including his vast work on HIV.

But Ebola was his big break. In the book, he describes how vials of blood had arrived in melting ice, some of them broken.

He describes how the World Health Organization ordered them to give up the samples, to send them to England and eventually the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the United States, which was one of the only labs equipped to handle a deadly virus like Ebola.

He describes how angry that made him and Dr. Stefaan Pattyn, the man running the lab at the time, who died in 2008.

“[Pattyn] claimed that we needed a few more days to ready it for transport,” Piot wrote. “So we kept a few tubes of VERO cells, as well as some of the newborn mice, which were dying. Perhaps it was a stubborn rebellion against the whole Belgian history of constantly being forced to grovel to a greater power. That material was just too valuable, too glorious to let it go.”

Almost simultaneously, scientists at the CDC and Piot looked at the samples under an electron microscope and saw a snakelike filament — huge in comparison to other viruses and very similar to the Marburg virus. The CDC, which kept the world’s reference lab for hemorrhagic viruses, confirmed this was something new. This was Ebola.

***

The Congo National Institute for Biomedical Research sits in the middle of Kinshasa.

There are ragged couches along the corridors and goats feeding in the courtyard. But this is where the bulk of the science is being done on the second largest Ebola outbreak in history.

Tucked in corners around the building, there are high-tech labs. Scientists in full biohazard suits run Ebola samples through sophisticated machines that spit out DNA sequences. On the bulletin boards outside the offices, scientists have pinned papers published in international journals about the science done right here.

Workers are constantly dragging in boxes of brand-new scientific gear. On this day, almost all of them are stamped with the American flag.

It’s no secret there is resentment among scientists here about what many believe is a marginalization of their work by the West.

Joel Lamika, who runs an Ebola smartphone app at the institute, says many foreign governments want to stamp their flags on the work Congolese have done.

“They want to claim like it’s theirs,” he says. “But it is theft.”

Lamika says perhaps one good thing that has come out of this latest Ebola outbreak is that it is giving the world a chance to rewrite history.

Muyembe, he says, is a national hero. His picture is on a huge banner in front of this institute. During previous Ebola outbreaks, and especially the huge one in West Africa that killed more than 11,000 people, the the scientific community used Muyembe as an example of someone who had gotten it right. Under his leadership, Congo had managed to quickly quell nine previous outbreaks.

Maybe this outbreak, he says, will give the world an opportunity to know who Muyembe is.

“It’s time for the world to learn that Ebola was discovered by a Congolese,” he said. “By Dr. Jean-Jacques Muyembe.”

***

Today, Peter Piot is the director of the prestigious London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. He’s friends with Muyembe and expresses nothing but admiration for not only his scientific prowess, but the way he has managed public health emergencies.

But in his book, he mentions Muyembe only in passing, as a bright scientist constantly pressuring Piot for more resources.

When asked if he feels responsible for writing Muyembe out of history, Piot pauses.

“I think that’s a fair comment,” he says. “But my book was not an attempt to write the history of Ebola, but more my personal experience.”

Piot says at the time of that first Ebola outbreak, African scientists were simply excluded. White scientists — with a colonial mentality — parachuted in, took samples, wrote papers that were published in the West and took all of the credit.

But things are changing, he says. Muyembe, for example, is finally starting to get his due. He was recently given a patent for pioneering the first treatment for Ebola and he has received several international awards, including the Royal Society Africa Prize and, just this year, the Hideyo Noguchi Africa Prize.

“That reflects, I think, the [change in] power relations in global health and science in general,” he said.

During this outbreak, Muyembe has also made a decision many thought unthinkable even a few years ago. He decided that all of the blood samples collected during this Ebola epidemic will stay in Congo. Anyone who wants to study this outbreak will have to come to his institute.

American scientists, who have led the way in studying Ebola, have privately expressed frustrations. But Piot says the decision was obviously made because of how African scientists have been treated. Western scientists, he says, should get over it.

“We have to wake up to two things,” he says. “One, the world has changed. And two, it’s a matter of fairness.”

***

Muyembe keeps his office ice cold, and when he talks, he nervously drums a pen against his notebook. He’s terribly serious about his work, but he also offers an easy smile as he remembers his work.

The thing that makes him glow is talking about the treatment he developed.

“It is the most important achievement of my life,” he says.

In 1995, during another outbreak, he wondered whether antibodies developed by Ebola survivors could be siphoned from their blood and used to treat new cases. So he injected Ebola patients with the blood of survivors, taking inspiration from a practice used before sophisticated advances in vaccine-making.

“We did eight patients and seven survived,” he says.

The medical establishment wrote him off. He didn’t have a control group, they told him. But Muyembe knew that in this village, Ebola was killing 81% of people. Just this year, however, that science became the foundation of what is now proven to be the first effective treatment against Ebola, saving about 70% of patients.

“But if this idea was accepted by scientists, we [could have] saved a lot of people, a lot of lives,” he says.

You can tell Muyembe is hurt by all this. Ever since he returned to Congo, he has fought for recognition for his country. His whole life, he has dreamed that big science could come out of his home country.

Just as he announced that samples would not leave Congo, he also got a commitment from Japan to build a state-of-the-art research facility right here. Soon, the goats in the courtyard will be gone, replaced by a facility just as good as those in Belgium or in the United States.

At 77, Muyembe says he doesn’t regret coming back to Congo. And, unlike when he returned in 1973, now he has equipment.

“Now I have mice here,” he says, laughing. “I have mice. I have subculture. Now, everything is here.”

His biggest legacy, he says, won’t be that he helped to discover Ebola or a cure for it. It’ll be that if another young Congolese scientist finds himself with an interesting blood sample, he’ll be able to investigate it right here in Congo.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)