The military-backed regime in Thailand faces mounting opposition to its handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, which is surging out of control as the Delta variant spreads. More than 1.2 million people have been infected, and the number of deaths now is over 12,000, with most since April. Less than 100 fatalities occurred last year when the pandemic first hit the country.
Anti-government protesters participate in a rally Bangkok, Thailand, Thursday, Sept. 2, 2021. Protesters demanded the resignation of Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha for his failure in handling the COVID-19 pandemic. (AP Photo/Sakchai Lalit)
The latest demonstration took place in Bangkok on Saturday, as the national assembly debated a no-confidence motion in the administration headed by former military head, now prime minister, Prayuth Chan-ocha, who led the 2014 military coup that ousted the previous elected government.
Several hundred protesters marched through central Bangkok’s main shopping mall district, despite heavy rain and a heavy police mobilisation that included riot police and water cannon. The police used shipping containers to block major routes to the advertised venue, where the march was due to conclude.
Prayuth survived a third no-confidence vote, as did five of his ministers who were heavily criticised for their pandemic policies. The motion to remove the prime minister was defeated by 264 to 208 votes in the lower house, with three abstentions.
At the start of the debate on Tuesday, Sompong Amornvivat, leader of the opposition Pheu Thai Party, demagogically denounced Prayuth as “a power-crazed, arrogant person unsuited to leading the country,” and warned of more deaths and infections if he remained in office.
Other Pheu Thai leaders condemned the government’s delayed purchase and distribution of vaccines, as well as its decision to keep the country out of the World Health Organisation’s COVAX program. Only 11.1 percent of the Thai population was fully vaccinated as of August 30.
In March, banned opposition politician Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit was charged under the country’s draconian lese majesté laws, which carry penalties of up to 15 years jail for criticising the monarchy. His “crime” was to question why Siam Bioscience, owned by King Maha Vajiralongkorn, was given the contract to locally produce the AstraZenaca vaccine when it had no experience in vaccine manufacture.
When the domestic AstraZenaca production failed to meet demands, Thailand had to import Chinese-made Sinovac and Sinopharm vaccines, and received a donation of 1.5 million Pfizer doses from the US.
The number of COVID-19 cases recorded on Saturday was nearly 16,000, down from over 20,000 a day in August. However, the decline in infections is likely to be the result of decreased testing. Moreover, the dangers posed by the highly infectious Delta variant will increase, as the government has lifted most of its limited lockdown measures in a bid to boost the stagnating economy. Tourism has collapsed and manufacturing has declined.
Opposition fueled by the COVID-19 surge rekindled last year’s mass protests, largely of young people demanding an end to the military-backed regime, including the removal of Prayuth as prime minister, changes to the military-devised constitution, reform of the monarchy and abolition of the lese majesté law.
Tens of thousands of people took to the streets in Bangkok and other major Thai cities in the second half of 2020, before police violence and arrests stifled the movement for a time. A number of protest leaders were arrested and charged under the lese majesté law for criticising the monarchy. Some have contracted COVID-19, while in prison awaiting trial.
The latest wave of protests began at the end of June, and has escalated over the past two months, despite police crackdowns. More than 10 demonstrations were broken up with force last month. During one protest, a 15-year-old boy was shot and remains in intensive care. Police deny firing live ammunition.
Tosaporn Sererak, a doctor who was part of the government ousted in the 2014 coup, commented in the New York Times: “Earlier, people said they were not coming out to protest because of Covid, but now the thinking has changed to, ‘You stay at home and you will die anyway because of the government’s inability to take care of people’.”
Thousands took part in an anti-government protest last Thursday, in central Bangkok, despite threats from police who warned that demonstrations were banned under coronavirus restrictions. A smaller protest, at which tyres were burnt and firecrackers set off, took place near the prime minister’s residence elsewhere in the city
Protest organiser Nattawut Saikua declared that parliamentarians had to choose between the people and Prayuth, who had caused more than 10,000 deaths. He warned that even if Prayuth survived the no-confidence vote, the protests to drive him out would continue.
The protests are an expression of far broader opposition to the government. Like its counterparts around the world, it places big business profits before the health and lives of working people.
The eruption, once again, of determined protests is clearly raising concerns in ruling circles. Opposition parliamentarians have sought to keep the movement within safe channels, with their toothless no-confidence motions and equally toothless denunciations of Prayuth.
Tanat Thanakitamnuay, the son of a wealthy real estate family, who supported the 2014 military coup, has joined the protests for similar purposes. He was hit by a hard object, possibly a tear gas cannister, during a protest on August 13 and lost the vision of his right eye. He has said some of his rich friends have begun attending rallies.
If the protests are dominated by bourgeois figures like Tanat, they will inevitably be sold out, as opposition politicians seek some sordid compromise with the regime and the military. The death and destruction from the pandemic are rooted in the capitalist system itself, which prioritises private wealth accumulation over people’s lives and livelihoods. The measures needed to eradicate the virus are known, but they conflict with the requirements of the corporate elite.
Application Timeline: 13th October 2021 midday (UK time)
Eligible Countries: international
To be taken at (country): Cambridge University UK
Accepted Subject Areas: Masters and PhD Courses offered by the university
About the Award: Gates Cambridge Scholarships are highly competitive full-cost scholarships. They are awarded to outstanding applicants from countries outside the UK to pursue a full-time postgraduate degree in any subject available at the University of Cambridge. The Gates Cambridge Scholarships programme aims to build a global network of future leaders committed to improving the lives of others.
Type: Masters, PhD
Selection Criteria
outstanding intellectual ability
leadership potential
a commitment to improving the lives of others
a good fit between the applicant’s qualifications and aspirations and the postgraduate programme at Cambridge for which they are applying
Eligibility
a citizen of any country outside the United Kingdom.
applying to pursue one of the following full-time residential courses of study: PhD (three year research-only degree); MSc or MLitt (two year research-only degree); or a one year postgraduate course (e.g. MPhil, LLM, MASt, Diploma, MBA etc.)
already a student at Cambridge and want to apply for a new postgraduate course. For example, if you are studying for an MPhil you can apply for a Gates Cambridge Scholarship to do a PhD. However, if you have already started a course, you cannot apply for a Gates Cambridge Scholarship to fund the rest of it.
already a Gates Cambridge Scholar and want to apply for a second Scholarship. You must apply by the second, international deadline and go through the same process of departmental ranking, shortlisting and interviewing as all other candidates.
Number of Scholarship: Several
Value of Scholarship
Scholarship will cover the full cost of study
the University Composition Fee and College fees at the appropriate rate
a maintenance allowance for a single student
one economy single airfare at both the beginning and end of the course
Duration of Scholarship: For the duration of the programme
Important Notes: Gates Cambridge Scholarships are extremely competitive: over 4,000 applicants apply for 90 Scholarships each year.
Given the intense competition, the Trust has a four stage selection process:
Departmental ranking – the very best applicants to each department are ranked on academic merit only
Shortlisting – Gates Cambridge committees review the applications of ranked candidates using all four Gates Cambridge criteria and put forward a list for interview
Interview – all shortlisted candidates have a short interview to assess how they meet all four Gates Cambridge criteria
Selection – chairs of interview panels meet to decide the final list of Scholars
A good fit between the applicant’s qualifications and aspirations and the postgraduate programme at Cambridge for which they are applying
With the discovery of fossils, artifacts, and ‘destroyed’ cities, archaeologists and historians have uncovered the hidden mysteries of events and cultures that preceded society. Ancient Greece (Greek: Romanized Hellas) was a similar ancient culture dating back to the 12th century BC (9th century BC) to the 9th century BC (600 BCE).
The Greeks made significant contributions to the four fields of philosophy, mathematics, astronomy, and medicine. Literature and theater were important aspects of Greek culture. It seems to have had an effect on modern plays as well. The Greeks were also known for their sophisticated sculpture and architecture. Greek culture influenced the Roman Empire and many other civilizations, and it is still seen today.
The ancient Greeks developed a sophisticated ‘philosophical and scientific’ culture, based on the philosophical, scientific discoveries of cultures in Egypt and Mesopotamia. The core of ancient Greek philosophy is causation and the role of inquiry. It emphasized logic-based reasoning.
Greece passed on to the world a tradition of great philosophers, physicians, and mathematicians, such as Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, Pythagoras, and Democrats.
Ancient Greek philosophy Emerged in the sixth century and flourished in the Hellenistic period and in the territory of the Greek-inhabited Roman Empire. Philosophy was used to find answers to profound questions, without resorting to religious means in any way. Discussions were held on various topics such as astronomy, mathematics, political philosophy, ethics, philosophy, ontology, logic, biology, rhetoric and aesthetics.
Greek scientists made significant contributions to mathematics and science. All mankind is indebted to the basic theories, ideas and discoveries about geometry, the proofs and concepts presented by Pythagoras, Euclid and Archimedes (the theory of gravitation). Greek astronomers first developed “astronomical models” of the movements of the planets, the “orbit of the earth” and the Sun in the center of the solar system. Another Greek physician, Hippocrates, was the most famous physician of antiquity. He founded a medical school, wrote several medical texts. Discovered systematic and experimental diagnostic methods of diseases and their treatment. Hence he is referred to as the founder of modern medicine. The ‘Hippocratic Oath’ is known as the ‘Medical Penalty of the Doctor’.
Greek architecture
Raphael’s School of Athens (1-5-111) depicts the best and ideals of ancient Greek architecture and brings together all philosophers. Aristotle wrote about biology and drama. Art, literature, and theater were intertwined in ancient Greek society. The Greek theater began in BC. Religious festivals in Athens in the sixth century took place through tragedy-drama. This also inspired the comedy drama genre.
These two types of plays became extremely popular and popular in the Hellenistic and Roman theaters. . Playwrights such as Sophocles (497 BC) (Tragedy) and Aristophanes (born 446 BC) (Humorous Sukhantika) laid the foundations of theatrical culture – on which all modern theater is based. In fact, although dialogue has always seemed to be a part of literature, the playwright Aeschylus (524-455 BC) introduced the characters to each other through dialogue and came up with the idea of moving the play forward through dialogue. , ‘Oedipus the King- (‘ Oedipus Rex ‘)’ and other plays took refuge in the script.
Oedipus Rex, the basis of Modern Psychology
Oedipus was a legendary Greek king of Thebes. That is, Oedipus, a tragic hero in Greek mythology, accidentally fulfilled a prophecy, that is, he murdered his father and married his mother, and this led to a plague in his city and family. The psychological concept of the Oedipus complex, by Sigmund Freud, describes the stages of psychological development of children and the human race. The psychological concept of the Oedipus complex is theoretically proposed by Sigmund Freud in describing the stages of psychological development of the child and the human race. As a writer and actor, Karnad has compiled the most important plays in Greek history, King Oedipus and Homer’s The Iliad and Odyssey.
A panoramic view of Mount Tomaros, Dodona in Greece
Greek art, especially sculpture and architecture, has had a tremendous and incredible impact on other civilizations. BC Between 800 and 300, Greek sculpture had a far-reaching effect on Egyptian and Eastern (including our Indian) art. . Inspired by Greek sculpture, centuries of specific styles have been created on the same theme. Greek artists reached the pinnacle of masterpieces. That is why this art took on a more human form than ever before. Greek sculptors were particularly aware of the need to create perfect symbols of proportion, diversity, and the human body.
Greek architects designed some of the finest buildings in the ancient world. Many of their buildings, including temples, movie theaters, and stadiums, are unique in that they have been a major feature of cities and towns since ancient times. The architecture of the Roman world is greatly influenced by the beauty, simplicity, proportionality, artistic approach and harmony of their buildings. Such innovations laid the foundation for the architecture of today’s Western world!
The heritage of Greek culture and the Modern world
The legacy of Greek culture, the civilization of ancient Greece, was very influential in many areas. The Roman Empire, which ruled over ‘Greece’, was heavily influenced by Greek culture. As the world-famous Roman poet and lyricist Horace sarcastically put it in the days of King Augustus in ancient Rome, “captive Greece” held its victorious “Roman Empire” captive. The culture of medieval Greece (Byzantine Greece) had a profound effect on the Slavic, Islamic Golden Age, and Western European renaissance. The neoclassicism movement in Europe and America in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries revived the classical Greek teaching method in its modern form. In today’s modern world, the influence of ‘Greek culture’ is felt in our lives!
There has been a growing epidemic of the misuse of the anti-parasitic medication known as ivermectin for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19, although it has yet to be proven an effective treatment. And despite the lack of any valid scientific studies supporting its use, there have been droves of social media accounts of celebrities like Joe Rogan turning to the medication, which dangerously promotes the ongoing quackery.
To put into scale the lunacy of it all, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that prescriptions for ivermectin have spiked to 88,000 per week. The pre-pandemic baseline average ran around 3,600 per week. Additionally, the American Association of Poison Control Centers has noted that there has been a five-fold jump in the number of calls regarding its abuse, significantly from those using veterinary formulations.
These developments prompted the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to admonish the public to stop abusing the anti-parasitic medication. Last week the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued an alert to health care providers and the public on reports of severe illness in the misuse of ivermectin to prevent or treat COVID-19. More recently, the American Medical Association (AMA) issued a statement strongly opposing “the ordering, prescribing, or dispensing of ivermectin to prevent or treat COVID-19 outside of a clinical trial.”
Consumer warning againts use of Ivermectin. Source Twitter
The AMA wrote, “We are alarmed by reports that outpatient prescribing for and dispensing of ivermectin have increased 24-fold since before the pandemic and increased exponentially over the past few months.” They warned that the veterinary forms of this medication come in highly concentrated formulations intended for large animals that could be toxic to individuals using them.
One could perhaps grimace in dismay over one comedian telling his 13 million followers that he used medication intended to deworm livestock, pets or people exposed to helminths parasites, such as roundworms, flukes and tapeworms. But when ivermectin is promoted as the answer to COVID-19 through a political and media campaign, something far more sinister is involved.
On August 23, Judge J. Gregory Howard of the Butler County Common Pleas Court in Ohio ordered West Chester Hospital to administer ivermectin to a patient named Jeffrey Smith, who was being cared for in their intensive care unit, despite the FDA’s position against its use.
Smith contracted COVID-19 sometime in early July, testing positive on July 9. He was admitted to the hospital on July 15. However, his condition deteriorated and he was placed in a medically induced coma and supported on a ventilator on August 1. Apparently, the course of his treatment was difficult and despite having exhausted all course of treatment and COVID-19 protocols, his condition continued to deteriorate. His wife asked the hospital administrators to offer her husband ivermectin, but they refused. According to NBC News , “Julie Smith sought a declaratory judgment demanding the hospital follow her request, and the judge fulfilled her request.”
Even worse is the revelation by the Associated Press that inmates in a northwest Arkansas jail were given ivermectin without their knowledge, while being told that this was medicine for COVID-19. One prisoner, William Evans, told AP, “They were pretty much testing us in here is all they were doing, seeing if it would work.” He was given the drug for two weeks after he tested positive for COVID-19. Another prisoner, Edwin Floreal-Wooten, said he would never have taken a medicine for farm animals: “Never. I’m not livestock. I’m a human.”
Pressure is now being placed on hospitals by other families with loved ones struggling on ventilators to provide the medication to them. In a similar case at Memorial Center in Springfield, Illinois, a Sangamon County judge ruled in favor of the hospital, citing the fact that the patient, a 61-year-old-male, was improving and no longer had active COVID. The judge also explained that the medication’s side effect could injure his kidneys or lungs, compromising his tenuous state.
This hasn’t stopped Ralph Lorigo, a Buffalo, New York, attorney who took on the Springfield, Illinois case, from leading the charge on other ivermectin cases, using the argument that family members have the right to “save” their loved ones. He has thus far successfully sued in New York, Illinois and Ohio.
The issue here is not the despair of families, which is real, and the blame for it lies on the entire political spectrum that has allowed the virus free rein to infect and kill millions. Rather, the issue at the center of this discussion is whether the standard of care in treating a patient is being met. The argument being employed on behalf of ivermectin is both reactionary and dangerous.
Ivermectin: a brief recent history
Given the hype over ivermectin and the controversies being generated, few take note that in 2015, the Nobel Committee awarded the prize in physiology or medicine to three scientists who had discovered drugs hidden in various plants and soils that could treat disfiguring and deadly parasitic infections. Parasitic diseases plague an estimated one-third of the world’s population, particularly among the poorest in sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia and Latin America.
Two of the awardees, Drs. William C. Campbell and Satoshi Omura, developed avermectin in the 1970s, the parent of the now infamous ivermectin, which has helped nearly eradicate river blindness and drastically curtail the incidence of filariasis, a condition that leads to the swelling of lymphatic channels in the legs, causing a condition colloquially called Elephantiasis. The third scientist recognized for the Nobel was Dr. Tu Youyou of China who discovered artemisinin, a drug that has become the mainstay in the prevention of malaria.
Drs. William C. Campbell and Satoshi Omura, Nobel Laureates in medicine, in Stockholm December 2015. Source Wikimedia
The Nobel Committee wrote, “These two discoveries [avermectin and artemisinin] have provided humankind with powerful new means to combat these debilitating diseases that affect hundreds of millions of people annually. The consequences in terms of improved human health and reduced suffering are immeasurable [because parasitic diseases] represent a huge barrier to improving human health and well-being.”
The World Health Organization (WHO) has estimated that approximately 1.5 billion people have been infected with soil-transmitted parasitic worms. More than half of those infected are children who can develop severe abdominal pain with debilitating diarrhea, leading to serious malnutrition. The WHO has recommended that those living in endemic areas periodically take these medications as forms of prevention, a treatment also known as deworming.
Alongside its use among a large swath of the population affected by these devastating infections, ivermectin’s use in veterinary medicine followed its discovery and large-scale manufacturing by Merck. Veterinarians have been using it for nearly 40 years to treat heartworm disease in some small animal species as well as certain internal and external parasites in various animal species.
Interestingly, though now in their 90s, Dr. Campbell and Dr. Omura have had an opportunity to weigh in on the controversy surrounding ivermectin, though with opposed sentiments.
In April 2020, the Royal Irish Academy asked Dr. Campbell if ivermectin could kill SARS-CoV-2. The question was raised after a study conducted the previous month at Royal Melbourne Hospital’s infectious diseases reference laboratory that found ivermectin had a significant ability to inhibit the virus from replicating under in-vitro conditions (in a test tube, culture dish or outside a living organism.)
In a lengthy response, he warned that the concentrations used in these tests on mammalian cells were many magnitudes higher than would be tolerated in humans. In high concentrations, ivermectin can lead to many gastro-intestinal disturbances as well as the suppression of breathing, coma and possibly death.
Thoughtfully, Dr. Campbell emphasized the need for future studies to determine if ivermectin truly possessed anti-viral efficacy, before using it in a clinical setting. He wrote, “On the other hand, it has been approved for use against parasites, not against viruses: and awareness of ivermectin’s prior approval for a different use carries the risk of unduly raising hopeful expectations in this matter, with attendant risk of hasty and ill-considered action.”
However, Dr. Omura ,who is affiliated with Kitasato University, has allied himself with promoting ivermectin and its use in fighting the coronavirus, in what amounts to a long descriptive essay published in the Japanese Journal of Antibiotics in March 2021. Many of the studies cited in his report have never been peer reviewed and suffer significant methodological flaws. Many of the sources have been lifted from pseudo-scientific platforms that have uncritically collected any publication that support their views.
Scientists speak out on ivermectin
In Brazil, where ivermectin has been heavily promoted by the government of fascistic President Jair Bolsonaro, a professor of microbiology at the University of Brasilia, Dr. Fabiana Brandão, speaking with Estadao, explained ,“although the [pseudo-scientific] platform, Ivmmeta.com, presents a structure alluding to scientific works, including graphics and mathematical calculations, the site has dangerous content with harmful interpretations full of [erroneous] and biased data.” She notes that the presented studies have not been analyzed by other scientists in the same fields, and that often the studies have characteristics that do not even lend themselves to being compared.
Marcio Bittencourt, a researcher at the University Hospital of the University of São Paulo, highlighted that these studies have been selected based on their favorable results, but have failed to be published in journals or reviewed by experts. Many of the study authors do not even identify themselves or take responsibility for the data they present. Meanwhile, even Dr. Omura’s survey conceded that the WHO and the NIH have recommended against the administration of ivermectin for COVID-19 prevention or treatment.
Dr. Mellanie Fontes-Dutra, a doctor of neurosciences at the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, called Omura’s work a “theoretical dissertation,” which does not provide confirmation or refutation of the efficacy of ivermectin. However, it is precisely such an objective evaluation that has been lacking, which makes the pseudo-scientific façade presented by Ivmmeta dangerous. Fontes-Dutra explained that to confirm or discard the effectiveness of ivermectin, it would be necessary to conduct “meta-analyses with extremely outlined methodologies, randomized and controlled clinical trials are important and have immense weight to hammer out on a subject. Even signed by a Nobel, this [Omura’s] article does not change the current state of understanding of the use of ivermectin for COVID-19.”
The science on ivermectin
The pandemic continues to spin out of control, killing more every day without any effort on the part of the ruling elites to stem these repeated waves of infections that enable the convergent evolution of more lethal strains of the coronavirus. Despite the success in developing the COVID vaccines, vaccination has been used not as a mechanism in a comprehensive array of public health measures to eliminate and eradicate the virus globally, but as a means of lulling the population into accepting the inevitability that the virus is here to stay.
Finding therapeutics that can limit the severity of or prevent COVID-19 is a serious and medically rewarding venture. For instance, the Randomized Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy (RECOVERY) trial results has established the significance of the drug dexamethasone in the intervention in severe COVID-19 cases. Remdesivir and monoclonal antibodies, under specific criteria, appear to have modest efficacy. Medicinal oxygen is a cornerstone for the management of moderate to severe COVID-19 cases.
Meanwhile, drugs like chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine, as well as the antibiotic azithromycin, have proven ineffective. The current frenzy and broad-based abuse of ivermectin, however, limits the ability to ascertain in well-designed trials its utility in COVID cases. Yet, when the governments and public health institutions in countries like Brazil, Peru, Colombia and even France, promote and condone without evidence the use of this drug, it sets a dangerous precedent. Even in the face of a health care crisis, properly conducted trials are the cornerstone of identifying reliable and effective treatments. It is precisely in a crisis that such information is most critical.
Perhaps the most compelling review of the evidence thus far was conducted by the Cochrane Library, which maintains a collection of databases in medicine and other health care specialties that conduct systematic reviews and meta-analyses which provide summaries and interpretations of the medical research. The non-profit institution is named after Dr. Archibald Leman Cochrane, a Scottish doctor who is well known as a principal figure in modern clinical epidemiology and considered the originator of the idea of evidence-based medicine.
In a 16-page report issued by the Cochrane Library this year, titled, “Ivermectin for preventing and treating COVID-19,” noted that earlier scientific work from a decade ago on ivermectin’s in-vitro mechanism of action found it could inhibit a particular “human cargo protein complex” that carries the HIV-1 and other RNA viruses into the nucleus and initiates replication. Though ivermectin showed potential in inhibiting viral replication in-vitro, they found no evidence of its clinical effectiveness on people infected with SARS-CoV-2.
In the companion summary report where the results of their analysis are published, the authors found, after limiting consideration to studies considered valid for review, 14 studies with 1,678 participants investigating the use of ivermectin. Of these, nine studies analyzed treatment of patients with moderate disease, four with mild disease, and one on the prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Only six studies were double-blinded and placebo-controlled. They note, however, “Of the 41 study results contributed by included studies, about one-third were at overall high risk for bias,” or unreliable. The reader is encouraged to review and read the summary using the link above in this paragraph.
They concluded, “Based on the current very low- to low-certainty of evidence, we are uncertain about the efficacy and safety of ivermectin used to treat people with COVID-19 in the inpatient and outpatient settings and to prevent a SARS-CoV-2 infection in people after having high-risk exposure. There is also no evidence available from the study pool as to which is the best dose and regimen of ivermectin. Overall, the reliable evidence does not support the use of ivermectin for treatment or prevention of COVID-19 outside of well-designed randomized controlled trials.”
Conclusion
While hydroxychloroquine as a miracle drug against COVID was exposed early on, ivermectin’s use, through its promotion by the likes of Joe Rogan or ultra-right Republican senators Rand Paul of Kentucky and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, has skyrocketed among those claiming to be antivaccine or vaccine-hesitant. The phenomenon is not unique to the US, as many countries’ governments or celebrities have advocated for their use. And, most disconcerting, given this hype, these dubious studies find their way into medical journals, gaining relevance not based on the merits but rather by the very fact of publication. In other words, the study’s presence in a journal grants it authority rather than the weight of its evidence.
The case of Dr. Pierre Kory, the president of Front-Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) is worth citing. He testified before a Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing on Capitol Hill on December 8, 2020, seeking to convince lawmakers to make ivermectin routine in the care of COVID-19 patients and offered as prophylaxis.
His study on the review of the emerging evidence on ivermectin, published in the American Journal of Therapeutics in June 2021, was rejected by Frontiers Science News, stating in their rejection letter after a careful review, “Upon further scrutiny by our Research Integrity team about the objectivity of this paper during the provisional acceptance phase, it was revealed that the article made a series of strong, unsupported claims based on studies with insufficient statistical significance, and at times, without the use of control groups. Further, the authors promoted their own specific ivermectin-based treatment which is inappropriate for a review article and against our editorial policies. ... In our opinion, this document does not offer an objective or balanced scientific contribution to the evaluation of ivermectin as a potential treatment for COVID-19.”
The vote last weekend by around 800 members of the Scottish Green Party to approve an agreement with the Scottish National Party (SNP) government opens, for the first time, the corridors of state power to the environmentalist party in Scotland.
The deal follows the SNP’s landslide election victory earlier this year which left the party one short of an overall majority. Aided by the Greens’ eight seats (seven with the parliament’s presiding officer position now taken by a Green member of the Scottish parliament), the SNP under First Minister Nicola Sturgeon can muster a safe working majority.
By accepting a “cooperation” agreement and shared policy document, “Working Together to Build a Fairer, Greener, Independent Scotland”, the Greens are entering into an effective coalition with the SNP, in power since 2007.
By accepting a “cooperation” agreement and shared policy document, “Working Together to Build a Fairer, Greener, Independent Scotland”, the Greens have entered into an effective coalition with the Scottish National Party.
The terms of the agreement grant the SNP the Greens’ support for a second Scottish referendum, the Scottish budget and in any no confidence votes. In return, the Greens have secured a couple of junior ministerial positions, supervised by the SNP. Green co-leader Patrick Harvie is now Scotland’s minister for “zero carbon buildings, active travel and tenants’ rights” while Lorna Slater holds responsibility for “green skills, the circular economy and biodiversity”. Neither are in the Scottish government cabinet. Both parties have agreed a “no surprises” rule, each agreeing to keep the other informed of their plans.
Scottish government tweet announcing Green co-leader Slater as a minister
By eschewing the term “coalition”, the Greens hope to put some distance between themselves and the SNP’s most reactionary policies.
No one should be taken in by this. The Greens are helping the SNP advance its independence strategy for Scottish capitalism while providing a nominally “left” cover for its offensive against the working class. The agreement, which will see the Greens underwrite the SNP’s right-wing agenda, confirms the party’s character as a pro-capitalist, pro-imperialist representative of the upper middle class.
Key features of the policy document include:
A pledge to “secure a referendum on Scottish independence after the Covid crisis” during the current parliamentary session, due to end by 2025, along with moves to increase the powers available to the Scottish parliament in the meantime and open Scottish government offices in North and Central Europe. Both parties support Scottish independence. First Minister Sturgeon has repeatedly claimed the election result gives a mandate for a new independence poll, despite support for independence hovering consistently at only around the 50 percent mark.
Minimal measures towards climate targets based on reduced car use, rail electrification, increased rail freight and alternate fuels. These are contradicted by ongoing road building projects which will be subject to “normal statutory assessment and business case processes.”
Targets on alternative energy generation, more insulated homes, and the “decarbonisation of our energy system”. This amounts to more onshore wind turbines and a draft of a “credible pathway to achieving the 2030 [climate] targets” merely for consideration. The agreement hardly mentions oil beyond noting that the parties “do not entirely agree on the role of the oil and gas sector” —hardly surprising given that the SNP's slogan for decades was “It’s Scotland's Oil” and that the SNP has offered tacit support to corporations for further development of the potentially vastly lucrative Cambo oilfield off the Shetland isles.
The policy document calls for a “national strategy for economic transformation”, as yet unwritten, which will include a “vision for reinvigorating Scottish manufacturing and heavy industry, supporting Scottish supply chains and creating high-quality jobs”. In reality, this will be a recipe for the Greens’ bending over backwards to help the SNP ensure that Scottish-based capitalists are able expand their profits on the basis of a low wage, low tax economy.
In 2016, the Scottish government launched a Sustainable Development Commission to explore the prospects for the Scottish economy, post-independence. A 2018 report from the commission called for rapid increase in productivity, population growth and low welfare spending to overcome the funding gap that a newly independent Scotland, deprived of UK taxes, would confront. The report, to which many sections of business contributed, called for a national strategy based on attracting investment, high levels of exports and labour flexibility.
In local governments in the rest of the UK, the Greens have enforced attacks on the working class no less brutally than their Labour and Tory counterparts. In Brighton, home of the Green Party’s sole elected MP Caroline Lucas and a Green minority council from 2011-2015, the party imposed an 11 percent increase in council tax, £37 million of spending cuts, and pay cuts of up to £4,000 for refuse workers. In Bristol, Green deputy mayor Gus Hoyt helped preside over £91 million of cuts and an explosion of homelessness in the city.
A few derisory provisions are outlined in the SNP-Green policy agreement to address inequality and poverty, including some form of rent controls, postponed till after the next election, and a miserly £20 a week “Scottish Child Payment”—again only available by the end of the parliamentary session. Proposals for a National Care Service and a review of social care, after Covid-19 devastated the sector, do not touch private ownership of care homes and make empty calls for “ethical commissioning” and “fair work”. The primary purpose of these minimal measures is to bolster the case for independence, after which, because of the vast economic uncertainty of the project, all bets are off, and all promises worthless.
The agreement also sets out an annex of “excluded matters” on which the parties have agreed to politely disagree, and which can be added to as necessary. The exclusions list SNP policies which the Greens would prefer not to talk about but which, by sharing power, they are implementing or preparing.
These include:
“The future of green ports”, the SNP’s twist on the Conservative government’s policy of freeports—investment and export locations offering companies low or no taxes, fewer regulations and cheap labour—with minimal restrictions added in Scotland for the most egregious forms of exploitation.
The Scottish government’s “direct financial support to the aerospace, defence and security sectors”—one of the unmentionables of Scottish political life. Arms and security companies operate major facilities for BAE and Babcock international, both of which build warships, and Leonardo, which builds missiles and radar systems. First Minister Sturgeon’s constituency includes the large Govan shipyard in Glasgow, currently building Type 26 frigates for the Royal Navy. The SNP has long supported production of large numbers of frigates to confront Russian warships.
Scotland’s “commitment to membership of NATO following independence”. This is prefaced with the assurance that both parties “believe that Scotland should be an independent, outward-looking country, playing a full part in an inclusive, rules-based international system,” indicating that the Greens will continue to turn a blind eye to the SNP’s ongoing and critical daily collaboration with British imperialism’s military operations and its aspirations for military independence.
“The role of Gross Domestic Product measurements, and economic principles related to concepts of sustainable growth and inclusive growth”—a nod to the Greens’ reactionary anti-growth politics, which holds the expansion of humanity’s productive forces responsible for the social and environmental destruction caused by the capitalist system of production.
The Greens’ alliance with the SNP brings them fully into line with the reactionary role their counterparts have played internationally for decades. Wherever a Green Party finds itself in a position of power, it inevitably proves itself a committed party of capitalist government. This is especially the case in Ireland and Germany, where the Greens have imposed brutal austerity and became the foremost advocates of military interventionism.
In Ireland, the Green Party formed a coalition with Fianna Fail in 2007, which responded to the global financial crisis the following year by imposing successive punitive emergency budgets. These measures, designed to pay for state bailouts of the banks, led to wage and benefit cuts, tax hikes and large-scale redundancies for broad sections of working people.
In Germany in 1998, the Greens entered into a coalition with the Social Democrats to form a government at the federal level. Green Party Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer was in the forefront of the campaign for the first international combat mission by the German army since the Second World War―as part of the NATO bombardment of Serbia. In the ongoing federal elections, the Greens advance a militarist programme for German imperialism, investing in the military “so that rifles shoot”, in the words of the party’s candidate for Chancellor, Annelena Baerbock.
Dozens of people were evacuated and hundreds made homeless after a fire ripped through a 20-storey apartment block in Milan, northern Italy, on August 29.
Events at the tower block, known as Torre dei Moro, are strikingly reminiscent of the catastrophic Grenfell Tower inferno, which took place in London just over four years ago, killing 72 men, women and children under entirely preventable circumstances. Video footage of the Torre dei Moro fire shows the entire tower engulfed in flames, with smoke billowing across the city. Fortunately, no deaths or serious injuries were reported.
Although the exact details of the Milan fire are yet to be established, it is thought to have been caused by a short-circuiting electricity supply on the 15th floor. Flames rapidly spread both up and down the building, consuming the entire structure within less than 30 minutes.
The apartment block has been left uninhabitable, with photos from inside the building revealing a blackened shell, with rubble and destroyed furniture strewn across the floor. There are concerns that the building could be at risk of collapse as high temperatures have possibly melted steel beams supporting the structure.
Smoke billows from a building in Milan, Italy, Sunday, Aug. 29, 2021. Firefighters were battling a blaze on Sunday that spread rapidly through a recently restructured 60-meter-high, 16-story residential building in Milan. (AP Photo/Luca Bruno)
Seventy-four residents had to be evacuated from the building, with about 20 of them suffering from mild smoke inhalation. After being rapidly alerted about the fire by an inhabitant of the 16th floor, who posted a message on the building’s group chat and knocked on neighbours’ doors, most residents were able to quickly and safely leave the building using largely fire-resistant and smoke-excluding stairwells.
Torre dei Moro is thought to have accommodated 70 families, many of whom were reportedly not present at the time of the fire, meaning that the number of individuals left homeless could be in the hundreds. Many of the displaced families are being housed in hotels near to the site of the blaze, while others have been taken in by friends and family.
Four years on from the Grenfell Tower disaster, events like the Torre dei Moro blaze are a further exposure of the ruling elite’s criminal disregard for the lives of the working class globally. Decades of deregulation and cost-cutting have endangered or cost the lives of workers in factories, hospitals, tower blocks and other residential buildings across the world. While luckily no fatalities occurred in the Milan fire, events could easily have taken a catastrophic turn. Hundreds of lives have nonetheless been upended and years of precious family possessions lost.
Questions are already being raised about the lack of fire safety regulations and equipment at the tower block, with many parallels drawn with the deadly events at Grenfell. Residents have reported faulty fire alarms which failed to ring when pulled, while firefighters responding to the blaze have stated that fire extinguishing systems in the building did not properly work and that water did not flow through fire hoses installed there.
A 50-metre-tall aerial ladder, brought by firefighters and which would have been capable of reaching the top of the tower, could not be used due to a lack of suitable spaces to set it up. Had assisted evacuations been necessary, firefighters’ inability to use this apparatus would have severely hindered rescue efforts.
Reports have also emerged that sprinkler systems in the building failed to operate on the majority of the floors. While sprinklers on the first five floors, and two basement levels, worked well, this system did not activate between floors five and 10, media reports have recounted. Above the tenth floor, the system operated only partially.
Particularly devastating in light of the Grenfell fire are reports that flammable cladding was used at Torre dei Moro, enabling flames to rapidly spread around the outside of the building. Combustible Aluminium Composite Material (ACM) panels used on Grenfell Tower were the most significant factor in allowing flames to swiftly consume the entire 24-storey building in less than 20 minutes.
Witnesses reported that the panels coating Torre dei Moro “burnt like cardboard.” Speaking to the Corriere della Sera newspaper, one resident said, “We were told that the panels covering the building were fireproof, instead they melted like butter. I remember perfectly, we were assured that the panels were fire resistant.”
While it is not yet clear exactly what type of cladding was used on Torre dei Moro, most reports indicate that some form of ACM cladding with a polyethylene core was likely used.
In an interview with the Corriere della Sera, Angelo Lucchini, Professor of Technical Architecture at the Milan Polytechnic, explained that the flammable cladding was chiefly responsible for the rapid spread of the fire. “The facade of the building was built with combustible materials,” Lucchini told the newspaper. “Unfortunately there is no law that prohibits it.”
Comparing the Milan fire to events at Grenfell Tower, Lucchini continued, “there is a strong analogy between the two events. Fortunately in the Milanese case, there were no problems with evacuation, probably because construction rules for compartmentalisation were respected, which prevented flames from attacking internal floors. In London, however, they weren’t, and it was a tragedy.”
Another factor, according to reports, that may have played a major role in facilitating the spread of fire at Torre dei Moro was the cavity between the walls of the building and the panels, leading to a so-called “chimney effect”. As at Grenfell, this allowed flames and heat to travel vertically both up and down the tower in a short amount of time.
Many residents spoke to local and national newspapers about the devastating impact the fire has had on their lives. “There are 70 families without a home; we’re back to square one,” explained one resident of the Torre dei Moro high rise. “I lived on the fourth floor. There is nothing left of the building.”
“We are homeless; we want justice,” stated Silvana and Carmelo, two residents of the apartment building.
“We went down the 11 flights of stairs [to the exit]… and we saw that there were flames on the fifteenth floor,” the couple continued. “In less than half an hour, actually in a few minutes, there was a match effect. I hope that the judiciary quickly investigates because we’ve been left without a home. A 10-year-old apartment block has ended like this. We residents want justice.”
That the inferno did not lead to a catastrophic loss of life is largely down to luck. Unlike the Grenfell fire, the blaze at Torre dei Moro took place at around 5 o’clock in the afternoon, meaning many residents were already out of the building and those inside were awake and able to evacuate quickly. By contrast, the inferno at Grenfell took place in the middle of the night, with many inhabitants not waking up until it was much too late to leave the tower.
Importantly, however, as fire safety expert Angelo Lucchini noted, internal compartmentalisation regulations had largely been respected at Torre dei Moro, meaning flames were not able to breach the inside of the building and spread from apartment to apartment at the same rate as at Grenfell. Stairways had largely been sealed off from the rest of the building, allowing residents to evacuate by this route without succumbing to the deadly effects of smoke inhalation.
While Milan’s prosecutor’s office has opened an investigation into the Torre dei Moro fire, no trust should be placed in the ruling elite to secure justice and compensation for those who have been made homeless. Like countless other “inquiries” and “investigations” before it, it will prove to be a cover-up intended to protect the corporate and political culprits who bear chief responsibility for the destruction.
The Grenfell Inquiry has been going on for four years, despite a wealth of information being in the public domain from day one as to the identity of the culprits responsible in corporate and political circles. The building was clad in highly flammable material in order to save money, turning a safe building into a death-trap during a “refurbishment”.
The inquiry set up by Theresa May’s Conservative government under Labour’s 2005 Inquiries Act “has no power to determine any person’s civil or criminal liability.” No-one is being prosecuted as the Metropolitan Police long ago declared that its own “investigation” would wait until the inquiry finished and produced its report before even considering doing so. The inquiry may not even conclude next year, five years after the fire.
The management of Deutsche Bahn (DB), the German government and the media are pulling out all the stops in their campaign to end the ongoing strike by train drivers. The strikers, for their part, are determined to continue their struggle.
This was confirmed last Friday at two large rallies of the German Train Drivers‘ Union (GDL) in the cities of Nuremberg and Essen. The strikers left no doubt the drivers are prepared to ensure their demands are met.
Strike meeting in Essen on 3 September 2021 (Photo: WSWS) Caption: Striking train drivers in Essen (Photo: WSWS)
GDL leader Claus Weselsky was due to speak in Nuremberg, but instead had to attend the Hessian Regional Labour Court, which was ruling on an appeal lodged by Deutsche Bahn aimed at making the strike illegal. In a first judgement last week, the court threw out the motion by DB.
The second judgement on Friday also rejected the injunction against the walkout demanded by the DB executive. The Frankfurt labour court had rejected the initial motion on the grounds that it was not possible in summary proceedings to determine whether or not the strike was pursuing unlawful aims.
The regional labour court also examined the accusation that the train drivers were engaged in an illegal action in support of other rail employees. Deutsche Bahn is intent on dividing the striking train drivers from other groups of workers and thereby grant sole “representation” of drivers to its own company union, the Railway and Transport Workers‘ Union (EVG).
Striking railway workers were clear about the management strategy and stressed to the World Socialist Web Site that they will not allow themselves to divided.
At Essen central station, young railway workers, freight train shunters and a maintenance man explained to the WSWS why their demands were more than justified: “We keep the shop running ... When the trucks were barely running during the European lockdown, who was transporting and distributing goods? Exactly: the railways, us! We were the ones putting toilet paper and disinfectant on the shelves.”
Work in freight transport is performed seven days a week and around the clock, “so a higher wage is more than justified.” It is also a myth, they said, that there is no passenger contact in freight. “A locomotive goes through several hands in one day, we work closely with colleagues, including in the workshop.” What they lack above all is recognition, they said.
One driver reported: “I drive tank wagons, for example, with isopropanol and sodium hydroxide solution, which is disinfectant. During the day, and a shift lasts nine and a half hours for me, I drive up to 55 wagons, sometimes 85 during the high point of the pandemic. I check, shunt and drive out there on my own in my remote-controlled locomotive. That‘s a responsibility for which we want to be paid accordingly.”
Management has not acknowledged their sacrifices, he said. “The ones up there [management] get everything spoon-fed and we are supposed to get nothing?” At the same time, recognition should not be limited to mere applause and warm words. “I have a whole basement full of thank-yous. I want to see something on my pay slip.”
A colleague from the workshop reported that he, too, had been busier than normal during the lockdowns. “More journeys, after all, also means more maintenance work and more repairs. I am on shifts and have postponed my holidays.” In addition to the long shifts, many workers also have a long commute: “I drive 180 kilometres to work and back every day, and my colleague drives 140 kilometres.”
The strike is not only about the wage percentages, they said. “It is also about shift scheduling, in particular, the shifts the company is allowed to assign to you depending on the order situation and demand, and irrespective of one’s usual shift plan. The company now plans to double the percentage of such shift changes from 20 percent of annual shifts to 40 percent. This in turn means even less weekends off.”
The strikers are also not prepared to accept the attack on the company pension under any circumstances. “We need the company pension. You can't live on a state pension in Germany anymore.”
While the train drivers were explaining to our reporters, a passer-by approached the group to support the strikers. “Go through with it!” he urged them. “Don't let them wear you down.” He himself works in the public sector, he said, and had long since quit the service trade union, Verdi. “I support you,” he continued. “You can strike for five months for all I care.”
The willingness of train drivers, railway workers and other employees to fight is why the railway executive is so vehemently against the strike. Millions of workers are frustrated and outraged as shift work and overtime become more and more unbearable, pay is declining while the prospect of unemployment and poverty pensions increases. They are all looking for a way to fight back.
This is why the railway board, backed by the federal government, is attacking the strike so provocatively. Train drivers and rail workers are on the front line representing millions of workers. The railways and the government want to make an example of train drivers and conductors.
After yesterday‘s court ruling against Deutsche Bahn, the company is examining whether it can sue the GDL for damages for the strikes. This was relayed by a spokeswoman for the railway in Frankfurt yesterday. The government also supported railway management and sees no need to change the recently-introduced contract bargaining unity law, which mandates that companies bargain only with the largest unions among their workforce. In the case of the railroad industry, this is Rail and Transport Workers' Union (EVG), which has signed off on a pay freeze and is crossing the picket line during the strike. Labour Minister Hubertus Heil (SPD) as well as Vice-Chancellor and the SPD’s candidate for chancellor in the current election campaign, Olaf Scholz, both said they intended to retain the law.
According to news reports, GDL leader Claus Weselsky said after the ruling in Frankfurt that he was ready to resume negotiations. He said he and the GDL were interested in reaching an agreement.
