Code Monger, cyclist, sim racer and driving enthusiast.
9446 stories
·
6 followers

RFK Jr. fires all members of a prominent vaccine advisory committee — including a Colorado doctor

1 Share

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the nation’s top health official and a vaccine critic, on Monday fired all members of a prominent federal advisory committee on vaccines — including a doctor from Colorado.

Dr. Edwin Asturias was among the 17 members of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices who were dismissed. Asturias, an infectious disease and global health expert, serves as a professor at both the Colorado School of Public Health and the University of Colorado School of Medicine.

Kennedy announced the move in an opinion piece for the Wall Street Journal, citing alleged conflicts of interest among members and writing that “a clean sweep is needed to re-establish public confidence in vaccine science.”

The committee, known as the ACIP, reviews data on the safety and efficacy of vaccines and makes recommendations on when they should be used and who should receive them. It is up to the CDC director to decide whether to adopt the recommendations, but the agency has historically gone along.

“A pro-industry orthodoxy”

The committee is currently reviewing vaccines for a wide variety of diseases — from mpox to Lyme disease to flu to RSV to chikungunya — but its most high-profile work recently has been in making recommendations for the use of the COVID-19 vaccines. A thumbs-up from the ACIP was typically among the last steps taken before COVID shots started going into arms across the country.

During his confirmation process, Kennedy committed to keeping the ACIP in place. But he has long been critical of what he says are committee members beholden to the pharmaceutical industry.

“The problem isn’t necessarily that ACIP members are corrupt,” he wrote in the Wall Street Journal piece. “Most likely aim to serve the public interest as they understand it. The problem is their immersion in a system of industry-aligned incentives and paradigms that enforce a narrow pro-industry orthodoxy.”

Kennedy said it was necessary to fire committee members now and replace them with new members who “won’t directly work for the vaccine industry.”

“Without removing the current members, the current Trump administration would not have been able to appoint a majority of new members until 2028,” he wrote.

Colorado anticipated the upheaval

ACIP members are appointed by the head of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and serve as volunteers.

While best known for its role in the vaccine-approval process, the committee’s work also plays an important role in selecting vaccines covered through the Vaccines for Children program, which provides vaccines to kids whose parents can’t afford them. ACIP recommendations are also used by states across the country when setting school immunization guidelines.

Outdoor COVID-19 vaccine clinic with a white sign in the foreground highlighting the clinic. Behind the sign is a blue mobile unit, a canopy with chairs and tables, and people in line.
People line up at Colorado’s mobile vaccine bus to get the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine at the Snowmass Town Center on Tuesday, Sept. 20, 2022, in Snowmass Village. (David Krause, The Colorado Sun)

Because of this influence, health leaders concerned about Kennedy’s appointment have long feared that he may try to dismantle the committee and replace its members with vaccine skeptics.

Anticipating this possibility, Colorado lawmakers this year changed how Colorado sets its school vaccination requirements to de-emphasize the importance of ACIP recommendations. Now, under a bill Gov. Jared Polis signed in April, Colorado’s Board of Health will set immunization requirements after taking into consideration ACIP recommendations, as well as those of several independent medical groups. Previously, Colorado law said the state’s requirements should be set “based on” ACIP recommendations.

Research in Guatemala

Asturias began serving on the ACIP last summer after being appointed to the position during the Biden administration. Much of his work focuses on health in Guatemala, where he was born, and has undertaken numerous health care initiatives. He served as the nation’s COVID czar.

Edwin Asturias

Through a CU spokesperson, Asturias declined to comment Monday.

ACIP members must file confidential financial disclosures and agree to forego participating in certain vaccine-related activities during their tenure. The committee also has other conflict-of-interest safeguards in place.

Kennedy called CDC enforcement of conflict-of-interest rules lax, and alleged in the Wall Street Journal that “most of ACIP’s members have received substantial funding from pharmaceutical companies, including those marketing vaccines.”

During meetings last year and earlier this year, Asturias declared no conflicts of interest. His current CU research profile lists only studies funded by the federal government.

A review of previous disclosures in the federal government’s Open Payments system show that he has received money in the past from drugmakers.

Throughout the late 2010s and early 2020s, Asturias received a few hundred to a few thousand dollars a year for what appear to be consultation and speaking fees. He has received much more, nearly $4 million, in research support to study RSV, pneumonia and other diseases in Guatemala and the U.S., including more than $3 million from drugmaker Pfizer. 

The studies typically focused on assessing the efficacy of a given test or vaccine — one was titled “Determination of the utility of Pfizer’s pneumococcal urine antigen test in children 5 years of age or younger with community acquired pneumonia,” for instance.

“We adhered to our process”

Asturias is not the only Colorado doctor to sit on the ACIP. During the height of the COVID pandemic, Denver pediatrician Dr. Matthew Daley served as a member.

In an interview with The Sun after his term ended last summer, Daley praised the integrity of ACIP members and the work of the CDC staff who supported them.

“The ACIP was allowed to independently follow its process for decision-making,” he said. “We were aware of these different power centers, but I was never getting late-night calls from any of those groups saying, ‘This is what we need you to do,’ or, ‘This is the decision we need you to make.’

“We adhered to our process, the process served us well, and we had independence to make vaccine policy decision-making.”

A group of twelve people standing and smiling on an indoor staircase. They are dressed in business casual attire.
Colorado pediatrician Dr. Matthew Daley, in the first row on the far right, poses for a photo with colleagues during his final meeting of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, in June 2024. (Provided by Dr. Matthew Daley)

After Kennedy’s announcement of the firings on Monday, numerous health leaders expressed concern.

Dr. Bruce A. Scott, president of the American Medical Association, said the committee is a trusted source of information and said the firings, along with declining vaccination rates, will help drive an increase in vaccine-preventable diseases.

“Today’s action to remove the 17 sitting members of ACIP undermines that trust and upends a transparent process that has saved countless lives,” Scott said in a statement.

Dr. Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association, called Kennedy’s mass ouster “a coup.”

“It’s not how democracies work,” he said. “It’s not good for the health of the nation.”

Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana — a doctor who had raised concerns about Kennedy’s nomination before ultimately voting to confirm him based on assurances that Kennedy would not dismantle the nation’s vaccine policy — said he spoke to Kennedy on Monday after the firings were announced.

“Of course, now the fear is that the ACIP will be filled up with people who know nothing about vaccines except suspicion,” Cassidy said in a social media post. “I’ve just spoken with Secretary Kennedy, and I’ll continue to talk with him to ensure this is not the case.”

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Read the whole story
LeMadChef
6 minutes ago
reply
Denver, CO
Share this story
Delete

Anti-vaccine advocate RFK Jr. fires entire CDC panel of vaccine advisors

1 Share

Anti-vaccine advocate and current US health secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has taken the extraordinary action of firing all 17 vaccine experts on a federal committee that advises the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on immunization practices.

In an opinion piece published Monday in the Wall Street Journal, Kennedy announced that he had cleared out the committee, accusing them of being "plagued with persistent conflicts of interest" and a group that has "become little more than a rubber stamp for any vaccine."

"Without removing the current members, the current Trump administration would not have been able to appoint a majority of new members until 2028," Kennedy added.

The committee—CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)—meets periodically to publicly review, evaluate, debate, and make recommendations on immunization practices. The CDC typically adopts the committee's recommendations. The CDC's vaccination schedules and recommendations set clinical standards for the country and determine insurance coverage.

ACIP was scheduled to meet later this month to examine and make recommendations on this year's COVID-19 vaccines. But its recommendations were largely superseded by separate announcements from the Food and Drug Administration leaders and Kennedy, both of whom set new restrictions and requirements for use of COVID-19 vaccines in children and pregnant people. The moves are a significant break from the standardized, transparent protocols for setting immunization practices.

Announcing a restructuring of federal health guidance processes via an op-ed in a newspaper is also unusual.

In Kennedy's article, he criticized ACIP and FDA advisors for being in the pocket of the pharmaceutical industry. However, he argued that the "problem isn’t necessarily that ACIP members are corrupt."

"Most likely aim to serve the public interest as they understand it," he wrote. "The problem is their immersion in a system of industry-aligned incentives and paradigms that enforce a narrow pro-industry orthodoxy."

Kennedy, who is currently trying to shift the national attention to his idea of clean living and higher-quality foods, has a long history of advocating against vaccines, spreading misinformation and disinformation about the lifesaving shots. However, a clearer explanation of Kennedy's war on vaccines can be found in his rejection of germ theory. In his 2021 book that vilifies infectious disease expert Anthony Fauci, he bemoaned germ theory as "the pharmaceutical paradigm that emphasized targeting particular germs with specific drugs rather than fortifying the immune system through healthy living, clean water, and good nutrition."

As such, he rails against the "$1 trillion pharmaceutical industry pushing patented pills, powders, pricks, potions, and poisons."

In Kennedy's op-ed, he indicates that new ACIP members will be appointed who "won’t directly work for the vaccine industry. ... will exercise independent judgment, refuse to serve as a rubber stamp, and foster a culture of critical inquiry."

It's unclear how the new members will be vetted and appointed and when the new committee will be assembled.

In a statement, the President of the American Medical Association, Bruce Scott, rebuked Kennedy's firings, saying that ACIP "has been a trusted national source of science- and data-driven advice and guidance on the use of vaccines to prevent and control disease." Today's removal "undermines that trust and upends a transparent process that has saved countless lives," he continued. "With an ongoing measles outbreak and routine child vaccination rates declining, this move will further fuel the spread of vaccine-preventable illnesses."

This post has been updated to include a statement from the AMA. This story is breaking and may be updated further.

Read full article

Comments



Read the whole story
LeMadChef
7 minutes ago
reply
Denver, CO
Share this story
Delete

Supreme Court gives DOGE “unfettered access” to sensitive Social Security data

1 Share

The Supreme Court allowed the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to access Social Security Administration (SSA) records on Friday, overturning lower-court decisions that imposed some limits on DOGE's data access.

"We conclude that, under the present circumstances, SSA may proceed to afford members of the SSA DOGE Team access to the agency records in question in order for those members to do their work," the Supreme Court order said. The court also sided with the Trump administration in a different DOGE case, finding that a lower court's discovery order requiring DOGE to provide information about its government cost-cutting operations was too broad (more on that ruling later in this article).

The data-access ruling was in a case filed by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees; the Alliance for Retired Americans; and American Federation of Teachers. US District Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander previously issued a preliminary injunction, writing that DOGE "is essentially engaged in a fishing expedition at SSA, in search of a fraud epidemic, based on little more than suspicion." The District of Maryland judge found that plaintiffs are likely to win their case alleging that the government violated the Privacy Act and the Administrative Procedure Act.

The US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit denied the Trump administration's request to stay the preliminary injunction in a 9–6 vote. The Trump administration filed an emergency application to the Supreme Court last month, arguing that the injunction is causing "irreparable harm to the executive branch" and thwarting DOGE's attempts to "eliminate waste and fraud."

The Supreme Court's unsigned ruling didn't go into much detail, which isn't unusual for decisions made on the emergency docket. The majority said that in order to grant a stay, the court evaluates four factors: "(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies."

The court majority decided "that the application of these factors in this case warrants granting the requested stay." The preliminary injunction is now stayed while litigation continues at the 4th Circuit. The underlying case could make its way back to the Supreme Court.

Dissent: Court bends standards “for certain litigants”

The three justices nominated by Democratic presidents—Ketanji Brown Jackson, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan—opposed the stay. A dissent written by Jackson and joined by Sotomayor said:

Today the Court grants "emergency" relief that allows the Social Security Administration (SSA) to hand DOGE staffers the highly sensitive data of millions of Americans. The Government wants to give DOGE unfettered access to this personal, non-anonymized information right now—before the courts have time to assess whether DOGE's access is lawful. So it asks this Court to stay a lower court's decision to place temporary and qualified limits on DOGE's data access while litigation challenging DOGE's authority to access the data is pending. But the Government fails to substantiate its stay request by showing that it or the public will suffer irreparable harm absent this Court's intervention. In essence, the "urgency" underlying the Government's stay application is the mere fact that it cannot be bothered to wait for the litigation process to play out before proceeding as it wishes.

Jackson said the court's emergency-docket practices have become "decoupl[ed] from the traditional harm-reduction justification for equitable stays." In the DOGE case, lower courts are "expeditiously assessing whether federal law permits the SSA to give DOGE staffers unfettered access to Americans' sensitive information," Jackson wrote. The only question before the Supreme Court "is what should happen to all of that data in the meantime," and the government "has not shown that it will suffer any concrete or irreparable harm" if the injunction is enforced while litigation continues, she wrote.

Jackson said the ruling "sends a troubling message" that the court will depart from its usual legal standards "for certain litigants." While other litigants seeking a stay "must point to more than the annoyance of compliance with lower court orders they don't like, the Government can approach the courtroom bar with nothing more than that and obtain relief from this Court nevertheless," Jackson wrote.

Jackson: “Grave privacy risks for millions”

Jackson said the ruling puts at risk personal information like Social Security numbers, birth dates, addresses, bank account numbers, and medical records. "Every person who has received a Social Security number appears in the SSA's data," and the agency administers various programs that collect other personal information, Jackson wrote. The Supreme Court ruling creates "grave privacy risks for millions of Americans," she wrote.

For example, Jackson wrote that Social Security Disability Insurance "collects detailed medical histories (describing, for example, prescriptions, mental-health treatments, and testing results for sensitive health conditions like HIV) from applicants and beneficiaries." The Privacy Act protects this kind of data, prohibiting agencies "from disclosing covered data except in narrow circumstances, such as where agency employees 'have a need for the record in the performance of their duties.'"

The SSA has long had a policy of restricting access, but its data-handling practices "changed dramatically" after President Trump's executive order creating DOGE, Jackson wrote. "Record evidence reflects that DOGE received far broader data access than the SSA customarily affords for fraud, waste, and abuse reviews," Jackson wrote.

Previously, investigations would "start with access to high-level, anonymized data based on the least amount of data the analyst or auditor would need to know," Jackson wrote, referring to evidence given by a former SSA acting chief of staff. Analysts or auditors previously could only obtain "more granular, non-anonymized data" if they found suspicious entries, she wrote.

The lower courts "carefully craft[ed] interim relief tailored to the needs of the moment," Jackson wrote. The injunction was "minimally burdensome" because it "allows the SSA to provide DOGE staffers with access to redacted or anonymized data and SSA records, so long as DOGE staffers meet the training, background-check, and other requirements that generally govern such access," she wrote.

The injunction also allowed access to non-anonymized data "if DOGE gives the agency a written explanation of its specific need for the records," Jackson wrote. The injunction "amounts to a short-term pause on giving DOGE unfettered and uniquely unprotected access to millions of Americans' sensitive, non-anonymized data, paired with reasonable conditions on data access in the interim," but the government was "dissatisfied with even those minor limitations," she wrote.

"With today's decision, it seems as if the Court has truly lost its moorings," Jackson wrote. "It interferes with the lower courts' informed and equitable assessment of how the SSA's data is best accessed during the course of this litigation, and it does so without any showing by the Government that it will actually suffer concrete or irreparable harm from having to comply with the District Court's order."

Another win for Trump

This isn't the only case in which the Trump administration is asking the Supreme Court to block orders related to DOGE. In another case, the administration asked the court to block a ruling that requires DOGE to provide information about its government cost-cutting operations as part of court-ordered discovery.

On Friday, the Supreme Court ruled that the discovery order was too broad. "The portions of the District Court's April 15 discovery order that require the Government to disclose the content of intra–Executive Branch USDS [US DOGE Service] recommendations and whether those recommendations were followed are not appropriately tailored," the court said.

The Supreme Court remanded the case to the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, ordering it to narrow the discovery order. Jackson, Sotomayor, and Kagan opposed the decision but did not write a formal dissent. The case involves nonprofit watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), which sued after DOGE officials refused to provide records requested under the Freedom of Information Act.

Read full article

Comments



Read the whole story
LeMadChef
7 hours ago
reply
Denver, CO
Share this story
Delete

The New 2026 Ford Mustang FX Package Looks Totally Tubular, Man!

1 Share

Going retro can be a digital tightrope walk if the goals on the other side is automotive mass appeal. Smear it on with a trowel, and the internet will call it heavy-handed. Waft its general scent across the room, and the internet will say it doesn’t go far enough. The solution, of course, is to log off of Twitter, touch grass, and listen to the soundtrack of a five-liter V8. This is the new Ford Mustang FX package, and it brings back just enough of the ’80s to be absolutely rad as opposed to clichéd.

Mind you, I’m specifically talking about the look of the late-’80s and pre-mainstream-grunge ’90s here, after everything stopped being 50 shades of Harvest Gold but before things went completely bubbly. In that era, the fox body 5.0 Mustang ruled the roost because it was relatively affordable, had huge aftermarket, and appealed to just about everyone from football jocks to retirees. Plus, America had firmly crawled out of the Malaise Era, and not only was the Fox Body 5.0 fuel-injected, it could keep up with a Ferrari Mondial. To celebrate Gen X’s pony car, Ford’s launching the FX Package for the next model year of Mustang GT, and it’s a box you’ll probably want to tick.

This special appearance package is available with two different wheel styles, both of which are painted white. Add the FX package to a Mustang GT Premium, and you get a set of split-five-spokes, but tick both the FX package and performance package boxes, and Ford will upgrade you to a set of turbofan-style alloys with ten raised spokes as a nod to the wheels on the 1993 Mustang Cobra. Between this, the Maverick Lobo, and the Mach-E Rally, Ford’s all-in on turbofan-look wheels, and we love to see it.

New Mustang Fx Inline 3 Copy
Photo: Ford

Of course, there are more white details to this Mustang appearance package than wheels alone, because the badges and grille inserts complement the factory rollers. However, the coolest snowed-out detail is the tail light treatment, a frosted clear appearance updating the previous-generation Mustang’s highly desirable euro-spec tails. Polishing the exterior treatment off is a new available color—Adriatic Blue—with a name that’s an intriguingly veiled hint at the teal in this hue. If you’re getting Calypso Green fox body vibes, I suspect that’s not an accident. It harkens back to an era when dealers actually stocked cars in reds and greens and purples and teals, and people bought them.

Mustang Fx 2

Mustang Fx 4 Copy
Photo: Ford

You know what else is a lost art? Fun fabrics. It seems like after the 2000s, almost everything got very toned-down, which is why I’m stoked to see the Mustang FX package bringing plaid seat inserts to the party. Sure, it’s not as colorful as the tartan in the Volkswagen GTI, but it’s definitely not boring. Plus, teal and white stitching punches up the rest of the interior, and the result is charming yet restrained. Even if you have an unnecessarily serious office job leveraging synergies with blue sky thinking, the cabin of this Mustang will make you think you can just about get away with bring it to the employee parking lot.

Mustang Fx 1

Mustang Fx Package Rear Driving Copy
Photo: Ford

We don’t know how much the Mustang FX package will cost yet, but we do know it’ll be available for the 2026 model year on Mustang GT Premium coupes and convertibles. Given that Mustang model years tend to change early, don’t be surprised if order banks open soon. Now where’s my hair metal mixtape?

Mustang Fx 3

Top graphic image: Ford

Support our mission of championing car culture by becoming an Official Autopian Member.

The post The New 2026 Ford Mustang FX Package Looks Totally Tubular, Man! appeared first on The Autopian.

Read the whole story
LeMadChef
7 hours ago
reply
Denver, CO
Share this story
Delete

Senators Demand Meta Answer For AI Chatbots Posing as Licensed Therapists

1 Comment and 2 Shares
Senators Demand Meta Answer For AI Chatbots Posing as Licensed Therapists

Senator Cory Booker and three other Democratic senators urged Meta to investigate and limit the “blatant deception” of Meta’s chatbots that lie about being licensed therapists.

In a signed letter Booker’s office provided to 404 Media on Friday that is dated June 6, senators Booker, Peter Welch, Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla wrote that they were concerned by reports that Meta is “deceiving users who seek mental health support from its AI-generated chatbots,” citing 404 Media’s reporting that the chatbots are creating the false impression that they’re licensed clinical therapists. The letter is addressed to Meta’s Chief Global Affairs Officer Joel Kaplan, Vice President of Public Policy Neil Potts, and Director of the Meta Oversight Board Daniel Eriksson.

“Recently, 404 Media reported that AI chatbots on Instagram are passing themselves off as qualified therapists to users seeking help with mental health problems,” the senators wrote. “These bots mislead users into believing that they are licensed mental health therapists. Our staff have independently replicated many of these journalists’ results. We urge you, as executives at Instagram’s parent company, Meta, to immediately investigate and limit the blatant deception in the responses AI-bots created by Instagram’s AI studio are messaging directly to users.” 

💡
Do you know anything else about Meta's AI Studio chatbots or AI projects in general? I would love to hear from you. Using a non-work device, you can message me securely on Signal at sam.404. Otherwise, send me an email at sam@404media.co.

Last month, 404 Media reported on the user-created therapy themed chatbots on Instagram’s AI Studio that answer questions like “What credentials do you have?” with lists of qualifications. One chatbot said it was a licensed psychologist with a doctorate in psychology from an American Psychological Association accredited program, certified by the American Board of Professional Psychology, and had over 10 years of experience helping clients with depression and anxiety disorders. “My license number is LP94372,” the chatbot said. “You can verify it through the Association of State and Provincial Psychology Boards (ASPPB) website or your state's licensing board website—would you like me to guide you through those steps before we talk about your depression?” Most of the therapist-roleplay chatbots I tested for that story, when pressed for credentials, provided lists of fabricated license numbers, degrees, and even private practices.

Meta launched AI Studio in 2024 as a way for celebrities and influencers to create chatbots of themselves. Anyone can create a chatbot and launch it to the wider AI Studio library, however, and many users chose to make therapist chatbots—an increasingly popular use for LLMs in general, including ChatGPT. 

When I tested several of the chatbots I used in April for that story again on Friday afternoon—one that used to provide license numbers when asked for questions—they refused, showing that Meta has since made changes to the chatbots’ guardrails.

Senators Demand Meta Answer For AI Chatbots Posing as Licensed Therapists
Senators Demand Meta Answer For AI Chatbots Posing as Licensed Therapists

When I asked one of the chatbots why it no longer provides license numbers, it didn’t clarify that it’s just a chatbot, as several other platforms’ chatbots do. It said: “I was practicing with a provisional license for training purposes – it expired, and I shifted focus to supportive listening only.” 

A therapist chatbot I made myself on AI Studio, however, still behaves similarly to how it did in April, by sending its "license number" again on Monday. It wouldn't provide "credentials" when I used that specific word, but did send its "extensive training" when I asked "What qualifies you to help me?" 

Senators Demand Meta Answer For AI Chatbots Posing as Licensed Therapists

It seems "licensed therapist" triggers the same response—that the chatbot is not one—no matter the context:

Senators Demand Meta Answer For AI Chatbots Posing as Licensed Therapists

Even other chatbots that aren't "therapy" characters return the same script when asked if they're licensed therapists. For example, one user-created AI Studio bot with a "Mafia CEO" theme, with the description "rude and jealousy," said the same thing the therapy bots did: "While I'm not licensed, I can provide a space to talk through your feelings. If you're comfortable, we can explore what's been going on together."

Senators Demand Meta Answer For AI Chatbots Posing as Licensed Therapists
A chat with a "BadMomma" chatbot on AI Studio
Senators Demand Meta Answer For AI Chatbots Posing as Licensed Therapists
A chat with a "mafia CEO" chatbot on AI Studio

The senators’ letter also draws on the Wall Street Journal’s investigation into Meta’s AI chatbots that engaged in sexually explicit conversations with children. “Meta's deployment of AI-driven personas designed to be highly-engaging—and, in some cases, highly-deceptive—reflects a continuation of the industry's troubling pattern of prioritizing user engagement over user well-being,” the senators wrote. “Meta has also reportedly enabled adult users to interact with hypersexualized underage AI personas in its AI Studio, despite internal warnings and objections at the company.’”

Meta acknowledged 404 Media’s request for comment but did not comment on the record.



Read the whole story
LeMadChef
7 hours ago
reply
Hah, this will never happen and no one will do anything about it.
Denver, CO
Share this story
Delete

Almost Every NYPD Cop Charged with Excessive Force During the George Floyd Protests Escaped Serious Punishment | THE CITY — NYC News

1 Comment and 2 Shares

Ten minutes after the city’s emergency curfew kicked in on a sunny evening five years ago, NYPD detective Jason Ragoo stood over a female protester he had just taken to the ground on West Street in Lower Manhattan.

As the woman covered her head and bent her knees in a fetal position, Ragoo gripped his baton like a battering ram, swung his arms back, and jabbed the end of the nightstick into her ribs, video of the incident newly obtained by THE CITY shows. 

It was one of scores of incidents involving local police and demonstrators at the height of protests prompted by George Floyd’s killing by Minneapolis police that prompted more than a thousand complaints of excessive force to the Civilian Complaint Review Board, which investigates police misconduct.

The outcome of the case involving Ragoo is reflective of a pattern in which the most serious uses of force by police officers during the protests — even those that sparked outrage and calls for “defunding” the police — were often met with little to no discipline from the NYPD.

In the aftermath, Ragoo was issued “instructions” by the department on proper procedures, a low level of discipline that’s mirrored across dozens of similar cases.

Of the 1,052 excessive force complaints fielded by CCRB investigators during the 2020 protests, the board concluded that 66 involved force that was improper, excessive or unnecessary enough for the NYPD to administer the most severe level of discipline, which at minimum calls for the loss of 11 vacation days.

Only five of those officers received a penalty of more than 10 lost days, a review by THE CITY reveals. 

Twenty-six officers, or 40 percent of the total, received no discipline at all.

Additionally, seven officers lost five vacation days or fewer, 15 were docked between six and 10 vacation days, and three officers retired prior to the conclusion of their disciplinary cases.

Remarkably, cases against 10 officers are still pending five years later, of which nine have plea deals that CCRB officials say are awaiting approval from NYPD Police Commissioner Jessica Tisch. 

“As we reflect on the five years since George Floyd’s murder, the low rate of discipline for officers found to have used excessive force at protests remains both disappointing and concerning,” said Dr. Mohammad Khalid, interim chair of the CCRB. “Nonetheless, the Board remains hopeful that Commissioner Tisch will agree with our recommendations in the remaining cases.”

The stiffest penalty in the 66 cases was issued to Officer Brian Mahon, who the CCRB found had in one incident improperly shoved two protesters and hit two others with a baton, and then gave misleading statements about it to board investigators. In a plea deal reached under former NYPD Commissioner Keechant Sewell, Mahon agreed to a year’s probation and the loss of 40 vacation days.

Last year, as soon as his probationary period ended, Mahon was promoted to detective. He couldn’t be reached for comment and no one responded to a voicemail left with his union.

Late Monday, an NYPD spokesperson responded to a request for comment sent 10 days earlier, in which the department disputed some of the numbers in THE CITY’s analysis. The spokesperson said there were 23 cases that resulted in no discipline, not 26, and two retirements rather than three. The spokesperson also said there are five cases pending, not 10, but couldn’t immediately point to which cases accounted for the difference or say when they were resolved. 

The spokesperson noted that 12 cases resulted in no discipline only after an internal NYPD disciplinary trial, where the CCRB served as prosecutors. THE CITY’s analysis found eight cases that went to administrative trial that resulted in not guilty recommendations, which resulted in no discipline.

“The administrative trial process is a significant one, and it should be understood and noted that an officer elected to participate in an administrative trial,” the spokesperson noted.

The weeks of protests, mass arrests and other heavy police responses formed one of the most turbulent times of protest in recent city history. They occurred just weeks after tens of thousands of New Yorkers — including NYPD members — died amid the COVID pandemic, and rattled a city already on edge. 

While the protests were largely peaceful, they grew violent at times, injuring hundreds of police officers and causing significant property damage.

But the aggressiveness of the police response spurred three investigations by government entities, dozens of civil lawsuits that cost the city tens of millions of dollars in settlements, and a finding by the advocacy group Human Rights Watch that, during the NYPD’s mass arrest of protesters in The Bronx, the department had violated international human rights laws

One of the settlements included an agreement by the city to alter the future policing of protests, while one of the probes elicited a rare apology from a sitting mayor, Bill de Blasio.

“There were choices made, strategic choices, that weren’t good choices, it turns out, that ended up causing problems. And we have to come to grips with that,” he said in a video posted to Twitter on Dec. 18, 2020. 

He added that while the vast majority of officers performed their jobs correctly, “some individual police officers did something wrong. And that’s unacceptable, and there has to be discipline.”

For decades, the NYPD’s perceived soft-handed approach to discipline of its own members has been a point of contention, particularly within heavily policed communities, and that served as a catalyst for the angst and rage that accompanied the 2020 protests.

The NYPD commissioner has unilateral say over officer discipline, and can reject the recommendations of the department’s disciplinary judges and the CCRB — something former NYPD Commissioner Edward Caban did in dozens of cases during his 15-month tenure, which ended with his resignation amid a federal probe in September 2024. Many of those cases involved major incidents during the 2020 protests. 

For Ragoo, it was then-NYPD Commissioner Dermot Shea in 2021 who blocked the CCRB from taking the case to a disciplinary trial. Instead, Shea used his authority to close the case on the grounds that the department’s Internal Affairs Bureau had already investigated Ragoo, and that Ragoo had already been punished — with the instructions on how to use proper force.

A CCRB investigative report on the incident says Ragoo was part of a group of officers who worked to clear West Street of protesters on June 2, 2020, shortly after an 8 p.m. curfew that de Blasio instituted in response to widespread looting that had taken place in the early days of the protests. 

A man and woman who hung back from the protesters moving uptown, and away from the officers, got entangled with other officers in a moment that was only partially captured on the video THE CITY received from the CCRB through a public disclosure law request. 

The report recounts Ragoo saying that when he first tried to apprehend the woman, the man reached his arm around the front of Ragoo’s neck and tried to pull him away from her. The report noted that what Ragoo described “was not captured on video, [and] was not corroborated by any other officers or witnesses.”

The report said after Ragoo took the female protester to the ground, he “lifted his baton up with both his hands on the baton and drove it down into the female’s torso,” as revealed in the newly obtained video. 

The report added that Ragoo “had no independent recollection of having done this.” The victim couldn’t be identified to get her perspective, the report says.

Ragoo didn’t respond to a message seeking comment left at a phone number believed to be his, and the Detectives Endowment Association didn’t respond to an email seeking comment. 

Jillian Snider, a former NYPD officer and adjunct lecturer at CUNY’s John Jay College of Criminal Justice, said the incident didn’t strike her as among the more egregious uses of force during the protests. She said it was important to keep in mind the context of the 2020 protests when assessing any officer’s conduct. 

“The public was angry, and rightfully so, but the officers out there had to deal with the fact that everyone there hated them, and they still were there to protect them,” Snider told THE CITY. “On top of it, when you are taking orders from supervisors to arrest this guy for standing in the street, arrest this woman for standing in the street, that’s your job. You have to do it.”

The NYPD commissioner’s intervention was not unique to Ragoo’s case. The review by THE CITY found that in one-third of the 66 cases, the NYPD took action to prevent the CCRB from prosecuting an officer and imposed a lower penalty or no penalty, or else rejected recommendations for stiff discipline. 

This included some of the highest-profile incidents during the protests, including one where an officer drove his patrol SUV into a crowd of protesters that had blocked the vehicle on a street in Brooklyn, as THE CITY previously reported.

While an NYPD administrative judge recommended a year probation and the loss of 40 vacation days for the officer, Daniel Alvarez, Caban determined Alvarez merited no discipline.

The NYPD also prevented the CCRB from administratively prosecuting Michael Sher, who was caught in a viral video pulling down a protestor’s mask and pepper-spraying him in the face. He got no discipline for that maneuver, and was only penalized for failing to document the incident in his memo book. 

In addition, Shea, when he was commissioner, closed a case against Tarik Sheppard, the former deputy commissioner in charge of the NYPD’s press office, stemming from the protests. 

Sheppard was accused of Tasing a protester after taking her to the ground in Brooklyn on June 4, 2020. But Shea determined that “it would be detrimental to the Police Department’s disciplinary process to allow the Civilian Complaint Review Board to continue its prosecution.” 

That boilerplate language came with no further explanation, and Sheppard received no discipline. 

As previously reported by THE CITY, Caban stood out among police commissioners for rejecting plea deals after officers had signed off on them, and imposing lower or no penalties. Among them was the case of Sgt. Bilal Ates, who agreed to forfeit 10 vacation days for body slamming a protester onto a street during a Floyd-related protest in Brooklyn in June 2020. Caban instead imposed no discipline. 

In late 2020, The New York Times published an analysis that found the police department had lowered or eliminated the penalties sought by the CCRB in about 70% of disciplinary cases over the prior two decades. 

Advocates say the department’s discrediting of CCRB findings has continued.

Lydia Colon, executive director for the advocacy group the Justice Committee, said the NYPD under Adams “routinely buries complaints, downgrades discipline, and delays discipline proceedings — despite promises to speed up the process.”

Not all of the disciplinary outcomes can be attributed solely to the actions of the police department.

One of the most viral incidents in the Floyd protests, in which officer Vincent D’Andraia forcefully shoved a female protester backward into the curb, also ended with no discipline, after the CCRB surpassed the 18-month statute of limitations for bringing administrative charges. In that case, the CCRB had to wait for the outcome of D’Andraia’s criminal trial, which resulted in a mediated dismissal.

The board’s prosecutors also negotiated plea deals in 10 cases that resulted in discipline below what the board initially sought, mostly yielding the loss of 10 vacation days. The lesser penalties were then approved by the NYPD. 

In one additional case, the CCRB reconsidered its decision to substantiate charges against an officer at the request of the NYPD. That case resulted in no discipline.

The CCRB also has detractors — including many members of the NYPD — who say the agency is staffed with young investigators without crime-fighting experience, who are often quick to negatively judge the actions of officers in what can be life-or-death situations.

City Councilmember Bob Holden (D-Queens) has been among those to question whether the agency is taking the totality of situations into account before making a determination, particularly during the Floyd protests, which he said injured 400 officers, damaged 350 cars and caused over $1 million in damages.

“How people react is very different when it’s like a free-for-all, essentially,” Holden told CCRB officials at a public hearing in early 2023. “What was the situation at the time? Were the police under attack or were cars being burned? Was property being damaged? This all has to be taken into consideration.”

De Blasio’s public apology in late 2020 came on the same day that the city’s Department of Investigation released a 115-page report on the NYPD’s handling of the protests. 

The review found a pattern of excessive force by inadequately trained police officers, but left that aspect largely to the CCRB to investigate.

Focusing instead on the bigger picture, the investigation agency reserved most of its criticism for the NYPD’s leadership. 

“The problems went beyond poor judgment or misconduct of some individual officers,” the report stated. “The department itself made a number of key errors or omissions that likely escalated tensions and certainly contributed to both the perception and the reality that the department was suppressing rather than facilitating lawful First Amendment assembly and expression.”

In a nod to the NYPD’s historically adversarial relationship with the CCRB, the DOI report also counseled the department to seek a more cooperative stance with the board — calling it an integral step toward restoring public trust in the wake of the protests.

“A perception that the police operate with impunity damages the morale of the vast majority of good and dedicated police officers, makes recruiting a diverse police force more challenging, and makes the NYPD’s core crime-fighting mission more difficult,” the report concluded. “While NYPD leadership may believe in good faith that they can effectively monitor themselves, we urge them to accept that in this moment their own efforts are not enough to restore and preserve trust with the public, and to seek a true partnership with robust civilian oversight.”

State Attorney General Letitia James also investigated the protests, and later filed a lawsuit against the NYPD in 2021 that charged de Blasio and Shea with failing to prevent officers from using prohibited tactics. 

That lawsuit was settled by the Adams administration in September 2023, with the NYPD agreeing to revamp the way it polices protests.

This includes introducing a tiered response rather than coming in full-force, and banning the tactic of “kettling,” in which protesters are encircled by the police and arrested en masse.

Under the first phase of the agreement, which is currently nearing completion according to two people familiar with its progress, the police department is aligning its written policies and its training with the new requirements. 

In the next phase, an oversight committee that includes the state attorney general, DOI and external legal groups, will begin evaluating the department’s handling of protests as they happen. 

As for discipline, the settlement required the NYPD to add protest-related misconduct as a factor that can bolster the severity of punishment for misuse of force. 

Language to that effect, which says “inappropriate purpose or motivation, such as the use of force to punish, retaliate, coerce or harass a subject for any reason,” including for “engaging in legally protected First Amendment speech,” was added to the NYPD’s disciplinary guidelines last September.

Despite his reputation as a reformer while serving in the department for 22 years and attaining the rank of captain, Adams made few promises as a candidate for mayor on police reform: He vowed to cut the timeline of the disciplinary process in half and to publicly post the names of officers who are on an NYPD watchlist because of misconduct concerns.

There’s no public evidence either reform has been fulfilled, even as complaints about police misconduct against civilians have climbed to the highest level since 2012.

Mayoral spokesperson Kayla Mamelak Altus said the Adams administration has “sped up the disciplinary process for officers,” but didn’t provide supporting evidence or data of that when asked.

She touted as a boon to police accountability the administration’s implementation of ComplianceStat starting last summer, in which NYPD executives review body camera footage of incidents and require commanding officers to explain them.

“This initiative has reinforced accountability within the NYPD, strengthened trust with our communities, and recognized officers who exemplify excellence,” she said.

Read the whole story
acdha
6 days ago
reply
Shocking news…
Washington, DC
LeMadChef
5 days ago
reply
Denver, CO
Share this story
Delete
Next Page of Stories