Connect with us

Rough Waters Ahead For The US Dollar

Historical cycles and paradigm shifts in monetary policy can give us a look into Bitcoin’s potential and the future value of the U.S. dollar.

Published

on

Historical cycles and paradigm shifts in monetary policy can give us a look into Bitcoin’s potential and the future value of the U.S. dollar.

A “paradigm,” as defined by Ray Dalio, is a period of time during which “Markets and market relationships operate in a certain way that most people adapt to and eventually extrapolate.” A “paradigm shift” occurs when those relationships are overdone, resulting in “markets that operate more opposite than similar to how they operated during the prior paradigm.”

Prior to 2008, there were four such paradigm shifts, each identified by a material change in the Federal Reserve Board’s monetary policy framework in response to unsustainable debt growth. In 2008, we saw the fifth and most recent paradigm shift, when former Fed Chair Ben Bernanke introduced quantitative easing (QE) in response to the Great Recession. Since then, the Fed has been operating in uncharted territory, launching multiple rounds of an already unconventional monetary policy with detrimental outcomes.

A significant and painful consequence of the past five paradigm shifts has been the devaluation of the U.S. dollar. Since the first shift in 1933, the dollar has lost 99% of its value against gold.

Gold purchased per U.S. dollar has drastically declined since 1930

We are currently living through a period with unprecedented levels of national debt, increasing inflationary pressures and escalating geopolitical conflicts. This is also coming at a time when the global influence of the United States is waning and the dollar’s reserve currency status is being called into question. All of this indicates that the end of the current paradigm is fast approaching.

Analyzing past paradigm shifts will lead some to anticipate a return to the gold standard, but we now live in a world with an alternative and superior monetary asset – bitcoin – which is quickly gaining adoption among individuals and nations. Unlike in past paradigms, the invention of bitcoin introduces the potential for a new monetary framework – a Bitcoin standard.

To better assess the potential impact from a change to the current monetary system, it is important to understand how we arrived at this point. Armed with this knowledge, we will be better positioned to navigate the upcoming paradigm shift, the associated economic volatility, and understand the potential impact on the dollar’s value. Bitcoin will likely play a central role in this transition, not only as a savings tool, but also in shaping future monetary policy.

Debt’s Role In The Business Cycle

A business cycle refers to the recurrent sequence of increases and decreases in economic activity over time. The four stages of a business cycle include expansion, peak, contraction and trough. The expansionary phase is characterized by improving economic conditions, rising consumer confidence and declining interest rates. As growth accelerates and the supply of credit expands, borrowers are incentivized to take on leverage to fund asset purchases. However, as the economy reaches the later years of the cycle, inflation tends to increase and asset bubbles are formed. Peak economic conditions can be sustained for years, but eventually, growth turns negative, leading to the contraction phase of the cycle. The severity and length of these downturns can vary from a mild recession lasting six months to a depression that lasts for years.

The amount of debt accumulated during the expansionary phase of the business cycle plays a vital role in how policymakers react to economic crises. Historically, the Fed navigated most recessions by relying on its three monetary policy tools: open market operations, the discount rate and reserve requirements. However, there were four instances prior to 2008 where the Fed pivoted from historical norms and introduced a new monetary policy framework, marking the end of one paradigm and the beginning of another — a paradigm shift.

Historical Paradigm Shifts

The first paradigm shift occurred in 1933 during the Great Depression when President Franklin D. Roosevelt suspended the convertibility of dollars to gold, effectively abandoning the gold standard. Severing the dollar’s link to gold allowed the Fed to increase the money supply without constraint to stimulate the economy.

Following years of global central banks funding their country’s military efforts in WWII, the monetary system experienced another paradigm shift in 1945 with the signing of the Bretton Woods Agreement, which reintroduced the dollar’s peg to gold. Reverting to the gold standard led to nearly 15 years of mostly prosperous times for the U.S. economy. Nominal gross domestic product (GDP) averaged 6% growth, while inflation remained muted around 3.5%, despite very accommodative interest rate policies.

However, government spending picked up in the 1960s to support social spending programs and to fund the Vietnam War. Before long, the government found itself saddled again with too much debt, rising inflation and a growing fiscal deficit. On the evening of August 15, 1971, Richard Nixon announced that he would close the gold window, ending dollar convertibility to gold — an explicit default on its debt obligations — in order to curb inflation and prevent foreign nations from retrieving any gold that was still owed to them. Nixon’s announcement officially marked the end of the gold standard, and the transition to a purely fiat-based monetary system.

Like in the 1930s, abandoning the gold standard allowed the Fed to increase the money supply at will. The expansionary policies that followed fueled one of the strongest inflationary periods in history. With inflation exceeding 10% by 1979, then-Fed Chair Paul Volcker made a surprise announcement that the Fed would begin managing the volume of bank reserves in the financial system, as opposed to specifically targeting the money supply’s growth rate and daily federal funds rate. He warned that the change in policy would allow interest rates to have “substantial freedom in the market,” subjecting it to more “fluctuations.” The federal funds rate subsequently began to increase and eventually exceeded 19%, sending the economy into a recession. Volcker’s policy change and the reset of interest rates to all-time highs marked the end of 40 years of a rising rate environment.

Historical Paradigm Shifts

The first paradigm shift occurred in 1933 during the Great Depression when President Franklin D. Roosevelt suspended the convertibility of dollars to gold, effectively abandoning the gold standard. Severing the dollar’s link to gold allowed the Fed to increase the money supply without constraint to stimulate the economy.

Following years of global central banks funding their country’s military efforts in WWII, the monetary system experienced another paradigm shift in 1945 with the signing of the Bretton Woods Agreement, which reintroduced the dollar’s peg to gold. Reverting to the gold standard led to nearly 15 years of mostly prosperous times for the U.S. economy. Nominal gross domestic product (GDP) averaged 6% growth, while inflation remained muted around 3.5%, despite very accommodative interest rate policies.

However, government spending picked up in the 1960s to support social spending programs and to fund the Vietnam War. Before long, the government found itself saddled again with too much debt, rising inflation and a growing fiscal deficit. On the evening of August 15, 1971, Richard Nixon announced that he would close the gold window, ending dollar convertibility to gold — an explicit default on its debt obligations — in order to curb inflation and prevent foreign nations from retrieving any gold that was still owed to them. Nixon’s announcement officially marked the end of the gold standard, and the transition to a purely fiat-based monetary system.

Like in the 1930s, abandoning the gold standard allowed the Fed to increase the money supply at will. The expansionary policies that followed fueled one of the strongest inflationary periods in history. With inflation exceeding 10% by 1979, then-Fed Chair Paul Volcker made a surprise announcement that the Fed would begin managing the volume of bank reserves in the financial system, as opposed to specifically targeting the money supply’s growth rate and daily federal funds rate. He warned that the change in policy would allow interest rates to have “substantial freedom in the market,” subjecting it to more “fluctuations.” The federal funds rate subsequently began to increase and eventually exceeded 19%, sending the economy into a recession. Volcker’s policy change and the reset of interest rates to all-time highs marked the end of 40 years of a rising rate environment.

Historical paradigm shifts prior to 2008

Impact of Paradigm Shifts On The U.S. Dollar

Gold is one of the few commodities that has been used throughout history as both a store-of-value asset and as a currency, evidenced by its role in monetary systems around the world, i.e., “the gold standard.” Regardless of its physical form, gold is measured by its weight and purity. Within the United States, a troy ounce is the standard measure for gold’s weight and karats for its purity. Once measured, its value can be quoted in various exchange rates, including one that references the U.S. dollar.

With gold having a standard unit of measure, any fluctuation in its exchange rate reflects an increase or decrease in the respective currency’s purchasing power. For example, when the purchasing power of the dollar increases, owners of dollars can buy more units of gold. When the dollar’s value declines, it can be exchanged for fewer units of gold.

At the time of writing, the U.S. dollar price for one troy ounce of gold with 99.9% purity is roughly $2,000. At this exchange rate, $10,000 can be exchanged for five ounces of gold. If the purchasing power of the dollar strengthens by 20%, the price for gold would decline to $1,667, allowing the buyer to purchase six ounces for $10,000 compared to five ounces from the first example. Alternatively, if the dollar weakens by 20%, gold’s price would increase to $2,500, allowing the buyer to purchase only four ounces.

With this relationship in mind when observing gold’s historic price chart, the decline in the dollar’s purchasing power during historical paradigm shifts becomes obvious. 

Gold priced in USD from 1920-1987

Quantitative Easing In The Current Paradigm

The most recent paradigm shift occurred at the end of 2008 when the Fed introduced the first round of quantitative easing in response to the Great Recession.

While rising interest rates and weakness in home prices were the key catalysts for the recession, the seeds were sown long before, dating back to 2000 when the Fed first began lowering interest rates. Over the following seven years, the federal funds rate was lowered from 6.5% to a meager 1.0%, which concurrently drove a $6 trillion increase in home mortgage loans to over $11 trillion. By 2007, household debt had increased from 70% to 100% of GDP, a debt burden that proved to be unsustainable as interest rates rose and the economy softened. 

Historical paradigm shifts after 2007

Like past shifts, the unsustainable debt burden was the key factor that ultimately led the Fed to adjust its policy framework. Not surprisingly, the outcome from implementing its new policy was consistent with history — a large increase in the money supply and a 50% devaluation in the value of the dollar against gold.

Gold priced in USD from 1920 through the present

However, this paradigm has been unlike any other in history. Despite taking unprecedented actions — four rounds of QE totaling $8 trillion of stimulus over the last 14 years — the Fed has not been able to improve its control of the broader economy. Rather, its grip has only weakened, while the nation’s debt has ballooned.

Quantitative easing by program

With national debt now exceeding $30 trillion, or 120% of GDP, a federal budget deficit nearing $3 trillion, an effective federal funds rate of just 0.33% and 8% inflation, the economy is in its most vulnerable position compared to any other time in history.

U.S. economic indicators by time period

Government Funding Needs Will Increase In Economic Instability

While the Fed discusses further tapering of its financial support, any tightening measures are likely to be short-lived, given the economy’s continued weakness and reliance on debt to drive economic growth.

Less than four months ago, Congress increased the debt ceiling for the 78th time since the 1960s. Given the nation’s historically high debt level and its current fiscal situation, its need for future borrowing is unlikely to change.

However, the funding market for the government’s debt has changed. Since the pandemic-related lockdowns and the associated financial relief programs that were announced in 2020, demand for U.S. debt has dried up. The government has since relied on the Fed to fund the majority of its spending needs. 

U.S. debt purchases differentiated by domestic, foreign and Federal Reserve buyers

As demand for U.S. debt from domestic and foreign investors continues to wane, it’s likely that the Fed will remain the largest financier of the U.S. government. This will drive further increases in the money supply, inflation, and a decline in the value of the dollar.

Bitcoin Is The Best Form Of Money

As the nation’s debt burden grows and the purchasing power of the dollar continues to decline over the coming months and years, demand for a better form of money and/or store-of-value asset will increase.

This leads to the questions, what is money and what makes one form better than another? Money is a tool that is used to facilitate economic exchange. According to Austrian economist Carl Menger, the best form of money is that which is most saleable, having the ability to easily be sold in any quantity, at any point in time and for a price that is desired. That which has “almost unlimited saleableness” will be deemed the best money, for which other lesser forms of money are measured.

Saleability of a good can be assessed across three dimensions: space, scale and time. Space refers to the degree to which a good can be easily transported over distances. Scale means a good performs well as a medium of exchange. Lastly, and most importantly, time refers to a good’s scarcity and its ability to preserve value over long periods.

"Good" money has many specific traits

As seen many times throughout history, gold has often been sought for its saleability. The dollar has also been viewed similarly, but its monetary traits have degraded meaningfully since losing its gold backing. However, with the advent of the internet and Satoshi Nakamoto’s invention of Bitcoin in 2009, there is now a superior monetary alternative.

Bitcoin shares many similarities with gold but improves upon its weaknesses. Bitcoin has the highest saleability — it is more portable, verifiable, divisible, fungible, and scarce. The one area where it remains inferior is its durability, given that gold has been around for thousands of years compared to only 13 years for bitcoin. It is only a matter of time before bitcoin demonstrates its durability. 

Comparing bitcoin to other forms of money

The Next Paradigm Shift

The dollar’s loss of its reserve currency status will prompt the sixth paradigm shift in U.S. monetary policy. With it will come yet another significant decline in the value of the dollar.

Historical precedents will lead some to believe that a transition back to the gold standard is most likely. While this is entirely possible, another probable and realistic monetary alternative in the digital age is the adoption of a Bitcoin standard. Fundamentally, bitcoin is a superior monetary good compared to all of its predecessors. As history has shown in the case of gold, the asset that is most saleable, with the strongest monetary traits, is the one that everyone will converge to.

Bitcoin is the hardest form of money the world has ever seen. Some have already realized this, but with time, everyone from individuals to nation-states will come to the same conclusion.

This is a guest post by Ryan Deedy. Opinions expressed are entirely their own and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc. or Bitcoin Magazine.

Read More

Continue Reading

International

Beloved mall retailer files Chapter 7 bankruptcy, will liquidate

The struggling chain has given up the fight and will close hundreds of stores around the world.

Published

on

It has been a brutal period for several popular retailers. The fallout from the covid pandemic and a challenging economic environment have pushed numerous chains into bankruptcy with Tuesday Morning, Christmas Tree Shops, and Bed Bath & Beyond all moving from Chapter 11 to Chapter 7 bankruptcy liquidation.

In all three of those cases, the companies faced clear financial pressures that led to inventory problems and vendors demanding faster, or even upfront payment. That creates a sort of inevitability.

Related: Beloved retailer finds life after bankruptcy, new famous owner

When a retailer faces financial pressure it sets off a cycle where vendors become wary of selling them items. That leads to barren shelves and no ability for the chain to sell its way out of its financial problems. 

Once that happens bankruptcy generally becomes the only option. Sometimes that means a Chapter 11 filing which gives the company a chance to negotiate with its creditors. In some cases, deals can be worked out where vendors extend longer terms or even forgive some debts, and banks offer an extension of loan terms.

In other cases, new funding can be secured which assuages vendor concerns or the company might be taken over by its vendors. Sometimes, as was the case with David's Bridal, a new owner steps in, adds new money, and makes deals with creditors in order to give the company a new lease on life.

It's rare that a retailer moves directly into Chapter 7 bankruptcy and decides to liquidate without trying to find a new source of funding.

Mall traffic has varied depending upon the type of mall.

Image source: Getty Images

The Body Shop has bad news for customers  

The Body Shop has been in a very public fight for survival. Fears began when the company closed half of its locations in the United Kingdom. That was followed by a bankruptcy-style filing in Canada and an abrupt closure of its U.S. stores on March 4.

"The Canadian subsidiary of the global beauty and cosmetics brand announced it has started restructuring proceedings by filing a Notice of Intention (NOI) to Make a Proposal pursuant to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada). In the same release, the company said that, as of March 1, 2024, The Body Shop US Limited has ceased operations," Chain Store Age reported.

A message on the company's U.S. website shared a simple message that does not appear to be the entire story.

"We're currently undergoing planned maintenance, but don't worry we're due to be back online soon."

That same message is still on the company's website, but a new filing makes it clear that the site is not down for maintenance, it's down for good.

The Body Shop files for Chapter 7 bankruptcy

While the future appeared bleak for The Body Shop, fans of the brand held out hope that a savior would step in. That's not going to be the case. 

The Body Shop filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in the United States.

"The US arm of the ethical cosmetics group has ceased trading at its 50 outlets. On Saturday (March 9), it filed for Chapter 7 insolvency, under which assets are sold off to clear debts, putting about 400 jobs at risk including those in a distribution center that still holds millions of dollars worth of stock," The Guardian reported.

After its closure in the United States, the survival of the brand remains very much in doubt. About half of the chain's stores in the United Kingdom remain open along with its Australian stores. 

The future of those stores remains very much in doubt and the chain has shared that it needs new funding in order for them to continue operating.

The Body Shop did not respond to a request for comment from TheStreet.   

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

Are Voters Recoiling Against Disorder?

Are Voters Recoiling Against Disorder?

Authored by Michael Barone via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The headlines coming out of the Super…

Published

on

Are Voters Recoiling Against Disorder?

Authored by Michael Barone via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The headlines coming out of the Super Tuesday primaries have got it right. Barring cataclysmic changes, Donald Trump and Joe Biden will be the Republican and Democratic nominees for president in 2024.

(Left) President Joe Biden delivers remarks on canceling student debt at Culver City Julian Dixon Library in Culver City, Calif., on Feb. 21, 2024. (Right) Republican presidential candidate and former U.S. President Donald Trump stands on stage during a campaign event at Big League Dreams Las Vegas in Las Vegas, Nev., on Jan. 27, 2024. (Mario Tama/Getty Images; David Becker/Getty Images)

With Nikki Haley’s withdrawal, there will be no more significantly contested primaries or caucuses—the earliest both parties’ races have been over since something like the current primary-dominated system was put in place in 1972.

The primary results have spotlighted some of both nominees’ weaknesses.

Donald Trump lost high-income, high-educated constituencies, including the entire metro area—aka the Swamp. Many but by no means all Haley votes there were cast by Biden Democrats. Mr. Trump can’t afford to lose too many of the others in target states like Pennsylvania and Michigan.

Majorities and large minorities of voters in overwhelmingly Latino counties in Texas’s Rio Grande Valley and some in Houston voted against Joe Biden, and even more against Senate nominee Rep. Colin Allred (D-Texas).

Returns from Hispanic precincts in New Hampshire and Massachusetts show the same thing. Mr. Biden can’t afford to lose too many Latino votes in target states like Arizona and Georgia.

When Mr. Trump rode down that escalator in 2015, commentators assumed he’d repel Latinos. Instead, Latino voters nationally, and especially the closest eyewitnesses of Biden’s open-border policy, have been trending heavily Republican.

High-income liberal Democrats may sport lawn signs proclaiming, “In this house, we believe ... no human is illegal.” The logical consequence of that belief is an open border. But modest-income folks in border counties know that flows of illegal immigrants result in disorder, disease, and crime.

There is plenty of impatience with increased disorder in election returns below the presidential level. Consider Los Angeles County, America’s largest county, with nearly 10 million people, more people than 40 of the 50 states. It voted 71 percent for Mr. Biden in 2020.

Current returns show county District Attorney George Gascon winning only 21 percent of the vote in the nonpartisan primary. He’ll apparently face Republican Nathan Hochman, a critic of his liberal policies, in November.

Gascon, elected after the May 2020 death of counterfeit-passing suspect George Floyd in Minneapolis, is one of many county prosecutors supported by billionaire George Soros. His policies include not charging juveniles as adults, not seeking higher penalties for gang membership or use of firearms, and bringing fewer misdemeanor cases.

The predictable result has been increased car thefts, burglaries, and personal robberies. Some 120 assistant district attorneys have left the office, and there’s a backlog of 10,000 unprosecuted cases.

More than a dozen other Soros-backed and similarly liberal prosecutors have faced strong opposition or have left office.

St. Louis prosecutor Kim Gardner resigned last May amid lawsuits seeking her removal, Milwaukee’s John Chisholm retired in January, and Baltimore’s Marilyn Mosby was defeated in July 2022 and convicted of perjury in September 2023. Last November, Loudoun County, Virginia, voters (62 percent Biden) ousted liberal Buta Biberaj, who declined to prosecute a transgender student for assault, and in June 2022 voters in San Francisco (85 percent Biden) recalled famed radical Chesa Boudin.

Similarly, this Tuesday, voters in San Francisco passed ballot measures strengthening police powers and requiring treatment of drug-addicted welfare recipients.

In retrospect, it appears the Floyd video, appearing after three months of COVID-19 confinement, sparked a frenzied, even crazed reaction, especially among the highly educated and articulate. One fatal incident was seen as proof that America’s “systemic racism” was worse than ever and that police forces should be defunded and perhaps abolished.

2020 was “the year America went crazy,” I wrote in January 2021, a year in which police funding was actually cut by Democrats in New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, and Denver. A year in which young New York Times (NYT) staffers claimed they were endangered by the publication of Sen. Tom Cotton’s (R-Ark.) opinion article advocating calling in military forces if necessary to stop rioting, as had been done in Detroit in 1967 and Los Angeles in 1992. A craven NYT publisher even fired the editorial page editor for running the article.

Evidence of visible and tangible discontent with increasing violence and its consequences—barren and locked shelves in Manhattan chain drugstores, skyrocketing carjackings in Washington, D.C.—is as unmistakable in polls and election results as it is in daily life in large metropolitan areas. Maybe 2024 will turn out to be the year even liberal America stopped acting crazy.

Chaos and disorder work against incumbents, as they did in 1968 when Democrats saw their party’s popular vote fall from 61 percent to 43 percent.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/09/2024 - 23:20

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

Veterans Affairs Kept COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate In Place Without Evidence

Veterans Affairs Kept COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate In Place Without Evidence

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The…

Published

on

Veterans Affairs Kept COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate In Place Without Evidence

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) reviewed no data when deciding in 2023 to keep its COVID-19 vaccine mandate in place.

Doses of a COVID-19 vaccine in Washington in a file image. (Jacquelyn Martin/Pool/AFP via Getty Images)

VA Secretary Denis McDonough said on May 1, 2023, that the end of many other federal mandates “will not impact current policies at the Department of Veterans Affairs.”

He said the mandate was remaining for VA health care personnel “to ensure the safety of veterans and our colleagues.”

Mr. McDonough did not cite any studies or other data. A VA spokesperson declined to provide any data that was reviewed when deciding not to rescind the mandate. The Epoch Times submitted a Freedom of Information Act for “all documents outlining which data was relied upon when establishing the mandate when deciding to keep the mandate in place.”

The agency searched for such data and did not find any.

The VA does not even attempt to justify its policies with science, because it can’t,” Leslie Manookian, president and founder of the Health Freedom Defense Fund, told The Epoch Times.

“The VA just trusts that the process and cost of challenging its unfounded policies is so onerous, most people are dissuaded from even trying,” she added.

The VA’s mandate remains in place to this day.

The VA’s website claims that vaccines “help protect you from getting severe illness” and “offer good protection against most COVID-19 variants,” pointing in part to observational data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that estimate the vaccines provide poor protection against symptomatic infection and transient shielding against hospitalization.

There have also been increasing concerns among outside scientists about confirmed side effects like heart inflammation—the VA hid a safety signal it detected for the inflammation—and possible side effects such as tinnitus, which shift the benefit-risk calculus.

President Joe Biden imposed a slate of COVID-19 vaccine mandates in 2021. The VA was the first federal agency to implement a mandate.

President Biden rescinded the mandates in May 2023, citing a drop in COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations. His administration maintains the choice to require vaccines was the right one and saved lives.

“Our administration’s vaccination requirements helped ensure the safety of workers in critical workforces including those in the healthcare and education sectors, protecting themselves and the populations they serve, and strengthening their ability to provide services without disruptions to operations,” the White House said.

Some experts said requiring vaccination meant many younger people were forced to get a vaccine despite the risks potentially outweighing the benefits, leaving fewer doses for older adults.

By mandating the vaccines to younger people and those with natural immunity from having had COVID, older people in the U.S. and other countries did not have access to them, and many people might have died because of that,” Martin Kulldorff, a professor of medicine on leave from Harvard Medical School, told The Epoch Times previously.

The VA was one of just a handful of agencies to keep its mandate in place following the removal of many federal mandates.

“At this time, the vaccine requirement will remain in effect for VA health care personnel, including VA psychologists, pharmacists, social workers, nursing assistants, physical therapists, respiratory therapists, peer specialists, medical support assistants, engineers, housekeepers, and other clinical, administrative, and infrastructure support employees,” Mr. McDonough wrote to VA employees at the time.

This also includes VA volunteers and contractors. Effectively, this means that any Veterans Health Administration (VHA) employee, volunteer, or contractor who works in VHA facilities, visits VHA facilities, or provides direct care to those we serve will still be subject to the vaccine requirement at this time,” he said. “We continue to monitor and discuss this requirement, and we will provide more information about the vaccination requirements for VA health care employees soon. As always, we will process requests for vaccination exceptions in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, and policies.”

The version of the shots cleared in the fall of 2022, and available through the fall of 2023, did not have any clinical trial data supporting them.

A new version was approved in the fall of 2023 because there were indications that the shots not only offered temporary protection but also that the level of protection was lower than what was observed during earlier stages of the pandemic.

Ms. Manookian, whose group has challenged several of the federal mandates, said that the mandate “illustrates the dangers of the administrative state and how these federal agencies have become a law unto themselves.”

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/09/2024 - 22:10

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending