Saturday, February 26, 2022

Putin's Appearance - "Moon Facies?"


I initially added this to the post below, but I decided since that post was all about giving praise for positive changes in US and the UK policy and more transparent intel, this needed to be a separate post.

So ... did anyone else think Putin looked especially pale and unusually bloated, in the face, in the "threat" video?

(In fact, that's why I called him a "bloated codfish" in my earlier post.)

He did to me - almost what is called "moon facies" in medical terminology - which although can result from several health conditions, can also form when a person has been on high-dose, corticosteroids (like prednisone) long term for a health condition with severe or chronic inflammation.

If so, that sure would explain a lot lol.

Not that we would ever know - Putin's the kind of leader that would pretend he's in perfect health until the end - and Russian press  would report he's still alive, even if he died lol.

Not sure, but he didn't look so good, did he?

Positives Changes In U.S. Government Policy, More Transparent Intel; Kudos to Biden And Blinken (Also UK's PM Boris Johnson)


Too many are overlooking how significant and positive these changes actually are.

First, the obvious - no propaganda "intel" to push us towards war, this time, like the infamous "bayonetted babies in incubators"  for Desert Storm.

Secondly, did you notice that President Biden and Secretary of State, Anthony Blinken, made public/gave us updated intel statements,  every step of the way, before this even began?

We knew where Russian troops were camped, how many there were, what weapons they had, what they were planning and where, and the timeframe of when.- and they were accurate.

That's a significant transparency change.

Nothing was secret, nothing was hidden - we knew what to expect.

It wasn't the usual bunch of men, sitting in the situation room, talking amongst themselves about the intel, then releasing a very vague, cryptic, vague blanket intel statement.  

When they knew, we knew - not the full details of course, but the big picture  - and most importantly, the intel was accurate -  not over-dramatized or over-inflated with propaganda.

In fact, that's the one thing I couldn't help but smile at - Putin loves the element of surprise, to create chaos - but he couldn't, because Blinken and Biden kept publicly announcing everything in advance, everyone knew what to expect - they totally stole his thunder! LOL!

I could envision Putin just throwing a temper tantrum and cussing in Russian every time lol.

Regardless, back to our policy changes and kudos for Biden and Blinken, I gotta say, I was also impressed with Biden's press conference the day of.   He was assertive, but still polite with press.

Conservative warmongering outlets kept asking him why not send troops directly to the Ukraine.

The answer is a no-brainer, which Biden explained and handled with aplomb, but didn't continue to repeat himself when some press wasted time by asking the same question.

Someone else asked him if he "still thought Putin was a worthy adversary?"

Trick question. 

He said, "Yes, but remember I did say adversary, and that's the important part of that statement."

Someone else asked, "Do you think you underestimated Putin, after 2014's invasion of Crimea?"

Biden said: "Yes ... we did, no question."

There's a lot of things he could've said here, pointing fingers of political blame, but instead, he took responsibility for all three administrations since as a whole, as a team - by saying "We."

The only thing I felt he didn't handle well was the repeated question on why not sanction Putin personally, which he said was "on the table."

I wasn't really sure what was meant by this question - his personal assets or ability to communicate via press with the west or-?

Well, since that time, of course, Putin has been personally sanctioned - and the reason it was on the table is that he needed time to get our allies all on  board to do so - if just the U.S. had done it, it would've been futile - but you can't say that in a press conference before everyone agrees, or in effort to pressure other countries to agree, you just can't (although Japan is still waffling).

Though President Biden has done a couple of things I'm not happy with,  I'm overall very happy with him - and I'm very proud of his handling of this, I think he's done a remarkable job.

And for UK-ers reading, I also watched Boris Johnson speak and answer questions before the House of Commons on the day of, on BBC-America.

I have to say, though I've not been a big fan of Boris Johnson, I was pleasantly surprised and very impressed with his plan and how he handled questions.

Someone asked him if he "was going to implement a review panel on every Russian entrant into the UK?"

Boris said something like: "We will be monitoring things closely, but I want to clearly state that just because a person is Russian, it doesn't make them a bad person."

Someone else used the time, and world attention, to pre-empt their question - which wasn't really a question - by saying "the time for pretending and partying is over, even parties by government themselves, isn't it?"

Low blow -  inappropriate, political jab at Boris Johnson for partying during lockdown.  Okay, we all already know about that -  not the time - bigger fish to fry, right now -  let's move on and focus.

Boris just shook his head, a collective groan was heard around the house, and Boris essentially reassured that they could be assured that no one was partying now lol.

I'm also encouraged by the amount of on-board unity we've got going on - gives me hope that out of this chaos may grow more common-ground and unity?

Okay, we won't get carried away with ourselves LOL

Friday, February 25, 2022

Link Fixed In The Below Post - And More From That Post That May Be of Interest?

... the link that leads to that New Year's Eve Post has been fixed - sorry about that!

Here is that link again, to that New Year's Eve post. 

Just in case you have link trouble, again, it's from New Year's Eve and it's called ""

Lol, that may seem a strange title, but that is because the post was originally about Betty White's Death - but then I rambled into this strange feeling that I had about the coming year, a feeling that I couldn't shake -  that something big was coming, possibly with a global effect, a mix of bad and good, or more accurately, bad then good.

In correcting the link, I just reread the entire post, not just about that sense that I had, but also about my realization when writing it that it also marked the "transitional" decade from the end of the Mayan calendar, and what that actually meant to the Mayans  - NOT the end of the world, but a resetting of the clock - as well as what the Mayans said would transpire during that "transitional decade (or more)" between "epochs," because the end of the calendar also marked the end of a Mayan epoch of time.

Below are the other excerpts from that post, the most important ones that ring eerily true.

Other than copy/pasting what I wrote, the post remains unaltered - I haven't changed a single word or even corrected typos ...

"You see, the reason the Mayan calendar is circular (much like a rudimentary form of Einstein's theory), rather than linear, is the Mayans believe that history will repeat itself in cyclical fashion, broken down by "epochs" of time, with each epoch lasting for approximately 70 to 80 years.

The end of each epoch is marked by a tumultuous transition period into a new epoch, lasting at least 10 years, sometimes more.

The transition is tumultuous because one person, one world power, one political movement, and/or one "energy" will "upset the balance of power" - essentially, he/she/they will make an unprecedented attempt at total "world" domination (their perception of the world), at "owning the world," in stepping-stone conquests.

But the good news is, thus far, despite owning parts of the world - not one of these attempts has ever been completely successful at possessing all of the world.

That is, of course, because they are met with much resistance from those fighting for freedom and independence - which causes a ripple effect around the world, often lasting at least a decade - and then will settle down back down again in semi-acceptance, regardless of what land or power is gained or lost, which will bubble up again and build until the end of the next epoch."

"... In fact, social change will be met with much resistance by those desperately holding onto to their power from the previous epoch, even if dying.

Now - again, when the Mayan calendar actually ended in 2012, nobody was sure what that meant, including the Mayans themselves lol. The Mayans didn't predict an apocalypse, though still a possibility, however unlikely.

HOWEVER - the end of the calendar did also mark the end of a Mayan 70-to-80-year epoch.

Thus, Mayans predicted this might the mother of all chaotic epoch-endings, and not just typical end-epoch turmoil stuff - but the beginning of an all-time global crisis, mass chaos, closer than ever to global war - but no one was sure what that would mean - climate, geopolitically, apocalypse, what?

HOWEVER, despite being written in stone, the future itself is not written in stone - the Mayan calendar also leaves room for us to change our course, for several options at a future, a chance to to change it - each epoch's end is merely test us on how well did we learn our lessons from the chaos at the end of last great epoch end, when the chaos emerged again at the end of this one?

The Mayan Calendar then rings eerily true, then, yes?

And not in hindsight like other "predictions."

Regardless, interesting, at the very least. 

So ... Remember When I Said ...

(Important PS added -   information and insights on reality versus pro-Russian disinformation - which is currently making its way into Western social media, to include faked videos  - from "B," who you may recall previous posts mentioning as our "honorary son."   In addition to "B" currently obtaining a master's degree at an Ivy League university in internet security with a focus on Russian disinformation, speaking fluent Russian, and having written a white paper on an algorithm that he had written, which identified Russian bots distributing disinformation on social media, he was hand-selected to work on a special internet security project for the DOD, though still in school.)



... the following, in THIS post from New Year's Eve?

Direct copy/paste from that unaltered post ...

"It's sort of like, "Okay ... what ELSE is coming our way in 2022?" LOL 
Probably nothing - but I WILL say - as crazy as this sounds - or crazier than I normally may sound (lol) - I do feel like something is spiritually shifting, I've felt that way all week. 
As you can see from my prior posts around New Year's, I don't really get especially spiritual around New Year's - New Year's Day has always been just another day to me, nothing especially spiritual about it. 
And yet I've had this feeling all week - which is what these more spiritual posts have been about.  
Maybe it's just for us, maybe global. And I can't tell you whether it's good or bad change - maybe both - but it feels like something is on its way, something different? 
I'm in hopes it will be "The Year of The Great White Settle-the-F-Down" - but that's not looking too good :) 
(And by that, I do NOT mean named for Betty White, who was irrepressible - I mean less noble "whites" who get their "knickers in a knot" over self-induced, paranoid nonsense.) 
So maybe it's all just wishful thinking ;) 
Or maybe subconsciously - which I didn't realize consciously until this moment - I was aware this was the 10-year mark of the end of the Mayan Calendar."

Yeah, so ... this would be it.  

But I have the sense that the Ukraine invasion isn't the only thing, I have a sense that there's more? 

HOWEVER - and I can't explain this, and I don't mean to sound inappropriate, right now, just hopeful - that despite the horror of all of this, I still have that strange sense of mix of bad and good  change -  or rather, maybe bad, then good?

Sort of like even though this is a horrible thing, something good will  eventually be found/discovered/ revealed among the ashes and grow - though it will take time?

Sort of like a tiny flower, growing through the crack in ugly asphalt, will reveal itself, if that makes any sense -  however small in comparison, it will eventually grow, spread seeds, and will not be alone?  

Or like though it may take time, something will eventually will be found in the ashes and rise up?

I'm not really explaining this well, I'm sorry, but maybe you get the gist? 

My husband (and a couple other people) think I'm psychic lol.

(I wish, because I could then get lottery numbers and be rich!)

I would say more "spiritually sensitive," and then only sometimes, and it's often hard for me to interpret  this "sense," correctly, because it's up to me to define/interpret these "cues" and sometimes I get them wrong, and only in hindsight do they make more sense.

Or maybe I'm just crazy lol.

Regardless, I think the best way to describe this sense that I can interpret is, despite all outward appearance, all will not be lost -  something that initially seems small will eventually be found in the ashes, grow, and rise up out of the ashes, as a result - so don't despair.

Thus heavily praying for Kyiv, Zelensky, and the Ukrainian people, right now, especially the children :(



I have mentioned before our "honorary son," B - who is obtaining his master's degree in internet security, with a primary focus on Russian threats, at an Ivy League university for internet, currently writing a white paper on Russian bots and social media techniques, speaks fluent Russian, and simultaneously contracts for the DOD - in other words, he's brilliant.

Some, here in Kentucky, scratched their heads as to why he went into this - why internet security, with a focus on Russia?

(Not us, we knew how big of a threat Russia actually was becoming again - and we're super proud of him! xo .)

Welp - now you know ;)

So of course he suddenly got hundreds of texts, emails, and phone calls yesterday, from those same people lol.

Regardless, as mentioned, he speaks fluent Russian - and yes - Putin did say exactly what the media says he said, doomsday-ish threat and all.

No - though there is tension at the border among Russia sympathizers and Ukrainians, it's not true that Russia was under attack at the borders from the Ukraine - this is propaganda, including a film created with actors, meant to be spread on social media.

(Typical of the far right wing - project onto the left what they are doing themselves, including Putin's use of the word "nazification" - methinks the smeller is the feller ;)

Also, his friends in Russia are "shocked" and "ashamed" - the ones that even knew about it, because the media is under tight wrap - and getting tighter.

So that lets you know that many Russians do NOT support this invasion - but there's not a dang thing they can do about it :(

(And they can forget about protesting - those that are, are being detained.)

In fact, there is no one in the world, except die-hard Trumpers and Putinites that buy the fact that "the Ukraine brought it on themselves" or "Putin had no choice, his border was under attack."

Even if it were true, at the border - which it's not -  Russia is a huge, powerhouse country and there was no need to "conquer" an entire small, independent country, over a border struggle - that would be like using a tank to stomp an ant -  just because you can.

As I said two posts below, the only people in the world supporting this invasion are the usual suspects - communist China and die-hard, dictator-lovers - Trumpers and Putinites -  in other words, people with a medieval sense of what it means to be a man, a Christian, and a leader -  who victim-blame, to justify any atrocities they commit for the sake of their own power and greed.

I also find it odd that people supposedly so anti-Communist are so eager to support Putin, former KGB, still employing Communist tactics, and clearly trying to turn back the clock to reincorporate countries into the former communist Soviet Union.

I love China's response, "The western word "invasion" is typical Western speak ..."

Okay, then what would YOU call it, China - "legitimate political discourse?" 


Regardless, we love, you B, so proud of you ... xo

Thursday, February 24, 2022

Biden Speaking Now, Putin's Strange Bravado ...


In addition to the "crippling" sanctions, here are two more things I'm glad he addressed ...

1.  Our troops are NOT in the Ukraine - they are in surrounding countries that are members of NATO, to protect them.

2.  He has repeatedly said they are "monitoring closely" any "efforts to exploit the situation" by gas price-gouging, and  that they have included government subsidies to gas companies in their plan to cover any natural price raises.

As for number 2 - FINALLY - a president addressed this, which always happens any time there's conflict overseas, natural disasters, or holidays.  

People think the president and/or congress can control gas prices (or market prices for anything, for that matter).

He/they don't - yet. 

So here's the thing - what legal consequences could he/Congress give for gas-price gouging?

I know that there are state laws in place for price-gouging, basically just fines, but they're rarely enforced.

At the federal level,  Americans are so terrified of federal government price control, in any form, that the federal government has zero price regulation, in any form. 

So I can see it now - if gas companies do price gouge, they will bitch that he's now directly engaging in federal gas-price control :/

I'm not sure what federal legal consequences he or Congress could give. at the federal level, that wouldn't be perceived/twisted into "government price control" - unless there's some kind of military-conflict legality that would give him the ability to do so? 

Otherwise, as for press questions, lots of people pushing for us to have troops on the ground in the Ukraine, now.

IMO, again - no - very bad idea and we should look before we leap - nobody wants WW3.

The other big question was, "Why not personally sanction Putin right now (rather than just Russia in general)?"

I'm not entirely sure what they mean, actually, by "personally sanction Putin" - does that mean shut down his personal finances and assets abroad or restricting his worldwide press coverage or-?

It's a good question - one which I think deserves both an explanation and an answer.

Biden responded that option is "on the table."

Hmm, not a great answer - and I do think we deserve one. 

Lastly, can I just say, once again, that Putin is crazy, but it's usually a calculating, controlled kind of crazy - and he's definitely not stupid.

There's a reason Putin thinks he boldly get away with this, with virtually no outward support, risking crippling sanctions to do it, so what is that reason - does he know something we don't?

That's what scares me.

Now, my first thought is that Putin's threat meant cyberwarfare, if we interfere - does Putin/Russian government now have the technological hacking capacity to shut us all down?

I hope I'm being slightly paranoid? 

Regardless, there's a reason Putin doesn't care that no one supports him or is risking severe sanctions - and we need to find out what that reason is ASAP.   

PS - Interesting ...


(*Edited - content and PS added)

So ... half of Americans don't trust Biden, Democrats, or reputable press on COVID, vaccines, elections,  election interference by Russia, or virtually anything else - but they DO believe them that the Russian invasion of the Ukraine is real. 

Well, that's good -  although it will still come as a surprise to many, because right-wing press didn't even start mentioning the Ukraine until the past 2 days, after the CIA and Secretary of State, Anthony Blinken, said invasion was imminent. 

The good news is, despite initial warmongering from Republicans - and despite Trump praising Putin as "savvy" and Trump's cult followers treating it like an edict from God - actual Republican congress members themselves are supporting severe sanctions and relief aid to the Ukraine, but not war - with Lindsey Graham stating to think carefully before jumping in or it would be World War III.

Pay attention, because this is the only time I have or will ever say these words - I agree with Lindsey Graham, on this one.

You will note, however, that they are very careful to say they "we support aid" - but not "we support Biden's plan"  - but the fact remains -  they certainly are lol. 

Because in fact, Biden, his administration, and the CIA didn't lie - they correctly predicted this and the timing of this - and they have given zero propaganda to try to involve us - a sharp turn from Republican leadership's way of doing this.

Kudos to President Zelensky, by the way, who has chosen to remain in Kyiv, despite other world leaders encouraging him to leave.

A far cry from Trump, who you may recall, hid in a bunker below the White House, over unarmed George Floyd protestors lol.  So you know, Trump would've been long gone out of the country, by now, all that man cares about is himself.

In fact, I can't help but tear up, watching the Ukrainian army gear up yesterday, in a fight they cannot win, but nevertheless, are willing to  sacrifice their lives to defend themselves and their independence.

I also can't help but think about how spoiled and stupid we Americans are, ready to be up in arms and revolt, just because somebody told us to wear a mask or get a vaccine or be tested before coming to work.

Point being, pay attention, my spoiled fellow Americans - masks and vaccines are not legitimate, sane reasons to be up in arms - literal military invasion of your country is a legitimate reason.

So I feel very sorry for the Ukrainian people, I do - but we also have to be careful, especially after Putin's crazy-ass threat of consequences to any country that interferes - making himself literally sound like Dr. Evil lol.  

BTW - what the ??? was with that threat, anyway?

It's like he stopped just short of banging his shoe on the podium and shouting "We will bury you!" like Khrushchev.

Oh, eff off, Putin, ya bloated codfish - do what you feel you must,  but know this - NOBODY thinks you're cool, except China, Trump, and a few other political-fringers, with a warped medieval sense of what it means to be a man, a Christian, and a leader.  

If you're so eager to start unnecessary fights, why don't you go wrestle a (trained) bear again, instead? :)

*HOWEVER* - I digress and admit -  just how many of the latter group of political-fringers are there, still hiding in the world? 

Because the number of them still in existence did surprise us all, when it came to Trump.

Putin may be crazy, but it's previously been a controlled crazy, and he's definitely not stupid - there's a reason he's doing this despite outwardly appearing that he has no support - what is that reason?

Regardless - aid, sanctions, and prayer - that's all we can do and should do, IMO - for now.

Lastly, IMO, people should've found it odd, that Trump praised Putin as "savvy" and "a genius."

But then again, these are people that didn't care if Russia interfered in the 2016 election, as long as Trump won, and admired Putin almost as much as they did Trump.

Be forewarned - as I tried to warn you in October 2016 (post put in draft in 2019, along with most others) -  after being given a bone-chilling heads up from some of Mark's former ranger buddies, still in action, about Trump and Putin's relationship and possible Russian interference in that upcoming election  ...

Though you may still not care yet, about Trump's relationship with Putin, Russian interference in the 2016 election (as long as Trump won?), and Trump withholding funds from the Ukraine - at some point, you WILL care.

At some point, as we go along,  you will know what a monster Putin truly is, and how Trump's relationship with Putin was a bigger deal than you thought. 

Putin is NOT someone to revere, but to revile ... 



To Mark's ranger friends, still in action - thank you - still praying for you xo

Wednesday, February 23, 2022

The Ukraine ...


I've been busy with work anyway, but just observing the news, for now, both political sides.

My usual stance is -  it's not our job to police the world, and these issues are often more complex than a good side and a bad side (but sometimes it's very clear, like with Nazi Germany) -  so for now, I maintain my stance, it remains the same - at least for the time being.

I find it odd that we seem to pick and choose when to step in only when we're economically invested in the region, in some way, despite "atrocities" being committed in many places in the world - and yet we don't seem to care and get involved unless we have some economic investment in the region and/or one side is white.

Also, notice that historically, we tend to shy away from any atrocities being committed -  even when there's economic investments at stake -  when it's China or Russia - because it's a war we're fairly sure we couldn't win.

I also have been reading the Republican/conservative side of things,  press and pundits, who seem to have been all over the board on this, chasing their tails - that is, up until Trump chimed in yesterday.

Until yesterday, most of them were warmongering and criticizing Biden for waiting to get military involved, apparently having no memory at all that this is how World Wars began and we need to be very careful, here. 

Others weren't mentioning the Ukraine at all, preferring to demonize Democrats and vaccines, because they're obsessed and have allowed themselves to be brainwashed to believe we Dems are the most evil threat on the planet lol.

That is - UNTIL - Trump said yesterday that Putin's moves in the Ukraine were "savvy" and praised him.

(Well, what did you expect him to say, with his track record with proven Russian interference in the 2016 election and his withholding of aid from the Ukraine?)

Now, of course, their cult leader, Trump, has given them the oracle direction on what they should believe and think - so within just the last 24 hours, Trumpites are suddenly on Putin's side, he's not a bad guy lol.

Just in case you are that Putin's-puppet-Trump brainwashed, here's a clue on which end is up morally ...

No - you do not invade or conquer other independent countries, for any reason -  there is no justification for doing so - period. 

I am not interested in some of the economic, socioeconomic, or political rationale for justifying invasion that are just beginning to appear - because there isn't any justification.

I'm also not interested in any "atrocities" that may appear to justify invasion, because there always are, and they're usually just BS propaganda to turn the tide towards war - because again, we don't seem care about atrocities that go on in many countries, unless there's economic benefit in the region for us and/or one side is white -  at the expense of thousands of our young men's lives. 

But most of all, I'm especially not interested in any religious, pseudo-Christian rationale, also just beginning to appear - citing either we need to arrogantly "teach them" the "correct way" or because gullible minds actually believe Putin's legendary dysinformation and propaganda that Russia is defending itself from the Ukraine (oh, come on?)

Because for starters, note that nowhere in the bible did God ever one tell either Jews or Christians to "invade" or "conquer" anyone,  from the Babylonians to the Egyptians to the Romans - God either only approved defensive war or said to wait for him to handle it (Egypt).

Also, never forget David's lesson in I Chronicles 22:8.

God told King David that he would never see or set foot in his new temple, because he had "shed too much blood in his (God's) name" - because David sometimes choose offensive war/invasion rather than defensive war, which greatly displeased God.

Now - if other independent countries ask for your help in self-defense, then you make a choice of how much you want to get involved - aid, sanctions, backup troops to protect civilians, or going to full-scale war or conflict right alongside them? 

This should be a carefully considered choice, we should look before we leap - because this is how both World Wars began.

Therefore, I actually am impressed that thus far, Biden has held out and we haven't heard any propaganda stories of Russian-committed "atrocities," like babies being bayonetted in incubators, etc. 

Thus, I support Biden's reluctance to enter into full conflict or war. 


The sanctions likely won't work, but I guess that depends on what we mean by "work" anyway - what is our goal?

If the goal is to voice our condemnation over the events and provide more aid to the Ukraine, then it will work.

However, if we hope to affect the actual outcome of preventing full invasion with sanctions, then no, I doubt it. 

Again, it's not our job to police the world - until such time as it either effects us - OR - Putin makes it clear he's actually intent on world domination, like Hitler.

I'm just not yet convinced that total world domination is Putin's plan yet -  or anyone's plan, for that matter - sorry?

I mean, I'm sure he would, if he could, but that's not so easily done - so for now, his plan seems mostly to be reincorporation of former Soviet territory.

(Not that that's okay, either, but intent on total world domination would be decidedly worse).

Now, some would say Putin's attempts to interfere in U.S. elections, etc. prove that Putin is intent on that - but I'm not convinced that means he wants world domination, so much as just making sure the U.S. has puppet leaders that will allow him to do whatever the heck he wants to do, without sanction or censure.

But we we shall see ...

Monday, February 21, 2022

"There is God ... And Then There's The Peaky Blinders" - Final Fights, Final Season


Season 6, the final season, drops on BBC One at 9 p.m. in the UK.  Unfortunately, we Americans will have to wait a month or so to see it, but apparently, in addition to facing the usual suspects, Tommy faces his biggest threat yet - the rise of fascism/Nazism - and comes to America? 

We shall see ... unfortunately, all of this without Helen McCrory :(

Speaking of warring parties lol ...

If I'm quieter, no worries, I don't have COVID lol - work has cranked up, especially with Humira's patent officially expiring in January 2023, for most of its indications.

This means that Humira will finally loose its exclusivity in almost all of its indications, and biosimilar adalimumab competitors can officially enter the market - Humira will finally have competition - interchangeable or not. 

The FDA approved several of these a while back, but they never launched, because AbbVie sued each and every one, because they hadn't officially lost exclusivity yet.  Most of these are now being settled.

Now, you may be asking yourself, "How can they do that, isn't that a monopoly and violating anti-trust laws?"

In an ordinary market, yes - BUT - the market rules for the pharmaceutical market are different than regular market rules. 

One of the ways pharmaceutical-market rules are different is that new pharmaceutical innovations, with new mechanisms of action, can apply for a patent of exclusivity that typically only lasts a few years.

However - Humira found various ways to extend its original exclusivity patent from 2002, by adding on a new disease indication, every year or so, enabling them not only to extend their exclusivity for 20 years, but to sue any biosimilar competitors.

So you see, it's literally been a 20-year wait to allow competition -  meanwhile, the price of Humira just kept going up and up.

In fact, I'd written previously on here, somewhere, that I'd thought Humira had finally lost its exclusivity a few years ago, but I was mistaken and should've double-checked  - because every time Humira's patent was about to expire, Abbvie was able to extend Humira's exclusivity patent by adding a new disease indication.

So it'll be interesting to see how this plays out, how these affect prescribing habits, the market share, and the price, that's for sure - considering varying rebates offered to insurance companies and PBMs, we don't know if the price for the adalimumab molecule will now drop much.

For example, the price of basal insulin hasn't dropped much, despite the entrance of  a couple of biosimilars, one even being interchangeable.

There are a couple of reasons that the cheaper insulin "knock-offs" haven't worked yet, for lowering the price of insulin - and it was NOT because they aren't just as effective and safe as the brands

The first reason is - rebates.  

So the new insulin biosimilars simply came in at a discounted, cheaper list price than the brands - and not that much cheaper - without offering any rebates at all.

However - most insurance companies and their PBMs now depend on these rebates for their projected budgets.

Therefore, all the the brands  had to do was simply offer steeper rebates -  making the brands actually cheaper than the "knock-offs" at the end of the day. 

Also, there were only a couple of entrants in basal insulin, rather than several entrants, only offering slight discounts, and one or two usually doesn't do it in pharmaceuticals, it has to be several competitors to make price change.

However, adalimumab is a whole different ballgame, with several  indications and several biosimilar choices coming, not just two or three entrants, so we shall see.  It'll be a fight to be top dog, though, that's for sure.

BTW, all of this is public information that you can Google yourself, so it's not like I'm spilling trade secrets or private info here, it's common knowledge lol. 

I'm also NOT knocking Humira - adalimumab, though not the first monoclonal antibody, has been one of the best, since 2002.  

Humira has truly been a wonder drug, because it's extremely effective, for many people with various autoimmune diseases - it actually performed better in the real world than in clinical trials, which doesn't happen very often. 

Which also means it made AbbVie more money than projected, and private insurance companies more money than projected, either in profit or rebates - thus let the Hunger Games begin lol ;)

Thursday, February 17, 2022

Let Us Count the Ways - Top 8 Ways Trump-Republicans Undermine Their Own Otherwise Valid - Even Constitutional - Arguments ...

So ... Trump went to court to try to hide his WH visitor log and phone records (including cell phone records) from January 6th from the congressional investigation, citing "Executive Privilege" - but lost. 

He also tried to argue that giving those White House visitor logs was "a threat to national security."

Still, the court said "nope."

Okay, first of all - what does that even mean, Trump?  

Who in the heck would ever be visiting you the White House, who'd ever be considered a national-security risk?

Because, yeah -  we'd definitely need to know about that.

And helllllooo - I'm pretty sure  January 6th was a threat to national security, which is why it's being investigated?!!

Thus, President Biden has requested the National Archives to release them at the request of the January 6th Congressional committee.

(By the way, in case you were wondering, both Obama and Biden's visitor log records are already public.)

So at present, let's make this the #1 argument below (though it also fits some other numbers on the list).

These are the Top 8 Trump-Republican arguments that sound plausible, reasonable, and valid (except for #8, which makes no sense), even constitutional  - until you realize they never apply to themselves ;)

1.  "We want more transparency in Government."

Yet when it's one of their own, as stated above, they support Trump finding a way to legally hide this information, citing "invasion of privacy" and "executive privilege"  and "threat to national security" - despite never caring about national security with Russia or the Ukraine OR the fact that Jan 6 was a threat to national security.

It's also an undermining of argument #5, but we'll get to that.

2.  "When protesting turns violent, results in theft or damage of public or private property, or blocks people from doing their jobs, it's not constitutionally protected peaceful protest, it's a riot by thugs.

Therefore, even non-law-enforcement private citizens, even if underage, should be able to legally "Kyle-Rittenhouse" them, in order to protect public or private property or in self-defense"

Exhibit AJanuary 6th ...

"But it wasn't us, it was Antifa!  Okay, okay, - it WAS us -  but it wasn't a violent insurrection, it was 'legitimate political discourse!!!'" - so sayeth the RNC.

Hahaha!  Oh - they're serious with that.

So, erm - so the word "discourse" means spoken or written conversation and/or debate - when exactly did anyone engage in "discourse" at the capitol on January 6th?

Regardless, according their own argument above, then it should've been okay for  Capitol police to shoot Ashli Babbitt, then, yes? ;)

But alas, their answer is no - because shooting people is only justified when it's one of their own - in fact, it's always justified if it's one of their own.

Because despite the fact that Ashli unlawfully broke in and entered the capitol building, climbed up and damaged interior property, and allegedly was warned by legitimate capitol police to stop of they'd shoot - Ashli is still considered an "innocent murder victim" of government law enforcement, according to Trump-Republicans. 

Exhibit BThe Canadian truckers' protest blocks the Ambassador Bridge, from Detroit to Canada, preventing commuters and American truckers from getting to work or doing their jobs -  which includes transporting  life-saving American medicine and medical equipment to Canadian hospitals   ...


3.  "Government has no business monitoring or meddling in our private lives and our private choices."

Okay - then shouldn't the issues of gay marriage and abortion be less important to you, instead of more?

Not to mention, "the government" has requested that you wear a facemask as at least some barrier of protection in public buildings, to protect yourself and others from a deadly virus - masks which, mind you, actually makes you harder to identify! 

Also, unlike countries in the EU,  there is no national registry and QR code for who has been vaccinated and who hasn't - and you still aren't legally required to show proof of vaccination to public agencies. 

4.  "Freedom of the press, speech, expression, and religion for all."

Apparently what they really mean is, freedom of the press, speech, expression, and religion is only for themselves, only when they're being rude, insensitive, hateful, verbally abusive, racist, misogynistic, or homophobic - and especially when they lie or falsely accuse others without proof ;)

Apparently, they also think you should be allowed to stalk behind even peaceful protestors with an AR-15, even shoot them, without legal consequence, support the president tear-gassing them, and boycott all reputable free press, music, and movies that are "woke" and only listen to their political press and pundits, as well as people you don't even know, and you aren't even sure really exist, on Twitter and other social media

Oh, and you better say "Merry Christmas" instead of "Happy Holidays," trying to be sensitive to others beliefs, or you're not a real American Christian (dammit)!

 5.  "The government should not overreach and have too much power."

But apparently, it's okay that the president gives out Executive Orders like candy, like a king, trying to overturn democratically voted-upon legislation.  

Executive orders were supposedly a terrible offense when a black democrat was POTUS, but it's A-OK and then some, when it's one of their own.

Oh, and again, apparently it's okay to use the military to tear gas even peaceful protestors, even shoot them, as long as they're people of color or Democrats ;)

Thus, the definition of "big government" to them appears to only mean they can't say and do whatever ugly, untrue thing they want, commit any number of consumer cheats and frauds, employee exploitation, and power abuse crimes they want, and even shoot people  -  as well as they can't avoid paying their fair share of taxes, relative to their actual income, because they don't want to provide even a dime to help other people, including healthcare.

6.  "The wealthy friends of Jeffrey Epstein, who sexually trafficked and abused underage girls, should be prosecuted and go to prison; if they didn't, but knew about it, then they should still be held accountable for not having done anything to stop it. "


And yet we all know, or should know, Trump himself was very good friends with Jeffrey Epstein, even being quoted by New York Magazine in October 2002 as saying "He (Jeffrey) likes them on the younger side," - but his supporters have no interest in even questioning him.

Therefore, it would appear that Trump-Republicans only seem to care about investigating and prosecuting for sex crimes involving children if it's a Democrat, a person of color, or a foreigner.

We tried to warn Republicans about Trump's friendship with Epstein,  and that he literally said that back in 2002 -  14 years before he was elected, 13 years before he even ran - but they didn't care.

7.  "The flag is sacred and should be respected - kneeling in front of it is disrespectful"

Okay, but ...

And perhaps the flag shouldn't be used as a weapon, either, - metaphorically or literally - especially not on our own people!

In fact, we periodically look for homes for when Mark retires, and if we see an oversized flag hanging off the house, we quickly scroll away lol.  That's sad, it's come to this, but weaponizing the flag, and making it synonymous with the worst of America, and with the worst representative of America in history (Trump), disgusts me.

8.  "COVID is a Democrat hoax ... no, wait, it's real, but Democrats created it; therefore, I'm not going to take any common-sense health precautions to protect myself, because the protections against it were created by Democrats, too."


Okay, that isn't a sound, valid argument from the get-go, because it's circular logic - it doesn't make any sense, no matter which way you look at it, so I won't even try lol.

There are so many more, but that's all I have time for today.

So as you can see, most of these things (except for #8) may sound plausible and valid - but they clearly don't mean them - or mean them only when it's someone who doesn't agree with them ;)


Monday, February 14, 2022

Happy Valentine's Day!


Happy Valentine's Day, my lovelies!

May you eat all the chocolate you want, without remorse! :)

Ivan Reitman, Ghostbuster Director, Dies at 75 ...


I was just talking about him in this post, last week!  :(

His son, Jason, directed Ghostbusters:  Afterlife, but Ivan coproduced it.  Jason nailed his dad's techniques, and yet still, there was only one Ivan ... 

RIP ... 

Sunday, February 13, 2022

On Super Bowl Sunday, Just Because I Grew Up in Cincinnati ...

... even though not really a football fan, I have one thing to say (ahem) ... 

Who Dey?  :)

Now, if you're saying to yourself ...  "What does that even mean?"

Well,  first of all, if you don't know, then clearly, it means you're either not a football fan or you're not from Cincinnati lol.

This is how you greet a fellow Cincinnati Bengals fan, or even just a fellow Cincinnatian :)

The origin of this phrase began in the 1981 football season, when Kenny Anderson was the QB and Chis Collinsworth was the star wide receiver (now an NFL commentator), and with Anthony Munoz who was one of the first of the "super-sized" bad-ass offensive-tackle linemen. 

The chant originates from 1981, when Cincinnati went to the Super Bowl,  against the San Francisco 49ers (with Joe Montana as QB, so that was kind of a foregone conclusion who would win ;)

I was in the 7th grade at Sycamore junior high, at the time, in the Cincy suburbs - but  I still remember the chant debuting, which is still chanted today, after a Bengals' touchdown - particularly if one at Cincy's Paul Brown Stadium. 

The full chant goes:

"Who Dey? Who Dey? Who Dey think they gonna beat dem Bengals?"

"Who Dey? Who Dey? Who Dey think they gonna beat dem Bengals?"


Just a momentary FYI aside - Anthony Munoz actually lived just behind me, growing up, in the super swanky new subdivision that had just been built. 

It wasn't a gated community, and his house was super close to the other homes in his neighborhood, indicating he wasn't into acting like a superstar  - and yet I only saw a glimpse of him once, because he was super busy and out of town a lot, of course.   I saw his wife, a few times, and his two kids (who were very little - I think one was even a baby), but Anthony only once, very quickly.  Of course he had someone else taking care of the lawn, etc. because he was busy and could afford to!

In fact, very few people ever saw him, either in my neighborhood or his own - not because he wasn't friendly, he supposedly is very friendly - but because, as I said, he was obviously busy and on the road/out of town a lot, and likely also because this was during the height of his fame and he had to be careful who he let directly into his world (though his direct neighbors probably knew him, their houses were very close together). 

Also likely because many of my neighbors, especially on the street that I lived on, were just - weird - and not in a good way.  Now, realize that I'm saying this recognizing that I am weird, , myself, and I was especially quiet and weird as a kid - so when I say weird, I mean really weird -  and not in a good way, like in a quiet, nerdy, creative, smart, or culturally different way - I mean weird in the paranoid, racist, mean way.
All of the kids on my street hung out together and got along, of course -  but their parents often kept to themselves, like mine did, and didn't socialize with each other, greet each other, or often even wave at each other.  In fact, many parents didn't socialize much at all, with anyone at all.  I only later discovered the reasons for this - raging alcoholism/addiction, abuse or trauma,  and extreme fringe religious and/or political beliefs.

Sometimes, though, they didn't have any of these issues at all - they were just unfortunately originally from more rural areas, especially Kentucky, but had come into enough money to live in this area - but despite having at least some money, they unfortunately just didn't quite fit in with the "it" crowd, in this affluent suburban Cincinnati community :(

It was NOT because they were poor, not by a long ways - because though the homes were modest, everyone on our street owned at least 1.5 to 5 acres, with my friend, Margie's parents, owning the most - a farm, over 100 acres (which they later sold to a subdivision development). It was uncommon, in this area of suburban Cincinnati to own much land, and definitely not cheap.  Most owned bigger, fancier homes, but they sat on half-acre or even a quarter-acre in subdivisions.  So it wasn't that we were necessarily considered poorer, just different, in some way, and some were very reclusive - some might even call them/us "outcasts."

This would be sad, if the reason for this was just that we were all were  "new money" and had come from rural regions originally - but it wasn't.    In fact, if I recall correctly, there were only 2 of my friends' parents that their original rural backgrounds were the only reason they didn't fit in with the "it" crowd, and those two families were otherwise  very healthy, normal, friendly people, with their own little groups of friends, usually others from similar original backgrounds.  (My parents, of course, had both knocks against them - not only new money from rural Kentucky, but also had a few of the above issues - lucky me!)

Regardless, point being, that despite some being community outsiders themselves -  and despite Anthony Munoz actually being born in Toronto, a legal citizen in both Canada and the U.S., college-educated, and considered one of the greatest offensive tackles of all time, later to become a Hall-of-Famer, and made more money than most of the people living in either my neighborhood, or even his, would ever see in their lifetime - both neighborhoods still referred to him as "that Mexican"  because of his Mexican ancestry.

Ah, stereotyping and our nonsensical socioeconomic system, right? 

But I digress, back to the Bengals :)

"WHY is Cincinnati's team even called the Bengals?" -  you may also ask

Well, because in 1967, when the team was established, the Cincinnati Zoo was the second oldest zoo (1875), the second largest zoo, and also considered the second best zoo in the country,  just behind the San Diego Zoo. (It's still in the top 5, but it varies based on who's making the list.)

In fact, not only was it a large zoo, but it was one of the first zoos in the country to begin focusing more on conservation and preservation of endangered species, rather than just putting them on display.  

They did so by building more natural habitats for the animals, rather than just putting them in cages and behind bars, both to foster a more natural environment for the endangered species, as well as to promote breeding.

 This of course included the Bengal tigers - particularly, the exceedingly rare white Bengal tigers.

(Even my husband's class from Detroit came down to visit for a field trip as a child, to visit the white Bengal tigers :)

Though typically orange and black ...

The Bengal tigers at Cincy's zoo are an especially rare endangered species, in that they are actually white Bengal tigers ...

But oh well, we went with orange and black anyway in Cincy lol

(Also, as an FYI, the University of Cincinnati's teams are called the "Bearcats," for the same reason - not because bearcats are indigenous to Cincinnati, they're from central Asia - but because they, too, were an endangered species at the Cincinnati Zoo, at that time - but unlike Bengal tigers, bearcats have now been upgraded to the "vulnerable" list.)

Also, despite every sports team in the country now using the Guns-N-Roses song, "Welcome to the Jungle," the Cincinnati Bengals were actually the first on record to have permission to use the song for their introduction and during play.

Welcome to the jungle, baby - Go Burrow, go Bengals!


PS - Just as an FYI, Cincinnati is already going nuts - they've already called off school tomorrow lol.

PPS - Well, we only watched the last 10 minutes, but apparently it was a tight game, a close score, but victory slipped away AGAIN!

But how about Joe Burrow, only in his second season, right?  There'll be more chances, only good things to come for him!