RadioRob

Published by BANG Showbiz English Lea Michele has unveiled her son’s face on social media for the first time. The ‘Glee’ star shared the first glimpse of her 17-month-old son Ever’s face on Instagram as she posted a shot – taken by celebrity photographer Ashley Barret – to celebrate her husband Zandy Reich’s 39th birthday. In the caption, the 35-year-old actress wrote: “Greatest man, father, husband and friend. I wake up every day so thankful you are ours Z. Happy Birthday! Ever and I love you so much.” In the photo, the father and son duo rock matching Ray-Ban sunglasses, sweater and cap look. Ever – who was born in August 2020 – appears frequently on his parents’ social media profiles however, this is the first time his face has been visible. In November, the Broadway leading lady reflected on her journey to motherhood during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and how making her album ‘Forever’ was soothing. She said: “The moment that my son was handed to me was truly the greatest moment of my life. I’ve never been more thankful to God than in that moment. “There were moments where we were told he would not be born, even very late into the journey of pregnancy, which is even scarier because as things go along, you get more and more frightened. “It was just all OK the moment that we saw him. “I was pregnant during the pandemic and I used music during my pregnancy, singing to my son, to let him know that everything was OK.” The ‘Scream Queens’ star also praised Zandy for being “an incredible father” who helps her when it all gets a bit overwhelming. Lea said: “I’m a very anxious person. Luckily it just brings me down to earth and grounds me and helps me to just enjoy it more and be less hard on myself. “I’m very lucky to have such a supportive partner.” View the full article

Published by Reuters By Lawrence Hurley WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday agreed to consider limiting the scope of a landmark federal environmental law as it took up for the second time an Idaho couple’s bid to build on property the federal government has deemed a protected wetland. The justices will hear an appeal by Chantell Sackett and her husband Mike Sackett, who own property in Priest Lake, Idaho where they hoped to build a home, of a lower court ruling favoring the government. The court will consider what test courts should use to determine what constitute “waters of the United States” under the landmark 1972 Clean Water Act, the answer to which determines whether the property is subject to regulation, requiring owners to obtain permits in order to carry out construction. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 2007 determined that the Sacketts’ land was part of a wetland and that they were required to obtain a permit under the Clean Water Act before beginning construction, which they had failed to do. There has been lengthy litigation and political debates over how much of a connection with a waterway a property must have in order to require a permit, with the Supreme Court issuing a ruling in 2006 that led to further uncertainty. The justices are expected to hear the case in their next term, which begins in October and ends in June 2023. (Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Will Dunham) View the full article

Published by Reuters By Andrew Chung and Lawrence Hurley (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a bid to bar Harvard University and the University of North Carolina from considering race in undergraduate admissions in a case that imperils affirmative action policies widely used to increase the number of Black and Hispanic students on American campuses. The justices agreed to hear appeals by a group called Students for Fair Admissions, founded by anti-affirmative action activist Edward Blum, of lower court rulings that upheld the programs used by the two prestigious universities to foster a diverse student population. The cases give the court, with its 6-3 conservative majority, a chance to end such policies. The lawsuits accused the universities of discriminating against applicants on the basis of race in violation of federal law or the U.S. Constitution. Blum’s group alleged in the Harvard case that the school discriminated against Asian American applicants. In the UNC case, Blum’s group alleged that the university’s policy discriminated against white and Asian American applicants. The universities have said they use race as only one factor in a host of individualized evaluations for admission without quotas, and that curbing the consideration of race would result in a significant drop in the number of Black, Hispanic and other underrepresented students on campus. The Supreme Court has a 6-3 conservative majority. U.S. conservatives long have opposed affirmative action programs used in such areas as hiring and student admissions to address past discrimination against minorities. The use of affirmative action has withstood Supreme Court scrutiny for decades, including in a 2016 ruling https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-court-affirmativeaction-idINKCN0ZA08C involving a white student backed by Blum, who challenged a University of Texas policy, though the justices have narrowed its application. The eventual ruling in the new challenge could dilute or potentially eliminate college affirmative action programs. Blum’s group sued Harvard in 2014, accusing it of violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bars discrimination based on race, color or national origin under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. Harvard is a private university founded in 1636 and located in Cambridge, Massachusetts. It receives federal funds. The group also sued UNC in 2014, accusing the university of impermissibly using race as the main factor in admissions in violation of the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment guarantee of equal protection under the law. UNC, located in Chapel Hill and chartered in 1789, is North Carolina’s flagship public university. The Supreme Court first upheld affirmative action in college admissions in a landmark 1978 ruling in a case called Regents of the University of California v. Bakke that held that race could be considered as a factor but racial quotas could not be used. Blum’s group asked the Supreme Court to overturn a 2003 Supreme Court ruling in a case called Grutter v. Bollinger involving the University of Michigan Law School that held that colleges could consider race as one factor in the admissions process because of the compelling interest of creating a diverse student body. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote in that ruling that she expected “the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary” by 2028. President Joe Biden’s administration has backed Harvard, telling the justices in a court filing not to hear that case. The court’s precedents “correctly recognize” that the educational benefits that result from diversity justify race-conscious measures. Biden’s predecessor Donald Trump, a Republican, had backed Blum’s lawsuit against Harvard. Students for Fair Admissions said Harvard’s policies limited Asian Americans to 20% of incoming undergraduate classes and left them less likely to be admitted than white, Black and Hispanic applicants with comparable qualifications. It said in court papers that Harvard “automatically awards racial preferences to African-Americans and Hispanics.” Harvard said the challengers depicted its policies inaccurately. The Supreme Court’s conservative majority has widened since it ruled 5-4 in favor of the University of Texas in 2016, with now-retired conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy joining four liberal justices. The addition of three justices appointed by former Republican President Donald Trump moved the court rightward. Under Chief Justice John Roberts, the court has been hostile to other efforts to remedy past racial discrimination. In 2013 it struck down https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-voting/supreme-court-guts-key-part-of-landmark-voting-rights-act-idUSBRE95O0TU20130625 a key part of the Voting Rights Act, enacted in 1965 to ensure that minorities could vote. In 2020, the court weakened https://www.reuters.com/world/us/voting-rights-breyers-future-spotlight-us-supreme-court-2021-07-01 another key part of that law. The case is expected to be heard during the court’s 2022 term, which begins in October and ends in June 2023. (Reporting by Andrew Chung in New York and Lawrence Hurley in Washington; Additional reporting by Nate Raymond; Editing by Will Dunham) View the full article

Published by BANG Showbiz English The Spice Girls are set to be reunited at Brooklyn Beckham’s wedding. The 22-year-old star is poised to marry actress Nicola Peltz in Florida in April, and Victoria Beckham has invited her former bandmates – Mel B, Melanie C, Emma Bunton and Geri Horner – to the lavish event. A source told The Sun on Sunday newspaper: “It was a lovely invitation and the girls are all excited to attend. “It will be the first time they have all been together socially for some time, so they are looking forward to the chance to really catch up. “While Nicola has opted to wear two Valentino dresses on the big day, they will have their pick of Victoria Beckham dresses if they like.” Last Year, Melanie C revealed that the Spice Girls are “constantly” talking about touring again. The iconic pop group reunited for a series of shows in 2019, and Melanie admitted she’s keen for another reunion to take place in the coming years. She shared: “This has to happen. We talk about it constantly. We did the shows in 2019, the plan was to continue on. “Of course, the world has been in such turmoil, but the plan beyond this is to get out there when it’s safe, when we can do it. What’s tough is there’s so many artists that want to get out there, and there’s only so many venues, so we’re all kind of queuing up going, ‘I want to! I want to!'” Melanie starred alongside Mel B, Emma and Geri for the comeback shows in 2019. And the pop star revealed she’s also been “chipping away” at Victoria to join them on stage, after she previously opted out of the reunion tour. She said: “We would love to have her back onstage. In all honesty, I think it’s gonna happen. At some point, I think Posh Spice will be back onstage.” View the full article

Published by Radar Online Mega Former president Bill Clinton reportedly attempted to clean up his ties to late billionaire and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein ahead of his wife Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential run. According to Daily Mail, Bill Clinton allegedly reached out to two former residential managers of Epstein’s infamous Little St. James island in 2016 to suggest they sign an affidavit claiming they never saw the former president with Epstein at his Caribbean pad. The residential managers, Miles and Cathy Alexander, claim that Clinton’s lawyer reached out to them ahead of Hillary’s 2016 presidential run with a pre-written sworn affidavit to sign declaring they never witnessed the then-presidential hopeful’s husband at Epstein’s island. Mega “Both were asked to confirm that to the best of their knowledge Clinton had never visited during their tenure and they were not aware of him having been a guest during any absences from the island, for example for holidays,” a source familiar with the matter recently spilled to the outlet. “It was during the 2016 presidential campaign which was won by Trump,” the source continued. “There was a worry that the link between Epstein and Clinton and in particular the island could be used against Hillary.” As Radar previously reported, a New York judge last week ruled that a sexual assault lawsuit brought on by Prince Andrew accuser Virginia Roberts Giuffre has enough grounds to go to trial, which is bound to bring even more scrutiny to Epstein’s alleged former associates. But besides Giuffre’s allegation that Andrew sexually assaulted her multiple times when she was under age and on Epstein’s island, she also reportedly alleges that she once met Bill Clinton on that same island – and the former president was allegedly in the company of two younger women. “Teasing the girls on either side of him with playful pokes and brassy comments, there was no modesty between any of them,” Giuffre recalls her alleged meeting with Clinton on Little St. James. Mega “Jeffrey wanted his evening massage before bed…leaving our guest of honor to find company elsewhere. Strolling into the darkness with two beautiful girls around either arm, Bill seemed content to retire for the evening.” Although Giuffre alleges that she once met Bill Clinton on Epstein’s Little St. James property, the two residential managers that the former president’s lawyer reached out to claim otherwise, alleging that they never in fact did see Mr. Clinton on Epstein’s island. View the full article

Published by Reuters By Joseph Ax (Reuters) – Texas election officials have rejected hundreds of mail-in ballot applications, abiding by a new Republican-backed law just weeks before a March 1 primary kicks off this year’s U.S. election cycle. “My friends, this is what voter suppression looks like,” Democrat Dana DeBeauvoir, the Travis County clerk, told reporters on Tuesday. The county, home to the state capital Austin, invalidated approximately 300 applications because people failed to meet the law’s stricter identification requirements, said DeBeauvoir, who retires at month’s end. Lawmakers in Texas approved a raft of voting restrictions last year, one of many efforts in Republican-controlled states to pass new limits after former President Donald Trump falsely claimed he lost the 2020 election because of widespread fraud. Democrats in Congress this week renewed their push to pass sweeping voting rights legislation https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-democrats-start-voting-rights-showdown-with-no-clear-path-victory-2022-01-18 that would overturn limits such as the Texas law, but the effort appears doomed in the face of united Republican opposition. The Texas bill prompted some Democratic legislators to flee the state for weeks to prevent the state House of Representatives from having the quorum necessary to pass it, though they eventually relented. Republican Texas Governor Greg Abbott, who signed the bill in September and is seeking re-election this year, has said the law, known as Senate Bill 1, will increase public trust in elections. The U.S. Justice Department has sued Texas over the legislation, saying it disenfranchises voters. Democrats say such restrictions discriminate against Black voters and other minorities who traditionally support Democratic candidates. Among other provisions, the law requires voters applying for a mail ballot to provide either a driver’s license or Social Security number, which must match the number they gave when first registering to vote. That leaves some voters playing a “guessing game,” DeBeauvoir said, because many people cannot recall which number they provided originally and there is no easy way for voters to check. Harris County, which includes Houston, had rejected 409 out of 1,373 applications as of last Friday for ID problems, including 309 missing ID numbers and 173 with numbers that did not match those on file, according to Leah Shah, a spokesperson for the county elections office. In Bexar County, home to San Antonio, officials had processed more than 300 rejections through last week out of some 1,200 applications, elections administrator Jacquelyn Callanen said in a phone interview. Around 80% of those were due to the new ID requirements. Other provisions in the law are also creating obstacles, she said. The office previously added a sticker with voters’ addresses to applications that were mailed out to save them a step, but that is no longer permitted, Callanen said. The law also prohibits residents from obtaining applications for other people, including relatives. Callanen said her office regularly receives messages from senior citizens asking for ballots for themselves and their spouses; under the law, spouses must make their own separate requests. “It’s sort of thwarting us at every turn,” she said. Mail ballots in Texas are already sharply limited to a handful of categories, including residents 65 years and older, disabled residents or voters who will be absent from their county during early voting and Election Day. DeBeauvoir said Secretary of State John Scott’s office had failed to give local officials enough guidance on how to help voters cure any defects. In response, Sam Taylor, a spokesperson for Scott’s office, said state officials reached out to Travis County last week to advise staff on the proper process and noted that the county’s own estimated rejection rate went down from 50% to 27% following that guidance. He said clerks have been instructed to accept applications in which voters have included both their license and Social Security number, as long as one of them matches what is on file. (Reporting by Joseph Ax; Editing by Colleen Jenkins and Howard Goller) View the full article

Published by AFP Jonathan Riches, who has attended 40 Trump events, joined thousands of other supporters of the former president for a rally in Arizona on January 15, 2021 Florence (United States) (AFP) – Jonathan Riches has been to 40 Donald Trump rallies and fervently believes the last US presidential election was stolen. Like thousands of others who spent hours in a dusty field in Arizona this weekend to watch the former president speak, that belief is a bedrock — no matter how much the Republican Party leadership wishes otherwise. “We love our president. I call him President Trump because I still consider him my president,” Riches, 44, told AFP. Riches was among fellow believers in Florence, 60 miles (100 kilometers) outside Phoenix for Saturday’s rally. Some had arrived days in advance and traveled long distances — Riches is from Tampa, Florida — and were getting together in a party atmosphere with friends from all over the country. “It’s awesome,” said Jennifer Winterbauer, who had journeyed from Texas. “I have better friends here than I do at home. Everybody is like family.” The reunion was treated to a greatest hits of Trumpism, as speaker after speaker blasted President Joe Biden as “deranged,” hit out at the “lamestream media,” lamented supposedly “open borders” and railed against Covid-19 masking and vaccines. But the dominant theme was debunked theories about electoral fraud and the illegitimacy of the 2020 presidential poll. Senior Republicans wish it was different. Pivot Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell this week came to the defense of fellow Senator Mike Rounds, who earned Trump supporters’ ire by saying he lost. “I think Senator Rounds told the truth about what happened in the 2020 election,” McConnell told CNN. “And I agree with him.” McConnell has gently tried to pivot the Republican Party away from a fixation on re-litigating 2020, which Biden won by millions of votes. Dozens of legal attempts to overturn part of the ballot have failed and no credible evidence of significant voter fraud has emerged. With the 2022 midterm elections in focus, McConnell wants to concentrate his fire on Biden’s record after a difficult first year in office, with Covid surging, inflation skyrocketing and grocery shelves hit by supply chain difficulties. But Trump’s hold on a significant proportion of the Republican Party base — and the demand that the 2020 election be re-fought — makes that difficult. “We have to address 2020,” Winterbauer, 49, told AFP. “You’re gonna have the same problem. Because just like he (Trump) says, when you rob a bank, you get caught. You don’t get to keep the money. And you don’t get to go away scot-free.” Speakers were introduced as “Trump-endorsed” and all of them cast doubt on 2020. “That election was rotten to the core,” Congressman Paul Gosar told the crowd. When Trump took to the stage, he set about a binary classification of people — those who signed on to his theories about fraud were “smart” and “tough,” while those who didn’t were “horrible” and “weak.” The message was clear: without getting in line on election fraud claims, no-one will get Trump’s endorsement. It was music to the ears for Will Garrity, who had traveled from Houston, Texas. “You can’t tell me that it was a legit election,” he said. “If you really pay attention to the facts to various audits, various information that’s coming out, you see it. I mean, it’s crystal clear.” ‘Refocus’ While that view was consistent in Florence on Saturday, it is not what the country at large thinks. An Axios-Momentive opinion poll published this month found that around 40 percent of Americans believe the vote was compromised. That leaves a majority who want to move on, and for Senator Mike Rounds, the party’s inability to do so could hurt them. “The election was fair — as fair as we’ve seen. We simply did not win the election as Republicans for the presidency,” Rounds told ABC News last week. “Moving forward, we have to refocus once again on what it’s going to take to win the presidency,” he added. “And if we simply look back and tell our people don’t vote because there’s cheating going on, then we’re going to put ourselves in a huge disadvantage.” View the full article

Published by Reuters By Francesco Guarascio, Trevor Hunnicutt and Stephanie Nebehay BRUSSELS (Reuters) -The United States, the World Health Organization’s top donor, is resisting proposals to make the agency more independent, four officials involved in the talks said, raising doubts about the Biden administration’s long-term support for the U.N. agency. The proposal, made by the WHO’s working group on sustainable financing, would increase each member state’s standing annual contribution, according to a WHO document published online and dated Jan. 4. The plan is part of a wider reform process galvanised by the COVID-19 pandemic, which has highlighted the limitations of the WHO’s power to intervene early in a crisis. But the U.S. government is opposing the reform because it has concerns about the WHO’s ability to confront future threats, including from China, U.S. officials told Reuters. It is pushing instead for the creation of a separate fund, directly controlled by donors, that would finance prevention and control of health emergencies. Four European officials involved in the talks, who declined to be named because they were not authorised to speak to the media, confirmed the U.S. opposition. The U.S. government had no immediate comment. The published proposal calls for member states’ mandatory contributions to rise gradually from 2024 so they would account for half the agency’s $2 billion core budget by 2028, compared to less than 20% now, the document said. The WHO’s core budget is aimed at fighting pandemics and strengthening healthcare systems across the world. It also raises an additional $1 billion or so a year to tackle specific global challenges such as tropical diseases and influenza. Supporters say that the current reliance on voluntary funding from member states and from charities such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation forces the WHO to focus on priorities set by the funders, and makes it less able to criticise members when things go wrong. An independent panel on pandemics that was appointed to advise on the WHO reform had called for a much bigger increase in mandatory fees, to 75% of the core budget, deeming the current system “a major risk to the integrity and independence” of the WHO. LONG-STANDING SCEPTICISM The WHO itself responded to a query by saying that “only flexible and predictable funds can enable WHO to fully implement the priorities of the Member States”. Top European Union donors, including Germany, back the plan, along with most African, South Asian, South American and Arab countries, three of the European officials said. The proposal is to be discussed at the WHO’s executive board meeting next week but the divisions mean no agreement is expected, three of the officials said. The WHO confirmed there was currently no consensus among member states, and said talks were likely to continue until the annual meeting in May of the World Health Assembly, the agency’s top decision-making body. European donors in particular favour empowering, rather than weakening, multilateral organisations including the WHO. One European official said the U.S. plan “causes scepticism among many countries”, and said the creation of a new structure controlled by donors, rather than by the WHO, would weaken the agency’s ability to combat future pandemics. Washington has been critical of the WHO for some time. Former president Donald Trump pulled the United States out of the WHO after accusing it of defending China’s initial delays in sharing information when COVID-19 emerged there in 2019. The Biden administration rejoined soon after taking office, but officials told Reuters they think the WHO needs significant reform, and raised concerns about its governance, structure and ability to confront rising threats, not least from China. One of the European officials said other big countries, including Japan and Brazil, were also hesitant about the published WHO proposal. A Brazilian official with knowledge of the discussions said Brazil agreed that WHO funding needed to be looked at, but said it opposed the proposal to raise contributions as it had run up deficits tackling the virus and was now facing a fiscal crunch. Instead, the official said the WHO needed to investigate other ways to raise funds, such as charging for its services, cutting costs or relocating operations to cheaper countries. “Raising contributions should be the last resort,” said the official, who was not authorized to speak publicly about the discussions. Two of the European officials said China had not yet made its position clear, while a third official listed Beijing among the critics of the proposal. The governments of Japan and China had no immediate comment. (Reporting by Francesco Guarascio @fraguarascio in Brussels and Trevor Hunnicutt in Washington; Additional reporting by Stephanie Nebehay in Geneva, Andreas Rinke in Berlin and Anthony Boadle in Brasilia; Editing by Josephine Mason, Kevin Liffey and Daniel Wallis) View the full article

Published by Radar Online Mega Christina Aguilera has reportedly decided to support her fellow pop star Britney Spears in a recent interview, only two months after an awkward snub when she refused to comment on the rival singer’s conservatorship battle on the red carpet. According to Page Six, the 41-year-old Moves Like Jagger singer spoke out about Spears’ conservatorship battle during a sit-down with Enrique Santos. But the decision to now defend her former pop rival has some people up in arms and wondering why Aguilera didn’t defend Spears back in November. “I would love to,” Aguilera told Santos regarding whether or not she would be interested in speaking to the Baby One More Time singer about the latter’s recent conservatorship battle victory. “I would always be open to that. It’s a subject that I definitely want to be careful of because I never want to speak out of turn about somebody that I have so much respect and admiration for,” she added. Mega The Genie in a Bottle singer then went on to emphasize how happy she is that Spears escaped the conservatorship that was controlling all of her personal and professional choices and decisions for more than 10 years of her life. “I will just say what I do feel comfortable saying, as I’ve said before actually and stated: that I couldn’t be happier for her,” she continued. “Every woman deserves to feel empowered and to own that for themselves however they see fit.” But the pop star’s comments now defending Spears may be too little too late, because as many are pointing out, Aguilera blatantly refused to defend the 40-year-old Toxic singer in November during an interview on the Latin Grammy Awards red carpet. “I love and adore everyone who supported me, but refusing to speak when you know the truth, is equivalent to a lie!!!” Spears wrote the day after Aguilera’s awkward snub. “13 years being in a corrupt abusive system yet why is such a hard topic for people to talk about???” “I’m the one who went through it!!! All the supporters who spoke up and supported me thank you. Yes, I do matter!” Mega The snub in question involved both Aguilera and her publicist Brett Ruttenberg after the singer was asked by a reporter whether or not she had spoken to the recently freed Spears. “No, I’m sorry, we’re not doing that tonight, thank you though, bye!” Aguilera’s publicist quickly responded before the singer provided an awkward answer of her own. “I can’t,” she said as she walked out from the reporter. “But I’m happy for her!” Even though Aguilera has now spoken out in defense of Spears during a recent interview, as well as in a slew of social media posts, she is still being called out for her silence two months ago. “Yet you chose silence – Over a woman you’ve known since you were a kid. You know what they did to her. You bowed to the industry. #pfft #complicit,” one angry fan responded to Aguilera’s Twitter post. Mega So far, Spears has yet to respond to Aguilera’s recent comments defending her, although it is not known whether or not she will be thankful or confused why her former rival didn’t speak out sooner. View the full article

Published by Radar Online Mega/@ADELE/INSTAGRAM Adele has reportedly FaceTimed a group of upset fans who flew all the way to Las Vegas before finding out the singer postponed her residency shows. The singer allegedly offered the group of young fans free drink tokens before realizing the majority of them weren’t old enough to drink in the United States. According to an Instagram video posted by one disappointed yet lucky fan, the 33-year-old English singer evidently FaceTimed him and his friends Friday night after they arrived to Vegas and quickly learned that she had canceled her shows at Caesar’s Palace. In the video that lasts just over three minutes, the Rolling in the Deep singers chats with her fans and repeatedly apologizes for not being there in the Entertainment Capital of the World despite the fact she was scheduled to have her first performance Friday night. She also asks where the group of fans are from, to which they share that they flew in all the way from New York. Mega Lucky for Adele, these fans were seemingly very understanding that she was forced to cancel her shows and postpone them for sometime in the future. The one fan who received the FaceTime call even expressed how the entire ordeal is not the singer’s fault. “You can’t put pressure on yourself for things that are out of your control,” the fan tells the distraught singer after she apologizes yet again for canceling the shows. “People want to say things, and you know you just have to know that you’re doing what you have to do for yourself. You’re gonna get there and you’re gonna perform and everyone’s gonna love it when the time comes,” the fan adds to a puffy-eyed and visibly upset Adele. Mega But although these particular fans were very forgiving of the Easy On Me singer, many of her other fans who did not receive a FaceTime call and who also flew in from afar and spent money on flights and hotels are understandably not so forgiving of the troubled songwriter. As Radar previously reported, Adele was forced to cancel her show with only 24 hours’ notice on Thursday because nearly half of her crew allegedly had Covid. Although that may be one of the reasons, a source familiar with the situation spilled that the shows were also canceled due to the singer being an absolute diva regarding the creative layout of the scheduled performances. “Adele postponed her residency due to ‘COVID’ which is true,” the source recently said. “But really she just hates all the creative, also she keeps changing the run of the show.” “Crew is working literally 18 hours a day in Vegas. She just won’t stop adding and taking things away.” @ADELE/INSTAGRAM Angry fans have also called out Adele for canceling the shows at literally the last possible minute, demanding that she reimburse them for the loads of money they spent on airfare and hotels to watch her perform – purchases that cannot be refunded even if the singer does reschedule the shows for a later date. “We lost a large sum of money on plane tickets and hotels to come see her for nothing, pretty unacceptable that a multi-million-dollar production team could pull the rug on the people who flew and risked getting Covid to see her because her ‘show’ wasn’t ready,” one angry fan flying in from Canada told the outlet. “She is known for her voice not for her performances, for all I care I would’ve just enjoyed her sitting on a bench singing. Absolutely unacceptable, they have not mentioned anything about compensation for the travel expenses we had.” View the full article

Published by Radar Online Mega Julia Fox posted a video to social media of Kanye West and DJ Khaled hanging out and rapping proving she and her new beau are still going strong! According to the 31-year-old model’s Instagram story on Saturday, she and Ye were hanging out and having some fun with his fellow celebrity friends one day after claiming on her Forbidden Fruits podcast Friday that she isn’t with Ye for the fame and publicity. “People are like ‘Oh, you’re only in it for the fame, you’re in it for the clout, you’re in it for the money.’ Honey, I’ve dated billionaires my entire adult life, let’s keep it real,” the Uncut Gems actress said on her podcast. Mega Although Saturday’s video update shows her and Ye hanging with the I’m the One singer, she also talked in her podcast about partying with other A-list celebrities such as Madonna, Antonio Brown, Floyd Mayweather, and a slew of others at a dinner earlier in the week. “I was actually supposed to be at dinner for just Madonna and I. All of these other celebs crashed the party,” she revealed. As Radar previously reported, some are speculating that Ye is only with Fox to make his estranged wife Kim Kardashian jealous – especially because of the Keeping Up with the Kardashiansstar’s recent relationship with Pete Davidson. On January 6, the 44-year-old rapper shared a bunch of racy and risqué photos of him and Fox rolling around a hotel room. Ye also reportedly shared a few pics of him and his new girlfriend packing on the PDA inside the exclusive restaurant Carbone. “His energy is so fun to be around. He had me and my friends laughing, dancing, and smiling all night,” Fox said after revealing that the two first met on New Year’s Eve in Miami, Florida. “We decided to keep the energy going and fly back to New York City to see Slave Play.” “I’m still in shock. Ye had an entire hotel suite full of clothes. It was every girl’s dream come true. It felt like a real Cinderella moment. I don’t know how he did it, or how he got all of it there in time. But I was so surprised,” she continued. “Like, who does things like this on a second date? Or any date!” Mega But while Fox is seemingly happy with Kanye, followers of the his on social media are a bit skeptical about the Donda rapper’s true intentions dating the Italian-American actress. “The photos of Kanye West and Julia Fox look so fake,” one person on Twitter commented. “The Julia Fox/Kanye West article is the most hilariously pathetic attempt to make Kim Kardashian jealous I can’t even believe it’s real,” another person wrote. Mega But whether or not Ye is with Fox to make Kim jealous allegedly doesn’t matter, because Kim just wants her estranged husband to be happy. “Kim hopes Kanye finds love. She wants him to move on and be happy,” our sources familiar with the whole situation told us. “Everyone just hopes Julia doesn’t get her heart broken in the process.” View the full article

Published by BANG Showbiz English Prince Andrew could reportedly have his royal patronages restored if he wins his upcoming legal case. The 61-year-old prince’s military titles and royal patronages were returned to the Queen earlier this month, but they could be restored if he wins the civil case brought against him by Virginia Giuffre, according to an insider. Speaking to The Times newspaper, the source said: “I think if the Queen is still alive and his name is cleared I would say that at that point what reason would there be for him to be barred from taking part in royal duties?” Asked if the situation will be any different if Prince Charles is on the throne, the insider explained: “It’s a different decision-maker and different people influencing him and therefore it’s slightly less predictable. “I think his brother is a very reasonable and intelligent person and I’m sure he will do what’s right for the royal family and for the country.” Buckingham Palace recently confirmed that Andrew’s royal patronages have been returned to the Queen. It was also announced that he will “continue not to undertake any public duties”. A statement explained: “With the Queen’s approval and agreement, the Duke of York’s military affiliations and Royal patronages have been returned to the Queen. “The Duke of York will continue not to undertake any public duties and is defending this case as a private citizen.” The decision was taken after a judge confirmed that Andrew will face a civil case in the US over allegations he sexually assaulted Giuffre when she was 17. Giuffre filed a civil suit against Andrew on August 9, 2021, using a New York state law that allows survivors of childhood sexual abuse to sue, regardless of whether the alleged crimes took place outside the statute of limitations. Andrew has repeatedly denied Giuffre’s allegations. View the full article

Published by Reuters WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The executive committee of the Arizona Democratic Party (ADP) formally censured U.S. Senator Kyrsten Sinema over her vote against changing rules in the chamber to steer through voting rights legislation, the state party said on Saturday. Sinema was one of two Democratic senators who joined with Republicans to vote against lowering the Senate’s 60-vote threshold to 50 so that the Senate could pass voting rights bill without bipartisan support. The censure is mostly a symbolic move, but it does highlight criticism that Sinema has faced from members of her own party, with polling indicating that Sinema is facing a rising amount of backlash from Democratic voters. Raquel Teran, the state party’s chair, said in a Saturday statement they supported Sinema’s votes to pass legislation to provide more coronavirus relief and to improve the nation’s infrastructure. “However, we are also here to advocate for our constituents and the ramifications of failing to pass federal legislation that protects their right to vote are too large and far-reaching,” Teran said. “While we take no pleasure in this announcement, the ADP Executive Board has decided to formally censure Senator Sinema as a result of her failure to do whatever it takes to ensure the health of our democracy,” Teran added. The failure to pass the legislation was a major blow to President Joe Biden’s legislative agenda and for voting rights groups, which had been fighting a slate of laws passed in Republican-controlled states that election experts have said were designed to suppress voting, especially among Black, Hispanic and poor voters. Experts and voting rights advocates say the states have passed the legislation largely to back former President Donald Trump’s false claims that the 2020 election was marred by rampant fraud. In Sinema’s home state of Arizona, state Senate Republicans contracted a private company called Cyber Ninjas to perform a so-called “audit” of the 2020 election. Election officials discredited the probe, with Arizona’s Secretary of State issuing a report saying the election was secure and accurate and calling the review “secretive and disorganized.” The company has since shut down after a judge ordered it to pay $50,0000 a day in fines, according to media reports. Sinema co-sponsored the Senate version of election overhaul legislation, but has publicly stated repeatedly she opposed changing filibuster rules. Sinema’s office shrugged off the censure in a statement. “During three terms in the U.S. House, and now in the Senate, Kyrsten has always promised Arizonans she would be an independent voice for the state – not for either political party. She’s delivered for Arizonans and has always been honest about where she stands,” a spokesperson said. (Reporting by Makini Brice; Editing by Aurora Ellis) View the full article

Published by Reuters (Reuters) -A 1,500-acre fire near the coastal community of Big Sur, California triggered evacuations and closed part of a major highway, state and local officials said on Saturday. The Colorado Fire, which has been active since Friday, was 5% contained, the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire) said. A 20-mile stretch of State Highway 1, a scenic north-south route on the Pacific Coast, was closed from near the beach town of Carmel-by-the-Sea to Andrew Molera State Park. About 400 people in Monterey County were evacuated from 1,100 structures, a spokeswoman for the American Red Cross said, citing county reports. Four people and a pet stayed overnight at a shelter in a local school, the Red Cross said. California has long had an active wildfire season, but in recent years, fueled at least in part by climate change, it has grown longer and more punishing. Last year, the wildfire season started unusually early amid an ongoing drought and low reservoir levels, Cal Fire said. In January 2021 alone, the state battled 297 fires on 1,171 acres, the office said. The Colorado Fire is the only fire listed on Cal Fire’s incident list so far in 2022. This year, California is also grappling with the Santa Ana winds. A high wind warning was in effect for the area, with possible gusts of up to 70 miles per hour (112.65 kph), according to the National Weather Service. But winds had improved and were forecast to remain light throughout the weekend, the Red Cross said. (Reporting by Makini Brice in Washington; editing by Diane Craft and Cynthia Osterman) View the full article

Published by Reuters By Jonathan Stempel and Helen Coster NEW YORK (Reuters) – Sarah Palin, the former Alaska governor and 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee, has spent 4-1/2 years battling the New York Times over an editorial she said falsely linked her to a deadly Arizona mass shooting that left a U.S. congresswoman seriously wounded. On Monday, Palin is poised to try to begin convincing jurors in a lawsuit in Manhattan federal court that the newspaper and its former editorial page editor James Bennet defamed her. The trial before U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff marks a rare instance of a major media company defending its editorial practices before an American jury. Opening statements could take place as soon as Monday, following jury selection. Palin bears the high burden of showing by clear and convincing evidence that there was “actual malice” involved in the newspaper’s editorial writing process. “This is a lawsuit over an editorial, essentially an opinion. This is a potentially dangerous area,” said Roy Gutterman, a Syracuse University law and communications professor. “If we give public officials a green light to litigate on editorials they disagree with, where’s the end?” Palin, 57, has accused the Times of defaming her in a June 14, 2017, editorial linking her political action committee (PAC) to the 2011 mass shooting in an Arizona parking lot that left six people dead and then-U.S. Representative Gabby Giffords wounded. Palin is seeking unspecified damages, but according to court papers has estimated $421,000 in damage to her reputation. The editorial said “the link to political incitement was clear” in the 2011 shooting, and that the incident came after Palin’s PAC circulated a map putting 20 Democrats including Giffords under “stylized cross hairs.” It was published after a shooting in Alexandria, Virginia in which U.S. Representative Steve Scalise, a member of the House of Representatives Republican leadership, was wounded. Palin objected to language that Bennet had added to a draft prepared by a Times colleague. She said the added material fit Bennet’s “preconceived narrative,” and as an “experienced editor” he knew and understood the meaning of his words. The Times quickly corrected the editorial to disclaim any connection between political rhetoric and the Arizona shooting, and Bennet has said he did not intend to blame Palin. Bennet’s “immediate sort of emergency mode or panic mode” upon learning what happened strongly suggests he had been unaware of any mistake, said Benjamin Zipursky, a Fordham University law professor. “Negligence or carelessness – even gross negligence – is clearly not good enough for Palin to win,” Zipursky said. SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT It has been 58 years since the U.S. Supreme Court adopted the “actual malice” standard in the landmark decision called New York Times v. Sullivan, which made it difficult for public figures to win libel lawsuits. Two current justices, conservatives Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, have suggested revisiting that standard. Palin has signaled in court papers she would challenge the Sullivan case precedent on appeal if she loses at trial. Don Herzog, a University of Michigan law professor, said Palin would have trouble showing that the Times “subjectively doubted or disbelieved” the truth of what it presented as fact. “In context, and given the kind of publication it was, this is a matter of opinion and so simply not actionable in defamation,” Herzog said. While the trial could spotlight office politics at the Times, the newspaper could argue that mistakes do happen under deadline pressure. It has said that despite Palin’s efforts to demonstrate its “liberal bias” and views on gun control, the editorial was never about her and did not undermine her reputation. “Gov. Palin already was viewed as a controversial figure with a complicated history and reputation, and in the time since the editorial was published, Gov. Palin has prospered,” the Times said in a Jan. 17 court filing. The trial is expected to last five days. Gutterman said he expects the Times to prevail. “It’s unfortunate that this happened at one of the most prominent newspapers in the county, on deadline, but even a mistake does not rise to actual malice,” Gutterman said. (Reporting by Jonathan Stempel and Helen Coster in New York; Editing by Will Dunham and Noeleen Walder) View the full article

RuPaul’s Drag Race Recap — Week 3. The Balls Drop. RuPaul’s Drag Race season 14 queens together at last.Shower of Shenanigans, Rupaul’s Drag Race New Golden Rule Leave it to RuPaul’s Drag Race to follow up a two-part premiere that highlighted the show’s simple strengths with an overstuffed episode full of shenanigans. Right off the top, the two halves of the cast are united, and it’s clear this is already a big group. Then, Ru appears to announce he’s also bringing back the first two eliminated queens, Orion Story and Daya Betty. Neither elimination felt particularly unjust, so these returns do little more than sap the season’s early momentum. Just when you think the stakes couldn’t be more meaningless, Ru introduces a new wrinkle to the competition. This season, each queen will receive a wrapped chocolate bar. They will open their bars only after losing a lip sync. If they have a gold bar inside, they get another chance. No, you didn’t pass out on your keyboard and navigate to a recap of the new Timothee Chalamet Willy Wonka. (Timothee is still somehow a bigger twink than anyone here.) Ru has decided to go full Wonka and introduce a new element of chance to the proceedings. Sure, this adds another thrilling, surprise element, but seeing someone get a second chance (or double-shantay) is so meaningful, because they earn it. Even when Ru decides to bring back Shangela over and over, it at least feel like she did something to earn that attention. In contrast, this feels cheap. Week 1 queens meet the rest of the cast on RuPaul’s Drag Race.But whatever! It’s Ru’s rules. (Ruules? Ru-les? You get it.) So, the drag queens all go one-by-one, grab a chocolate bar, sign some paperwork, and what this even remotely has to do with drag, I have no idea! Couldn’t they at least hide a golden ticket in a dental dam? A bottle of poppers? A lipstick tube? Before we can fully unpack the creative choices, Ru drops another bomb. We’re not just getting one ball, we’re getting TWO BALLS this week, each with three lewks. The first week queens will serve at the Hide ‘n’ Chic animal print-themed ball, while week two ladies will walk the runway in the Red White and Blue Ball. With Daya and Orion back in the mix, that’s FORTY-TWO (42) outfits. One Of These is Not Like The Others — Hetero Queen? And still, this episode crams a ton of content into the werk room scenes. While the queens perform the usual pre-ball sewing frenzy, we get a whirlwind collection of scenes that span the tragic to the disgusting and everything in between. Maddy Morphosis’s heterosexuality comes up for a brief, but interesting conversation. Kornbread asks Maddy if she still cares what other people think of her. Maddy takes this opportunity to talk about how she doesn’t care if people think she’s gay, and being part of the community made her feel more comfortable with herself. Sure, yes, ok. We love to see it. But, I first took Kornbread’s question to mean how does Maddy deal with the opinions of other people IN THE DRAG/LGBTQ+ community about her participation in drag. Considering the history of drag as a refuge for the LGBTQ+ community precisely because they had so few other avenues to live authentically, taking up space as a straight man is certainly worth discussing. It’s not a straight man “isn’t allowed” to do drag, but when a straight man is taking up airtime in one of the few shows dedicated largely to the LGBTQ+ community, it warrants some examination. I don’t mean to imply Maddy has never considered this or had those conversations, personally. I just sort of wish the show used this as an opportunity to dig a little deeper. On a show by and for LGBTQ+ people, it just felt kind of gross to dedicate even a moment to a story about drag teaching a straight man not to care if anyone thinks he’s gay! Save that for Drag U and Secret Celebrity Drag Race. Especially when the room is full of tales already desperately underserved on television. In this episode alone, we got to hear a little bit about Kerri, a trans woman of color, seizing her agency and leaving her disapproving family. We saw firsthand how deeply affected Kornbread is still to this day by her experience as an effeminate young person of color. Orion Story shares how drag is her way to pay homage to her mother, who loved Drag Race and struggled with mental health. Kornbread and Willow bond as Kornbread helps Willow warm her hands — a symptom of her health conditions that makes it painful to work. Before you go canonizing Kornbread for her heart of gold, she also paid Daya Better $1,000 to eat a dead dragon fly found on the floor, which played out like a very specific findom scenario. Kornbread’s face after paying Daya Betty to eat a dragon fly on Fear Factor RuPaul’s Drag Race. 42 Outfits Later… Somehow, in the midst of all that, the ladies still put together 42 ensembles. The Hide ‘n’ Chic queens compete in zebra-print resort wear, leopard-print evening wear and a custom-made animal print bridal piece. The other gals are doing red resort, white evening wear and a red, white and blue bridal. There are so many runway walks that at one point Ru’s track “Kitty Girl” actually restarts mid category, and there’s something chilling about hearing it loop back to the start. (Sort of like John Mulaney’s old Salt and Pepper Diner bit.) I’ll put more thoughts on everyone’s lewks in the rankings, but let’s fast forward to the judges’ tops and bottoms. Ru is in rare form tonight, blaming it all on coffee enemas, but it yields some pretty insane feedback. Most notably, in response to June Jambalaya’s struggle to dress her body type, Ru tells her to just copy other people. That’s good advice for everyday life, but coming from the host of a show whose winning criteria is 25 percent UNIQUENESS, it’s, uh, strange to hear. Ru is basically shrieking not to reinvent the wheel from the same seat she’s repeatedly told girls they need to give everything a unique spin. Originality is the least of June’s problems. The judges hate on the short wig on her first lewk. She was so swallowed by leopard-print fabric she couldn’t walk in her evening wear. Her original design was so poorly made, she tried to hide it behind an overly large bouquet. The judges are also unimpressed with Orion and nail her for over-accessorizing her outfits with too many straps, bows and animal jaws. Michelle calls out Jorgeous for a bridal gown that’s not very bridal, but it’s not enough to keep Jorgeous from the top three. Ru tells her she was born to do drag, which is pretty high praise. Angeria also scores another strong performance this week with three flawless presentations. It just wasn’t enough for the win. That goes to Willow. Even though her fashions may read a bit more pedestrian (her word!), each one offered a little something different. She served pastel zebra print that felt right off a pack of Fruit Stripe gum. She did black-on-black leopard and made a bridal jumpsuit. Ru loves it all, and Willow clocks the win. Less successful is Maddy. The feedback can be reduced to “not feeling the fantasy,” though, to be fair, most of Ru’s criticism came in the form of literal incoherent noises. It does sound crazy, but if you compare Maddy’s vibe to, say, Jorgeous, you can see what Ru is saying. It’s less about the differences between LGBTQ+ and straight queens, and it’s more about putting on a wig/makeup versus DOING DRAG. Maddy goes up against June Jambalaya in a lip sync to “I Love It” by Kylie. June takes it all off — dress, wig, shoes — and dances actuals circles around Maddy. It’s chaotic. It’s too much. And yet it’s not enough. After two sloppy weeks, Ru bids June adieu, giving Maddy another chance to prove herself. Now that’s we’re all together, and I think this eliminations is going to stick, let’s review where we’re at in our rankings. Angeria walks the runway on RuPaul’s Drag Race. 3. The Rank of the Rankings What’s not to love about Angeria? All three outfits stunned on the runway tonight. She looked light and effervescent in her red, short resort dress. The white evening wear was jaw-dropping, and her custom-made bridal gown looked just as good as her other two. In addition to the fashion, Angeria has a great personality that’ll surely carry her far.I can’t get enough Kornbread. Her safari-style zebra resort lewk was my favorite of hers, but all three were solid. I did think Kornbread’s facial expressions got distracting on the runway this week, but she’s clearly come prepared. She’s another queen with a big personality, which is leading to a lot of screentime. I think she’s in this for the long haul, and I’m excited to see what else she can do.Willow Pill keeps surprising. Usually, when a girl comes in wearing platform sandals telling everyone they’re underestimating her, they usually … aren’t. Not the case here. She described her own fashions tonight as pedestrian (and also “corporate lesbian rich wedding”), but it was all so creative and purposeful. Plus, we know Ru is fan.There’s a lot of competition in the middle of this pack, but I still think Bosco is a hair ahead of the rest. All three outfits were very Bosco, but didn’t feel repetitive. Even when she does straight-up Bettie Page cosplay, she gives it a twist with her makeup or silhouette. I loved how she combined prints in her second two looks.Jorgeous is a star, no doubt. She’s delivered Jorgeous, jorgeously. She looked easy, breezy, sexy all night. Her white evening wear was particularly chic, offering a nice contrast to the other overly-embellished gowns. I worry her sexiness won’t carry as far as Bosco’s vision, but maybe there’s moregeous to come.It was a little shocking to see Jasmine Kennedie miss out on a top placement this week. (She should have snagged Jorgeous’s spot.) She served some of the strongest lewks tonight, including a campy crustacean theme to her resort wear. Her evening wear looked right out of Carrie Bradshaw’s And Just Like That storage unit, and I wish we spent more time appreciating her custom created third outfit. She’s a killer dancer and a talented designer; Ru is beguiled by her references. Lots of potential here to become a frontrunner.Kerri had me until the last look. She looked great as vision of ’90s fabulousness in a zebra-print dress and hot pink stockings. I loved the chic spinning headpiece with her purple leopard print second look. While her custom-sewn final outfit wasn’t amazing, she sold it serving face-face-face like no one else on stage.I’m all in for Lady Camden‘s ’90s girl-group fantasy, so I was disappointed to see her stray from that vision this week. She was hardly recognizable in her red resort wear, which read more like something a Disney villainess would wear to the beach. It was pretty, but I wasn’t getting Posh Spice. I was getting Old Spice. I liked the idea behind the architectural element of her white evening wear, but in execution the prop was doing most of the heavy lifting (and hampered her presentation a bit).If I were just judging photos, Alyssa Hunter might be number one this week. All her outfits were incredible, sexy, high-fashion. However, I’m still struggling to remember Alyssa. It’s beautiful clothes, but she’s barely clocking any camera time in the werk room. She slays the runway with exceptional pieces, but there’s not much in her performance. There’s plenty of time for me to be proven wrong, but I’m curious to see how she responds to acting/comedy challenges.After last week’s cheerless cheer performance, DeJa Sky bounced back this week on the runway. A real seamstress, all of her gowns were really spectacular. I particularly loved the shade of red she used in her final red/white/blue bridal gown. It made hers stand out because it was less Star-Spangled than the rest. I’m still cautious after the attempted comedy debacle, but if she can prove capable in a non-design challenge, she may be one to watch.I dug Daya Betty‘s American Horror Story-esque (Pepper, season two) resort wear. And her American Horror Story-eque (Gaga, season five) white robe evening wear with an exaggerated sleeve. I even liked her ’80s rock bridal dress. I think her proportions are still a bit off, and I never have a lot of faith in a queen that’s already been eliminated, so she’ll need to work twice as hard to prove herself.The judges nailed Orion Story. It’s a matter of taste. I love where Orion is getting her character — I could watch a Peg Bundy-inspired queen all day — but she needs to hone that vision.There’s a killer performer and fierce queen somewhere in June Jambalaya, but wow does it feel like she’s being struck with a few really poorly-timed rough days. There were problems with all three times she appeared on the runway tonight. The lip sync felt unhinged. She definitely earned this bottom placement. I just personally would rather see more from her than …Maddy Morphosis. It feels like we’ve seen the most Maddy can do. I had problems with all of Maddy’s presentations. They felt off the Forever21 rack. The fact she told Ru she doesn’t get design is a big red flag. This is an art, honey! You gotta know … art? Can a straight man do drag? Maybe! I’m just not so sure about this one.How would you rank the queens? Catch up on our RuPaul’s Drag Race coverage. View the full article

Published by AFP An eight-year-old child receives the Pfizer-BioNTech Covid-19 vaccine at the Beaumont Health offices in Southfield, Michigan on November 5, 2021 Washington (AFP) – The Covid-19 pandemic took a deadly toll on adults in the United States for two years while largely sparing children from the dire statistics. But the rapid spread of the Omicron variant led to record pediatric infections and hospitalizations in the country, and anti-vaccination misinformation that tells parents the shots are dangerous is adding to the risk. The chances of young people dying from Covid-19 remain low. The shots greatly reduce the odds of severe illness, and vaccinated mothers may pass protection to their babies, but vaccine hesitancy pushed online leaves both parents and children vulnerable. From worries that the shots were developed too quickly, to false claims that the jabs can impact future fertility, physician Wassim Ballan of Phoenix Children’s Hospital said combating misinformation has become part of his job. “Unfortunately, a lot of times when we’re having this time with a family to discuss these things is when the child is already in hospital,” he said of the problem. Parents need to understand that the vaccines are “the most important tool for protection,” especially to avoid multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children, a rare and dangerous complication that can follow a mild Covid-19 infection. Only 27 percent of children aged five to 11 have received a first dose of the vaccine in the United States. Hospitalizations reached a pandemic high of 914 children per day this month, up dramatically from the previous peak of 342 in September 2021. Protection from the womb The first week of January 2022 saw Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston report 12 babies in intensive care with Covid-19. Babies are too young for the Covid-19 shot, but Kathryn Gray, attending physician of maternal-fetal medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, said research increasingly shows that vaccination during pregnancy leads to antibodies safely being transferred to the baby, offering limited protection. Expectant mothers have also shown hesitancy to get the shot after they were excluded from initial clinical trials. Gray is among those who are monitoring the situation. “To date there have been no safety signals” in the data, she said, adding that she has “a lot of confidence” in telling patients the shot is safe during pregnancy for mother and baby. “If they truly want to protect their infants, getting vaccinated is the thing that will protect them the most at this time.” Health agencies across the globe say the same, but the initial lack of data continues to be exploited in vaccine-opposed messaging on social media. Posts on Facebook and Twitter claimed that stillbirths rose following the push to vaccinate pregnant people, even though going unprotected against the disease is the greater risk. Epidemiologists Carla DeSisto and Sascha Ellington from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said data from 1.2 million US births showed “no evidence the rate of stillbirths is higher overall during the pandemic.” But their research did reveal the risks of contracting the virus while pregnant. “Compared to pregnant people without Covid-19, pregnant people with Covid-19 are at increased risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes including preterm birth and stillbirth,” the researchers said by email. ‘Unvaccinated milk’ Breastfeeding has also been the target of misinformation, with posts claiming that babies suffered rashes or even death upon nursing from a vaccinated mother. The Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine recommends vaccination for those who are lactating and says there is no reason to stop breastfeeding upon receiving the vaccine. Misinformation became increasingly common in private Facebook groups where parents connect to share and sell breast milk, group moderators told AFP. In one of the largest such groups, Bethany Bristow said she was concerned by requests for “unvaccinated milk.” The New York mother, along with her fellow moderators, decided to ban such requests, and the rules for her group of more than 10,500 parents now state: “Advertising or requesting vaccine free milk puts you, your children and community at risk.” Studies are finding specific benefits of milk from a vaccinated mother, according to Laura Ward, co-director of the Center for Breastfeeding Medicine at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital. “Antibodies have been detected in the breast milk of vaccinated lactating women. This means that breastfed infants may have some protection against Covid-19 if their mothers receive the vaccine,” she said. Gray agreed. “Breast milk is full of antibodies based on a person’s prior exposures both to vaccines and infection. Those things don’t pose a risk to infants, they’re actually helpful at protecting them,” she said. “Any concerns or unknown pieces about the vaccine are dwarfed by the risk of Covid.” View the full article