Arizona State University (ASU) will complete a five-year, $12.5 million CDC study to gauge the efficacy of the flu and COVID-19 vaccines. ASU’s Biodesign Institute will team up with Phoenix Children’s Hospital and Valleywise Health to recruit study participants.
In a press release earlier this month, ASU explained that the study would have two components: measuring the flu and COVID-19 vaccines’ effectiveness during the flu season, and vaccine-induced immune responses over time.
The first component will assess over 1,000 participants infected by the flu or COVID-19. In doing so, researchers will identify communities disproportionately impacted by the flu or COVID-19, as well as the genomic subtypes and variants present within the participants.
The second component will assess about 250 participants who received both the flu and COVID-19 vaccines. ASU disclosed that the purpose of this second component of the study is to better understand the impact of repeated vaccination on vaccine effectiveness.
The coalition’s clinical experts will be Joanna Kramer with Phoenix Children’s Hospital, Jeffrey Curtis with Valleywise Health, and Mario Islas with ASU. There will also be a number of team members hailing from various ASU schools and colleges: Vel Murugan, a primary investigator; Yunro Chung, a biostatistician; Efrem Lim, a virologist; Matthew Scotch, a molecular epidemiologist; Leah Doane and Cruz Cruz, health disparity experts; Mitch Magee, a clinical researcher; and Craig Woods, a clinical site manager.
Murugan said that the present state of the Valley makes it the perfect location for the study.
“Phoenix is a very fast-growing area with a diverse population, which is changing economically and demographically every day,” stated Murugan.
RAIVEN sites conduct randomized trials to evaluate flu vaccine efficacy on those aged 18-64 years old. This fall’s trial compares the efficacy of the recombinant flu vaccine versus a standard dose egg-based flu vaccine. Trial participants receive one of the two study vaccines over the course of two flu seasons: 2022-23 and 2023-24.
A recent CDC survey estimates 80% of healthcare providers (HCP) received a #flu shot during the 2021-22 flu season & 87% completed their primary COVID-19 vaccination series.
The other Vaccine Effectiveness Networks are the Flu Vaccine Effectiveness (VE), Influenza and Other Viruses in the Acutely Ill (IVY), New Vaccine Surveillance Network, VISION Vaccine Effectiveness Network, Respiratory Virus Transmission Network (RVTN), and Randomized Assessment of Influenza Vaccine Efficacy Network (RAIVEN).
Arizona is also home to study sites for the VE, IVY, RVTN, and RAIVEN.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Several federal government defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit recently filed by Gov. Doug Ducey in his attempt to determine who has jurisdiction over land near the border within the State of Arizona.
On Wednesday, the U.S. Forest Service and its Chief Randy Moore, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and its Commissioner Camille Calimlim, and U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Thomas J. Vilsack argued in the motion that Ducey’s actions on U.S. lands “directly conflict” with numerous federal laws.
The motion to dismiss also argues that Arizona’s concurrent jurisdiction to land at the border does not convey a right for Ducey to occupy and use federal lands without federal authority. As a result, the State of Arizona must yield to the United States’ plenary authority over the lands, the motion argues.
Ducey will have an opportunity to respond to the motion to dismiss, after which U.S. District Senior Judge David Campbell will likely hold oral arguments in early 2023.
Also on Wednesday, Campbell granted the Center for Biological Diversity permissive intervention, finding the group has defenses to Ducey’s lawsuit “that share with the main action a common question of law or fact — whether the federal government may act with respect to the border lands of Arizona, including in the enforcement of federal environmental statutes.”
However, Campbell issued a warning to attorneys for the Center that the purpose of granting intervenor status “is not to convert this case into an environmental enforcement action or launch into broad ranging discovery on environmental issues.”
Instead, the purposed is to enable Intervenor to provide input on the claims and issues raised by Ducey. The judge further noted he will hold the Center “to its commitment not to unduly complicate this case, delay the proceedings, inject irrelevant issues, or repeat arguments made by the federal defendants.”
The Center has until Dec. 2 to file an answer in the case.
Ducey filed the six-claim lawsuit in October in an attempt to have the U.S. District Court determine important questions of law regarding jurisdiction over land near the border within the State of Arizona and the state’s own interests in protecting itself in the face of the crisis brought on by countless migrants illegally crossing unsecured areas of the border without action by the federal government.
The inaction of the Biden administration has resulted in “a mix of drug, crime, and humanitarian issues the State has never experienced at such a significant magnitude,” according to Ducey’s lawsuit.
Before filing the lawsuit, Arizona officials pleaded many time with the Biden administration to act, “but such pleas have been either ignored, dismissed, or unreasonably delayed,” the lawsuit notes. “Rather than cooperate and work together with Arizona, the federal government has taken a bureaucratic and adversarial role.”
Ducey responded to this inaction by directing that some gaps in the border wall be temporarily filled with double-stacked storage containers that will help control movement along the border.
The move got the attention of the White House, which now claims Ducey and the State do not have authority to undertake these types of protective actions. The six-claim lawsuit seeks answers to the authority of a governor to issue a state of emergency to protect the lives and welfare of Arizona citizens and their property.
In response to the lawsuit, the Center filed a motion earlier this month seeking to intervene in the case as a defendant along with the named federal defendants.
The Center contends the temporary barriers put into place by the State will block animal migratory paths as well as streams and washes. It also claims the temporary barrier effort will “trash the Sonoran Desert and public lands” while doing nothing “to prevent people or drugs from crossing the border.”
But the Center also alleges Ducey’s border barrier project is “part of a larger strategy of ongoing border militarization” that ignores damage to “human rights, civil liberties, native lands, local businesses, and international relations.”
Ducey opposed the intervention effort by the Center, while the federal defendants took no position on intervention, except that it be a permissive and not by-right status which can be discontinued by the Court if deemed necessary.
Earlier this month, Arizona made history with the election of its first “gender nonconforming” legislator.
Lorena Austin — a female, lesbian Democrat — won one of the two State House District 9 seats. “Gender nonconformity” means that an individual deviates from the expressive norms of their gender. Seth Blattman, another Democrat, won the other seat.
The first openly nonbinary or gender nonconforming individual was Illinois State Senator Mike Simmons. The first openly transgender individual elected to a state legislature was Virginia Delegate Danica Roem.
¡Adelante, Siemprè Adelante! Forward, Always Forward. District 9, thank you for giving me the greatest honor of my life. To my family, my friends, my community- THANK YOU! 🙌🏽💙#LD9#Lorena4AZpic.twitter.com/oGCZ2fVMzx
The majority of Austin’s campaign funds came from out-of-state, heavyweight Democrat philanthropists, and the leftist dark money network. Her lengthy list of endorsements include Moms Demand Action, a gun control group; Planned Parenthood; Save Our Schools Arizona, an anti-school choice group; Our Voice Our Vote; Human Rights Campaign; Arizona Education Association; NARAL; and Emily’s List.
Austin supports overriding the education spending cap, expanding affordable housing, expanding Medicaid, and establishing “clean” energy.
Austin also supports rolling back laws prohibiting males from joining female sports teams, as well as banning gender transition surgeries for minors.
Austin’s race earned national attention, but not for her LGBTQ representation. One of her Republican opponents, Mary Ann Mendoza, was the subject of an October surprise after pictures of her in blackface and brownface costumes surfaced. Mendoza was designated one of former President Donald Trump’s “Angel Moms,” a term used to describe mothers whose child was killed by an illegal immigrant.
Prior to running for the legislature, Austin waffled in and out of college for years, dropping out of Mesa Community College (MCC) five times. As she testified in an Arizona State University (ASU) promotional video, Austin discovered her identity after joining an LGBTQ activist community in St. Louis, Missouri and was motivated to get an education by the 2014 death of Michael Brown.
Upon returning to MCC, Austin worked her way up to become the student body president before transferring to ASU. She received a scholarship through a leadership program started by ASU President Michael Crow.
Austin graduated from ASU in 2020 as the dean’s medalist for the School of Transborder Studies.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Of all the organizations tasked with overseeing Black Lives Matter’s millions, it was a nonprofit based in Tucson.
Alliance for Global Justice (AFGJ) handled over $36 million for Black Lives Matter (BLM) organizations: the controversial network facing scrutiny for the use of its funds. That $36 million was part of nearly $50 million handled on behalf of bail funds, other social reform organizations, and campaigns to free “political prisoners.”
Prior to 2020, this 24-year-old nonprofit was a lesser-known controversial group that averaged $3.1 million in revenue every year. Then, like many other social justice organizations, AFGJ’s revenues flooded with millions following George Floyd’s death and the BLM riots that swept the nation.
— Alliance for Global Justice (@All4GlobalJust) June 3, 2020
AFGJ’s History
AFGJ was established in 1998 by the Nicaragua Network, which was founded to support the socialist Sandinista regime and armed revolution. Key members of their leadership include Sandinistas, as documented at length by the Capital Research Center.
AFGJ’s express mission is to overhaul current social and economic systems to achieve justice, citing the current concentrations of wealth and power as the cause of all oppression. AFGJ maintains a list of “Political Prisoners,” or “prisoners of Empire,” for whose freedom or exoneration they advocate for: namely, murderers, terrorists, and other extremists, such as members of the Black Panther Party; BLM rioters; Ana Belen Montes, a 9/11-era Cuban spy; and Daniel Baker, an antifa activist.
AFGJ’s issuance of funds aligns with their mission to upend American law and social norms.
Over the years, AFGJ has funded a number of controversial organizations, including Fronterizo Fianza Fund (now Froterizx Fianza Fund): they bail out detained illegal immigrants to free them into the country. AFGJ has funded and serves as a fiscal sponsor of Assata’s Daughters: the Marxist revolutionary group dedicated to infamous cop killer and FBI Most Wanted Terrorist, Assata Shakur.
Comparisons of other tax filings by research groups revealed that AFGJ has received past funding from a number of major left-wing dark money benefactors, including George Soros and the Tides Foundation. However, AFGJ hides its donors from disclosure.
Once 2020 hit, the prior millions from these major benefactors became paltry by comparison.
Movement for Black Lives (M4BL): $30.6 million
The organization that received the majority of this influx was Movement for Black Lives (M4BL), a coalition of BLM and its affiliates for which AFGJ acted as a fiscal sponsor. That meant that it managed M4BL’s finances in exchange for an eight percent commission on revenues.
AFGJ’s fiscal sponsorship for M4BL ended on either January 6 or 7, 2021 — right as the Capitol invasion unfolded. After January 6, the Common Counsel Foundation became the listed fiscal sponsor on M4BL’s website.
AFGJ also issued over $145,000 to “Persist M4BL” in 2020, an advocacy arm of M4BL.
M4BL claims to be a coalition of over 50 member organizations. Although M4BL doesn’t reveal the names of these organizations, in the past it advertised the membership of the Black Lives Matter Foundation, or the “Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation” — known simply by most as “BLM.”
According to their respective 2020 tax filings, M4BL and BLM headquarters were one mile apart: a mere five-minute drive without traffic. M4BL’s address was 1624 Franklin St, Oakland, CA 94612, and BLM’s address was 248 3rd St, Oakland CA 94612.
However, different addresses for BLM’s headquarters exist. The filing uploaded in May on BLM’s website displays the Oakland, California address just one mile away from M4BL, while the filing scanned into the IRS website in June displays the Elias Law Group address in Washington, D.C.
Elias Law Group is the firm belonging to Marc Elias: the Democratic Party’s top lawyer, infamous for his central role in Russiagate. Presently, where election-related controversy ensues, Elias is sure to appear. Elias’ firm stated on BLM’s IRS filing that it presently keeps all of BLM’s books and records.
BLM also listed a different address for its headquarters on its 2019 IRS form: a nonexistent address, as reported by The Washington Examiner in January. An unidentified BLM spokesperson told The Examiner that they don’t maintain a permanent office at the time.
BLM’s Exploited Millions
Floyd, the man whose death sparked nationwide racial unrest and boosted the fundraising for organizations like AFGJ, wasn’t the beneficiary of any of the BLM funds. As the “The Greatest Lie Ever Sold” documentary noted, Floyd’s roommates struggled to cover the portion of rent Floyd could no longer pay. They also couldn’t afford to pay a towing service to remove Floyd’s car from the driveway.
BLM reportedly didn’t offer Floyd’s roommates any financial assistance.
Prior to the release of the documentary, BLM dismissed the exposé as a “white supremacy” initiative. The woman behind the documentary is Candace Owens, a Black woman.
Today (or someday soon) Candace Owens will release a purported “documentary” that will attempt to further divide Black people and uplift white supremacy.
BLM co-founder and then-executive director Patrisse Cullors bought mansions for $3 million according to the New York Post, and then BLM secretly bought another mansion for around $6 million according to New York Magazine. That mansion, where Cullors resides, hosted several lavish parties, including a birthday party for her son and a celebration of President Joe Biden’s inauguration.
BLM paid Cullors’ brother $841,000 for security services; prior to 2020, her brother worked as a graffiti artist. BLM also paid the father of Cullors’ child, Damon Turner, nearly $970,000 to “produce live events” and nondescript “creative services.”
As The New York Post reported, over $8 million went to M4BJ: a Canadian nonprofit run by Cullor’s wife, Janaya Khan. Of that funding, $6.3 million was used to buy a mansion in Toronto, Canada.
$2.6 million went to LGBTQ organizations, namely transgender organizations. Just as with the other millions, a number of these organizations applied the funds toward real estate.
One of the LGBTQ organizations was Black Trans Media, a Brooklyn, New York organization whose fiscal sponsor is AFGJ.
AFGJ Fiscal Sponsorship: $49.6 Million
“AFGJ acted as fiscal sponsor for 19 groups affiliated with Black Lives Matter, Movement for Black Lives, bail funds, and long-existing prison abolition or reform organizations and campaigns to free political prisoners.” (AFGJ’s program service accomplishments disclosure, 2020 tax filing)
AFGJ’s fiscal sponsorship organizations circulated nearly $50 million in 2020. This was unprecedented. Prior to 2020, these organizations came nowhere near millions in revenue. Based on AFGJ’s commission rate on contributions, that would amount to around $4 million at least.
AFGJ served as a fiscal sponsor for three bail funds: Colorado Freedom Fund, Bukit Bail Fund, and Action Bail Fund New York. Altogether, these three bail fund organizations received over $2.8 million. According to AFGJ’s previous tax filings, none of the three bail funds received any funding from AFGJ in the past.
Action Bail Fund New York, which received over $417,000, lists its headquarters at the same address as AFGJ.
Notably, one bail fund organization that AFGJ donated to in 2020, but wasn’t a fiscal sponsor for, received half of what it got in 2019.
On its website, AFGJ states that it serves as a fiscal sponsor for 121 organizations.
BLM Chapters in Oklahoma City and Louisville: $5.4 million
BLM Oklahoma City (OKC) received the bigger cut of the two funds: $4.25 million even. AFGJ also serves as BLM OKC’s fiscal sponsor.
In the summer of 2020, BLM OKC posted around $3.5 million in bonds to release BLM rioters. Last June, BLM OKC posted a $400,000 bond for a man charged for murdering a man allegedly breaking into his unlicensed marijuana business.
BLM Louisville received shy of $1.2 million.
In February, BLM Louisville bailed out murder suspect Quintez Brown with $100,000. Brown was the 21-year-old activist accused of attempting to murder Craig Greenberg, then the mayoral candidate for Louisville and now mayor-elect.
BLM Louisville, who quickly paid the $100k to bail out attempted murder suspect Quintez Brown, says they're fully community funded. But they're fiscally sponsored by the Alliance for Global Justice. AfGJ receives money from Soros' Open Society Foundations.https://t.co/nNRRWiZ4Rrpic.twitter.com/BQ9X988hsK
BLM Louisville organizer Chanelle Helm, co-founder of their bail fund, toldWAVE that Brown was likely suffering from PTSD caused by two years of social unrest and the COVID-19 pandemic.
“They are calling for this individual, this young man who needs support and help, to be punished to the full extent,” stated Helm. “It is a resounding message that people are down for the torture that has taken place in our jails and prisons.”
Other Work
As part of the nearly $50 million in fiscal sponsorship funds managed, AFGJ noted that it published an e-book, “A Year in Review: Racism, Repression, and Fightback.” It’s an in-depth documentation of the racial riots of 2020.
Read our November “2020: Racism, Repression and Fightback” report highlights here: https://t.co/aCaBzG78wz
If government officials threaten to force you from your home because of a zoning violation, should you be able to seek a court order blocking the forced removal? Or must you wait until you are actually homeless to fight back?
That is a question the Arizona Supreme Court could consider next year, in a case out of Sierra Vista that has garnered the attention of the Goldwater Institute and private property advocates across the state.
Among the plaintiffs are several longtime city residents of a mobile home park who filed a lawsuit in early 2021 arguing that city zoning officials should not be allowed to force them to move the recreational vehicles (RVs) they live in and that anti-RV ordinances violate their constitutional rights.
A Cochise County judge and the Arizona Court of Appeals ruled there is nothing that can be done in advance to stop the city from enforcing the ordinance. The lawsuit can only proceed if the city actually moves forward with making the residents leave, according to the court rulings.
The Goldwater Institute’s Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation took issue with the city’s position as well as the legal reasoning of the judge and appellate court. The organization has filed an amicus (friend-of-the-court) brief asking the Arizona Supreme Court to hear the case which the RVers are appealing.
Timothy Sandefur, attorney for the Institute, notes that prospective injunctive or declaratory relief against a threatened future unconstitutional government act “is a routine procedure.” As such, the amicus brief asks the justices to order the requested injunction to protect the residents.
“This case is like a hypothetical situation in which a plaintiff files a lawsuit for an injunction to prevent a defendant from converting her personal property, or building a factory that will pollute her land, and the superior court tells her the case is unripe because no theft or pollution has yet occurred—before adding, ‘come back after your property has been stolen or ruined,’” Sandefur wrote.
Under city zoning definitions, RVs are considered temporary shelters that are not allowed as permanent residences in a manufactured home subdivision. RVs are, however, permitted as permanent residences in up to 30 percent of the total spaces in a manufactured home park.
The 160-lot Cloud 9 property involved in the dispute is considered a manufactured home subdivision despite being called a mobile home park for decades. In July 2020, a notice of non-compliance gave several residents, including Amanda Root, 30 days to remove their RVs despite the fact most had lived at Cloud 9 for years and did not have funds to move elsewhere.
The city agreed to take no action on the zoning order while attorneys for the residents and the city attempted to resolve the matter. But in February 2021, the city council rejected a proposed amendment which would have allowed Root and the other impacted residents to continue living in RVs at their current locations.
A lawsuit was filed a short time later seeking an injunction preventing the city from enforcing any evictions while the case was litigated. The city’s twofold argument contended the restrictive ordinances related to RVs are constitutional and that there is no legal basis for a court injunction at that time.
Judge David Thorn of the Cochise County Superior Court denied the injunction, pointing out there was no “injury” caused by the threats of enforcement. The Arizona Court of Appeals also passed on hearing the case due to no showing of actual harm, although the appellate court noted there could be harm in the future.
The Arizona Supreme Court will decide in early 2023 whether to hear the case or to leave in place Thorn’s decision that nothing can be done until Sierra Vista officials try to enforce the zoning violations.
Last Wednesday, the Phoenix City Council declared that COVID-19 no longer constitutes an emergency. The council passed the resolution quietly and without discussion, lumping it in with dozens of other agenda items.
It has been two years and eight months since the city first declared COVID-19 as an emergency. Yet, the issue that instigated controversy and struggle for so long was passed over with little notice.
The resolution rescinding the emergency declaration for COVID-19 cited the CDC data from late last month listing transmission levels for Maricopa County as “low.” This means that all declarations related to the COVID-19 emergency are rescinded.
Although the city rescinded the emergency declaration, they continue to offer COVID-19 mitigation resources like testing kits and masks.
With several holidays gatherings and holiday travel upon us, be prepared for possible #COVID exposures with these free City of #PHX resources:
❇️ At-home testing kits ✴️ KN95 masks ❇️ Mobile testing vans ✴️ Vaccine events ❇️ Health information
The city lagged behind the state in determining that COVID-19 no longer constituted an emergency.
Governor Doug Ducey ended the state’s COVID-19 emergency in March. The city last updated its face mask policy in February, requiring mask-wearing if risk levels were considered high. Phoenix went through periods of rescinding then reimposing its mask mandate.
It wasn’t until April that the Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport dropped its mask mandate in accordance with the Transportation Security Administration no longer enforcing the federal mask mandate.
Like most other cities, Phoenix capitalized on its $396 million in COVID-19 relief funds to subsidize community needs and other projects.
COVID relief funds should be used to prevent COVID. That means kids wearing masks at school. I support the President’s efforts to compel Arizona’s governor to do the right thing.
This included allocations like $75.5 million for homeless shelters, housing, treatments, and resources; $31 million for affordable housing and financial assistance; $16.7 million for a “Resilient Food System” to increase agriculture in the city with a focus on equity and inclusion; $10.5 million for planting trees and making homes energy efficient; $8.3 for refugees; $5 million went to community college tuition assistance.
As for COVID-19 mitigation efforts and expenses: $28.9 million went to city testing and vaccination efforts, $28 million funded current and projected COVID-19 health care expenses for the city, and $22 million funded premium pay for essential city workers.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
