Aggregator

It’s an inevitability on par with soaring fan interest in a new coach. By the time a team reaches its sixth spring practice, the intensity dips.

Famed footballer Jorginho Frello is clearing up what he now knows was a “misunderstanding” after he called out pop star Chappell Roan over a security incident that left his 11-year-old daughter in tears. 

His background beats George Washington’s.

One of the biggest surprises of free agency for the Jets was kicker Nick Folk signing with the Falcons. Now they will have to find a replacement.

The Draymond Green who termed the Warriors’ play-in fate as “not that exciting” isn’t the same player who’s showed up in the team’s film sessions the past two days.

For the “trade down’’ advocates who want the Giants to move out of the No. 5 pick in this year’s draft, there could be a large speed bump in the way.

Fauci Deputy Who Refused COVID-19 Vaccine Feared Retaliation: Emails

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

A top government doctor who declined to receive a COVID-19 vaccine in 2021 was worried he would lose his job and medical license in retaliation, according to newly obtained emails.

The National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Md., on May 30, 2024. Madalina Vasiliu/The Epoch Times

“There were times when I was worried about losing my job especially when we first started receiving emails about [vaccine] mandate deadlines,” Dr. Matthew Memoli, who led the Laboratory of Infectious Diseases clinical studies unit at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) during the COVID-19 pandemic, said in one missive to a NIAID spokesman.

He added later that he was more concerned about losing his medical license because he was aware there were “protections for government employees.”

“Washington, DC directly threatened to take away my medical license which would have threatened my job (I need a medical license) so I applied for a Virginia license and protected myself that way,” Memoli also wrote in the email, sent on Jan. 17, 2024, and obtained by The Epoch Times through a Freedom of Information Act request.

After President Donald Trump took office in 2025, Memoli was made acting director of NIAID’s parent agency, the National Institutes of Health (NIH). He has been the NIH’s principal deputy director since March 31, 2025.

Memoli did not respond to a request for comment.

Spoke Out Against Mandate

Memoli became publicly known in 2021 when he was one of the few government officials to speak out against COVID-19 vaccine mandates, which were being imposed on millions of people and promoted at the highest levels of the government.

Emails obtained by The Epoch Times in 2024 showed that Memoli warned Dr. Anthony Fauci—a White House COVID-19 adviser, the longtime head of NIAID until his retirement, and a proponent of vaccine mandates—that mandating COVID-19 vaccination was a mistake, in part because the vaccines did not prevent transmission of the disease.

“At best what we are doing with mandated mass vaccination does nothing and the variants emerge evading immunity anyway as they would have without the vaccine,” Memoli wrote to Fauci in one email. “At worst it drives evolution of the virus in a way that is different from nature and possibly detrimental, prolonging the pandemic or causing more morbidity and mortality than it should.”

Dr. Anthony Fauci arrives to testify before the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic in Washington on June 3, 2024. Madalina Vasiliu/The Epoch Times

Memoli at the time agreed to answer questions via email from The Epoch Times, but officials blocked the interview.

Memoli sent his answers to NIAID spokesman Ken Pekoc to review. In response, Pekoc said the interview request had been rejected by NIAID’s parent agency, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), according to one of the newly obtained emails.

The reasoning for the rejection was not detailed.

‘Many Reservations’

The Epoch Times had asked whether Memoli was in danger of being fired due to his opposition to the mandates and whether he wished he had gone public with his opposition to the mandates sooner, among other questions.

“I had expressed many reservations about the vaccines in press interviews that I did far prior to late 2021,” Memoli said in response, in answers that were never sent to The Epoch Times. “I was always honest about that. The reporters I spoke to never seemed to publish any of the information I provided regarding that.”

That changed near the end of 2021, when The Wall Street Journal and other papers published stories about Memoli’s remarks after President Joe Biden and federal agencies such as NIAID and its parent agency, the NIH, mandated COVID-19 vaccination for federal employees and contractors.

People wait in line at a vaccination site in Washington on Nov. 29, 2021. Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images

Memoli, in comments to reporters and in internal emails, said he opposed the mandates because from his experience with respiratory viruses, they evade immunity, and vaccines could drive the evolution of the virus. He also said requiring shots infringed on medical freedom.

“The vaccine was not working well due to the rise of variants, there were safety issues arising, and as my family and I had chosen not to be vaccinated we were dealing with threats of having our medical licenses taken away, loss of employment, etc.,” Memoli wrote to Pekoc in one of the newly obtained emails, dated Jan. 16, 2024.

“We had friends who felt coerced into accepting vaccination as was happening all over the country. Therefore, to again try to be constructive I contacted the NIH ethics office to appeal to them to consider this.”

Spoke at Event

After exchanging emails with NIH ethics personnel, Memoli was invited to speak at an agency event called the Ethics Grand Rounds in December 2021. In his speech, he made the case that mandates should only be imposed in rare situations, and should not be imposed for COVID-19 vaccines because the vaccines’ effectiveness dropped over time.

“I was somewhat surprised given the environment, but I have always had the utmost respect for the NIH ethics department,” Memoli said in one of the newly obtained emails. “I have worked with them many times in the past and have even published papers with them. The people in that office have always been very smart, open minded, and able to look at difficult issues and consider them carefully and thoroughly.”

He added that many colleagues thanked him for his presentation, and that no colleagues or superiors offered negative remarks. Julie Ledgerwood, another NIAID official, spoke at the event in favor of mandates.

The National Institute of Health in Bethesda, Md., on May 30, 2024. Madalina Vasiliu/The Epoch Times

At least one other NIH employee privately criticized Memoli’s position, however. The presentation “made it abundantly clear why his reasoning was so flawed and flaky,” Dr. Steven Holland, director of the NIAID’s Division of Intramural Research, wrote to Pekoc and others.

Holland did not respond to a request for comment. NIH did not respond to emailed questions, including how many workers it fired for refusing COVID-19 vaccination.

An email from another official, Dr. Jeffrey Cohen, chief of the NIH’s Laboratory of Infectious Diseases, includes several sentences that were redacted. “Thus, I don’t understand why he would think his job or clinical practice was in jeopardy,” Cohen said after the redacted sentences.

Pekoc said in an email to Cohen and other officials that NIH leadership wanted it made clear that no one at NIH said Memoli would be fired.

“In other words, he may have FELT like his job was in jeopardy because he had a very different view, but that no one ever actually told him or threatened that he could lose his job,” Pekoc said.

Memoli wrote in one of his answers to The Epoch Times, “None of my superiors at NIH or anyone I physically worked with ever threatened me directly or allowed it to affect my work.” The answer had been edited at the behest of NIH leaders, as shown by prior email exchanges.

A woman receives a COVID-19 vaccination during a public vaccination event at Washington National Cathedral in Washington on March 16, 2021. Alex Wong/Getty Images

Nonetheless, Memoli said in a separate email to Pekoc that “it should be clear [he] was worried about losing [his] job” and that he “spent months worrying and thinking about where [he] was going to go.”

He added: “That is the honest truth. When I gave the ethics grand rounds I thought that might be the last time I gave a talk at NIH and that my scientific career might be over after that. Now in hindsight that may have been a bit hyperbolic, but that is how I felt at the time.”

Should Have Been More Assertive

Memoli said that in hindsight, he wished he had been more assertive as he tried to “help the agency avoid some of the mistakes” he felt it had made, such as issuing mandates. He added in the unsent answers to The Epoch Times, “I feel I should have been less worried about my situation, and I should have sent emails and had discussions with my leaders sooner expressing my expert opinions.”

But he also told Pekoc that leaders of the NIH and HHS should know that never approving exemptions filed by himself and others was “a sore point.”

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services at the Hubert H. Humphrey building in Washington on April 28, 2025. Madalina Vasiliu/The Epoch Times

“They let us twist in the wind worried about our jobs for a year, and then never even gave us a final approval which leaves us hanging if there is another mandate in the future. I feel this was done on purpose to try to coerce us into getting the vaccine and I consider it highly unethical and disappointing,” he wrote.

Memoli said in the same Jan. 17, 2024, email that he wished that the NIH director or health secretary would apologize and announce that COVID-19 vaccine mandates were a mistake.

NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya and other Trump administration officials have said the mandates should not have been imposed.

“I took the COVID vaccine myself, but I think that the mandates that many scientists pushed have led to the lack of confidence that so many of the public has in science,” Bhattacharya said during his confirmation hearing.

Tyler Durden Tue, 04/14/2026 - 20:05

Mossad Chief Declares Mission In Iran Not Over Until Regime Falls

A two-week Iran-US-Israel ceasefire is still in effect despite the collapse of last weekend's Islamabad talks, where the big hang up was fierce disagreement over Iran's nuclear development. The clock is ticking amid efforts to hold more direct talks by the end of this week.

What's unlikely to help things move along is a fresh statement from Mossad Director David Barnea. While speaking at a Holocaust Remembrance Day ceremony in Jerusalem on Tuesday, he boasted that Mossad assets have been operating from the heart of Tehran and that the fight is not over until there's regime collapse or overthrow.

He said of Israel's premier intelligence agency that it operated "in the heart of Tehran" during the recent US-Israeli campaign against Iran, and further that "We brought precise intelligence to the Air Force, and we hit missiles that threatened Israel."

Israeli Prime Minister's office

"But our mission has yet to be completed," the spy chief added. "We didn’t think that this mission would be completed immediately with the end of the battles. But we planned intensively for our campaign to continue and achieve results even in the period after the strikes in Tehran."

Mossad's involvement in counter-Iran action, he continued, will end "only when this radical regime is replaced."

Barnea made clear that regime change in Iran "is our mission. We will not stand by, watching, in the face of another existential threat."

Ironically, Israeli media is still trying to pour cold water on persistent reporting of an Israeli role in convincing the White House to unleash the massive bombing campaign on Iran:

Accordingly, the Mossad has rejected allegations that it has failed or that it tried to "sucker" the US into believing in delusions of regime change.

Barnea's public statement was the latest indication that he still believes regime change is possible, but that the war only helped set initial, more favorable conditions for such a change, and that significant additional work will be needed going forward.

Trump himself has at times suggested the aim is regime change, and at others has stated the opposite. But it does seem he actually believed Iranian state institutions would be quickly overthrown in some kind of brief Venezuela-style operation.

Prior reports out of Israel have painted a more realistic picture, however, stating that regime change in Iran - a country of over 90 million people and long-standing institutions - would be extremely difficult if not nearly impossible. And this is especially without ground forces, given air power is limited and does not work for this.

Mossad Chief David Barnea on Mossad’s Operation in Iran:

“The Iranian threat has steadily intensified before our eyes and those of the world, without restraint. We warned of the nuclear danger as an existential threat, we warned about the growing number of ballistic missiles… pic.twitter.com/eOlTcVJDnv

— Aditya Raj Kaul (@AdityaRajKaul) April 14, 2026

US wars spanning from Vietnam to Afghanistan have long demonstrated that aerial bombardment, even if massive, only goes so far. And even when there are 'boots on the ground' and nation-building, US efforts can be quickly unraveled, as the Taliban's reascendancy in Kabul in 2021 demonstrates.

Tyler Durden Tue, 04/14/2026 - 19:40

Should You Keep Your Target-Date Funds In Retirement?

Authored by Javier Simon via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Target-date funds (TDFs) can be effective retirement savings vehicles for many investors.

Target-date funds adjust risk over time, but their limited flexibility can make them less suitable for complex retirement plans. SsCreativeStudio/Shutterstock

TDFs are professionally managed portfolios often built with various mutual funds. They are designed to automatically adjust their asset allocation of stocks, bonds, cash and sometimes alternative investments to become more conservative as you reach the target date.

Over time, these funds reduce exposure to generally riskier assets like stocks and shift toward typically safer investments like bonds in order to mitigate risk and reduce volatility. It could allow the fund to focus more on stability and capital preservation as retirement nears.

To many retirees, this makes sense. By the time you reach retirement, you may prioritize income potential and reduced risk. By design, TDFs aim to provide this to investors.

But also within its inherent design, there may lie some flaws that could raise serious challenges in retirement. So let’s take a closer look.

May Become Too Aggressive or Too Conservative

By the time you reach the target date, your TDF may still be heavily exposed to stocks. At a glance, a 2030 TDF from a major provider is composed of about 62 percent stocks. This asset allocation may be too aggressive for some retirees. Their portfolio would likely take a major hit if a severe market downturn occurs during the early retirement.

This is known as sequence or returns risk. It could force retirees to sell investments at a loss. And that would not only lock in those losses, but it prevents those investments from growing when the market recovers.

But the opposite can happen too. A retiree with multiple sources of income, who prioritizes growth potential, could end up with an extremely conservative TDF upon retirement.

This is why it’s important to carefully analyze a TDF’s glide path. This is the planned change in asset allocation over time.

Moreover, it’s also important to understand whether your TDF is a “to” or “through” fund. “To” funds become most conservative at the target date. “Through funds” may continue to get more conservative beyond the target date.

So it’s key to make sure that the TDF’s glide path still aligns with your risk tolerance, investment goals and financial situation as you get closer to retirement.

Lack Asset-Allocation Flexibility

A TDF automatically rebalances its asset allocation over time. That’s very convenient for the set-it-and-forget investor and younger ones who may find it difficult to start saving for retirement in the first place.

After all, TDFs are often the qualified default investment alternative (QDIA) in many corporate 401(k) plans. This means they’d be automatically enrolled in a TDF that aligns with their potential retirement year if they don’t choose their own investment options.

Those just entering the workforce may find it suitable to stick with a TDF rather than taking the time to carefully choose and analyze different investment options to build a personalized portfolio.

And that may work in the beginning. But over time, your financial situation could get more complex.

You may need to tailor your asset allocation to align with factors like change in risk tolerance, other sources of income, and tax efficiency.

With a TDF, this is virtually impossible since the fund managers run the entire portfolio on behalf of potentially millions of investors with varying needs.

Lack of Withdraw Efficiency

A TDF generally limits you to proportional withdrawals from the different assets it holds.

So keeping your savings in a TDF may not fit well into dynamic strategies like the bucket approach. This involves strategically breaking down your retirement assets into three or more time-based buckets. The first one would hold generally safer and liquid assets like cash and cash equivalents. While the other buckets are filled with growth-oriented investments ranging from bonds to stocks and exchange-traded funds (ETFs). The idea here is to begin drawing from the first bucket during the first few years of retirement in order to give the other buckets more time to grow.

May Not Make Sense Once You Retire

TDFs were built for simplicity. And by the time you retire, your financial situation may be far more complex than when you started saving.

Your risk tolerance could be drastically different from what you were expecting. You may have other sources of income like multiple investment accounts, pensions, and Social Security benefits. So your risk tolerance may leave more appetite for growth.

In such situations, you may want to consider alternatives.

Moving Out of Your TDF

You can take the funds from a TDF and move it into a more personalized portfolio adhering to your risk tolerance and investment goals. You could consider a mix of low-cost ETFs, bond funds, Treasury securities, and alternative investments.

If your TDF is held in a 401(k), however, you may be limited to available investment options and restricted by plan rules. So it’s important to check in with your human resources department before you proceed.

The Bottom Line

A TDF could be the ultimate retirement fund for the set-it-and-forget investor, especially younger ones. But as you move closer to retirement, your financial situation and financial goals could change dramatically. This is why it may be suitable to eventually move out of a TDF and into a customizable portfolio that could align with your risk tolerance, investment goals and other variables in retirement. You can also work with a qualified financial adviser to come up with an individualized and comprehensive financial plan that may better suit your needs.

The views and opinions expressed are those of the authors. They are meant for general informational purposes only and should not be construed or interpreted as a recommendation or solicitation. The Epoch Times and ZeroHedge do not provide investment, tax, legal, financial planning, estate planning, or any other personal finance advice. The Epoch Times holds no liability for the accuracy or timeliness of the information provided.

Tyler Durden Tue, 04/14/2026 - 19:15

Can pedestrians, runners and cyclists safely share the road with self-driving vehicles?

Can pedestrians, runners and cyclists safely share the road with self-driving vehicles?

Can pedestrians, runners and cyclists safely share the road with self-driving vehicles?

Can pedestrians, runners and cyclists safely share the road with self-driving vehicles?

Can pedestrians, runners and cyclists safely share the road with self-driving vehicles?

Can pedestrians, runners and cyclists safely share the road with self-driving vehicles?

Can pedestrians, runners and cyclists safely share the road with self-driving vehicles?

Can pedestrians, runners and cyclists safely share the road with self-driving vehicles?

NHS guidance that all hospitals should be using Palantir software from this month has sparked a backlash.

The company says it will create only 100 of its Project Nightingale in its Goodwood headquarters.

The company says it will create only 100 of its Project Nightingale in its Goodwood headquarters.