CDC's COVID Tracking Doesn't Past Smell Test

Media coverage of the Delta variant has bordered on hysteria, a tactic to support the government's vaccination mandates.  But as often is the case, the evidence underpinning the policy does not match the media hype because the government's data on the variant is unreliable and lacks scientific rigor.  

The Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC) has been called out by scientists for its tracking on two issues: Its figures on the number of variant cases and data on so-called Delta breakthrough infections.  These are not trivial matters given the administration decisions on vaccines and masks.

Most scientists who have weighed-in agree the Delta variant spreads significantly faster than regular COVID, or what scientists refer to as Alpha, the original virus.  However, many take issue with the data produced by the CDC during the explosion of the new variant.  

Before addressing the variant data,  here is the CDC's data on the number of cases and fatalities since July 18, when the variant first made its appearance in the United States, until August 24:

• 3,865,802 cases
• 30,971 deaths
• Fatality rate: 0.81% 

On the death percentage, note the media has not included this data in most of its coverage. For perspective, a foreign concept for the media, during the height of the pandemic in the U.S. the fatality rate reached a zenith of 2.23% during periods of skyrocketing cases.   

In examining the data, the CDC cannot with any specificity report how many of recent cases are attributed to the Delta variant. The reason has not been fully explained to the public.  As Dr. Stephen Morse, professor of Epidemiology at the Columbia University Medical Center, told Reuters:

"Genomic sequencing is the definitive method for identifying variants.  As of now, it's also the main way that new variants are identified when they appear."

To understand why the point is relevant, consider that many local and state health departments do not have genomic sequencing equipment, sophisticated devices that are capable to determining the entire genetic make-up of a specific organism or cell type.  These machines often cost $1 million or more. 

Current tests for COVID do not screen for a particular variant.  Hence, the CDC cannot calculate the number of Delta variant cases with finite accuracy.  Instead, the agency conducts its own genomic testing on 750 viral samples weekly submitted by state and local health departments.

That is a small sample size (0.074%) of the more than 1,101,265 COVID cases reported by the CDC in a single week in late August.  Based on the samples, the CDC estimated in August that 80% of new cases were the Delta variant.  That falls short of confirmed Delta variant cases. It is merely a projection.  

It is also important to understand the CDC does not disclose the states or cities where the samples are drawn. No one knows if samples are an accurate geographic representation.  Additionally, case reporting and fatalities are based on voluntary cooperation by local and state health agencies.

The CDC should be transparent in its reporting on the Delta variant. CDC percentages for Delta variant cases should be issued with this caveat:  These figures are only an estimate based on a limited number of samples. No one knows how many Delta cases are among the 3.8 million since July 18. 

The second issue with CDC data concerns so-called breakthrough cases, incidences of fully vaccinated people being infected with the Delta variant.  The agency's initial embrace of this theory is based on an outbreak in a single Massachusetts county in July.  

Of 499 cases in Barnstable County, 74% occurred among fully vaccinated people, according to a study, which has not been peer-reviewed.  Genomic sequencing confirmed 133 were infected with the Delta variant. Most did not require hospital care, but among five who did, only four were fully vaccinated. 

This study, published by the CDC, was used by the agency to revise masking guidance to include fully vaccinated Americans.  The agency, however, acknowledges on its website that the Massachusetts data is "insufficient to draw conclusions about the effectiveness" of vaccines.

The Kaiser Family Foundation did its own analysis of limited state data and reported that the rate of breakthrough cases among fully vaccinated Americans is below one percent, ranging from 0.01% in Connecticut to 0.54% in Arkansas.  KFF calls breakthrough cases "extremely rare." 

The number of deaths among breakthrough cases, according to the foundation's analysis of state data, is "effectively zero."  It begs the question: Is the CDC advice for fully vaccinated Americans to wear masks based on science? No one is allowed to question the CDC rationale for fear of censorship.  

Before the Barnstable County data, inexplicably the CDC announced on May 1 that it was halting tracking of all breakthrough cases, focusing instead on those patients requiring hospitalization.  The official reason was not to burden healthcare systems. 

Harvard Health called the decision "surprising" and added the cases tracked from January through April of 2021 show "no clear pattern that could advance our understanding of why they (breakthrough cases) occur."  Then Harvard adds this clincher on its website:

"There could be other reasons for the CDC's decision.  First there's the challenge of messaging around encouraging people to get vaccinated.  Focusing on breakthrough cases sends a misleading impression that vaccines aren't effective.  This might complicate efforts to battle vaccine hesitancy."

An impartial review of facts does not support the alarm about breakthrough cases. This is not rigorous scientific investigation. Obviously, the media has tacit endorsement for its overblown reporting on the Delta virus.  Otherwise, the CDC and the administration would push back on the coverage.  

The Washington Post published an article on August 19 quoting" senior administration officials and outside experts" about the "growing frustration with the CDC's slow and siloed approach to sharing data, which prevented officials across government from getting real-time information about how the Delta variant was bearing down on the U.S."

There should be no doubt the CDC has let down the country and the thousands of doctors, nurses and hospitals grabbling with the surge in cases, whether Delta or the Alpha COVID virus.  The frontline health care professionals need factual, accurate data to prepare for an onslaught of cases.   

The administration should demand an overhaul at the Centers for Disease and Control immediately, including replacing the director. If the world has learned no other lesson, it should be this: Without scientific knowledge and meticulous data, efforts to tame the virus will be hindered.    

Afghanistan: Biden's Blunder Taints Nation's Image

Graphic videos streaming out of Afghanistan document America's foreign policy debacle.  Amid Taliban gunfire, desperate Afghans who aided the U.S. military scramble to reach the Kabul airport. Stranded Americans risk their lives to reach safety as the barbaric Taliban kill and maim innocents.

These images are the world's view of America's retreat from its longest war.  Afghan leaders long ago deserted the country, scampering to freedom.  American-trained Afghan troops fled like whimpering children.  After two decades, America's mission in Afghanistan ended in disgrace, not triumph. 

Inconceivably, much of the U.S. military force in Afghanistan was airlifted out of the country before the exodus began, leaving previous few assets to guarantee safe passage for those left behind. Prematurely shutting down Bagram Air Base further compromised the ability for a secure withdrawal.   

This was not the strategically planned, well executed exit promised by President Joe Biden, who weeks before assured Americans the Afghan military was capable of defending their country and the government was on solid footing.  Here is a transcript from the president's July 8th news conference:

Reporter: Is it inevitable that the Taliban will take control of Afghanistan?

President: "No it is not.  Because you have the Afghan troops have 300,000 well-trained as well as good as any in the world.  And, an Afghan Air Force, against something like 75,000 Taliban.  No. It's not inevitable." (Editor's note: Unedited version)

Now the president acts as if he never uttered those words.  He audaciously claims he expected the fall and ensuing chaos. Sorry, Mr. President, your words condemn your duplicity.  Assigning blame to anyone other than the president for the debacle is political theater, buttressed by a media coverup. 

As White House spin doctors wove a narrative claiming the collapse was unanticipated, an internal memo from the U.S. Embassy in Afghanistan surfaced, warning  officials of the imminent catastrophe after withdrawal.  The president knew.  His top generals knew.  All chose to ignore the counsel. 

As the situation grew worse, Mr. Biden and his media protectors bellowed that Mr. Trump was to blame for the withdrawal plan.  Yet the president has overturned Trump policies on the border, oil pipelines and other initiatives.  Why didn't he change course, if he knew a disaster was imminent?

The uncoordinated departure not only left Americans in harm's way, but allowed the Taliban to confiscate our military's weapons, ammunition, helicopters and rockets. It was an eerie  reminder of the frantic withdrawal from Vietnam in 1975, a black-eye for America and its leaders.  

Policy makers share guilt with the military and intelligence apparatus. They all failed America. Former presidents Bush and Obama also deserve shame. When wars are politicized, the outcome is usually disastrous. America should have learned from Vietnam, but blundered again in Afghanistan.

The costs for this disaster are enormous, both in the sacrifice of American lives and in the nation's treasury.  Here is an analysis from Brown University's Cost of War Project, based on figures from the Department of Defense and the DOD budget:

• 2,448 American soldiers died
• 3,846 American contractors died
• 20,320 American military wounded
• 800,000 American troops served during 20 years in Afghanistan
• Estimated total spending on the war: $2.26 trillion

The price tag includes $800 billion in direct war-fighting costs; $85 billion to train the Afghan military; $750 million to pay Afghan's army; $300 billion for care of American wounded soldiers; and $145 billion on Afghanistan's reconstruction and infrastructure. What did America gain?

Days after the retreat, the independent Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction issued a scathing report, citing failed military strategies, cultural ignorance and an unfettered insurgency that hindered economic development.  A key quote from the report:

"Twenty years later, much has improved, and much has not.  If the goal was to rebuild and leave behind a country that can sustain itself and pose little threat to the U.S. national security interests, the overall picture is bleak." 

Later on National Public Radio the inspector general John Sopko told an interviewer:  "Let's try to learn from 20 years so we don't do something this bad, this expensive in money, time and energy and lives again." That sobering assessment should guide future American presidents.

After two spectacular overseas fiascos, America needs a clear-eyed foreign policy framework to guide its decision-making.  If the country's leaders do not learn from history, America is doomed to repeat the same mistakes.  Here is a new direction the country should embrace:

Foremost, the country should never engage a foreign enemy outside our borders unless the mission is to protect Americans or the nation's interests. In World War II, the objectives were unequivocal. Obliterate the Nazi and Japanese regimes to prevent attacks on America. Wars are not delicate matters.

When troops are deployed, the mission must be clear and the objective supported by the military and the commander-in-chief. Generals and field commanders should be given wide berth to achieve the goals without interference from Washington's lawmakers.  

In Vietnam and especially in Afghanistan, politicians pressured the military into adopting "rules of engagement", which may appear civilized to the naive, but put American troops in mortal danger. The military is responsible for the mission, not Washington's Monday Morning quarterbacks. 

Many non-western countries, such as Afghanistan, are not ripe for American-style democracy.  Anyone with a scintilla of knowledge about the southeast Asian country would have understood the folly of such an experiment. America cannot dictate institutions and politics to other countries.  It never works.

Generals and presidents should should ignore media pressure when journalists lambast a battlefield  policy, decry a single unfortunate war incident or splash bloody images on television to rattle public morale. If the media wants to dictate rules of war, then arm journalists and send them to the battle front.

Most Americans and politicians of both parties supported the elimination of Afghanistan terrorists training sites.  Once that was achieved, President Bush should have reassessed the situation. Instead mission creep became the de facto policy bogging down the military in an endless quagmire. 

There should never be another Afghanistan, a 20-year slog to prop-up a doomed government.  The price is too steep and the outcome is inevitably calamitous.  America will be paying another 20 years on the war debt, long after the Afghanistan conflict and dreadful evacuation have faded from memory.

Despite the sorry ending, America must never forget the courageous men and women who served, sacrificed and bled on battle fields in Afghanistan.  They are heroes even if our leaders were political cowards.  Let's treat these veterans better than the country did its Vietnam heroes. We owe it to them.

Vitamin D: A Supplement That Might Save Your Life

As the Delta variant marches relentlessly across America, it's a grim reminder the battle against COVID-19 is far from over. Deaths, cases and hospitalizations are spiking.  It feels like the bad old days of last year. Vaccines are promising, but a few scientists warn the virus may hang around for years.   

In the face of the Delta surge, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) advocates the same risk mitigation strategy it prescribed last year: masks, isolation, social distancing.  There are legitimate debates about how well those measures worked during the height of COVID. Certainly, it saved lives.  

Yet an argument could be made the protocols only temporarily "flattened the curve" while the virus persisted. Without vaccines, the COVID scourge would be roaring. Additional ammunition is available, but the CDC is loathe to recommend a common supplement to boost our immune systems.

What's this not-so-secret weapon? Vitamin D, a plausible candidate for countering the immune impairment common with COVID. Vitamin D enhances production of antimicrobial betides by immune cells, reducing damaging cytokines.  Got that?  Here's an explanation from the Cleveland Clinic:

Vitamin D is one of many vitamins our bodies need to stay healthy. Getting enough Vitamin D may also protect people against certain conditions and possibly help treat them.  These conditions include infections and immune system disorders, as well as heart disease and high blood pressure and diabetes. 

As early as November of last year, Scientific Reports published a study that found 32.9% of COVID patients with asymptomatic cases were vitamin D deficient. More compelling, 96.8% of those patients admitted to the ICU unit were vitamin D deficient.  This research is dismissed by the CDC.

Here are a few additional studies cited by the Mayo Clinic on its website:

• One study of 489 people found that those who had a Vitamin D deficiency were more likely to test positive for the virus than people with normal levels of Vitamin D.
• A small randomized study discovered that of 50 people hospitalized with COVID, who were given a high dose of a type of Vitamin D, only one needed treatment in intensive care.
• Vitamin D deficiency is common, particularly among Hispanic and African-Americans.  Both groups have been disproportionately affected by COVID, Mayo points out.   

Like many American medical organizations, Mayo Clinic adds the following caveat: "Further research is needed to determine what role, if any, vitamin D deficiency might play in the prevention of and treatment of COVID-19." Vitamin D hesitancy eclipses vaccine hesitancy in this country.

No credible scientist has ever denied there is a linkage between vitamin D deficiency and COVID infections. But they still demand more research be conducted. However, there are dozens of existing studies; many conducted overseas in England, France, India, Spain, Australia and other countries.

In a six-week study by the Maharani Laxmi Bai Medical College in India, researchers discovered vitamin D deficiency "markedly increases the chance of having severe disease after infection" with COVID.  It concluded  the "intensity of inflammatory responses is also higher" in the deficient group.   

By one count, there have been 87 studies by 784 scientists, according to Dr. Joseph Mercola, an osteopathic physician and award-winning natural health expert.  Most readers likely have never heard about the research because the media, prompted by health officials, scoffs at the studies.

An  analysis published in June in the Journal of Endocrinological Investigation reviewed 13 studies involving 2,933 COVID-19 patients. The meta data revealed COVID patients treated with high dosages of vitamin D fared better.  ICU admissions and deaths were reduced, too. 

Public health officials in England and France are convinced of the value of vitamin D in the war against COVID.  The French National Academy of Medicine in May of last year, suggested vitamin D was a "simple and inexpensive" measure to bolster immune systems during the COVID wave.

The academy went a step further, assuring its populace that the French National Health Insurance would reimburse them for vitamin D supplements.  The United Kingdom's National Health Service has offered free vitamin supplements to people at high risk for the virus.

Why the stubbornness in America over vitamin D?  The scientific industry, backed by big pharmaceutical firms, are parochial, preferring home-grown, large scale, expensive studies over smaller ones. Big Pharma's invested in drugs, thus has no interest in promoting less costly supplements.

In their defense, scientists and health officials claim they are against nutritional supplements because they fear incorrect usage and the poor quality of some products. But there has been enough research that mainstream physicians are now recommending safe supplements for many health issues.

The Health and Medicine Division of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicines recommends a minimum of 600 and a maximum of 4,000 international units (IU) of vitamin D daily for Americans, ranging in age from 9-to-70 years old.  

The good news is vitamin D sources are readily available to everyone. They include:

• Being exposed to the sun about 15-20 minutes three days a week.
• Through foods such as salmon, tuna, orange juice, yogurt, milk, egg yolks and cheese.
• Nutritional supplements, including vitamin D.

To be unequivocally transparent: No study exists confirming vitamin D prevents or cures COVID. Available vaccines are the best defense against the the virus, including the Delta variant.  However, data shows vitamin D deficient-patients fare worst if infected with the virus. That is indisputable.

Why hasn't the CDC recommended Americans boost their intake of vitamin D?  On its website, the CDC contends there isn't enough research. Yet the CDC, according to its director,  recommended masking for vaccinated people, based on one study of 469 cases in a single Massachusetts County.    

Even if the CDC asserts there is lack of evidence for a vitamin D recommendation, that's not the only reason. There is another agenda. The government simply doesn't trust the American public. They fear "dumb" average Joe's will skip the vaccine and rely only on vitamin D for protection. 

That's how the CDC and particularly Dr. Anthony Fauci have treated Americans since the beginning of the pandemic.  Instead of transparency, they parse every pronouncement, change directions with little explanation, confusing the public and sowing the seeds of distrust.

With honest messaging, the CDC should promote a three-pronged message, endorsing vaccines, risk mitigation protocols and the intake of vitamin D.  Ingesting vitamin D in recommended dosages will not harm people.  It may actually help avoid a catastrophic outcome in the event of a virus infection.

While the CDC cloaks itself in science, the government agency is ignoring the data about the connection of vitamin D deficiency and worst case scenarios for virus-infected people. Don't wait on the CDC. Talk to your primary care physician about vitamin D supplements today. 

Student Debt: Forgiveness Is To Err Not Devine

Politics and government spending never end well for taxpayers.  Since January, Congress is on a deficit-busting spree, shoveling out trillions of dollars practically every two months in the name of economic recovery and stimulus.  Now Democrats are advancing the idea of student loan debt forgiveness.

Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer and fellow Democrat Elizabeth Warren are torch carriers for the concept, a key plank in the platform of vanquished presidential candidate Bernie Sanders. Politically, the scheme makes sense: 44.7 million Americans owe college debt.

That's a lot of votes.  But loan forgiveness rewards fiscal irresponsibility.  Colleges, the federal government and private lenders are guilty of coaxing, or preying upon if you prefer, young people and their parents to pile up mountains of debt. Taxpayers are on the hook for most of the debt.

Here's a current snapshot of student loan debt from recent reports from the Federal Reserve and First Republic Bank:

• Current student loan debt: $1.71 trillion, projected to hit $2 trillion next year  
• Student loan debt is about $739 billion more than the total U.S. credit card debt
• 69% of college students took out loans in 2020
• Average student debt for the most recent graduating class: $39,351
• 91.8% of student loans are underwritten by the federal government

Those are scary numbers.  More frightening is the collusion between colleges and government. Colleges raise tuition and fees. These institutions of higher learning pitch students on the easy availability of loans. Then government raises borrowing limits to accommodate rising education costs.      

Students and their families are often willing accomplices, borrowing hundreds of thousands of dollars for an Ivy League degree.  No one bothers to ask students the difficult question: What job do you plan to seek that will allow you to pay off your loan?  Music and Art majors should think twice.

Ballooning costs of a college education are at the heart of the debt issue.  Since 1980, college tuition and fees have spiraled 1,200%, while the Consumer Price Index (CPI) has jumped 236%.  The average undergrad tuition and fees in 1980 for a public college was $1,856, compared to $9,403 in 2020.

Cost of an education at a private institution over the same period has skyrocketed from $10, 227 for tuition and fees to $34,059.  Tuition and fees are expressed in constant 2018-2019 dollars for a fair comparison. The data was published by the National Center for Education Statistics. 

Looking beyond the headline figures, a clearer picture emerges of student borrowers and the amount of debt.  Here are some eyeopening numbers, courtesy of The Brookings Institute:

• 6% of student borrowers owe more than $100,000 in debt, including 2% who owe more than $200,000.  They account for a third of all outstanding student debt.
• The vast majority of those students borrowed money for graduate school.  Loans for graduate school account for 50% of the total outstanding student debt.
• An estimated 75% of student loan borrowers assumed debt for two-or-four year colleges. These undergrads account for one-half of the outstanding debt. 

The data reveals an indisputable fact: Student borrowing averages are heavily skewed by graduate school debt.  The cost of an advanced degree is escalating at a rate faster than tuition and fees for undergrads.  The federal government and private lenders need to cap borrowing for grad school.

While it's difficult to pinpoint a single reason for the surge in college costs,  these factors are often cited by the education industry as a defense for the hikes: Decreases in state funding; increases in student enrollment; and, a boost in available federal aid.  Note: colleges admit federal aid is a factor.

A study by the New York Federal Reserve found that for every $1 in subsidized federal student loans colleges increase tuition 60-cents. The relationship could not be clearer: the federal government loan policy is providing the money and air cover for colleges to continually increase prices to students.

This insidious partnership between the federal government and colleges never attracts interest from Washington's pedantic lawmakers. Instead, they politicize the debt issue, labeling it a "social injustice" or "income inequality" problem to obscure the duplicity of colleges and the feds.  

A form of forgiveness already exists. During the pandemic all payments for certain federal student loans were suspended until September 30. Last week, the president extended the freeze on payments through January 31 of next year.  Interest will not accrue, thus providing students and parents an added benefit.

While clamoring for loan forgiveness, partisans fail to point out the majority of borrowers are repaying their debt. Only 15% of student loans are in default at any time. Arts and Humanities majors are the most likely to default on their student loans, according to EducationData.Org.

Under the Democrat loan forgiveness plan, the bulk of benefits would go to the top 40% of households because they hold the plurality of debt.  Borrowers with advanced degrees represent 20% of  borrowers but would receive 37% of the forgiveness benefits, according to Brookings estimates.

Loan forgiveness will not resolve the current dilemma: federal student loans incentivize colleges and universities to raise tuitions without fear of losing students.  Students can always borrow more money.  But is that in the best interests of already indebted students? The answer is unequivocally: NO. 

Washington lawmakers have a duty to scrutinize the cozy relationship between the federal government and colleges and demand changes. Under the status quo, Americans can expect a continuation of mounting colleges costs and mushrooming student debt underwritten by taxpayers. 

Attention Billionaires: Pick Me To Fly Into Space!

Being snubbed once is humiliating. But twice? Utter indignation. The Billionaire Bees, Richard Branson and Jeff Bezos, recently rocketed into space and left me behind.  They likely checked my puny stock portfolio and giggled. I don't fit the space traveler profile: rich, filthy rich or Warren Buffet rich. 

Branson--Sir Richard, if you please--became the first billionaire to soar into space aboard his Virgin Galactic rocket-whatever.  The voyage lasted a measly five minutes, hardly time for a Whopper and a  chocolate shake. Galactic jetted 53 miles into the atmosphere before landing in New Mexico.  

Not to be outdone, the second billionaire in space Jeff Bezos blasted skyward on a ten-minute flight that peaked at 66 miles, 10 miles higher than the first-in-space knighted mogul.  This kind of one-upmanship allowed the colonies to break free from the yoke of those snooty English lords centuries ago.

Every the gentlemen, Branson invited two pilots and three Galactic employees on his flight.  Amazon founder Bezos hand-picked his entourage: his brother (nepotism), an 18-year old from the Netherlands and an 82-year old Texan, who was one of 13 females originally chosen for astronaut training in the 1960's.

Bezos' slight is particularly irksome.  I am an Amazon Prime member for goodness sake. Surely Jeff at least recognizes my credit card number. Instead he picked an 18-year from a  nondescript country, who likely has never ordered gifts for his grandkids on Amazon.  Jeff obviously isn't loyal. Just ask his ex-wife.

If I am fuming, Elon Musk must be gnawing an electric battery in a fit of rage.  His peers, two billionaire company founders, beat him into space.  Humbling for a guy whose firm SpaceX pioneered private sector rocket launches.  Why is Musk dawdling, you ask?  You won't believe the answer.

Musk plunked down $200,000 for a ride on Branson's Virgin Galactic space vehicle.  He will join other tourists on a space junket chartered by Branson's company.  Say it ain't so Elon!  Don't bow to a Brit. Where's your pride?  Soon that tricky Sir Richard will be manufacturing competing electric cars.  

For that matter, why the heck hasn't Warren Buffet stepped into the space race?  Perhaps the 90-year-old figures he's too feeble for rigorous space travel.  But Buffet has more cash than the Federal Government, He could buy NASA and hire a doctor and a caretaker to accompany him on his journey.  Come on, Man!

Do it for your country Warren.  NASA will allow you to bring a case of Coke and one of your Burlington Northern rail cars in the cargo hull.  Besides Warren, you may be my last chance for a ride in space.  I hear you have an affinity for investors.  I am one. A lousy one.  But that shouldn't matter.

Honestly, your ego needs a boost, Warren.  Once you held the title of the world's richest man.  Now you are mired in ninth place with an estimated wealth of $101 billion.  Bezos is twice as rich as you.  The online peddler is worth a reported $206 billion.  Ouch! Warren, I feel your economic pain. Oh, I wish.

Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg are uber-rich but have no interest in space.  Gates is busy dictating health mandates across the globe, shoveling billions into everything from vaccines to population control.  Zuckerberg might be up for space, but he would need a gaggle of censors with him. Not happening.

My brother-in-law Cliff Mylett suggested an alternative. He theorizes all those Unidentified Flying Objects (UFO) are actually billionaires from another universe zooming over Earth as part of interplanetary  space tourism.  Sounds plausible. Those planets must have more billionaires than Earth.

The National UFO Reporting Center announced there were 5,971 sightings in 2019, a giant leap from the 3,395 in the previous year.  California led all states in sightings.  Makes sense.  Every alien billionaire is hoping for a sighting of a Hollywood star.  If you're reading this Warren, bet you're green with envy.

Memo to Little Green Billionaires:  I am definitely interested in zipping around space in your UFO's. With your superior intellect, you already know my medical details and have stolen my internet identity.  Contact me.  I may not speak your language, but I own cryptocurrency. Surely, you know about crypto.

I have one dietary requirement (nothing fishy) and of course there must be a honking 85-inch flat screen television on board with 12 streaming services.  But I require little else in the way of comforts. Oh, and my own bathroom.  I'm not sharing one of those nozzles on my spacesuit with a green alien.  

I await your signal, Little Green Billionaire. I'll be patient.  But I am 75, so don't dawdle like Elon.