In a significant health alert, CVS has initiated a recall of several of its store brand products after bacterial contamination was detected at their manufacturing facilities. The recall, prompted by concerns over potential health risks, affects a range of products, including eye drops and nasal sprays, sold under the CVS brand. The contamination was identified as Gluconacetobacter liquefaciens, a bacteria that can cause severe infections, especially in individuals with compromised immune systems. This recall highlights ongoing issues in quality control within the pharmaceutical industry and the need for stringent oversight to protect consumers. CVS store-brand drugs are a few dollars cheaper and consumers could assume they're the same as the big, name brand ones. Mold, bacteria and barefoot factory workers say otherwise. Read my latest investigation: https://t.co/M4NDVktqji — Anna Edney (@annaedney) June 11, 2024 According to the FDA, the recall involves products with batch numbers and expiration dates specified on their labels. Customers who purchased the affected products are advised to cease use immediately and return them to the place of purchase for a refund. CVS has assured customers that it is working closely with the FDA to ensure all contaminated products are removed from shelves promptly. This incident follows a series of recalls in the pharmaceutical industry, underscoring the persistent challenges in maintaining product safety. In recent years, several high-profile recalls, including those involving eyedrops and other over-the-counter medications, have drawn attention to lapses in manufacturing practices that can have serious health implications. More than 130 CVS own-brand drugs recalled by FDA – after horrifying truths about how meds are made https://t.co/Os45Nx3COy pic.twitter.com/6E6NYxabHS — Daily Mail Online (@MailOnline) June 12, 2024 Reports indicate that no illnesses have been linked to the contaminated CVS products so far. However, the potential for life-threatening infections underscores the seriousness of the issue. Consumers experiencing any adverse health effects after using these products are urged to seek medical attention and report their symptoms to the FDA. The recall is part of a broader trend of increased scrutiny and regulation within the pharmaceutical industry. As manufacturers strive to meet stringent safety standards, incidents like this highlight the importance of robust quality control measures and the need for continuous improvement in manufacturing processes. The FDA and CVS are committed to ensuring that all affected products are identified and removed from circulation. This collaborative effort aims to protect public health and restore consumer confidence in the safety of over-the-counter medications. For more detailed information on the specific products involved in the recall and guidance on what to do if you have purchased them, consumers are encouraged to visit the FDA's official website or contact CVS customer service. The post CVS Recalls Store Brand Products Due to Bacterial Contamination appeared first on The Conservative Brief.

'it ultimately ends Biden's "good dad" routine'

‘Antisemitism has no place in our city’

'that money is better spent inside the U.S.'

'Every aspect of your game has to be firing on all cylinders'

News Moana We Now Know Who Is Playing the Lead Role in Live-Action Moana Film By Vanessa Armstrong | Published on June 12, 2024 Screenshot: Disney Animation Comment 0 Share New Share Screenshot: Disney Animation Back in April 2023, we found out that Disney was working on a live-action remake of Moana. Today, we finally learned who will play the titular character. “I’m really excited to embrace this character because Moana is one of my favorites,” said Catherine Laga‘aia, a 17-year-old from Sydney, Australia, in a statement shared by Variety. “My grandfather comes from Fa‘aala, Palauli, in Savai‘i. And my grandmother is from Leulumoega Tuai on the main island of ‘Upolu in Samoa. I’m honored to have an opportunity to celebrate Samoa and all Pacific Island peoples, and to represent young girls who look like me.” Laga‘aia wasn’t the only casting announcement. We also found out that Frankie Adams (a.k.a. Bobbie Draper on The Expanse) will play Moana’s mother, Sina; John Tui will take on the role of Moana’s father, Chief Tui; and Rena Owen will play Gramma Tala. The actors join Dwayne Johnson on the call sheet, who will reprise his role as the god Maui. “I am thrilled to have met Catherine, Rena, Frankie and John through this casting process,” director Thomas Kail said. “I am humbled by this opportunity, and I cannot wait to all be on set together. And there’s no better pair to be in a canoe with than Catherine and Dwayne—actually, trio: Heihei is ready, too.” Auli‘i Cravalho voices Moana in the original animated feature as well as its upcoming sequel, and is executive producer on the live-action project, where, according to Variety, she will mentor Laga’aia. The live-action film is set to begin production this summer and currently has a release date of July 10, 2026. The animated sequel, Moana 2, comes out on November 27, 2024. [end-mark] The post We Now Know Who Is Playing the Lead Role in Live-Action <i>Moana</i> Film appeared first on Reactor.

Lies, Damn Lies, and Paul Offit

Did California Democrats Just Blink on Prop 47?

A prominent doctor and leading critic of COVID lockdowns addressed the major ramifications of Murthy v. Missouri and discussed the ideal outcome for free speech and the American people. ReasonTV interviewed with Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, author of the Great Barrington Declaration, which criticized lockdowns as a means of protecting public health. Bhattacharya discussed the Supreme Court case Murthy v. Missouri, emphasizing the importance of preventing government censorship. The case, which partially relied on research conducted by MRC, demanded legal redress over the Biden Administration’s blatant censorship requests to social media companies. Bhattacharya indicated that he found the case compelling and asserted that the government had no prerogative to censor. “What I really want is that [sic] the government to get out of the business of regulating speech online,” Bhattacharya expressed. “I think that free speech online is a tremendous opportunity for a huge flowering of scientific discussion, of connections that will be made that would never otherwise be made, and the government suppressing that is a really, really bad idea.” He added, “It’s analogous I think to the Gutenberg press being invented in, you know, 1450 or something, and the governments or the churches trying to say, ‘You can’t print books, and we’re going to need to have the right to censor the books.’”  Bhattacharya pointed out that in 2021, medical professionals like himself were censored as a result of a collusion between Big Tech and the government. He suggested the relationship between the social media companies and government was more of a junior-senior dynamic rather than an equal partnership. He cited congressionally subpoenaed emails between Facebook staffers, indicating that the Biden White House was in charge and leveraged its powers to coerce social media companies into complying with censorship. “The House did its own investigation of the Facebook Files, and what they found was that Facebook will have these internal discussions where they’d say, ‘Well, if we don’t cooperate, we’re not going to be able to get some of these legislative priorities that we really need to survive as a company,’” Bhattacharya said. “So, for instance, the EU has these privacy laws that essentially would put Facebook out of existence in the EU, and the threat was the Biden administration won’t represent American companies in trade negotiations with the EU if they don’t comply with the censorship orders.” Bhattacharya also said that had attended oral arguments for the case and was particularly dismayed by the arguments put forth by the government plaintiffs, who argued that the government should censor to protect people from harm. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson furthered this logic by bringing up the hypothetical example of a viral trend encouraging kids to jump out of windows and expressed that government censorship of said content would be desirable. “The whole analogy that this hypothetical draws is based on the premise that the government automatically knows what’s good and bad for people,” Bhattacharya said. “Like here you have an example that’s such [sic] obviously bad for kids. Kids should not jump out of windows.” But Bhattacharya argued that in the real world, harmful and benign become a lot harder to discern and cited COVID policies as a case and proof.  “Well, I mean, what actually happened during the pandemic was that the government suppressed speech that would have criticized government policy that in effect told kids metaphorically to jump out of windows, right? They closed schools, harming kids at scale. They recommended that kids, even kids as young as six months old, take a vaccine that they probably didn’t need.” Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on hate speech and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us using CensorTrack’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

In-N-Out Burger, the most recognizable California fast-food chain, has raised its menu prices because of a new minimum-wage law in California. Last year, Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) signed a law increasing the state-mandated minimum wage at fast-food restaurants from $16 per hour to $20 per hour. The law took effect on April 1. 'When I came to In-N-Out and I was spending $20 on a meal, it's definitely something that I did not expect at all.' Democrats who supported the law said it was necessary to provide workers with a living wage. But there are consequences of forcing restaurants to raise their minimum wages by 25% because employers rarely absorb the cost of increased wages. Typically, they pass the cost onto the consumer or their employees (in the form of layoffs). And almost immediately after Newsom signed the law, some employers announced layoffs. Other fast-food chains raised their prices or said they would increase automation. Earlier this year, In-N-Out president Lynsi Snyder said that she didn't want to raise menu prices out of an "obligation" to her customers. But that's exactly what the burger chain was forced to do. "On April 1st, we raised our prices incrementally to accompany a pay raise for all of the Associates working in our California restaurants. The price increase was also necessary to maintain our quality standards," In-N-Out confirmed to KTVU-TV. Now, the starting minimum wage for In-N-Out employees is between $22 to $23 per hour, depending on the restaurant location. Menu board at In-N-Out burger restaurant in Pleasant Hill, California, September 30, 2013. (Photo by Smith Collection/Gado/Getty Images) The price of a double-double meal — which includes a burger, fries, and a drink — now costs as much as $13.63 in San Francisco, KRON-TV reported. The same meal costs about $11.44 in Los Angeles County, according to KTLA-TV.The Democrat-instituted mimimim-wage hike is directly responsible for the price increase, an In-N-Out spokesperson confirmed to KTLA. Customers, meanwhile, said they understand the prices because they recognize the economy is "bad." "The price increase? I understand because the economy is kind of bad. Food's going up, all type of stuff," frequent In-N-Out patron Chris Hachlica told KTVU. "Especially coming from Georgia, California prices are a little bit higher. But when I came to In-N-Out and I was spending $20 on a meal, it's definitely something that I did not expect at all," Khalil Coleman told KTVU. News of In-N-Out's sticker shock comes after an analysis from the Hoover Institute discovered that California's new minimum wage law has cost the state more than 10,000 jobs. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!