Chinese Plastics Factories Face Mass Closure As US Ethane Supply Evaporates

this is hardly good news and must also be a nasty surprise to our central planners.  No one imagined that The USA could come at them this way. yet here we are.

What we see is some pain and dislocation but also an accelerated movement of all trade away from China which is easy for the developed world.  Cheap labor is just as available in India and southEast Asia along with welcoming governments who also do not trust the CCP.

I utterly do not understand sustained CCP immorality in its approach to trade.  Have they learned nothing?  and now it all gets pulled out of china, just as their population enters a tailspin down a realistic target of 250,000,000.

Chinese Plastics Factories Face Mass Closure As US Ethane Supply Evaporates

by Tyler Durden

Tuesday, Apr 22, 2025 - 02:44 AM

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/chinese-plastics-factories-face-mass-closure-us-ethane-disappears?

Previously we explained that the US-China trade war has been unique in that the US was hit fast and hard, mostly through capital markets and financial linkages, which travel instantaneously with acute consequences (the recent dump of US treasuries by China and subsequent purchases of the yuan and perhaps gold took effect in milliseconds, and prompted a cottage industry of narratives how the US dollar is losing its reserve currency status). At the same time, the impact to the Chinese economy takes a while to propagate, as supply chains take weeks if not months to normalize to a new status quo; the period is even longer when the frontrunning of tariffs meant China would overproduce in the days leading up to the outbreak of the trade war, and keep economic output artificially inflated, as demonstrated by the paradoxically strong Q1 GDP numbers out of Beijing. Yet once the slowdown hits, as it inevitably will, the consequences for China - which unlike the US has no social safety net - will be far more dire. It also means that the trade war with China will apex only once Beijing suffers max pain, at which point Xi will be far more amenable to talks with Trump. The only question is when will said max pain moment hit.

We don't know yet, although we are keeping a close eye on alternative Chinese economic indicators (one can't trust official Chinese data in normal times, and one certainly can't trust any local "data" at a time when gepolitical leverage is measured in growth basis points, even if they are completely fabricated) for the tipping point.

Until then, however, there are growing signs that the first wave of pain has already landed, and as Bloomberg reports, Chinese plastics factories that depend on a gas they mainly import from the US are contending with the prospect of widespread shutdowns as the world’s two largest economies bunker down for a prolonged trade war.

The world’s dominant plastics manufacturer gets almost all its ethane, a petrochemical feedstock that is also a component of natural gas, from the US. But eye-watering tariffs on American goods mean plants that cannot process substitute raw materials will bleed money; their only alternative is to mothball production for the near (or not so near) future.

"The situation is dire for China’s ethane crackers as they have no alternative to US supply,” said Manish Sejwal, an analyst at Rystad Energy AS, using an industry term for such facilities. "Unless they are granted tariff exemptions, they may have to stop production or close shop."

Needless to say, that would be catastrophic for China's plastics industy.

Most so-called crackers in China use naphtha as a feedstock, with processors that solely use ethane as raw material for petrochemicals making up is less than 10% of the total at about 4 million tons, according to Rystad. China is by far the biggest buyer of American supply, according to the US Energy Department.

But with 125% tariffs in place, factories would have lost $184 for every ton of US ethane they processed in the week ending April 11, according to Rystad data. That compares with more than $100 they would have made in profits if there were no tariffs.

According to Bloomberg, the extra costs are another blow for China’s plastics sector, which is already dealing with a glut as the growth in production capacity exceeds demand. The tussle is also threatening other feedstocks, including natural gas liquids and propane, and has led to sharp drops in US prices, hardly the inflationary shock so many have predicted.

Across China, domestic ethane production won’t be able to plug the gap, with the nation producing around 120,000 tons in 2024, according to industry consultancy JLC International.

Furthermore, the ethane market “is marked by long-term contracts, with little to no opportunity to resell cargoes on the spot market,” Rystad said April 10, making it tough for the Chinese to obtain alternative supplies from non-US sources.

While China has so far avoid widespread closures of production across sectors, it appears likely that the plastics industry in general, and the ethane and propane supply chains in particular, will be among those hit first and hardest. So for those seeking to time the moment of max pain, and greatest malleability of Beijing, keep an eye on Chinese plastic prices and/or labor strikes in the region.

The lower the former goes, the higher the latter will move, and the faster the trade war will come to an end. And come to an end it will, because as even Goldman forecast in its latest China forecast (available to pro subs here), the country's GDP is about to fall off a cliff: the bank now expects China's Q2 GDP growth to crater to just 0.8% QoQ from 4.9% in Q1. And that's just the start, if China is unable to unleash a stimulus similar in size to what it did during covid.

The Non-Aggression Principle Is Realistic and Not an Abstract Concept

Agression is also a form of communication subject to intent.  That intent is often undisclosed which creates the potential for a failed communication.

i think that we need to address this globally as part of our global education protocol.  a child needs to learn agressive communication along with communication of intention.  all this to properly undeerstand unacceptable comms.

Global education has allowed us to populate the Globe.  this is making it better.

The Non-Aggression Principle Is Realistic and Not an Abstract Concept

By Wanjiru Njoya

Mises.org

April 23, 2025

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2025/04/no_author/the-non-aggression-principle-is-realistic-and-not-an-abstract-concept/

In his book the Ethics of Liberty, Murray Rothbard sets out the links between individual liberty, property rights, and the non-aggression principle. Rothbard’s explanation of property rights as the essence of liberty has greatly influenced the libertarian understanding of the NAP, but there is often a great deal of confusion as to what amounts to an act of aggression. As David Gordon has pointed out, some libertarians have gone so far as to say that the NAP should be rejected altogether for having “morally unacceptable implications.”

One mistake many libertarians make is to suppose that theoretical principles can provide a complete resolution for difficult cases, in the sense that we should be able to ascertain—just by studying the NAP—whether it has been violated in specific cases. Gordon points out that this overlooks the role of other considerations, such as social conventions and legal norms, in resolving real world disputes. The “morally unacceptable implications” that many libertarians find disturbing are the result of theorizing about the NAP without regard to the broader ethical framework within which Rothbard defends property rights. Rothbard’s theory of liberty is not just a philosophical or academic treatise based on a set of hypothetical problems. It is also a “system of libertarian law” designed as a foundation for “the truly successful functioning of what we may hope will be the libertarian society of the future.

Rothbard’s analysis therefore takes into account the real-world context of crime and aggression. He defines an act of aggression as a violation of another’s liberty, and, importantly, sees liberty as an emanation of self-ownership and private property. He explains how these ideas are interlinked:

The key to the theory of liberty is the establishment of the rights of private property, for each individual’s justified sphere of free action can only be set forth if his rights of property are analyzed and established. “Crime” can then be defined and properly analyzed as a violent invasion or aggression against the just property of another individual (including his property in his own person).

In this context, he defines a crime as a violation of property rights. Thus, Rothbard defines “aggressive violence” as a situation where:

…one man invades the property of another without the victim’s consent. The invasion may be against a man’s property in his person (as in the case of bodily assault), or against his property in tangible goods (as in robbery or trespass). In either case, the aggressor imposes his will over the natural property of another—he deprives the other man of his freedom of action and of the full exercise of his natural self-ownership.

Rothbard’s explanation of the NAP clearly includes invasions of both person and property. But many people struggle to apply these principles in real cases. The first practical difficulty arises in relation to “mere” threats. Rothbard sees direct, overt, threats of invasion as equivalent to invasion because—as he sees it—the NAP is about the invasion of the person or property of another and depriving another man of his freedom to exercise his self-ownership and ownership of his property.

A violation of another man’s liberty may be committed by means of intimidation, or fraud, which Rothbard sees as “equivalent to the invasion itself.” Does this mean that any time someone feels (or claims to feel) “intimidated” that is the equivalent of an invasion? Of course not. Under the NAP, violence against another is only justified in self-defense, and we must therefore have recourse to the principles of self-defense in ascertaining whether an act of violence is aggressive or defensive. Rothbard holds that “defensive violence may only be used against an actual or directly threatened invasion of a person’s property, and may not be used against any nonviolent ‘harm’ that may befall a person’s income or property value.” Further, as Rothbard explains, in cases of direct threat of invasion, self-defense may be justified even before a physical act of violence has yet occurred:

Defensive violence, therefore, must be confined to resisting invasive acts against person or property. But such invasion may include two corollaries to actual physical aggression: intimidation, or a direct threat of physical violence; and fraud, which involves the appropriation of someone else’s property without his consent, and is therefore “implicit theft.” Thus, suppose someone approaches you on the street, whips out a gun, and demands your wallet. He might not have molested you physically during this encounter, but he has extracted money from you on the basis of a direct, overt threat that he would shoot you if you disobeyed his commands. He has used the threat of invasion to obtain your obedience to his commands, and this is equivalent to the invasion itself.

Rothbard does not suppose that any “mere threat” is “equivalent to the invasion itself.” He emphasizes that: “It is important to insist, however, that the threat of aggression be palpable, immediate, and direct; in short, that it be embodied in the initiation of an overt act” (emphasis added). This is where many libertarians begin to get confused. They want to know how we would distinguish between “mere threats” and “palpable, immediate, and direct” threats. They suppose that Rothbard’s theory is somehow inadequate as it does not definitively classify direct and indirect threats. But no legal theory can determine whether an act is “palpable, immediate, and direct”—to ascertain this it is necessary to examine the facts.

This is why the outcome of real-world cases depends, not only on the applicable legal principles, but also on the relevant facts—and there is often much dispute over which facts count as relevant or how much importance ought to be attached to specific facts. For example, it is easy enough to state that invading another’s property is an act of aggression, and that invasion occurs when one intrudes upon the property of another without consent. But in practical cases what counts as an “intrusion”? What counts as “consent”? Does a stranger “intrude” when he walks up to someone’s front door without permission, and rings the doorbell? Would that depend on the time of day, the stranger’s purpose, or even his demeanor? Perhaps if he just emerged from what appears to be a delivery vehicle and has what appears to be a parcel in his hand we might “imply” consent to deliver parcels, but if he approaches under cover of darkness with a weapon in his hand we would take a different view of the matter. Moreover, to say that consent may be “implied” in appropriate circumstances does not tell us which are the circumstances in which consent ought to be implied. The theory of non-aggression, by itself, cannot conclusively answer these types of questions.

Gordon adverts to this problem when he explains that, while Rothbard regarded pollution as an invasion of property, this principle would not, in itself, determine what types of polluting activity count as an invasion. He discusses the example of smoke: if you are smoking a cigarette as you walk down the street, does your smoke “invade” the properties you walk past thereby violating other people’s property rights? Some libertarians ran this argument during the covid outbreak, arguing that mere breathing amounted to an act of aggression against other people and therefore justified “restraining” or even attacking potential “covidiots” who ran around wantonly breathing out their germs. Attacking them would be an act of “self-defense” that would save grandma’s life, or so the reasoning went. Walter Block described that position as follows:

For anyone venturing forth onto the streets would necessarily be violating the NAP. It is as if he is automatically shooting a gun at random or swinging his fists without being able to stop. As such he constitutes a threat. The NAP proscribes not only physical invasions but also the threat thereof. Under the scenario we have depicted, this is indeed the case, only instead of bullets or punches the traveler would be hurling a deadly virus at everyone else.

That some libertarians reasoned in that way is not due to any failing of the NAP, but rather a failure to grasp accurately the facts of the case. Gordon explains that while the non-aggression principle defines acts of aggression, definitions alone do not suffice in answering practical questions. As shown by the covid example, the definition of the NAP may be correct, but the application of it to the facts may nevertheless be entirely wrong. To resolve real cases, something more than definitions and theories are needed, one of which Gordon describes as social convention: “the understanding that prevails in a society.” Recourse to matters of convention would help to resolve many problems that needlessly confuse libertarians. To illustrate this, consider Walter Block’s example in which he distinguishes analytically between a “mere” threat and “initiation of physical violence”:

A approaches B and points a gun at him. A says to B: “Give me your money or I’ll shoot you.” Surely, a rights violation has now occurred; the libertarian nonaggression principle includes “mere” threats such as these, not only the initiation of physical violence.

Although there is clearly an analytical distinction between a “mere” threat and “physical violence,” in Block’s example no reasonable person would doubt that A is a violent aggressor. The distinction between threat and violence—while analytically interesting—is moot in the fact scenario Block has presented. This is indeed the precise example Rothbard uses to illustrate that in some cases a threat is the equivalent of an invasion. In such cases, the threat is no “mere” threat—it amounts to “the initiation of physical violence.” As Rothbard explains it, the “rights violation,” namely the invasion of property rights, consists in the act of aggression itself, which in this case is the threat to shoot. To apply Rothbard’s words, in this case the “crime” is “a violent invasion or aggression against the just property of another individual [and] his property in his own person” committed by A when A pointed a gun at B and threatened to shoot. Any reasonable person would regard that as “the initiation of physical violence,” even though the trigger has not yet been pulled, and may or may not end up being pulled, for example, if A is interrupted before he has the chance to shoot.

Block is, therefore, right to observe that, “A has violated the rights of B even if he breaks off the encounter and runs away, leaving B with his wallet intact.” But in distinguishing analytically between the “threat” and the “initiation of physical violence,” Block overlooks the common sense fact that based on the facts he presented, the threat itself constitutes initiation of physical violence. Even though he argues that both violate the NAP, the point is that separating the threat from the initiation of violence—based on these facts—is an analytical distinction that serves only to confuse and not to clarify. Most people faced with a gun-wielding attacker would not have any difficulty about whether to “classify” that as a threat or as an attack. It is not just that “both” are acts of aggression, but that, based on these facts, there is no real-world distinction between the “threat” and the “violence.” The threat and the violence are “equivalent,” to use Rothbard’s word

Common sense and close attention to the facts of the case go a long way in resolving such problems. It would be nonsensical to ask whether someone with a gun to your head threatening to shoot you has committed an act of violence. Indeed, the confused libertarian might ask, what if—unknown to the aggressor—the gun was not loaded? Should we then say there is no act of violence until the moment the bullet leaves the gun? But—the libertarian might persist—what if the bullet leaves the gun but misses the target? Should we then say there is no act of violence until the bullet hits the target? Under ordinary principles of self-defense, based on these facts, there is no need for B to wait for A to pull the trigger before taking defensive action. It is by convention—reflected in the legal norms of the traditional English common law—that we understand that an armed robber is a violent aggressor.

If the facts were different, the situation would, of course, be re-evaluated accordingly. This is precisely why resolving criminal cases involves an application of the principles to the facts. It is not merely a matter of theoretical disputation. This point is highlighted by Rothbard in his article War Guilt, which deals specifically with assigning guilt for the wars in the Middle East but also contains lessons that may be extrapolated to other cases. Rothbard reminds us that in any war, you cannot simply rely on theories of non-aggression to ascertain who is the aggressor and who is fighting defense. He criticizes the “tendency to avoid bothering about the detailed pros and cons of any given conflict” and cautions that, “Libertarians must come to realize that parroting ultimate principles is not enough for coping with the real world.” The same observation also applies to other contexts in which the non-aggression principle is applied. To ascertain whether—and, if so, by whom—an act of aggression has been committed, theoretical debates do not suffice. A close and detailed examination of the relevant facts is necessary.

Trump Exploring Ways to Resolve America’s Demogaphic Crisis — Including $5,000 ‘Baby Bonus’ For Mothers

How a few years can make a difference.  We saw this coming and it is now a global problem ,simply not imagined back in the day when lack of birth control ensured a surging population when women were fed.

Now they are fed and part of a thriving modernity that allows birth control.  guess what, they choose how many babies and our general cultural dinamics are now operating against a sustainable birthrate.  This is an existencial emergent problem.

I have posted that we need a mandatory baby production of four babies mostly to get your attention.  The interesting question is just what cultural and economic adjustments can produce our best result?  I do not know but we must explore solutions.

I do think it includes community support for all mothers independent of men.

Trump Exploring Ways to Resolve America’s Demogaphic Crisis — Including $5,000 ‘Baby Bonus’ For Mothers

by Ben Kew 

Apr. 22, 2025 6:40 pm

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/04/trump-exploring-ways-resolve-americas-demogaphic-crisis-including/

The Trump administration is exploring ways to address America’s demographic crisis.

According to a report from The New York Times, Trump aides are considering a range of proposals designed to encourage families to have more children.

One idea involves reserving 30 percent of Fulbright scholarships — a prestigious, government-funded international fellowship — for applicants who are married or have children.

Another proposal would give American mothers a $5,000 payment following childbirth.

A third proposal would fund programs to educate women on reproductive health and fertility awareness, including how to better understand ovulation and conception timing.

The Times notes that figures like Vice President J.D. Vance and Trump advisor Elon Musk support these initiatives. The article explains:

Those ideas, and others, are emerging from a movement concerned with declining birthrates that has been gaining steam for years and now finally has allies in the U.S. administration, including Vice President J.D. Vance and Elon Musk.

Policy experts and advocates of boosting the birthrate have been meeting with White House aides, sometimes handing over written proposals on ways to help or convince women to have more babies, according to four people who have been part of the meetings who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations.

Administration officials have not indicated what ideas — if any — they might ultimately embrace.

But advocates expressed confidence that fertility issues will become a prominent piece of the agenda, noting that President Trump has called for a “baby boom” and pointing to the symbolic power of seeing Mr. Vance and other top officials attend public events with their children.

America’s demographic crisis is defined by falling birth rates, an aging population, and increasing dependence on mass immigration to sustain the workforce and fill low-wage jobs.

With the fertility rate at around 1.6 — well below the replacement level — the native population is shrinking at an unprecedented scale.

The push comes amid growing interest in pro-natalist policies across the Western world, with countries like Hungary and Poland already experimenting with financial incentives to boost birthrates.

At the same time, American states are beginning to explore their own family-centered initiatives, suggesting a potential shift toward a more fertility-conscious national policy landscape.

New colour seen for the first time by tricking the eyes

This could be important.  I do not think that i would describe the spectrum of the INNER SUN as teal but it is certainly part of the blue spectrum.

Recall that the sky is blue because the blue spectrum is largely absorbed by the atmosphere and then re emitted as sky blue. just saying because this is not obvious.  

I wonder how all this relates to the pinal gland.

New colour seen for the first time by tricking the eyes

A device has enabled people to see a new a shade of blue-green, which they say is more intense than any experienced before

By Carissa Wong

18 April 2025

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2477068-new-colour-seen-for-the-first-time-by-tricking-the-eyes/

Our retinas could be made to see a vivid shade of blue-green

MikeCS images/Alamy

Five people have witnessed an intense green-blue colour that has never been seen by humans before, thanks to a device that might one day enable those with a type of colour blindness to experience typical vision.

We perceive colour via the retina at the back of the eye, which typically contains three types of light-detecting cone cells – called S, M and L – that absorb a range of blue, green or red light, respectively, and then send signals to the brain. When we see anything at the blue-green end of the visible spectrum, at least two types of cone cells are activated at the same time because there is some overlap in the wavelengths they detect.

Ren Ng at the University of California, Berkeley, wondered what colour people would perceive if only one type of cone was activated in this part of the spectrum. He was inspired by a device called Oz, developed by other researchers studying how the eye works, that uses a laser capable of stimulating single cone cells.

Ng and his colleagues, including the scientists who built Oz, upgraded the device so that it could deliver light to a small square patch of about 1000 cone cells in the retina. Stimulating a single cone cell doesn’t generate enough of a signal to induce colour perception, says Ng.

The researchers tested the upgraded version on five people, stimulating only the M cones in this small area of one eye, while the other was closed. The participants said they saw a blue-green colour, which the researchers have called olo, that was more intense than any they had seen before. “It’s hard to describe; it’s very brilliant,” says Ng, who has also seen olo.

To verify these results, the participants took a colour-matching test. Each viewed olo and a second colour that they could tune via a dial to any shade on the standard visible spectrum, until it matched olo as closely as possible. They all dialled until it was an intense teal colour, which supports them seeing olo as they described.

In another part of the experiment, the participants used a dial to add white light to either olo or a vivid teal until they matched even closer. All the participants diluted olo, which supports it being the more intense of the two shades.

NASA Reveals Stunning Closeup of Bizarre-Looking Asteroid

This is important because axsteroids turn out to be essentially sticky.  These are not pingpong balls at all.

this certainly clarifies why comets breakup so spectacularly.

The planets consist of well packed material and we understand it this way. not so out there and surely all those condrites are self assembled dust.  It is plausible that the heavy meteorites are debris from even planetary demolition.

It may well be that an incoming comet is not so dangerous as we may imagine.

NASA Reveals Stunning Closeup of Bizarre-Looking Asteroid

Space22 April 2025

ByAlan Boyle, Universe Today

NASA's Lucy probe captured this closeup of the asteroid Donaldjohanson from a distance of about 660 miles. (NASA/Goddard/SwRI/JHUAPL/NOIRLab)

NASA's Lucy spacecraft made a successful flyby of the second asteroid on its must-see list over the weekend, and sent back imagery documenting the elongated object's bizarre double-lobed shape.

It turns out that asteroid Donaldjohanson – which was named after the anthropologist who discovered the fossils of a human ancestor called Lucy – is what's known as a contact binary, with a couple of ridges in its narrow neck. In today's image advisory, NASA compares the ridged structure to a pair of nested ice cream cones.

"Asteroid Donaldjohanson has strikingly complicated geology," said Hal Levison, a planetary scientist at the Southwest Research Institute who serves as the Lucy mission's principal investigator.

"As we study the complex structures in detail, they will reveal important information about the building blocks and collisional processes that formed the planets in our solar system."

Lucy came as close as 600 miles (960 kilometers) to Donaldjohanson on April 20, snapping images every two seconds or so as it zoomed past. The pictures confirmed the asteroid's status as a contact binary – that is, a compound object formed by the sticky collision of two smaller celestial bodies.

Donaldjohanson is somewhat larger than it was previously thought to be, with a length of about 5 miles (8 kilometers) and a width of 2 miles (3.5 kilometers) at the widest point.

The Easter encounter took place three and a half years after Lucy was launched, and 17 months after the 52-foot-wide probe flew past its first target asteroid, Dinkinesh, and a mini-moon called Selam. Like Donaldjohanson, Selam was found to be a contact binary.

Researchers consider both of Lucy's encounters in the main asteroid belt, which lies between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter, to be mere warmups for the mission's main event: a detailed study of so-called Jupiter Trojan asteroids.

Such asteroids are trapped harmlessly at resonance points in Jupiter's orbit due to the giant planet's gravitational influence. No spacecraft has ever gotten close to a Jupiter Trojan.

Tom Statler, NASA program scientist for the $989 million Lucy mission, said the quality of the early imagery demonstrates the "tremendous capabilities" of Lucy's instruments.

"The potential to really open a new window into the history of our solar system when Lucy gets to the Trojan asteroids is immense," he said.

Over the next few weeks, researchers will retrieve, process and analyze data from Lucy's black-and-white imager as well as its color imager, infrared spectrometer and thermal infrared spectrometer. The spacecraft is scheduled to spend most of this year traveling through the main asteroid belt.

Lucy's first encounter with a Jupiter Trojan asteroid, known as Eurybates, is due to take place in August 2027. Four additional Trojan encounters will follow between 2027 and 2033.

Japan Posts Record Population Drop, Shrinking For 14th Year, As Demographic Crisis Deepens

 

Welcome to the future and Japan must be the first to solve this problem. After all this happens to be a problem of Modernity which no one has ever experienced.  This is an existential threat for every country on earth on the horizon.

I have made a suggestion that entails mandatory child production by girls between 18 and 24 of even four babies along with natural community full financial support.  that truly matters.

Motherhood has to be finacially, socially and career wise  profitable.  Think about that.  Fathership will also be important but never critical.

Japan Posts Record Population Drop, Shrinking For 14th Year, As Demographic Crisis Deepens

by Tyler Durden

Sunday, Apr 20, 2025 - 07:45 PM

https://www.zerohedge.com/economics/japan-posts-record-population-drop-shrinking-14th-year-demographic-crisis-deepens

Japan's already collapsing population just posted its biggest annual drop on record, falling by 898,000 people as of last October compared to a year earlier, Kyodo News reported.

This marked the 14th consecutive year of population decline in the country, according to a government estimate. The previous record drop was 861,000, reported in July 2024.

This was the largest demographic drop since 1968.

Some more details: according to the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, Japan’s total population was 123,802,000, as of October 1, 2024, down by 550,000 or a 0.44% year-on-year decrease.

The population of only Japanese citizens was 120,296,000, plunging by 898,000, or a 0.74% YoY drop.

The IMF projects that the total population will shrink by a further 3.5 million by the end of the decade.

The natural population decline, calculated by subtracting births from deaths, reached a record high of 890,000, rising for the eighteenth year running. This decline was 437,000 for women and 453,000 for men.

The silver lining: for the third straight year, there was a net increase in immigration, with 340,000 more people entering than leaving Japan. Which is good news for globalists: if they are so worried where to put all those African and Middle Eastern refugees who have swept across Europe sparking unprecedented blowback against establishment politics, there is always Japan... assuming the locals accept the flood of foreigners.

The data underscore the country's unprecedented demographic crisis amid a rapidly aging society and collapsing birthrate.

Japan's total fertility rate -- the average number of children a woman bears in her lifetime -- fell to its lowest level in 2023 since records began in 1947, while the death/birth ratio at over 2.2, is the highest on record.

The figures, released by the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, show that only Tokyo and neighboring Saitama prefecture registered population increases.

By age group, the working population, consisting of people aged 15 to 64, stood at 73,728,000, a year-on-year decrease of 224,000, while the population aged 65 or older (red and orange in the figure below) increased by 17,000 to 36,243,000. Those 75 or older (red) increased by 700,000, to 20,777,000, and this age bracket now accounts for 57.3% of those aged 65 or older.

In response to the demographic crisis, the Japanese parliament passed a law in June 2024 aimed at reversing the falling birthrate. Measures under the law include expanded child allowances and enhanced parental leave benefits.

And beginning this month, the city government of Tokyo started offering its employees a four-day workweek, hoping to increase the population and create a healthier work-life balance in a country notorious for long hours at the office.

Officials have warned that the period leading up to 2030 represents a critical window to address the trend. Late marriages, financial insecurity, and limited support for working parents are commonly cited as contributing factors.

Fecal transplants for autism deliver success in clinical trials

 

Once again, a brad spectrum fecal transplant is completely safe. It also make biolgical sense because it is way to easy to disrupt the gut biome and restoration makes excellent sense. now is there a safe way to do all this using natural medicine in order to toss out the FDA.


There can really be no patentable drug here but there is best practise.

After all this will be surely administered by suppository which has been in our tool kit for centuries.

Fecal transplants for autism deliver success in clinical trials

By Rich Haridy,

Nick Lavars

April 21, 2025

A two-year study on fecal transplants for autism has found they can reduce symptoms by as much as 45 percent

Scientific research continues to uncover interesting connections between the gut microbiome and human health, including everything from depression to PTSD to autoimmune disease. Another example of this are emerging ties between gut health and autism. Exciting new research, now moving to Phase 3 human trials, has found boosting microbial diversity via fecal transplants can dramatically reduce autism symptoms in the long term.

Editor's note: Readers often ask us for follow-ups on memorable stories. What has happened to this story over the years? This article was originally published in 2019 but it has been re-edited and updated with new information current as of April 7, 2025. Enjoy!

One in every 59 children born in the US is diagnosed with autism, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and unfortunately for many of them, chronic gastrointestinal issues are a harsh reality of their condition. According to scientists at Arizona State University (ASU), who conducted the current study, around 30 to 50% of people with autism experience serious gut problems like constipation, diarrhea and stomach pain.

"Many kids with autism have gastrointestinal problems, and some studies, including ours, have found that those children also have worse autism-related symptoms," ASU's Rosa Krajmalnik-Brown said back in 2019 during the early stages of the work. "In many cases, when you are able to treat those gastrointestinal problems, their behavior improves."

A key study in 2019 built on earlier research from 2017 that found introducing new bacteria via fecal transplants in 18 autistic children brought about marked improvements in their behavior, as measured through questionnaires assessing their social skills, hyperactivity, communication and other factors.

These improvements held for eight weeks, an impressive outcome to be sure. But the Arizona State University researchers then set out to investigate the enduring effects of the treatment, which involved a bowel cleanse and daily transplants of fecal microbiota over a period of seven to eight weeks. Prior to the treatment, these children all had far lower diversity of gut microbes than those without autism.

"Kids with autism are lacking important beneficial bacteria, and have fewer options in the bacterial menu of important functions that bacteria provide to the gut than typically developing kids," Krajmalnik-Brown said in 2019.

The team of ASU researchers behind the new study, left to right, Rosa Krajmalnik-Brown, James Adams, and Dae Wook Kang were inspired to explore the gut-brain connection as it relates to autism symptoms and gastrointestinal issues

Arizona State University

Two years after the treatment, the researchers found that not only did the benefits persist, they seemed to improve. Doctors observations at the eight-week mark found that psychological autism symptoms of the patients had decreased by 24%. But two years later those symptoms had almost been cut in half, with a professional evaluator finding a decrease of 45% in autism symptoms compared to baseline.

Prior to the study, 83% of participants had "severe" autism. Two years later, only 17% were rated as severe, 39% as mild or moderate, and incredibly, 44% were below the cut-off for mild ASD.

"We are finding a very strong connection between the microbes that live in our intestines and signals that travel to the brain," Krajmalnik-Brown said in 2019. "Two years later, the children are doing even better, which is amazing."

The next steps were larger placebo-controlled clinical trial designed to verify their results, with a view to gaining FDA approval for the therapy.

In early 2022 Krajmalnik-Brown and colleagues patented a specific bacterial formulation and spun-off a commercial company called Gut-Brain Axis Therapeutics. The treatment, dubbed Microbiota Transplant Therapy (MTT), moved through a Phase 2 human placebo-controlled trial over the following years and the initial data has been incredibly promising.

"Our phase 2 study for adults with autism found that the treatment group improved more than placebo on the primary outcome (autism symptoms) and on a secondary outcome (daily stool record)," the researchers explain. "Evaluation of symptoms on the Parent Global Impressions found that the treatment group at the end of part 2 improved more than the placebo group in part 1 on nearly all symptoms, with statistically significant improvements in GI, receptive language, and average of all symptoms. There were also marginally significant improvements in tantrums, stimming/perseveration, and cognition."

Now, the team is looking to raise funds to move through the large-scale Phase 3 trials necessary for final FDA approval.

The team's key 2019 study appears in the journal Scientific Reports, and you can hear from the researchers about their most recent findings in the video below.

Source: Arizona State University

Kremlin Hails US Proposal To Deny NATO Membership To Ukraine, Awaits Official Word On Crimea

To start with the Ukraine has joined NATO if not in name.  The existential problem is to resolve Russia's situation so that it can also join NATO.

Those are the facts on the ground.  russia et al need a formal border commision tasked with eastablishing a permanent border not unlike the ultimate Getrman resolution.  I have been calling for this forever.  Recall russia acted on a left over border problem from the USSR.

Getting all borders resolved now would make it comfortable for russia to transition into NATO to confront real Eastern threats.

They also all need to figure out presidential politics rather like the USA meatgrinder approach.

Kremlin Hails US Proposal To Deny NATO Membership To Ukraine, Awaits Official Word On Crimea

by Tyler Durden

Monday, Apr 21, 2025 - 04:20 PM

The Kremlin has belatedly reacted to Washington proposals toward ending the war in Ukraine, by praising and welcoming the Trump administration's ruling out Ukraine joining the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO); however, as The Wall Street Journal reports in the wake of high-level meetings in Europe last week, Moscow "showed no urgency in reaching a deal."

"We have heard from Washington at various levels that Ukraine’s membership in NATO is out of the question," Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said in a Monday press briefing. "This is something that satisfies us and coincides with our position."

"Ukraine should not be a member of NATO and should not have prospects for integration with it," Peskov said. "This would be a threat to the national interests of the Russian Federation. And this is one of the root causes of the conflict."

The US is reportedly waiting on the Zelensky government to respond to the package of proposals which Washington wants Kiev and Europe to accept.

Peskov signaled in his remarks that questions "especially about a time frame" are not the big priority right now, which contradicts President Trump's insistence that the two warring sides quickly get to the negotiating table with days or weeks.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has declared Monday that Moscow has a "positive attitude" toward genuine efforts to create peace.

Zelensky is expected to convey a decision at a meeting in London later this week. He stipulated on X, "An unconditional cease-fire must be the first step toward peace, and this Easter made it clear that it is Russia’s actions that are prolonging the war."

He went to say the weekend Easter truce was but a PR smokescreen meant to fool Europe and the US on Putin's truce intentions. He accused Russia of having repeatedly violated it.

As for what's said to be another key aspect to the US plan for peace - Crimea's status - the Kremlin was more guarded on this, given final word on this from Washington apparently hasn't been conveyed.

"Anonymously sourced media reports regarding efforts to resolve the Ukraine conflict should be taken with a grain of salt," Peskov warned in response to a question about potential American recognition of Russian sovereignty over Crimea.

"There are numerous reports circulating," Peskov stated. "The search for a peaceful resolution must not be conducted publicly... For this reason, anonymous claims should be evaluated with utmost caution."

Crimea was taken by the Kremlin in 2014 following the CIA/western-orchestrated overthrow of then president Yanukovich in the Maidan coup, and Russia subsequently held a referendum to validate its control but the international community has resisted recognizing the peninsula as Russian to avoid legitimizing the annexation.

Zelensky has lately and repeatedly stressed he will not cede territory to Moscow, and so have European leaders. He and Ukraine and some European officials argue that doing so risks undermining international laws and treaties prohibiting the taking of land through use of force.

Gold Injections in The Eye May Be The Future of Vision Preservation

So far tbis is proof of concept and should migrate into human therapy.

Unless we already have useful tools, the path ahead is likely long.  Yet it is also safe enough to push a little harder.

folks do need to sustain their vision.

Gold Injections in The Eye May Be The Future of Vision Preservation

24 April 2025

By

David Nield

(Floriana/Getty Images)

https://www.sciencealert.com/gold-injections-in-the-eye-may-be-the-future-of-vision-preservation

Gold dust in eyes might seem like an unusual therapy – but a new mouse study in the US shows the approach could potentially treat age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and other eye problems.

Macular degeneration affects millions worldwide and becomes more likely as we age. Damage to the macula, located in the retina and containing light-sensitive photoreceptor cells, causes blurring and other vision issues. While there are treatments available to slow the progression of AMD, they don't reverse it.

"This is a new type of retinal prosthesis that has the potential to restore vision lost to retinal degeneration without requiring any kind of complicated surgery or genetic modification," says biomedical engineer Jiarui Nie, from Brown University in Rhode Island.

"We believe this technique could potentially transform treatment paradigms for retinal degenerative conditions."

The study combined gold nanoparticles with infrared light. (Nie et al., ACS Nano, 2025)

Here's how the new treatment works: very fine gold nanoparticles, thousands of times thinner than a human hair, are laced with antibodies to target specific eye cells. They're then injected into the gel-filled vitreous chamber between the retina and the lens.

Next, a small infrared laser device is used to excite these nanoparticles and activate specific cells in the same way photoreceptors do. If the treatment makes it to us humans as well, that laser could be embedded in a pair of glasses.

In the mice this was tested on, engineered to have retinal disorders, the treatment method was effective at restoring vision, at least partly (it's tricky to give a mouse a full eye test). It showed the nanoparticles could help bypass damaged photoreceptors.

Improvements in vision were seen in the study mice. (Nie et al., ACS Nano, 2025)

"We showed that the nanoparticles can stay in the retina for months with no major toxicity," says Nie.

"And we showed that they can successfully stimulate the visual system. That's very encouraging for future applications."

The approach has similarities to existing treatments for AMD and related conditions such as retinitis pigmentosa. However, this new method is less invasive, with no surgery or large implants inside the eye needed, and also promises to cover a wider field of vision.

As with most studies in mice, there's a good chance the findings will translate over to humans, but it'll take a while to get there – and to get something safe that can be approved for use. This is an important first step.

An increasing number of studies are presenting ways in which eye diseases could be tackled by the latest technology and science, including reprogramming other retinal cells to replace photoreceptors that are no longer working.

"This innovation marks a significant breakthrough, setting the stage for future development of photothermal retinal prostheses such as wearable goggles," write the researchers in their published paper.

"For future human applications, further refinement is necessary."

US Golden Dome Missile Defense Contracts

For this to properly happen, we need to not just ramp up launches, we must also Ramp up space deliveries that lift SPACE STATION components.  This has to be a bicycle Station which will look like a bicycle whose HUB operates a fabrication hanger and whose rim provides one g for shirt sleeve work.

such a base can also deploy space interceptors able to also launch RODS from GOD besides hitting any missle rising out of the atmosphere.

with this in place building surface cell protection becomes easy.  These we already have in the form of hot missles..

SpaceX, Palantir and Anduril Partnership Competing for the US Golden Dome Missile Defense Contracts

April 18, 2025 by Brian Wang

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2025/04/spacex-palantir-and-anduril-partnership-competing-for-the-us-golden-dome-missile-defense-contracts.html

U.S. Space Force chief Gen. Chance Saltzman clarified the Golden Dome is not a single mega-shield, but a network of systems built to counter advanced missile threats. The system will combine terrestrial, naval, airborne, and space-based sensors and interceptors, along with non-kinetic defenses like directed energy weapons and electronic warfare capabilities. Saltzman emphasized that decision-making is still in early stages.


Instead of waiting 17 years for a traditional rollout, the Pentagon is fast-tracking development with space-based interceptors and infrared satellites. The focus is on what can we do in the next two to four years. It could potentially cost tens of billions of dollars over the next decade, depending on its final scope.


The Golden Dome initiative aims to create a comprehensive shield protecting the United States against an array of missile threats, including ballistic, hypersonic and advanced cruise missiles. The system’s core components would include space-based sensors and missile interceptors, utilizing orbital vantage points for early detection and rapid response.

SpaceX Proposes 1000+ Satellites for Tracking and Attack Satellites

SpaceX has proposed subscription-based model where the government would pay for access to the satellite network rather than owning the hardware outright. This approach represents a departure from traditional defense procurement methods and has generated both interest and concern within the Pentagon.

A SpaceX-led partnership has emerged as a leading contender. SpaceX contributes its considerable satellite launch and Starshield mass production of satellites and Palantir provides data analytics and software expertise, and Anduril bringing autonomous defense and drone technology. Their proposal includes 400 to over 1,000 satellites for global missile detection and tracking, complemented by approximately 200 “attack satellites” equipped with missiles or lasers that would aim to neutralize threats.

Pentagon Planning

The Pentagon has been directed to develop an “architecture” for this missile defense shield — essentially designing the structure of the network, how its components will be organized, and how they will interact with each other.

Saltzman said this work remains in early stages. “We’re nowhere near” finalizing an architecture, he said. “We’re doing the planning. We’re looking at what resources might be available, which programs are currently developed that might contribute to it. And that is all still way pre-decisional.”

Even in this early phase, competition for contracts is already intensifying as defense companies maneuver to secure positions. Booz Allen has proposed a “Brilliant Swarms” constellation of 1,000–2,000 satellites, and has yet to announce partner companies that would support the different pieces of the architecture.

Industry input is now shaping what’s possible, but the project is still early-stage—with rough cost estimates and mission architecture heading to the White House soon.

The FDA's War On America's Health

understand that a century of food science will need to be redone independently.  That is not so difficult except money interests will take every opportunity to diddle.

All our food additives lack good science and could be causing real damage.  This is not as bad as the Vaccine problem because our liver takes out toxins.

Now i want all supplements to be studied for real bioavailability.  

The FDA's War On America's Health

Why do so many innovative therapies never see the light of day

A Midwestern Doctor

Apr 17, 2025

Story at a Glance:

•The FDA was established in 1906 in response to public concern over unsafe food and drugs, such as spoiled food and counterfeit products. However, food industry lobbyists gradually gained influence, leading to the removal of the agency's original leader. As a result, numerous harmful food additives were granted "generally recognized as safe" (GRAS) status and continue to be used today.

•In 1962, the FDA was given broad powers to oversee drug safety following the thalidomide incident. Unfortunately, the new regulations created strict standards for drug efficacy that were often selectively enforced, benefiting the pharmaceutical industry. Unfortunately, the FDA increasingly targeted natural therapies, which led to many being erased from history.

•Despite numerous attempts to reform the agency, issues of inefficiency and bias within the FDA persist. This article examines these challenges and suggests potential reforms to improve the agency’s role in safeguarding public health.

For most of my life, I’ve observed the FDA belligerently suppress natural treatments and any unorthodox therapy which threatens the medical monopoly while simultaneously railroading through a variety of unsafe and ineffective drugs regardless of how much public protest the agency meets. Consider this 2004 Senate testimony by the FDA scientist who got Vioxx banned that accurately described exactly what would come to pass with the COVID vaccines two decades later:

As such, I do not hold the FDA in a positive light, especially given that during COVID-19, I (like many others) spent hundreds of hours trying to get the agency to allow the limited use of off-patent therapeutics for COVID-19—all of which ultimately went nowhere due to the unjustifiable roadblocks the agency kept putting up.

Over the past year, especially since Trump's election, I've received many questions about FDA reform. To address the issue properly, I’ve carefully examined both sides.

In medicine, "sensitivity" refers to a test’s ability to correctly identify those who have a condition (e.g., detecting an infection), while "specificity" measures how well the test avoids false positives (i.e., correctly identifying those who don’t have the condition). The challenge is that improving one often reduces the other. For example, increasing the PCR cycle threshold in COVID tests made it more likely to detect infections (higher sensitivity), but also increased false positives (lower specificity). This trade-off leads to problems, like breast cancer screenings, where high sensitivity can result in false positives and unnecessary “treatments” for women who don’t actually have cancer.

The FDA faces a similar challenge: it must prevent harmful foods and drugs from reaching the market while ensuring useful products aren’t blocked. Though this seems straightforward, it’s incredibly difficult, and the FDA has often failed at both, even with leadership dedicated to public health.

Crime Against the Food Law

In the late 1800s, food producers were selling adulterated products, and pharmaceutical companies peddled medicines with secret ingredients like opium and alcohol. Public outrage grew, especially after exposés like Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle, which helped spark the 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act. This law gave the Bureau of Chemistry the power to ensure accurate labeling and prevent harmful additives in food.

The director of the Bureau of Chemistry (and thus the first head of the FDA), Harvey Wiley conducted tests on food additives, proving they made healthy volunteers sick. While the public and many scientists supported his findings, the food industry fought back with powerful lobbyists and legal tactics.

Note: the additives Wiley scrutinized were boric acid and borax, salicylic acid (aspirin) and salicylates, benzoic acid and benzoates, sulfur dioxide and sulfites, formaldehyde, sulfate of copper (used to green produce), and saltpeter (nitrates).

Gradually, the food industry hijacked the presidency, and in 1912, Wiley resigned, realizing he could achieve more for America’s health as a private citizen than within the government.

Wiley’s book “

The History of A Crime Against The Food Law” details much of the same abhorrent industry tactics we see happening now. For example, a series of investigative reports recently showed that the processed food industry’s lobbyists worked fervently behind the scenes to block RFK’s nomination and had there not been widespread public protest, would have stopped us from Make America Healthy Again.

Those tactics also highlight a key point Wiley made—the only way to create change in this industry is to coax the public at large to demand it, as the moment you rely upon the members of the government to fix it, lobbyists will crush those efforts.

Generally Recognized as “Safe”

Many food additives are "generally recognized as safe" (GRAS), meaning they’re widely used without regulation. Wiley faced two major issues: food industry counterfeiting and harmful additives. The industry often faked products to cut costs, like selling grain alcohol as whiskey or using polluted waters to enlarge oysters.

Despite evidence of harm, the food industry claimed these additives were essential for production, even though competitors showed higher-quality (and ultimately more profitable) products could be made without them. Wiley also warned that chronic exposure to additives could cause long-term health issues, such as organ damage and aging.

Sadly, his concerns were ignored as industry influence grew and he was unable to ban them—rather they were eventually reclassified as “generally recognized as safe.” As a result, these "safe" additives have contributed to widespread chronic illness in society.

Note: those additives included sodium benzoate, sulfur dioxide, alum (potassium aluminum sulfate), sulfur dioxide, saccharin, modified corn sugars, saccharin, and nitrogen bleached flour—many of which were linked to cancer. Sadly, since 2000, nearly 99 percent of new food chemicals added to the food supply chain have exploited the GRAS loophole. I believe the widespread use of aluminum in processed foods is particularly detrimental (due to it greatly impairing the physiologic zeta potential and causing micro-clotting throughout the body), and provides a key explanation for why you often see certain rapid improvements in individuals once they stop eating processed foods and their additives.

The Kefauver–Harris Amendment

In the years that followed Wiley’s departure, the handicapping of the FDA continued. As such, the FDA agent assigned to the morning sickness drug thalidomide could only stall but not reject it—a tactic that prevented catastrophic birth defects across America. A 1962 amendment was then passed, giving the FDA the power to block unsafe drugs.

This law gave the FDA excessive power, slowing drug approval and causing mismanagement. It also required "well-controlled" trials for drug approval, which the FDA defined as expensive double-blind randomized controlled trials (RCTs). This:

Elevated RCTs, making drug approval a "pay-to-play" system, with approval costs soaring to 0.98-4.54 billion.1,2

Created bias, as RCTs cost so much they inevitably produce results in favor of their sponsor (which often outweigh any benefit of their expensive “controlled” design).

Sidelined smaller, effective observational trials, which, being affordable, are feasible for investigators to conduct without pharmaceutical sponsorship and can yield the same results as large RCTs (proven by a 2014 Cochrane Review).

Stifled innovative therapies, as unorthodox treatments lacking costly RCTs were dismissed. As a result, medical innovation in the U.S. slowed, with scientists financially pressured to avoid challenging existing paradigms, leading to fewer groundbreaking discoveries despite advancing technology.

Because the FDA had rapidly expanded in numerous directions it was not prepared for, it subsequently frequently failed to fulfill its primary responsibilities (e.g., taking something harmful off the market), and it simultaneously took things away Americans actually wanted. This in turn led to numerous committees investigating the FDA (e.g., Commissioner Lay’s Kinslow report of his agency’s serious shortcomings) and key officials with integrity like Lay being kicked out, all of which were encapsulated a series of scathing articles that were published by the New York Times in 1977.

In my eyes, the most important thing about this period of FDA reforms was that the FDA was the most complained about agency in the government. Congress made numerous attempts to fix it (as did ethical FDA officials)—but nothing was ever solved.

The DMSO Saga

Over the last seven months, I’ve begun exploring a remarkable forgotten side of medicine—DMSO. This simple and freely available natural chemical is incredibly effective at treating a variety of (often “incurable”) conditions, including many that are otherwise impossible to treat including:

•Strokes, paralysis, a wide range of neurological disorders and circulatory disorders.

•Chronic pain and a wide range of tissue injuries.

•Many autoimmune, protein and contractile disorders.

•Head conditions, such as tinnitus, vision loss, dental problems, and sinusitis.

•A wide range of internal organ diseases.

•Acute and chronic infections including shingles and herpes.

•Many skin conditions including acne, herpes, hair loss and varicose veins.

•Many aspects of cancer, and when used in combination with other therapies, directly treating challenging cancers.

Likewise, since publicizing this research, I’ve received over two thousand reports from readers who then took it and had almost unbelievable results that precisely match what many reported in the 1960s and 1970s.

This all raises a simple question. How is it that no one knows about DMSO or that an agent that could dramatically reduce the need for opioids or prevent millions with stroke and spinal cord injury from having a life of disability never saw the light of day?

That’s because as DMSO rapidly spread across America in the 1960s, the FDA reversed its initial positive stance, declaring DMSO dangerous without evidence. This pivot was initially prompted by the FDA not wanting to have to process a flood of new drug applications, and then evolved into being done to protect the status quo and to justify the FDA’s newfound police powers. Despite extensive safety studies showing DMSO posed no risk to humans and numerous Congressional hearing being held to legalize DMSO, for decades, the FDA continued to demonize it, claiming a lack of evidence for efficacy (as DMSO’s characteristic effects make blinded trials with it impossible). Because of this, DMSO only became available decades later after the public got fed up with the FDA targeting natural medicines and the 1994 Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act was enacted (which removed the FDA’s ability to regulate natural medicines and conduct police like raids on suppliers).

The FDA’s War Against Natural Medicine

Shortly before the election, RFK Jr. gave what I considered to be one of the most important statements in the entire campaign:

This tweet touched upon the fact that for decades the American Medical Association has done everything it can to remove life-changing natural therapies from the market that compete with the medical monopoly (e.g., ultraviolet blood irradiation and alternative cancer cures) and the FDA has followed in their footsteps. For example:

GHB: In the 1990s, a life-changing natural sleep aid spread across America that safely cured insomnia—so the FDA banned it. In contrast, sleeping pills block restorative sleep (which is critical for health) and make you 2-5X more likely to die.

Psychedelic Therapy: MDMA-assisted psychotherapy is the only existing effective treatment for veterans with PTSD, but the FDA still blocked its approval despite compelling “uncontrolled” clinical trials (as it’s impossible to have blinded psychedelic sessions). Veterans hence often seek treatment abroad due to FDA restrictions.

Chelation Therapy: EDTA chelation therapy (especially a low doses) is effective for cardiovascular health, but the FDA has consistently targeted it despite the NIH reluctantly proving it worked.

Umbilical Cord Blood Stem Cells: FDA regulations under Biden and Peter Marks made it difficult to offer this life-changing therapy and shut down the companies who provided it.

Sunlight and Health: The dermatology industry has deceptively demonized sunlight as a cause of deadly skin cancers, overlooking its importance for overall health and cancer prevention, with studies showing those who avoid sunlight are 60-130% more likely to die.

Raw Milk: The FDA has continually targeted raw milk sellers, despite widespread demand for it, no evidence linking it to an increased risk of microbial illness and growing evidence that pasteurization destroys critical nutrients and creates allergens (discussed further here).

Note: pasteurizing milk also makes it go from a zeta potential enhancing substance to one that impairs it(causing congestion throughout the body).

Infant Formula and Seed Oils: The Infant Formula Act of 1980 used outdated science from the 1960s to mandates infant formulas include problematic seed oils so the FDA targets manufacturers who do not include them. These ingredients contribute to childhood obesity, as they impair metabolism and promote rapid weight gain (which sadly has been normalized through the pediatric growth charts pediatricians use).

Vaccine Coverups

Many have been horrified to learn that the FDA and CDC systematically ignored every possible sign the COVID vaccines were dangerous as they pushed it on more and more people (e.g., recently leaked recordings show how stubbornly the head of FDA’s vaccine division refused to acknowledge any of the evidence brought forward by a group of permanently injured vaccine recipients).

This severe betrayal of trust from our authorities thus made many ask, “How could this have happened?” In truth, this did not come out of nowhere. Rather it was simply the subsequent escalation of a longstanding tendency by the government to push vaccines they knew were unsafe and ineffective to market.

Vaccine Coverups and Failures by the FDA and CDC:

Historical Vaccine Disasters: Many vaccine-related issues have been ignored or covered up by health authorities, including many deadly “hot lot” incidents.

Polio Vaccine Issues: In the 1950s, defective rushed polio vaccine contained live polio viruses and caused cases of paralysis. Further, it was later discovered that the vaccine contained SV-40, a cancer-causing virus, which was also not disclosed to the public. Around 40-98 million Americans were exposed to SV-40, leading to a massive wave of cancer cases.

Note: to produce the emergency COVID vaccines at scale, a novel manufacturing process was used, which caused them to be contaminated with dangerous DNA-altering bacterial plasmids that contained part of the SV-40 virus.

Influenza Vaccine Failures: In 1945, a government scientist discovered that early flu vaccines were ineffective and unsafe. Despite this, the scientist faced retaliation and the vaccines were released. This led to a 1972 Senate hearing that removed 32 dubious vaccines from the market.

Swine Flu Vaccine Disaster (1976): The swine flu vaccine, released despite evidence showing the flu posed no risk, caused hundreds of cases of Guillain–Barré syndrome, paralysis, and deaths. Like the Polio vaccines, the FDA was warned by its own scientists these vaccines were not safe but nonetheless pushed them to market. However it occurred in an era when 60 Minutes was willing to do a segment on the disaster (which has numerous remarkable parallels to what happened during COVID-19).

Gulf War Syndrome: During the Gulf War, the FDA waived the protections soldiers had from experimental drugs and U.S. soldiers were given many, including a disastrous anthrax vaccine (which due to its rushed “emergency” production was contaminated). A wave of severe chronic illness (Gulf War Syndrome) followed, affecting 250,000 veterans (discussed further here). Despite this, the vaccine remained mandated for decades until a court overturned it in 2004.

HPV Vaccine Controversy: The lucrative HPV vaccine, was approved by the FDA despite red flags throughout the clinical trials (e.g., high rates of autoimmunity, death, and it causing cervical cancer—discussed further here). Once it hit the market, a tsunami of injuries occurred, yet the FDA and CDC continued to relentlessly defend and promote the vaccine.

Other Disastrous Drug Approvals:

SSRI Antidepressants: The FDA approved SSRIs like Prozac despite poor evidence for their effectiveness and known severe side effects including suicidal tendencies, emotional numbness, violent behavior and mass shootings. These risks were concealed from the public, despite extensive complaints and lawsuits later showing those dangers were detected in the trials.

Alzheimer’s Drugs: A new and misguided class of Alzheimer’s drugs, despite failing to show efficacy and causing dangerous side effects like brain swelling and bleeding in 40% of participants, was approved by the FDA after bypassing an advisory committee's negative vote. The agency's manipulation of the approval process raised red flags, leading to widespread scrutiny.

Ozempic and Weight Loss Drugs: The FDA also approved weight loss drugs like Ozempic without sufficient evidence, promoting them aggressively despite concerns over long-term safety and effectiveness. The drug's promotion has led to it being widely marketed, even for use in children.

In summary, the FDA has an established history of approving unsafe and ineffective vaccines and drugs, often suppressing evidence and protecting corporate interests over public safety.

Conclusion

At this point, I’ve seen a variety of proposals put forward to fix the FDA, which alternate between reforming the agency and scrapping it entirely.

In my eyes, the core dilemmas are:

Inadequate Resources: Effectively regulating foods and drugs in America is a gargantuan task that exceeds the scope of what the FDA can do.

Corruption and Conflicts of Interest: The FDA often defers to pharmaceutical companies for drug safety evaluations, leading to a pay-to-play system where approval is influenced by financial contributions rather than scientific integrity.

Lack of Accountability: Once a drug is approved, the FDA rarely revokes approval, even when evidence of harm emerges.

Selective Prosecution: The FDA targets natural medicines because they lack the resources of fight back like pharmaceutical companies, creating a (risk-free) facade of protecting the public.

Proposed solutions for restructuring the FDA include:

Conflict of Interest Laws: Legislation that retroactively nullifies votes or decisions made by regulators or panel members with current or future financial ties to pharmaceutical companies.

Separate Approval Tracks: Create two approval systems: one for conventional drugs (focusing only on safety) and another for alternative therapies with proven safety but questionable efficacy.

Market-Driven Efficacy: Allow market demand to determine a drug's efficacy rather than relying solely on FDA approval, as consumers often have better insight into what works.

Public Involvement: Involve the public and AI systems in reviewing large (anonymized) patient datasets to help identify (frequently overlooked) red flags.

Transparent Data Access: Make drug trial data publicly available to expose fraudulent or incomplete data, (e.g., the COVID vaccine trials were rife with fraud).

Revocation of Drug Approvals: Implement mechanisms to revoke approval for unsafe drugs, including allowing state-level bans and empowering courts to remove harmful drugs from the market.

Previously, implementing ideas like these was impossible, but now that platforms like Twitter (𝕏) have broken the mass media’s stranglehold on democracy and allowed leaders who want to change things to make things better, I believe it can happen (e.g., Secretary Kennedy recently moved to close the GRAS loophole and as shown above, Commissioner Makary just ended pharmaceutical representatives being on the panels which vote to approve their drugs). However, as Wiley presciently warned, that can only happen if the public becomes actively involved—something the MAHA movement (and each of you) now makes possible!

Author’s note: This is an abridged version of an article about the FDA’s unconscionable war against DMSO (which set the agency’s behavior for decades to come), an article about the FDA’s past vaccine disasters and a longer article which goes into greater detail on the points mentioned here along with other promising therapies the FDA has blacklisted (which can be read here).

To learn how other readers have benefitted from this publication and the community it has created, their feedback can be viewed here. Additionally, an index of all the articles published in the Forgotten Side of Medicine can be viewed here.