Author: admin

Via Ammo.com,

According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), a mass murder occurs when at least four people are murdered, not including the shooter, over a relatively short period of time during a single incident. Over the last 30 years, the United States has seen a significant increase in mass shootings, which are becoming more frequent and more deadly.

Seemingly every time a mass shooting occurs, whether it’s at a synagogue in Pittsburgh or a nightclub in Orlando, the anti-gun media and politicians have a knee-jerk response – they blame the tragedy solely on the tool used, namely firearms, and focus all of their proposed “solutions” on more laws, ignoring that the murderer already broke numerous laws when they committed their atrocity.

Facts matter when addressing such an emotionally charged topic, and more gun controllegislation has shown that law-abiding Americans who own guns are not the problem. Consider the following: The more gun control laws that are passed, the more mass murders have occurred.

Whether or not this is correlation or causation is debatable. What is not debatable is that this sick phenomenon of mass murderers targeting “gun-free zones,” where they know civilian carry isn’t available to law-abiding Americans, is happening. According to the Crime Prevention Research Center, 97.8 percent of public shootings occur in “gun-free zones” – and “gun-free zones” are the epitome of the core philosophical tenant of gun control, that laws are all the defense one needs against violence.

Therefore, when the media and politicians focus their ire on guns, specifically what types of guns are used, such as AR-styles, carbines, semi-automatics, and “high capacity” handguns, in the wake of such tragedies the American public are being intentionally drawn into an emotionally charged debate about legal gun ownership (irrespective of whether the murderer’s gun was legally or illegally obtained). This debate leads them away from the elephant in the room and one of the real issues behind mass shootings – mental health and prescription drugs.

Ignoring what’s going on in the heads of these psychopaths not only allows mass shootings to continue, it leads to misguided gun control laws that violate the Second Amendment and negate the rights of law-abiding U.S. citizens. As Jeff Snyder put it in The Washington Times:

“But to ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow.”

Violence, especially random violence, is a complex manifestation of various thoughts, feelings, and external factors. When a multivariate analysis of these factors is conducted, it becomes apparent that it’s not just mental health issues that are leading to such an increase. There may be an underlying substance which plays a role in a high percentage of these violent acts – the use of prescription antidepressants, specifically selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, or SSRIs.

At first glance, it makes sense that those involved in mass shootings may be taking antidepressants, as they’re clearly suffering from some sort of mental health issue. But the issue with SSRIs runs much deeper than just a random mental health break. These drugs are a prescription for violent crimes, and that’s a story the anti-gun media and politicians don’t want to talk about.

History of Antidepressant Use in the U.S.

To understand the rise in antidepressant use, one must first understand depression. Everyone, no matter how great their life, has periods of sadness, times when they feel down or low. This is especially true when faced with hardships or going through things like a divorce, the loss of a job, or the death of a parent.

This is not clinical depression. Clinical depression is a serious mental disorder that impacts how a person functions on a daily basis. Depression makes it hard to get out of bed. It makes it hard to go to work. It makes it hard to take a shower or answer the phone. It stops a person from functioning on the basic levels.

Understanding Depression

According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, commonly referred to as the DSM-5, to be considered clinically depressed, a patient must experience five of the following symptoms most of the day, every day, for at least two weeks. What’s more, these symptoms must be so severe, they interfere with normal functioning:

• Sadness
• Anxiety
• Feeling hopeless
• Feeling worthless
• Feeling helpless
• Feeling “empty”
• Feeling guilty
• Irritable
• Fatigue
• Lack of energy
• Loss of interest in hobbies
• Slow talking and moving
• Restlessness
• Trouble concentrating
• Abnormal sleep patterns, whether sleeping too much or not enough
• Abnormal weight changes, either eating too much or having no appetite
• Thoughts of death or suicide

Depression is a serious, and sometimes life-threatening, illness. But in the modern world, it’s highly over-diagnosed. A study published in Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics looked at 5,639 patients in the U.S. who were diagnosed with depression by their clinician and compared their symptoms to the DSM criteria for clinical depression. Of these patients, only 38.4 percent met the criteria, even though the majority of the 5,639 patients were prescribed depression medication.

Today, with the way antidepressants are prescribed, nearly one in four Americans will meet the criteria to be diagnosed with depression within their lifetime, and will be prescribed medications that interfere with how their brain functions.

The Rise of Antidepressants

In the 1950s, the first generation of antidepressants hit the market. The introductory class of antidepressants to gain Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval were monoamine oxidase inhibitors, known as MAOIs. Although highly effective, MAOIs can cause extremely high blood pressure when paired with certain foods or medications, and therefore require diet restrictions. Because of these restrictions, they’re rarely used today to treat depression except in cases where other treatments fail.

By the late 1950s, a new class of antidepressants became available – tricyclic antidepressants. Tricyclic antidepressants are also highly effective for treating depression, but are prone to side effects. Even so, this class of antidepressants remained the go-to depression treatment for years. Other drugs were tested for depression treatment, but they hadn’t proved more effective than tricyclic and MAOI antidepressants, especially for severe depression.

Fast forward to the 1980s. America’s tranquilizer dependence was becoming problematic. Quaaludes were heavily over-prescribed for anxiety, resulting in overdose deaths, as well as an increase in deaths from vehicle accidents. The Feds stepped in and in 1984, classified Quaaludes as a Schedule 1 drug, making them illegal to sell, buy, and use.

Valium, a benzodiazepine prescribed for anxiety, was also extremely popular, and was the most prescribed medication in the U.S. from 1969 through 1982. In 1978, the year the medication peaked, more than 2.3 billion pills were sold in the U.S. But Valium was highly addictive and it was believed that a serotonergic medication was a better option to fill the void that was left when Quaaludes were outlawed.

In 1987, Prozac, the first SSRI, was released for depression. Along with it came the idea that depression could be the underlying cause of anxiety. The idea took off, as did the sales of Prozac, and within a few years, it overtook the antidepressant market. Soon, other SSRIs followed.

Along with these SSRIs came direct-to-consumer advertising, which became legal in 1985. By the mid-1990s, the FDA regulations became looser and direct-to-consumer ads exploded into the market. Prozac and other medications showed Americans through glossy advertisements that unhappiness, stress, and anxiety could be treated with a pill.

Instead of doctors recommending a specific medication, patients started coming in, requesting a medication they saw in a magazine or on television.

SSRI sales skyrocketed.

By 2010, 11 percent of Americans over the age of 12 were prescribed an antidepressant, making it the third most prescribed medication, topped only by nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) like ibuprofen and naproxen. When looked at over time, there has been a 400-percent increase in antidepressant use from 1988 through 2008.

SSRIs 101: What You Should Know

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, a class of drugs commonly referred to as SSRIs, are the most prescribed antidepressant in the United States. These second-generation antidepressants are marketed to doctors and patients as safe and effective, with relatively minimal side effects. SSRIs are designated to treat mild to moderate depression, as well as anxiety, obsessive compulsive disorder, and bulimia nervosa.

How do SSRIs work?

SSRIs work to increase the amount of serotonin in the brain. A neurotransmitter that helps neurons communicate, serotonin is associated with many different body functions, but is best known for its influence on mood. Sometimes called “the happy chemical,” serotonin plays a role in a person’s happiness and general feelings of wellbeing.

Low levels of serotonin are linked to depression, although the relationship is not clear. Research has not determined if the low neurotransmitter level causes depression or if depression causes the level of serotonin to drop. It should also be noted that a large amount of serotonin, up to 90 percent, is produced in the gut and may be influenced by what a person eats and drinks.

SSRI medication does exactly what its name says. When two neurons communicate, one releases neurotransmitters, which causes the other neuron to react in a certain way. Because this is constantly going on, these chemicals are always present in the brain. To keep the brain’s chemical balance correct, neurons regulate the amount of neurotransmitters released by a process called reuptake, which involves the reabsorption of the chemical by a neuron.

For instance, if there’s a high level of serotonin, the neuron knows to release less through reuptake, keeping the level balanced. If levels of the neurotransmitter are low, reuptake tells the neurons to release more.

SSRIs inhibit the reuptake of serotonin, causing neurons to release more of the neurotransmitter, therefore increasing the amount of the chemical found in the brain.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved a variety of SSRIs, including:

• Citalopram (Celexa)
• Escitalopram (Lexapro)
• Fluoxetine (Prozac)
• Paroxetine (Paxil and Pexeva)
• Sertraline (Zoloft)
• Vilazodone (Viibryd)

When it comes to effectiveness, SSRIs don’t appear to have an influence on those with moderate to severe depression, with virtually no improvementseen when comparing SSRI use to placebos. Instead of a popular drug with a high efficiency, modern SSRIs have become popular based on an effective marketing campaign and little more.

Too Much of a Good Thing: Serotonin Syndrome

Sometimes serotonin levels become too high, causing Serotonin Syndrome. A potentially life-threatening disease, it occurs when serotonin levels in the brain increase to a toxic level, often caused by too much medication or taking two serotonin-increasing medications that use different mechanisms to increase the neurotransmitter.

Along with physical symptoms of excessive nerve activity, such as dilated pupils, elevated heart rate, and high blood pressure, those with the syndrome may also experience:

• Agitation
• Restlessness
• Confusion
• Anxiety
• Disorientation
• Excitement

The Connection Between SSRIs and Violence

Regardless if depression is overdiagnosed and America has a habit of over-prescribing mind-altering medications, there’s little doubt that SSRIs have a risk of increasing violence in patients, even in patients who have no previous history of violence or aggression before taking the medication.

This risk of violent behavior, both to the individual taking the medication and those around them, is so significant, it has led to the FDA mandating a black box warning on all SSRI medications. These black box warnings are designed to provide information and draw attention to the fact that the medication has serious and life-threatening risks.

As of 2004, all antidepressants in the U.S. are labeled:

“Anxiety, agitation, panic attacks, insomnia, irritability, hostility, aggressiveness, impulsivity, akathisia, hypomania, and mania have been reported in adult and pediatric patients being treated with antidepressants for major depressive disorder as well as for indications, both psychiatric and nonpsychiatric.”

SSRIs Can Increase the Risk of Suicide

In one study published in the American Journal of Psychiatry, patients suffering from depression, but free of serious suicidal ideation, were given fluoxetine. Within two to seven weeks of starting the medication, six patients developed an intense, preoccupation with violent suicide. Although all were immediately taken off the medication, this preoccupation persisted from three days to three months, depending on the case. In all six cases, the patient had never experienced such a severe level of depression or troubled state of mind before or with other psychotropic prescriptions.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Surveillance for Violent Deaths, in 2013, 35.3 percent of those who committed suicide tested positive for antidepressants at the time of their death.

The risk of SSRIs and suicide is most prevalent in patients under the age of 25. It’s also more likely to occur shortly after starting the medication, after a dosage increase, or after a patient stops taking the medication.

SSRIs Can Increase the Risk of Violence Against Others

Some of the side effects caused by SSRIs can increase the risk of violence against others. Perhaps the most risky, emotional blunting (or detachment) has been linked to SSRI use and many people who’ve taken the drugs report “not feeling” or “not caring” about anything. There’s also been an established causal relationship between SSRI use and psychosis and hallucinations, both of which are known to increase the risk of violence in individuals.

According to a review of the FDA’s database, 484 drugs were identified as triggers to serious adverse events significant enough to warrant a case study during the five-year period from 2004 through 2009. Of these 484 medications, 31 were identified to have a “disproportionate” association with violence. These 31 drugs make up 78.8 percent of all cases of violence toward others in the FDA’s database and included multiple psychotropic medications:

• 11 antidepressants
• 6 hypnotic/sedatives
• 3 ADHD medications
• 1 smoking cessation drug

Researchers concluded that violence against others was a “genuine and serious adverse drug event” and that of the 484 medications, the drugs that were most consistently and strongly associated with violence were the smoking cessation medication, varenicline (Chantix), and SSRIs.

The list includes five SSRI antidepressants:

• Fluoxetine: Prozac increased aggressive behavior 10.9 times
• Paroxetine: Paxil increased violent behavior 10.3 times
• Fluvoxamine: Luvox increased violent behavior 8.4 times
• Venlafaxine: Effexor increased violent behavior 8.3 times
• Desvenlafaxine: Pristiq increased violent behavior 7.9 times

While a surprise to the American public, this shouldn’t have been a surprise to the drug companies. During the clinical trials for paroxetine, hostility, which was the term to include homicidal idealization and aggression, presented in 60 of the 9,219 participants (.65 percent). Hostile acts were documented both while taking the medication and after tapering off. Children with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) taking the medication were the most at risk for becoming hostile, with a 17-times higher probability than the rest of those in the clinical study.

In a Swedish study published in PLoS, researchers looked at information on over 850,000 patients prescribed SSRIs in the Swedish Prescribed Drug Register, which is a national database of all dispensed medications. They then compared the violent crimes committed during a three-year period and compared it to violent crimes committed by the same individuals when not taking the medications. When age was taken into effect, a significant association was apparent between violent crime convictions and SSRI use in patients between the ages of 15 and 24.

In one 2001 case, Cory Baadsgaard, a 16-year-old who attended Wahluke High School in Washington, was first prescribed Paxil, which caused hallucinations, and then was switched to Effexor. He started at a 40 mg dosage that, over the course of three weeks, increased to 300 mg. On the first day of that high dose, he woke with a headache and returned to bed. He then got up, took a rifle to his high school, and held 23 classmates hostage.

Baadsgaard’s testimony claims he has no recollection of the event, or of his principal convincing him to put the gun down and release the hostages.

In 2002, the BBC aired the documentary Panorama, which focused on paroxetine. The producers received 1,374 emails from viewers, the majority of whom told stories of violence or self-harm while taking the medication, particularly when starting and when increasing the dosage.

What’s more, in 2009, after investigating the connection between SSRIs and violence, the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare revised the label warnings on these drugs to read: “There are cases where we cannot rule out a causal relationship [of hostility, anxiety, and sudden acts of violence] with the medication.”

Connection Between SSRI and Murder

In most cases, the vast majority of people who suffer from mental illness are nonviolent. Even those who self-harm are highly unlikely to hurt others. In fact, these individuals are more likely to become victims of violent crimes than the general public.

Yet after each mass shooting tragedy, the media fills with psychiatrists who say that the individual didn’t seek the help they needed and that with the proper treatment, the tragedy may have been prevented. But research doesn’t support that philosophy.

In fact, depression in particular doesn’t lead to violence, yet since the increase in SSRI antidepressants being widely prescribed, the rise in mass shootings has increased right along with it. And evidence shows that many mass shooters were either taking or had recently taken SSRIs.

Here are just some examples:

• 1989: Joseph T. Wesbecker walked into his former employer Standard Gravure Corp and shot 20 workers, killing nine. He had been taking Prozac for a month. This shooting led to a landmark case, where the survivors sued the makers of Prozac, Eli Lilly. Wesbecker used a semiautomatic Chinese AK-47-style firearm, a 9mm pistol, and a .38 Special snubnose revolver – all of which he purchased legally, passing his background check.

• 1995: Jarred Viktor was 15 when he was prescribed Paxil. Ten days after starting it, Viktor stabbed his grandmother 61 times.

• 1996: At 18, Kurt Danysh murdered his father just 17 days after being prescribed Prozac by his family doctor, who failed to do even one psychological test. During his police confession, Danysh told police the medication made him feel odd, “I just act differently. I don’t have the energy or personality I used to. I spend half the time in a trance.”

• 1997: Luke Woodham stabbed his mother, then traveled to Pearl High School, where he was enrolled, using a .30-30 to shoot two students and wound six others; he was stopped by his assistant principal (aka a good guy with a gun) who used his own .45 ACP handgun to force Woodham’s surrender.

• 1998: 15-year-old Kip Kinkel shot both of his parents, then carried a 9mm handgun, .22 rifle, and a .22 pistol to his Thurston High School, where he murdered two classmates and injured 22 more, all while taking Prozac.

• 1999: Eric Harris, 17, with Dylan Klebold, killed 12 students, one teacher, himself, and wounded 23 others during the Columbine school shooting; he had been prescribed Zoloft and then Luvox before he used a 12 gauge shotgun received through a straw purchaser and a 9mm TEC-DC9.

• 2001: Christopher Pittman, a 12-year-old, was prescribed Zoloft, which caused him to become agitated, jittery, and experience tactile hallucinations; Pittman told psychiatrist Dr. Lanette Atkins that he heard voices telling him, “Kill, kill, do it, do it.” He took a .410 shotgun and shot his grandparents, then burned their house down.

• 2001: Andrea Yates drowned all five of her children. She was taking Effexor and was suffering from delusions about satanic possession. The murder of her children led Effexor to list homicidal thoughts in the medication’s side effects. Although it’s a rare side effect, manifesting in one in 1,000 patients, over 19 million prescriptions were written and filled in 2005. That’s an estimated 19,000 people suffering from homicidal thoughts because of the medication.

• 2005: 16-year-old Jeff Weise was taking 60 mg/day of Prozac, the highest dosage for adults, when he shot his grandfather, his grandfather’s girlfriend, murdered 10 students at Red Lake, Minnesota, and wounded 12 more, before shooting himself. He was armed with a .40 caliberpistol, .22 pistol, and a 12 gauge shotgun.

• 2008: Steven Kazmierczak was prescribed Prozac, Xanax, and Ambien, a sleeping medication, three weeks before walking into Northern Illinois University, killing six people and wounding 21, with three pistols (one chambered in 9mm and two in .380 ACP) and a shotgun. Kazmierczak had stopped taking the antidepressant “because it made him feel like a zombie.”

• 2009: Two weeks after starting Lexapro, Robert Stewart walked into his estranged wife’s work at Pinelake Health and Rehab, and opened fire. He killed eight elderly patients and wounded three others. He doesn’t remember the incident.

• 2012: James Holmes, also known as the Batman Movie killer, was taking sertraline when he walked into the showing of The Dark Knight with two .40 caliber pistols, an AR-style .223 rifle, and a 12 gauge shotgun, killing 12 people and injuring 70 others. In his personal notebook, which he sent to his psychiatrist the same day as the shooting, shows that as the medication decreased his anxiety, he lost his fear of consequences. As the dosage became higher, his thoughts became more obsessive and psychotic.

• 2013: At the time of the Washington Navy Yard shooting, Aaron Alexis was a civilian contractor working at the yard and was prescribed trazodone, a serotonin antagonist and reuptake inhibitor (SARI) that works much like an SSRI to increase serotonin levels in the brain. He killed 12 people and injured eight others.

• 2014: Ivan Lopez was a 34-year-old U.S. soldier who shot 15 of his comrades, killing three of them, at his base in Fort Hood, Texas. He was undergoing mental health treatment through the Veterans’ Administration, which is known for over-prescribing medication. The VA confirmed that Lopez was taking antidepressants (the VA only uses SSRI antidepressants) during the time of the shooting and his subsequent suicide.

• 2015: From the moment it occurred, the Charleston Church shooting has been deemed an act of white supremacy, a race crime against blacks. But two years after Dylann Roof shot and killed nine people and injured another, the court released documents that show it was more mental health than hatred that led to the murders. The documents confirmed he was taking antidepressants.

• 2016: Arcan Cetin, who was just 20 years old, walked into the Cascade Mall where he shot and killed four women, one just a teen, and shot one man, who later died at the hospital. Records show that Cetin was under the care of a psychiatrist and taking medication for depression and ADHD, including Prozac.

The list goes on and on. And with the implication of patient privacy laws, getting information on the medication and mental health diagnoses of people has become harder and harder, even with mounting evidence that there’s a connection between SSRI use and violence.

In 1996, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act commonly referred to as HIPAA, was set in place. HIPAA represents the U.S.’s first attempt at national regulations for the use and disclosure of a person’s personal health information, or PHI. HIPAA makes it more difficult for medical personnel to release information regarding a person’s medical care, diagnosis, and prescription drugs, including those involved with mental health related crimes.

For example, in the 2008 Virginia Tech shooting, perpetrator Seung Hui Cho had multiple interactions with the mental health department on campus, some for suicidal ideation, but yet his parents nor authorities were never notified. University officials stated privacy laws restricted them from sharing the information.

Beyond the necessity for communication prior to these horrific shootings, after the incident, the person’s records are often protected. Even in situations where the perpetrator dies during the shooting, HIPAA protects their records for 50 years.

Because of this, the American public doesn’t know what kind of medications these people were taking and if it may have had an affect on their actions. Just looking at public shootings over the last five years, there’s a huge list of murderers who were likely on SSRIs. Here are a few:

• Zephen Xaver and the SunTrust Bank shooting
• Ian David Long and the Thousand Oaks Nightclub shooting
• Travis Reinking and the Waffle House shooting
• Nikolas Cruz and the Parkland, Florida school shooting
• Devin Patrick Kelley and the Texas church shooting

The Push for Stronger Mental Health Legislation

With the media’s coverage of mass shootings, more and more legislation arises limiting the rights of those with mental health issues. While no one wants firearms in the hands of the mentally ill, the lack of clear language surrounding mental illness, and the limitations caused by government red tape, make knee-jerk mental health legislation dangerous and lay a path for more government control.

In general, people with mental illness are rarely violent to other people. Many mental health experts and advocates agree that policies that focus on the violence of mental illness make scapegoats of the individuals, who are likely to never act violently against another person.

What’s more, according to the MacArthur Violence Risk Assessment Study (MVRAS), substance abuse was significantly more responsible for violence committed by discharged psychiatric patients than their mental health. Those patients who didn’t abuse drugs or alcohol showed no higher risk for violence than the others in their communities without mental health issues.

Laws are being created that don’t focus on the research, but on the fear of guns, thinking that stricter gun laws will keep people safer.

Red flag laws are the newest gun legislation making their way through Congress. Considered a “protective order,” red flag laws will allow a family member or law officer to petition a temporary seize on someone’s firearms if they’re deemed a threat. What a “threat” consists of isn’t clearly defined.

There’s also a push for universal background checks on all gun sales, even those sold between private individuals, and the FixNICS campaign. The philosophy behind FixNICS is that the background check system can only be as strong as the records it contains. And it’s currently missing a lot, especially when it comes to mental health issues and domestic violence.

For instance, documentation of an individual diagnosed as “mental defective,” having been involuntarily committed to a mental health setting, or having engaged in domestic abuse disqualifies that person from purchasing or owning a firearm. When this information is present in the NICS, it flags the background check and stops the sale of the firearm. But too many of these records are missing.

That was the case with the 2017 Sutherlands Springs church shooting. The gunman Devin Patrick Kelley was prohibited from purchasing firearms due to a 2012 court martial for two counts of domestic abuse. The U.S. Air Force failed to provide this information to the NICS, allowing Kelley to erroneously pass his background check and to purchase an AR-style 5.56 rifle – which he used to kill 26 people and injure 20 more. He was confronted and pursued by a neighbor, another good guy with a gun.

Gun Control, Mental Health, and SSRIs: What’s the Solution?

When it comes to mass shootings, there’s no easy solution. Violence, especially random violence, is a complex manifestation of various thoughts, feelings, and external factors. While it may be impossible to fully stop mass murders, ignoring the fact that certain medications, including SSRIs, play a role in a high percentage of these violent acts, no justice is being served.

Gun control is obviously not the solution, as the rate of mass shootings has increased over  the last 30 years, at a time when multiple gun control lawshave been implemented. Taking firearms away from law abiding citizens has not and will not stop the problem.

Personal Responsibility

Instead, doctors need to educate patients and make them aware of the risks, as well as take the time to explain warning signs to loved ones. If patients are taking medication for a mental health disorder, including depression, then they should see a mental health professional and be involved in mental health treatment. After all, medication – even mental health medication – does nothing to fix the problem, it only masks the symptoms.

Patients need to take some responsibility for their lives, improving their health before reaching for a mind-altering pill to make them feel good about themselves. A healthy diet, physical activity, and time spent in nature are ways to boost the mood that can help relieve the symptoms of mild depression.

The FDA-Big Pharma Connection

Lastly, the government and big pharmaceutical companies need to be held accountable for not sharing what they know about the medications they create. A study published in The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) looked at drug company sponsored clinical trials on antidepressants.

Of the 74 FDA-registered trials the study looked at, 38 had positive outcomes, 36 had negative outcomes. Thirty-seven of the positive outcome trials were published, but of the 36 negative outcomes trials, 22 were not published and 11 were written in a way that initially presented the data to convey a misleading positive outcome. Only three were published with unbiased and accurate information about the drug.

With this type of misrepresentation of clinical trials on medications, particularly antidepressants, the medical community and the public can’t trust medical literature for honest and reliable drug information, nor the government agency that’s designed to monitor new pharmaceuticals for safety. When medical professionals can not rely on the FDA to provide unbiased and honest clinical trial information, a true risk-benefit ratio can’t be determined and patients suffer the consequences.

Political Influence of Big Pharma

The connection between the FDA and big pharma goes beyond clinical studies. Drug companies lure FDA employees to sit on their regulatory boards. They hire their spouses. These pharmaceutical giants utilize the field’s leading experts, who happen to be the same experts who are invited by the FDA to sit on screening panels.

Big pharma’s influence over the FDA goes even deeper. Drug companies spend billions of dollars on political lobbying and campaign contributions. Direct payments support the FDA budget. And in response, the FDA conceals risks and looks the other way when necessary.

The FDA also gives its own kickback to the drug companies. Only FDA-approved medications can be prescribed for government health insurance programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and through the VA. And to ensure Big Pharma continues to sell its drugs, the federal program only allows treatment claims on FDA-approved drugs.

The FDA Approval Process

The FDA approval process is a laborious and expensive endeavor, which typically takes more than a year and can cost up to a million dollars to complete. The process allows drug companies to patent their product. But when it comes to natural supplements, they can’t be patented, and therefore don’t go through the FDA approval process. Therefore supplements, which are often highly effective with little to no side effects, can not claim to “treat” a condition, even when there’s research that supports that claim.

On the surface, this may not seem like too big of a deal, but let’s circle back to Prozac, which hit the market in 1988. In the fall of 1989, the FDA recalled the supplement L-tryptophan, an amino acid that’s a precursor for serotonin and highly effective in treating depression. The recall occurred after one supplement company had an additive that caused a flu-like reaction. On March 22, 1990, the FDA issued a complete ban of L-tryptophan for public sale. Four days later, on March 26, 1990, Prozac was featured on the cover of Newsweek, along with a lead article about its benefits.

In 2001, the ban on L-tryptophan was lifted and since, research has shown it has huge therapeutic potential in the treatment of pain, insomnia, depression, seasonal affective disorder (SAD),  bulimia, premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD), attention disorders, sleep disorders, and chronic fatigue.

A quick note about PMDD. Premenstrual dysphoric disorder is a severe form of premenstrual syndrome, otherwise known as PMS. It officially became a medical condition in 2013 with the newest addition of the DSM-V. Yet in July of 2000, the FDA approved a new medication from Eli Lilly, the same pharmaceutical company that created Prozac. The drug was Sarafem and it was marketed to treat PMDD, which technically wasn’t even a fully recognized medical condition at the time.

Sarafem is, quite literally, the exact same medication as Prozac, only in a different color capsule. Why would Eli Lilly issue the exact same drug under a different name? It just so happens that the patent for Prozac expired in August of 2001, which allowed generic versions to be made. Eli Lilly changed the medication’s name, indicated it for this “new” disease, and the company had a new patent for Sarafem that would last until 2007.

Situations like this demonstrate that the more aspects the government controls, the worse this corruption and mismanagement becomes. Federal agencies in the hands of big pharmaceutical companies, and politicians using gun control to give a false hope to the American people, distracts them from the real cause of the current state of the nation and the frequency of mass shootings.

It’s time to personally explore the evidence surrounding the issues and come to your own conclusions.

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2Hxpalq Tyler Durden

One week after Deutsche Bank’s fund flow strategist Parag Thatte noted that the sharp market drop to start May, the worst in 50 years, was “overdue” as (i) the rally since late December had been unusually long (91st percentile) and strong (96th percentile); (ii) equities at the recent peak had already priced in a rebound in growth; and (iii) positioning had become extended according to a number of indicators, he is back late on Friday, wondering whether “this was it” for the correction. 

The reason: following an almost record rally to start the year, so far the selloff has been smaller and the rebound quicker than usual.

As shown in the chart below, at the recent bottom on Monday, the market was down almost 5% from the peak, in-line with normal selloffs (3-5%) which occur every 2-3 months but somewhat less than the 5-7% selloffs which typically follow long and strong rallies. If Monday indeed marked the bottom, Thatte notes that “the selloff would also be much shorter than the usual 2-3 weeks the market takes to find a bottom” although considering the escalating trade war with China, which now appears set to last for months, the probability of another sharp move lower is increasing by the day.

Meanwhile, at the recent peak the market had run ahead and was already pricing in a strong rebound in macro as well as earnings growth, according to DB estimates. Alternatively, at the Monday bottom, the market was back in line with current growth but with the latest modest rebound, it is again slightly ahead, leaving it vulnerable in the near term.

Last week’s muted drop in S&P500 stood out starkly against the backdrop of yet another massive equity fund outflow (which hasn’t stopped since the start of the year) at -$19.5 billion was the largest since December, taking the total in the last two weeks to -$40 billion, the largest since December. 

As the Deutsche Bank strategist notes, outflows were very broad based across regions and countries this week except for one notable outlier: China equity funds saw a large $2.6bn inflow, similar to those seen during market selloffs in October and December last year. Excluding China, the rest of EM saw large  outflows (-$4.3bn) as did the US (-$8.1bn), Europe (-$4.5bn) and Japan (- $1.8bn). As the market turned around on Tuesday, equity ETFs saw inflows return on Wednesday and Thursday.

Perhaps in delayed response to the sharp escalation in trade war, last week saw modest cuts in equity positioning, with equity futures net long positions which were at the top of their historical range going into the selloff, now reduced but only modestly so and remain elevated. Following the recent spike in VIX, vol control funds sold  $13-$15bn in equities on the sell-off but then partially reversed that buying  $5-7bn back this week as VIX moderated.

As discussed last week, trend-following CTAs trimmed S&P 500 exposure but are still long.  In aggregate, the complex remains net long S&P 500 but with lighter positioning relative to 2018. CTA positioning is most crowded in long USD and long Treasuries. Risk Parity bought-the-dip to add equity beta.  Equity L/S trimmed gross leverage despite low net beta.

Derivatives metrics like put/call ratios, S&P 500 option skew, and VIX jumped very quickly from indicating bullish equities positioning to more bearish but have now moderated. Investor sentiment surveys also swung sharply from bullish to bearish in the space of a week and it would be interesting to see if the subsequent market rebound leads to optimism again.

Looking at the latest CFTC data, the record short in VIX futures at the end of April reverted in May as volatility increased and long VIX ETPs saw corresponding outflows. VIX futures positioning is now in-line with historical averages.

Positioning and flows aside, the bigger risk is that liquidity remains very low which means outsized reactions to small changes in positioning and flows. Despite high futures volumes relative to cash this week, on-screen liquidity in S&P 500 futures is still very low relative to history.

Bid-ask quotes within 1 index point of spot have been less than 50% of their previous 5Y average since February 2018.

According to Deutsche, this low liquidity means small changes in positioning can have outsized market impact, similar to the dynamics in late December 2018 when low liquidity exacerbated the volatility spike and sell-off.

Which means that with both volume, volatility and liquidity sliding, all that would take for another major selloff a la December 2018, is another surprise tweet, similar to Trump’s May 5 shocker, for the simple reason that, as Deutsche Bank concludes, the “rebound has been quicker than typical, with market pricing again ahead of current growth and much of the cut in positioning has already reversed… leaving the market vulnerable to negative catalysts.”

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2HoPqiR Tyler Durden

Via Crypterium,

Cryptocurrencies have been in the market for a decade now, and its introduction saw them join the ranks of fiat currencies as a viable mean of payment. However, even with all the benefits that crypto offer today against traditional currencies, not many are enthusiastic about them. Why? While there is not a single answer to this question, one of the reasons might be the wrong beliefs around cryptocurrencies and their underlying technology, blockchain.

A recent study shows that more than 60 percent of internet users are currently familiar with cryptocurrencies. Since familiarity breeds contempt, a lot of ‘familiarities’ and not enough information has bred some misconceptions about cryptocurrency.

For that reason, we’ve taken the time to debunk the most common myths and misconceptions about Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. Ready? Let’s get to it!

Crypto is a Replacement of FIAT Currencies

There was a time when TV was thought to kill radio; the US dollar was once anticipated to replace gold. And now cryptocurrencies are said to be a replacement for fiat money. Don’t get us the wrong way. We are all-in for this to happen, but the truth is that fiat currencies are not going anywhere anytime soon.

Nowadays, paying with cryptocurrencies is a truly seamless experience. You can either load them to a prepaid crypto card like the Crypterium Card or cash out directly to a regular bank card using an instant payouts service.

However, many people around the world continue to rely on traditional paper money. Brazil is a good example of strong cash dependency. Only last year, Brazil’s Central Bank published a report that reveals nearly half of the country’s workforce continues to get paid in cash. And that isn’t all. An additional research by the Brazilian Service to Support Micro and Small Enterprises outlined that 60% of local businesses doesn’t have POS terminals to enable card payments.

Bitcoin is Anonymous

Bitcoin is often described as ‘anonymous’ as it’s possible to move funds without providing any personal information. But that’s not entirely true. In fact, you should think of Bitcoin as ‘pseudonymous’ instead. Each transaction is registered on the blockchain under a wallet address. If that address is ever linked to your real identity, then you’re exposed!

Moreover, there are sophisticated instruments that are used by government and financial entities to track identities and that provide blockchain forensics for illegal activities.

Monero and Dash, for example, are regarded as the best privacy coins for offering higher ‘anonymity’ to their holders. In the case of Monero, transactions are divided into randomized amounts and mixed between stealth address, making it impossible to track the real origin.

Cryptocurrencies have no “Intrinsic Value”

“The idea that [Bitcoin] has some huge intrinsic value is just a joke in my view,” said Warren Buffett, one of the world’s most influential investors. And guess what? He is right.

Now, do you think FIAT currencies have “intrinsic value”? Almost nothing in the world of trading and money has it. The value of FIAT money, issued by nations, largely depends on the support fixed by governments. Bitcoin, unlike the dollar or the euro, has a limited supply, which is certainly a point on its side as it can’t be easily manipulated.

Let’s stop for a moment and see if Bitcoin and crypto actually fit the attributes of money:

• Acceptability: Money needs to be accepted by most people. Thanks to solutions like the Crypterium Card, you can spend cryptocurrencies all over the world.

• Scarcity: For a currency to have value, it should be limited. Only 21 million Bitcoins will ever be mined, which means that supply is indeed limited.

• Interchangeable: You can trade crypto against other cryptocurrencies, as well as the US dollar, the Euro, the British Pound, etc.

• Transferability: Blockchain technology makes cryptocurrencies the easiest, fastest and cheapest way to send and receive money internationally.

• Durability: Cryptocurrencies are stored on decentralized networks which guarantees longevity as long as these networks stay active.

• Divisibility: You can conveniently buy fractions of cryptocurrencies. For example, you can buy 0.001 Bitcoin.

Cryptocurrencies are Untaxable

Although some countries such as Liechtenstein, the Netherlands, and South Korea don’t impose taxes on cryptocurrencies, other nations like Spain have already alerted tax payers about required contributions to the government arcs linked to their crypto activities.

Taxation on cryptocurrencies varies depending on how countries perceive digital assets. For example, in the United Kingdom, United States, and Australia, it is taxed as a capital gain. In Germany, on the other hand, the taxation will depend on whether you are buying or selling it.

Cryptocurrencies are illegal

Back in the 1970’s, the Medellín Cartel — one of the largest organized drug cartels in history — was making $60 million in drug profits per day. Does it make the dollar an ‘illegal’ currency?

The fact that criminals use a certain currency doesn’t make it illegal. It is true that crypto is highly associated with illegal transactions. For instance, a study carried out in Australia showed that 46% of Bitcoin transactions were involved in unlawful activities. But this does not mean that it’s solely used for illegal dealings. Any other currency can also be used for illegal transactions.

The Government can shut down Cryptocurrencies

Since cryptocurrencies are hosted in decentralized networks, there is no specific person to ‘take down’ or arrest. The only way this can happen is if the entire internet infrastructure is shut down.

Bitcoin is Blockchain

Okey. Let’s not put everything on one bag. Bitcoin is a cryptocurrency and, just like any other crypto, runs on blockchain. Blockchain is not the same thing as Bitcoin. Blockchain is a distributed ledger technology that is used in many different industries, not just finance.

If we were to assume that Bitcoin is a train, then, in this case, blockchain will be the train tracks. As mentioned above, blockchain allows information to be stored in a decentralized database.

Cryptocurrency is a reward that the blockchain offers miners for developing the network. To date, there are more than 1500 available coins and there is a blockchain behind each of them. That said, we can conclude that blockchain can exist in other contexts than crypto; however, crypto cannot exist outside a blockchain.

The Crypto Market is a Bubble

We get it. When you see an asset fall in value by half in a few days, bubble is the first thing that comes to mind. But bubbles aren’t always a bad thing. In fact, when bubbles have the power to boost mass adoption. Just like it happened with the dotcom or internet bubble back in the 90s.

Once the bubble bursts, it helps the market get rid of certain players, especially the ones without strong value propositions. The crypto market has experienced a speculative bubble, but as predicted by Crypterium analysts back in December, the market is recovering consistently.

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2Wb2fpu Tyler Durden

Following in the footsteps of easily the most successful IPO in recent history, Beyond Meat, Impossible Foods, maker of vegan meat substitutes, has just raised another $300 million. The company is now valued at about $2 billion, according to FT.

The latest round of funding raised by Impossible Foods was led by Temasek of Singapore and Li Ka-shing’s Horizons Ventures and has taken the company’s total cash raised to over $750 million. Meanwhile, Beyond Meat’s share price has tripled since two weeks ago when it listed at $25 per share. It now has a market cap over $5 billion and was last trading with a $90 handle. 

Impossible Foods’ fundraising comes after the company just announced a partnership with Burger King, who is rolling out the “Impossible Whopper” to more than 7,000 restaurants, doubling Impossible’s US footprint. The “Impossible Whopper” is just like the classic Whopper, but made with an Impossible patty, according to Impossible’s promotional website for the partnership.

“What’s in the patty? Mostly soy protein, potato protein, coconut oil, sunflower oil, and heme,” the site reads. 

José Cil, chief executive of Restaurant Brands, Burger King’s owner, said that the offering will attract new customers and that Burger King is targeting an international rollout before the end of the year.

Demand for Impossible burgers has led to shortages at some restaurants. The company is going to be using its newly raised capital to meet this demand.

David Lee, chief financial officer for Impossible, said the capital will be used to bolster production capacity: “We are challenged with unprecedented increase in demand. We’re doing everything to increase our supply.”

Impossible Foods was founded not even a decade ago in 2011 by Pat Brown, a Stanford University biochemistry professor.

The company is targeting eliminating the need for animals in the food chain by the year 2035. It will be adding a second production line in California, where it already has a plant. Since the company launched in Singapore in March, sales have tripled in Asia with the substitute being used in traditional meat dishes, like dumplings.

Both Impossible Foods and Beyond Meat have based their meat substitutes on molecular science, using cells that mimic animal protein using plant nutrients. The companies both claim that their products have the same taste and texture as beef. The products even “bleed” like regular burgers – except the “blood” is a protein created through genetic engineering in Impossible’s burgers. Beyond Meat dumbs the “bleeding” down and simply uses beetroot juice.

Whether or not the substitutes will ultimately be a fad remains to be seen. But judging by BYND’s trading and Impossible’s ability to raise capital, investors don’t look like they’re going to be waiting for “beetroot juice in the streets” before buying anytime soon. 

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2VPOyNl Tyler Durden

Submitted by Michael Every of Rabobank

So say we all

“By putting more barriers in China’s path to US markets and, in the process, risking some short-term damage to the domestic and global economies, President Donald Trump could exact a heavy long-term cost on the world’s second-largest economy. Indeed, he may even threaten China’s chances of eventually entering the ranks of high-income countries. Chinese leaders have long known that they need to change their development model if they are to make this difficult transition, powering through the dreaded “middle-income trap” that’s tripped up so many other developing countries…

With external tailwinds turning into headwinds, China will need to rely far more on domestic demand to generate prosperity. To do so without building up risks in the financial system, Beijing would need to promote far greater household consumption and private investment, rather than relying on the debt-fuelled government investment and inefficient state owned enterprises that have helped drive domestic engines of growth for most of the last several decades.”

So says Mohamed El-Erian, writing for Bloomberg, after the US shut Huawei out of its markets, legislation to apply the same export restrictions to ALL firms listed under ‘Made in China 2025’ progresses through Congress, and suggestions fly the US might even go as far as placing Iran-style sanctions on any third party that IS prepared to sell crucial inputs to Huawei. Given Chinese households are swimming in debt and its housing bubble is the world’s largest, and that boosting lending to private firms is out of line with local banks resources, I say “Checkmate, Mr Trampoline.”

“China’s economic growth could tumble, debt surge and foreign companies flee in a deepening trade war, economists warn as a week of escalating tensions forces them to ponder worst-case scenarios…Analysts are assessing the damage to China’s role as the world’s supply hub as tariffs drive manufacturers overseas.”

So says Bloomberg in ‘China’s Trade Worst Case: Growth Slows, Debt Rises, Companies Exit’.

“Altogether, an economic war with the US blows China up. China would be cut off from Western markets, ideas, technology, and US dollar-flow long, long before it’s ready to replace the US for real.”

So say I in the aforementioned article, echoing something I have been pointing out to a then-sceptical audience since late 2017.

“President Donald Trump’s new tariffs are helping to erode China’s appeal as a place where stuff gets made…a chorus of executives…are citing the trade war as the final straw in their shift out of China, with margins already squeezed by rising labour costs, tougher environmental standards and domestic competition. Last week Trump hiked tariffs on USD200 billion of Chinese imports and the US is readying the expansion of that treatment to the remainder. Even Chinese firms are moving to dodge the tariffs….”

So says Bloomberg again in ‘Trump Tariffs Seal the Deal for Companies Looking to Quit China’.

“Western companies, including brand name apparel makers and food companies, have become entangled in China’s campaign to forcibly assimilate its Muslim population….at the end of long, often opaque supply chains that travel through China’s northwest region of Xinjiang. Residents there are routinely forced into training programs that feed workers to area factories, according to locals, official notices and state media.”

So says the Wall Street Journal in ‘Western Companies Get Tangled in China’s Muslim Clampdown’. So let’s add a serious reputational risk to those huge economic problems, US tariffs forcing, and a technology squeeze.

China should ‘stop selling rare earths to the US; sell off its US Treasuries; and shut US firms out its lucrative concentration camps markets’.

So says China’s Global Times in an op-ed, ‘China has three trump cards to win trade war with US’. Well, the second threat is nonsense, as we keep explaining, and doesn’t boost the credibility of the Global Times, to put it mildly; the last will accelerate the flood of firms out of China; and the first means the US will just buy rare earths from Mexico, Vietnam–notice how these two keep winning?–or Australia and in the future Japan, as well as developing its own resources. The economic divorce will simply accelerate.

“I’m going to go for it. Of course I’m going to go for it.”

So says Trump regarding tariffs Boris Johnson in regards to the Tory leadership now that PM May is likely to be out the door by the end of June: May-xit? She first has to fail in her last attempt to get her Withdrawal Agreement through Parliament, after which a short timetable for her departure will be imposed. And won’t the EU be pleased with a sweeping victory for The Brexit Party in the EU polls next week and then new hard-line PM Johnson?

“Prepare for proxy war”

So says the EU regarding Boris a top Iranian military leader, according to the Guardian, suggesting it isn’t just John ‘Gulf of Tonkin’ Bolton looking for a scrap in the region.

“It’s always time to buy stocks.”

So say brokers in the US–for a change–where the Dow closed up 0.8% regardless, while Shanghai dared to see some slight selling (I want names!) after a large rally yesterday that was in no way intended by the authorities to display to the world that China-will-be-just-fine-regardless-of-the-trade-war, thank-you-very-much. CNH touched 6.9464 on Friday, which is perhaps of more interest, as is AUD breaking below 69c and staying there at the time of writing. That doesn’t match its January low of 0.6740. But we will get there soon enough, trust me.

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/30rwU0W Tyler Durden

America’s manufacturing sector was established in Ohio. But decades of deindustrialization have left once-thriving communities across the state in ruins. Ohio’s manufacturing jobs were slashed to half by 2016, and median household income fell below the national average.

At the same time, tens of thousands of Ohioans lost their jobs, became depressed under financial pressure, and from 2008 to 2017, the suicide rate in the state jumped 24%, according to the Akron Beacon Journal.

Some of the highest rates were located in Appalachian Ohio, the southeastern part of the state, and the suicide rate among men was four times greater than women.

Rates skyrocketed 80% among young millennials (children 14 and younger) and 57% for baby boomers, according to a report published by the 28-organization public-private Ohio Alliance for Innovation in Population Health.

During the period, there were 15,246 suicides across the state, for an average annual rate of 13.3 deaths per 100,000 people, the report says, which equates to more than 520,000 years of life were lost over the decade. 

Summit County had 786 suicides from 2008 to 2017, at a rate of 14.51 per 100,000 population. Summit’s economy experienced deep deindustrialization over the years, leaving surrounding communities in a state of shock.

Other counties and their suicides and rates were: Stark (591, 15.74), Medina (206, 11.95), Portage (189, 11.71), Cuyahoga (1,461, 11.41) and Wayne (125, 10.92).

Lori Criss, director of the Ohio Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services, said the suicide crisis is a significant concern for the State Health Improvement Plan.

“Our department and a number of others have initiatives that address suicide prevention and support families impacted by losing a loved one to suicide,” Criss said. “This gives us a chance to really look at those and to grow them in intentional ways to have the impact that we need with specific communities or populations who are at higher risk.”

The report shows nine of the 10 Ohio counties with the highest suicide rates are located in the Appalachian region.

Orman Hall, the study’s author, explained these areas had experienced economic deprivation through deindustrialization.

Michelle Price, program director at the Ohio Suicide Prevention Foundation, added that these counties had seen incomes collapse for farmers and industrial workers.

Other findings: The highest suicide rates were among white Ohioans; rate increases were more in rural communities than in metropolitan areas, and firearms accounted for half of all suicides.

With a manufacturing recovery nowhere in sight and a deepening trade war, it’s likely suicide rates across the state will continue to move higher into 2020. When the next downturn strikes, one-off factors relating to financial asset losses could drive the rate to record highs.

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2LPotJr Tyler Durden

Authored by Robert Bridge via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

Hypocritical to the core, the execution of false-flag events spare aggressive states the ignominy of appearing in public as the warmongering psychopaths they are, lest their subjects get the wrong idea as to exactly who is governing over them.

The last thing tyrannical rulers want, after all, are battles raging on two fronts, especially if one of those fronts just happens to be back in the Heartland. Psychopaths are mentally deranged, of course, but that does not mean they are necessarily stupid.

Thus, once again, the United States is flying its jolly tricolors from the Mediterranean Sea into the Persian Gulf led by the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, as well as nuclear-capable B-52 bombers and a Patriot missile battery on standby. But America’s reputation as a rabble-rouser and hell raiser long preceded its entry into the Gulf, as did the frenetic rhetoric.

Just as the fleet was en route, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo delivered a warning that was so far beyond the pale of reality that it sounded as though it were scripted by a Hollywood film director with a penchant for embellishing American history.

“The response of the United States and our partners and allies has been clear: We do not seek war,” the statement reads.

“But Iran’s forty years of killing American soldiers, attacking American facilities, and taking American hostages is a constant reminder that we must defend ourselves.”

Forty years of killing Americans? Really? That comment brought to mind Pompeo’s recent display of braggadocio as he reminisced over his former CIA days. “We lied, we cheated, we stole,” he confessed with a hearty chuckle to an audience from Texas A&M University last month. “We had entire training courses. It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment.”

Ah yes, the glory days. Next he’ll be shooting off about how he enjoys shaving with napalm in the morning, or some such nonsense.

In any case, the prospect of America’s leading diplomat who basically admits to being a bald-faced liar, and darn proud of it, delivering a fiery shot across the bow of the Iranian Republic at the same time a large US naval group is entering the Persian Gulf and Iran is struggling under severe sanctions does very little to instill much comfort or confidence.

NEW from @SecPompeo: We do not seek war. But Iran’s forty years of killing American soldiers, attacking American facilities, and taking American hostages is a constant reminder that we must defend ourselves. pic.twitter.com/2b8dYIKHRS

— Christina Ruffini (@EenaRuffini) May 9, 2019

One week before the US naval fleet turned up in Gulf waters, Pompeo was already laying the necessary groundwork for the buildup, saying that the US has observed “escalatory actions from the Iranians, and it is equally the case that we will hold the Iranians accountable for attacks on American interests,” he said, without providing any details. “If these actions take place — if they do by some third-party proxy, a militia group, Hezbollah — we will hold the Iranian leadership directly accountable for that.”

Now for anyone who followed the protracted Syrian crisis understands, that is exactly the sort of crazy talk that inspires friends and foes alike to pull off a false-flag attack that will force the United States to live up to its word and go after the villains, which will predictably be – as was the case following the chemical attacks against the Syrian rebels when the ‘Assad regime’ was duly blamed – the Islamic Republic of Iran.

So where did the information regarding a possible Iranian strike on some “American interest” derive? According to Axios, that news was delivered to National Security Advisor John Bolton by an Israeli delegation led by national security adviser Meir Ben Shabbat.

It is not too much of a stretch of the imagination to figure that the Israelis may have produced the report knowing full well that it would ratchet up tensions between Washington and Tehran, and more so when it is understood that the mad hatters Pompeo and Bolton figure into the calculus. Who knows? Perhaps they really do mean what they have been saying for years about Iran and would relish the prospects of an ‘Iranian attack,’ or false flag event in order to get World War III, which they both seem to anticipate with more excitement than the Second Coming.

Meanwhile, it should come as no surprise that the mainstream media is doing everything in its power to stoke the flames. On Monday, the New York Times, citing unnamed sources, published an article alleging that the White House was drafting plans to deploy some 120,000 troops to the Middle East in the event Iran attacked US forces or expedited work on nuclear weapon research. The paper giddily reported that such a force “would approach the size of the American force that invaded Iraq in 2003.” Trump, however, ruined the war party, flat out denying the claim, saying he would send a lot more than 120,000 troops under such circumstances.

To underscore exactly how dangerous the situation is becoming, Sputnik reported that four commercial ships – two Saudi, one Emirati and one Norwegian – were targets of a “sabotage attack” off the coast of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) on Sunday.

It should come as no surprise as to what country was blamed. “Iranian or Iranian-backed proxies” are thought to be behind the attack, according to US officials.

Although Iran in the past may have played down such provocations, this time around they are showing a striking level of confidence in the face of American firepower. “An aircraft carrier that has at least 40 to 50 planes on it and 6000 forces gathered within it was a serious threat for us in the past,” Amirali Hajiadeh, who heads Iran’s Revolutionary Guard’s aerospace unit, told the Iranian Students’ News Agency (ISNA), as reported by RT. “But now, the threats have switched to opportunities,” he added.

The only thing left to consider now is whether Trump left Bolton and Pompeo to their own mischievous devices in their dealings with Iran and even Israel, or is there some sort of safety catch on the gun, so to speak.

Considering that Trump didn’t seem to be fully informed as to what was happening in Venezuela with regards to puppet president Juan Guaido’s recent failed attempt at a coup, it makes one wonder if Trump is equally in the dark as to what is happening with Iran. The prospect of such a possibility is simply too terrifying to even contemplate.

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2w69DDE Tyler Durden

It’s not just interest rates that are going negative around the globe: in a world in which money is increasingly going to robot, passive and various other low-cost, ETF-based investors, some fund managers are desperate enough to attract new outside capital that they are offering a negative fee model, that will pay investors and clients to manage their money, according to FT.

With the rise of passive investing instruments and a centrally-planned market that’s making even the stupidest investors look like geniuses thanks to central bank intervention when there is even the smallest dip, competition among passive and active managers has reached a fever pitch, even though (as the chart below shows), passive is clearly winning and active investing is losing. And because profitability for many funds comes primarily from asset growth instead of performance, the competition has been to lower fees in order to attract new business. This led Fidelity to launch the first ever zero-fee funds last year.

But now, a boutique US fund manager called Salt Financial wants to take it one step further and offer funds that have expense ratios of negative 5 bps, effectively crediting customers $5 for every $10,000 they invest. While some say this is the next evolution in the space, others simply say it’s a marketing stunt. Ben Johnson, director of global ETF research at Morningstar said: “The fee war is now a PR war”. 

Asset managers relinquished $3.5 billion in income through fee cuts last year and have given up nearly $16 billion since 2014. Products with the lowest expense ratios – those under 5 bps – grew 20 times faster than products with expense ratios over 20 bps. And some of the biggest names in finance, including Blackrock, Vanguard and J.P. Morgan have been aggressive in slashing fees.

The company’s Low truBeta US Market ETF has a management fee of 29 bps, but Salt would offer a discount of 34 bps, essentially netting the investor 5 bps. The negative fee will apply to the first $100 million invested in the fund for the first year.

President of Salt Financial, Alfred Eskandar, said that the company made the offer as a result of struggling to attract assets to the first ETF it launched last year. He continued, noting that “…advisers had contacted him and were interested in the product but were unable to invest clients’ money as the fund total had not reached $100m. This, he says, is due to misconceptions over the lack of liquidity in small funds and the higher chance that new products would shut.”

He said: “When we launched we didn’t realize how closed off the market was to new providers — more than 80 per cent is out of reach.”

Eskandar compares the negative fee model to mobile phone networks that offer free phones as a way to attract longer-term business. Like those companies, Salt believes they can retain customers through strong performance. He continued: “New ETF issuers have two choices — they can do their best to survive for the six years it takes on average to get to $100m, or they can do something more drastic that gets them there quicker. How else can they compete in a market that isn’t a level playing field?”

Rosenbluth said that he expects small companies to offer similar types of incentives if they’re having trouble getting into the market: “There are hundreds of ETFs that have more than three years of history but less than $100m of assets. It seems like a logical step for an asset manager — rather than killing off the fund, giving it a last gasp of breath.”

He also expects negative fee incentives to be temporary. He pointed out that many managers already offer fee waivers and pay brokerage companies to feature on the platform. “Negative fees may be a taboo at the moment but it’s the logical extension,” Rosenbluth continued. 

Warren Miller, chief executive of Flowspring, said managers could offer some negative fee programs that are permanent: “There’s more than one way to skin a cat and there’s more than one way to monetise a fund.”

Last year, influential pension consultancy Mercer caught the attention of the industry by proposing that asset managers should pay investors to run their portfolios and provide performance guarantees.

Divyesh Hindocha, a partner at Mercer, wrote: “If you believe in a strategy, surely you should put a bit of your capital in it — why wouldn’t you?”

We first reported on Salt’s negative fee ETF in March of this year. 

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2WcxyQH Tyler Durden

Authored by Doug Casey via InternationalMan.com,

The Chinese came from nothing; only 40 years ago, they had nothing but a billion impoverished peasants. No money. No technology. No power. Today, they’re on par with the United States. But, if this trend continues – which it will – their economy will be triple the size of the US economy in 20 years.

Not just a trade war, but a shooting war with the Chinese seems inevitable. Because when tensions build up between states they eventually fight with each other. China is the major rising power. It’s got four times the US population, it’s soon going to be more economically powerful, and it’s going to reach military parity. It’s of a different culture than the US. The US government may figure it’s best to take them out while the balance still favors them. It’s a bit like the situation was with the USSR in the ’80s. They could see they were going into decline, and some Soviet generals figured it was “now or never” for a successful war. Fortunately they collapsed first.

The Chinese don’t like seeing US aircraft carriers off their coast any more than we would like to see Chinese aircraft carriers in the Gulf of Mexico or off Santa Catalina Island.

The last thing that we need is a war with the Chinese. But if something that’s been called the Thucydides Trap is valid – and I think it is – then it’s highly likely. It refers to the Peloponnesian War between Athens and Sparta, at the end of 5th century BC. The Trap is sprung when a reigning power strikes out at the advancing power while they still have a chance of winning.

The American military thinks that a shooting war is inevitable. And it probably is. Why? Well, 5,000 years of history teaches us that it’s better to start a war when you’re more powerful than your enemy rather than wait until they’re more powerful than you. It’s always been this way. The Golden Rule of statecraft is: Do unto others – but do it first. It’s a very dangerous situation.

The US may do something stupid, like fabricate an incident, and launch a preemptive strike against China. Or perhaps things just get out of control, as they did in World War I.

It would make about as much sense as the Peloponnesian War, or World War I. But these things can take on a life of their own.

The wars between European powers were bad enough. But when the US fought Japan it actually turned into a race war. What happened in the Pacific was far uglier than what happened in Europe. There were basically no prisoners taken.

The next big war – as opposed to a sport war, like those in the Middle East – is likely to be with China. That could make World War II look trivial by comparison.

The Next Financial Crisis Will Be “The Big One”

Nobody has a crystal ball, but I think you can see the dominos lining up. Will this be the big one, or will it just be another recession – an inconvenience, followed by even bigger bubbles? It’s a question of odds. And the more dominos that lineup – the political, economic, social, demographic, military, and cultural dominos – the more logical that this next one is going to be much bigger than what happened in 2008.

That’s why I use the analogy of 2007-2010 being the leading edge of this hurricane. We’ve had a very big eye of the storm because of absolutely massive money printing by central banks all over the world. It’s had the effect of throwing oil on the water.

When we go into the trailing edge of this hurricane, it’s going to be much worse, much different, and much longer lasting than the unpleasantness of 2007-2010. Why? Because that was caused by inflation and debt. We’ve had vastly more of that over the last decade to paper over the problems. I think we’re re-entering the hurricane now.

But there’s always some good news. Here the good news is that most of the real wealth in the world – skills, technologies, buildings, things of that nature – won’t disappear just because the economy collapses. Most of the real wealth will still be here. It’s just going to change ownership.

I look forward to moments of crisis – assuming that the system itself is maintained in more or less its present form. In other words, it’s possible to look forward to a financial crisis, if you can position yourself to weather it. Financial crises come and go. It’s possible to position yourself to profit from a financial crisis.

I’m not, however, looking forward to an economic crisis, or a political crisis. Those can have major consequences. And I’m absolutely not looking forward to a cultural crisis, which is by far the most serious kind. Unfortunately, that is what we’re facing at this point.

Let’s just hope that what’s coming this time, over the next few years, is limited to a financial crisis. But I don’t expect that’s the case. I think it’s going to be economic, political, and cultural as well.

*  *  *

If the trade war between China and the US turns into a shooting war, a complete economic collapse is sure to follow. That’s why we’re sharing our field guide to Surviving and Thriving During an Economic Collapse. Click here to download your free PDF copy now.

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2YuI8jw Tyler Durden