Month: June 2024

Authored by Sheramy Tsai via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A new study that came out on Friday shows that intermittent fasting may control blood sugar more effectively than popular diabetes medications for people with Type 2 diabetes. Participants on a 5:2 intermittent fasting diet—eating normally for five days and reducing calories for two—had better blood sugar levels and greater weight loss than those on standard diabetes drugs. This suggests that dietary changes could be a potent method for managing diabetes.

Study Highlights and Key Findings

The EARLY [Exploration of Treatment of Newly Diagnosed Overweight/Obese Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus] study, a randomized clinical trial conducted across nine centers in China, assessed the effects of an intermittent fasting diet on glycemic control in adults with Type 2 diabetes.

The trial involved 405 participants, divided into three groups: one following the 5:2 fasting diet with meal replacements (MR) and the other two taking either metformin or empagliflozin (drugs to treat Type 2 diabetes).

Those on the 5:2 intermittent fasting diet had two non-consecutive fasting days each week, during which they consumed a low-calorie meal replacement product, limiting intake to 500 calories for women and 600 calories for men.

On the other five days, they ate their usual breakfast and lunch but had a different meal replacement product for dinner while monitoring their overall calorie intake.

All participants received comprehensive dietary and exercise guidance, along with general diabetes education from nutritionists and research physicians.

Over 16 weeks, participants on the 5:2 intermittent fasting diet experienced a significant drop in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels—a key measure of blood sugar control. The fasting group had an average reduction of 1.9 percent, compared to 1.6 percent in the metformin group and 1.5 percent in the empagliflozin group.

The study also reported significant weight loss for those on the fasting diet. Participants in the 5:2 group lost an average of 21 pounds, compared to 12 pounds in the metformin group and 13 pounds in the empagliflozin group.

The study concluded that “the 5:2 MR approach may serve as an effective initial lifestyle intervention instead of antidiabetic drugs for patients with type 2 diabetes.”

Intermittent Fasting and Diabetes

Intermittent fasting has garnered significant attention for its potential benefits in managing blood glucose levels, particularly for individuals with Type 2 diabetes. According to Dr. Jason Fung, a leading expert in intermittent fasting and author of “The Diabetes Code,” limiting calorie intake on certain days helps stabilize blood sugar levels, improve insulin sensitivity, and reduce the risk of diabetes-related complications.

Fasting allows your body to lower insulin levels and burn stored fat for energy, improving insulin sensitivity. This means your cells are better able to use glucose, reducing overall blood sugar levels. A 2023 study published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism found that 47 percent of intermittent fasting participants achieved diabetes remission.

“It’s nothing more or less than give your body a break and let it burn off all that energy that you’ve stored away because that’s the natural thing to do if you’ve stored too much,” Dr. Fung said in a talk presented at the “Food for Thought 2023: Rising to the challenge of obesity and diabetes” conference.

Another study from 2022, published in the International Journal of Endocrinology, found that intermittent fasting significantly improves blood glucose and lipid levels, as well as insulin resistance, in patients with metabolic syndrome. The meta-analysis showed reductions in fasting blood glucose, HbA1c, insulin levels, and body weight. The study concluded, “Intermittent fasting diets have certain therapeutic effects on blood glucose and lipids in patients with metabolic syndrome and significantly improve insulin resistance.”

A Manageable Approach

The 5:2 intermittent fasting method has shown promise due to its manageable structure. This approach allows individuals to maintain their regular lifestyle most of the week while reaping the benefits of fasting. These studies highlight the potential of intermittent fasting as a practical, non-pharmaceutical approach to managing Type 2 diabetes, offering a flexible option for patients seeking lifestyle-based interventions.

“Studies performed on people with Type 2 diabetes (T2D) have shown that intermittent fasting can lead to weight loss, improvements in glycemic control, and even in some cases, remission of diabetes,” Dr. Andrew Demidowich, an endocrinologist at Johns Hopkins Medicine told The Epoch Times in an email. “This doesn’t mean that intermittent fasting will work for, or is even safe for everyone with T2D, but this dietary strategy is a promising area of active research.”

Practical Tips for Implementing Intermittent Fasting

Dr. Demidowich offers practical tips and considerations for those interested in trying the intermittent fasting diet.

• Start Gradually: If you’re new to fasting, ease into it by gradually reducing your calorie intake on fasting days. This can help your body adjust and make the transition smoother.
• Choose Nutrient-Dense Foods: On fasting days, focus on eating low-calorie, nutrient-dense foods. The meal replacement products used in the study provided essential nutrients while keeping calorie intake low. You can create similar meals with lean proteins, vegetables, and healthy fats.
• Stay Hydrated: Drinking plenty of water is crucial, especially on fasting days. Hydration helps control hunger and keeps your body functioning optimally.
• Monitor Your Progress: Keep a food diary to track your intake and how you feel after eating. Monitoring your blood sugar levels, weight, and overall health can help you understand how intermittent fasting affects your body.
• Consult a Health Care Professional: Before starting any new diet regimen, especially if you have a medical condition such as diabetes, it’s essential to consult with a health care provider. They can provide personalized advice and ensure that the diet is safe for you.

Implementing these tips can make the intermittent fasting diet more manageable and effective, allowing you to experience its potential benefits for blood sugar control and overall health.

Authored by Michael Snyder via TheMostImportantNews.com,

When I first started researching this, I could hardly believe that it was true. A company in Switzerland known as “Final Spark” has constructed a bizarre hybrid biocomputer that combines lab-grown miniature human brains with conventional electronic circuits.  This approach saves an extraordinary amount of energy compared to normal computers, but there is a big problem.  The lab-grown miniature human brains keep wearing out and dying, and so scientists have to keep growing new ones to replace them. 

Stem cells that are derived from human skin tissue are used to create the 16 spherical brain “organoids” that the system depends upon.  I realize that this sounds like something straight out of a really bad science fiction movie, but it is actually happening.

Scientists at Final Spark are calling their hybrid computer “the Neuroplatform”, and it is being reported that it only uses “a fraction of the energy required to power a traditional set up”…

Swiss tech startup FinalSpark is now selling access to biocomputers that combine up to four tiny lab-grown human brains with silicon chips.

This new bioprocessing platform, called the Neuroplatform, uses small versions of human brains to do computer work instead of silicon chips. The company says it can fit 16 of these mini-brains onto the Neuroplatform and use a fraction of the energy required to power a traditional set up.

The platform, currently adopted by nine institutions, integrates hardware, software and biology to construct a processing system that is energy-efficient and high-performing.

This “breakthrough” is being hailed as a way to save a gigantic amount of energy.

But what about the lab-grown human brains that are being enslaved to run the Neuroplatform?

Each of the 16 mini-brains is made up of approximately 10,000 living neurons, and they are kept alive by a “microfluidics system that supplies water and nutrients for the cells”…

Rather than merely integrating biological concepts into computing, FinalSpark’s online platform ‘taps’ into spherical clusters of lab-grown human brain cells called organoids. A total of 16 organoids are housed within four arrays that connect to eight electrodes each and a microfluidics system that supplies water and nutrients for the cells.

The approach, known as wetware computing, in this case harnesses researchers’ abilities to culture organoids in the lab, a fairly new technology that allows scientists to study what are essentially mini replicas of individual organs.

During their short lives, the mini-brains are literally trained to perform certain tasks using a reward and punishment system…

Researchers do this by training the organoids through a reward system. The organoids are rewarded with dopamine, the neurotransmitter responsible for pleasure (and addiction).

Meanwhile, as “punishment,” the organoids are exposed to chaotic stimuli, such as irregular electrical activity.

If the enslaved mini-brains do what they are supposed to do, they are rewarded with lots of pleasure.

If the enslaved mini-brains do not do what they are supposed to do, they are hit with lots of “irregular electrical activity”.

In other words, these miniature human brains are tortured until they learn to obey.

Reading that should literally make you sick.

What these scientists are doing is so incredibly evil.

Final Spark claims that the miniature human brains use “a million times less power than their silicon counterparts”…

Swiss technology firm Final Spark has successfully launched Neuroplatform, the world’s first bioprocessing platform where human brain organoids (lab-grown miniaturized versions of organs) perform computational tasks instead of silicon chips.

The first such facility hosts the processing prowess of 16 brain organoids, which the company claims uses a million times less power than their silicon counterparts.

Final Spark hopes that their new “technology” will become the primary energy source for the AI revolution.

Because at this point training AI models uses a colossal amount of conventional energy…

According to Final Spark’s estimates, training the popular large language model GPT-3 that powered ChatGPT in its initial days alone consumed 10 GWh of energy. This is a whopping 6,000 times more energy than an average European city consumes in an entire year.

Replacing silicon chips with bioprocessors could lead to drastic energy savings. Final Spark allows research labs to experience the power of biological processors on the Neuroplatform.

To a lot of people out there, this is going to sound really great.

Final Spark insists that the processor that it has created will use a million times less energy compared to a normal silicon chip.

There is just one enormous problem.

The mini-brains keep dying and must be regularly replaced.

At first they would die “in just a few hours”, but now they are apparently living for up to 100 days…

Final Spark faced many challenges in its early years since the organoids would die in just a few hours. The company has worked on this shortcoming and improved its MEA systems to ensure that organoids live for 100 days.

These “organoids” are literally worked to death.

They are hooked up to electrodes and worked until they can work no more…

Final Spark has made working these varied components possible through an innovative setup called Multi-Electrode Arrays (MEAs), where the three-dimensional masses of brain tissue are placed.

Each MEA has four brain organoids that interface with eight electrodes. These electrodes perform the dual role of stimulating the organoids and recording the data they process.

Data transfer is done through digital analog converters with a 16-bit resolution and a 30 kHz frequency. A microfluidic system provides life support for the MEAs, and cameras can monitor their overall operation.

Have you ever seen “The Matrix”?

I was reminded of that film as I researched all of this.

Just like in that movie, human energy powers the entire system.

And just like in that movie, those that power the system are enslaved.

The creators of “the Neuroplatform” insist that this is perfectly okay because the mini-brains are not sentient beings.

Whether that is true or not, what they are doing is still very wrong.

Creating miniature human brains and using them to power a computer may be a way to save a lot of energy, but it also perfectly illustrates how far our society has fallen.

We are crossing lines that should never be crossed, and eventually we will pay a very great price for the crimes that our scientists are committing.

*  *  *

Michael’s new book entitled “Chaos” is available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.com, and you can subscribe to his Substack  newsletter at michaeltsnyder.substack.com.

Authored by Chase Smith via The Epoch Times,

U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy issued the first-ever surgeon general’s advisory on firearm violence on June 25, saying that it poses an urgent threat to the nation’s health and well-being.

The unprecedented advisory calls for a public health approach to address what Dr. Murthy describes as a “moral crisis” that demands immediate and decisive action.

A surgeon general’s advisory is a public statement that calls the American people’s attention to urgent public health issues and is reserved for significant public health challenges that require the nation’s immediate awareness and action.

“Today, for the first time in the history of our office, I am issuing a Surgeon General’s Advisory on firearm violence,” Dr. Murthy said in a video statement.

“It outlines the urgent threat firearm violence poses to the health and well-being of our country. As a doctor, I’ve seen the consequences of firearm violence up close and the lives of the patients that cared for over the years. These are moms and dads, sons and daughters, all of whom were robbed of their physical and mental health by senseless acts of violence.”

The announcement on firearms comes a little over a week after the surgeon general called for a warning label to be placed on social media platforms, stating the potential mental health harms for children using them.

Opponents of the action argue that the surgeon general’s advisory could potentially infringe on Second Amendment rights if enforced improperly, while proponents say it could have a similar impact on public policy and perception as similar advisories, such as those on the dangers of smoking.

Rise in Firearm-related Injuries

Dr. Murthy’s announcement included statistics and personal experiences. According to the advisory, firearm-related injuries have become the leading cause of death for U.S. children and adolescents, surpassing motor vehicle crashes, cancer, and drug overdoses.

In 2022 alone, 48,204 people died from firearm-related injuries, marking a significant increase compared to previous years, according to the advisory.

“Fifty-four percent of adults in America report that they or family members have experienced a firearm-related incident, whether they’ve been personally threatened with or injured by a firearm, lost a family member, witnessed a shooting, or shot a firearm in self-defense,” Dr. Murthy said.

The advisory states that black individuals suffer the highest rates of firearm homicides, while suicide rates are highest among veterans, older white individuals, and younger American Indian or Alaska Native people.

“What is especially devastating is how this has affected our children,” Dr. Murthy said.

Dr. Murthy shared his personal experiences as a doctor, recounting the stories of patients and families affected.

“I’ve sat with parents who’ve lost their child to firearm violence. I’ve listened to their stories and felt their pain as they describe the holes in their hearts,” he said. “As a father, I know a parent’s worst nightmare is to lose a child, to feel like you can’t protect your child from harm.”

Criticism of Policy

Second Amendment advocates with The Heller Foundation have voiced strong criticisms of the approach by America’s chief public health figure.

Kristie Tertel, national director of Legislative Policy for The Heller Foundation warns that the advisory could unlawfully infringe on Second Amendment rights.

“The U.S. Surgeon General is using the guise of a ‘public health emergency’ as an unlawful and unconstitutional means of circumventing the Heller decision,” she told The Epoch Times.

Ms. Tertel emphasizes that the Supreme Court’s ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller established a binding precedent affirming an individual’s right to possess firearms for self-defense.

She noted Justice Scalia’s majority opinion which stated, “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense.”

She added her own personal experience where having a firearm would have helped her avoid being the victim of a crime.

“A firearm is the great equalizer,” she told The Epoch Times. “I am Australian-American and thought guns were dumb—until I needed one. I have over 30 stalkers nationwide. My ex-boyfriend beat me into a coma seven times and left me for dead in a Baltimore dumpster. Two years ago I was brutally drugged and raped and we are now prosecuting him for attempted murder. Had I been armed and trained, it would have all been prevented.”

Dick Heller, the lead plaintiff in the landmark DC v. Heller case and executive director of The Heller Foundation, also dismissed the advisory’s potential impact on the Second Amendment, suggesting that the real issue lies with criminal behavior, not firearms.

“The only effect the advisory will have on the Second Amendment is the fake news trying to blame ‘helpless’ firearms for what people do,” he said in an interview with The Epoch Times. Heller argued that firearms themselves are incapable of committing crimes, which are actions performed by individuals, often criminals.

“Life is simple, the only helpful use of an advisory would be to have the government keep the killer-animal-violent criminals out of society and locked up in a maximum security jail,” he said. “Of course, this will not happen under the current administration as it does not fit their ‘gun control’ agenda, painting the false picture of ‘It’s Guns Doing Bad Things.’”

lan Gottlieb, founder and executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation, echoed the focus on criminals themselves in an interview with The Epoch Times.

“Criminals break laws. That’s why they’re called criminals,” he said.

“When you have open borders and people coming in and committing violent acts all over the country, this is where your problems are.”

Mr. Gottlieb also took issue with the data behind the Surgeon General’s action.

“First of all, let me say that the data they’re using, saying gun violence is an ‘epidemic’, so to speak, is totally off base,” he asserted.

“Quite honestly, that the Surgeon General is pushing this as a public health crisis really bothers me. Because it’s not a public health crisis. I mean, gun ownership is not a contagious disease.”

Policy Support

Proponents of the advisory argue however that the advisory and proposed actions of the Surgeon General are long overdue.

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence said the report comes weeks after their own advisory council called on such action from the Surgeon General and the White House.

Brady’s Board Chair and Chief Medical Officer, Dr. Joseph V Sakran, said in a statement after the announcement that will “create a seachange in the fight to free America from gun violence.”

“Surgeon General reports are renowned publications that take an evidence-based approach to our nation’s most urgent public health issues. Seeing as firearms are now the leading cause of death for children and teens in the U.S., there’s arguably no public health issue that’s more urgent or that warrants the commission of a Surgeon General report more than gun violence,” Dr. Sakran said. “This advisory not only sounds the alarm for all Americans, but it signals there must be greater investments in research and violence prevention solutions.”

He continued by noting how previous reports on public health issues such as the dangers of smoking ignited a slew of initiatives to tackle the issue and they hope the gun-related report will have the same impact.

“As a survivor of gun violence and a trauma surgeon who treats firearm injuries, I am appreciative of both the Surgeon General and the Biden-Harris administration,” continued Sakran. “The best medical treatment is prevention and we are grateful for the advocates who have been calling for this report and the experts who set it into motion, we will finally turn the tides in the fight against gun violence.”

Surgeon General’s Recommendations

The surgeon general’s advisory lays out a comprehensive approach to address firearm violence as a public health crisis.

Key strategies include implementing community violence prevention programs, enhancing firearm risk reduction strategies, improving access to mental health care, and expanding research funding to inform and evaluate prevention efforts.

“Firearm violence is a public health crisis. Our failure to address it is a moral crisis,” Dr. Murthy said. “To protect the health and well-being of Americans, especially our children, we must now act with the clarity, courage, and urgency that this moment demands.”

By adopting a public health approach, similar to those used for other significant health issues like tobacco use and motor vehicle safety, he argues the nation can work toward reducing the impact of firearm violence on communities and future generations.

“Our children should not have to live in fear that they are going to get shot if they go to school,” Dr. Murthy said. “None of us should have to worry that going to the mall or concert, or house of worship means putting our lives at risk, or that we’ll get a call that a loved one in a moment of crisis has taken their own life with a firearm.”

The Epoch Times has reached out to Second Amendment advocates and gun control supporters for comment.

Authored by Kenin M. Spivak via RealClearPolitics,

There were two astonishing developments this week in the Biden administration’s continuing attack on free speech. First, just days ahead of the Supreme Court’s decision on whether to uphold the Fifth Circuit’s injunction against the administration’s extensive censorship enterprise, a second White House press secretary strongly encouraged the media to chill political debate. Second, Karine Jean-Pierre was masterful in her delivery of the new Biden attack line on “cheap fakes.”

To set the stage: last year, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously upheld a federal district court’s finding that the evidence likely established that the Biden Administration, including then spokesperson Jen Psaki, had engaged in a broad attack on free speech in violation of the First Amendment. It issued an injunction prohibiting the White House and other federal agencies from taking “actions, formal or informal, directly or indirectly, to coerce or significantly encourage social-media companies to remove, delete, suppress, or reduce… social-media content containing protected free speech.”

The government appealed to the Supreme Court, which stayed enforcement of the injunction, pending its review. The Court heard oral argument in March. The administration might prevail, despite browbeating social media into blocking core political speech, including criticism of Biden, humor, and discussion of the Hunter Biden laptop. Yes, that same laptop the Justice Department and FBI just admitted were legitimate and tamper-free. A decision is expected within 10 days.

Now, KJP and the administration are doubling down. Attacking a new category of “cheap fake” videos, KJP blasted the media for publishing unaltered video of the president’s frailties. Her objection appears to be that by presenting information about the president out of the context preferred by the administration, this video is, in effect, fake. See here.

While the administration was unclear about the missing context, I infer that it prefers a focus on the presumed majority of the president’s 10 AM to 4 pm, Monday-to-Friday workday during which he is not frozen, wandering aimlessly, mumbling incoherently, or blanking out. I understand that preference, but it is unseemly, and depending on next steps, may be unconstitutional, for a government official, speaking from the White House, to seek to chill free speech.

KJP claimed these videos are “misleading,” “manipulated” and “deep fakes.” A deep fake is false. But, what KJP really means is to falsely allege that the videos are out of context. As such, her attack has all the earmarks of the administration’s censorship campaign against “malinformation.” The administration defines three categories of speech it asserts should be censored, misinformation and disinformation, which include falsehoods, and “malinformation,” which is used out of context, specifically, truthful information that does not have a progressive spin.

Aside from the misinformation in KJP’s attack – the videos presented by mainstream media and respected conservative online publications are revealing, unedited windows into a physically and cognitively impaired president; they are neither out of a context necessary to understand what we are seeing, nor manipulated. Regardless, the White House press secretary (as contrasted to a campaign spokesperson), has no business demanding censorship of videos that paint the president in a bad light. Actions like this led two federal courts to issue injunctions against the White House.

The Supreme Court explained in W. Va. State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette (1943) that “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion.” In Ashcroft v. ACLU (2002), the Court declared that with few exceptions, “the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.”

Labeling speech as “misinformation” does not strip it of protection. In United States v. Alvarez (2012), Justice Anthony Kennedy explained that even “false statements” may not be censored, writing “some false statements are inevitable if there is to be an open and vigorous expression of views….Our constitutional tradition stands against the idea that we need Oceania’s Ministry of Truth.”

Speaking directly to KJP’s demands, Justice Kennedy added: “The mere potential for the exercise of that [censorship] power casts… a chill the First Amendment cannot permit if free speech, thought, and discourse are to remain a foundation of our freedom….The response to the unreasoned is the rational; to the uninformed, the enlightened; to the straight-out lie, the simple truth…Society has the right and civic duty to engage in open, dynamic, rational discourse. These ends are not well served when the government seeks to orchestrate public discussion through content-based mandates.”

It is irrelevant that the publishers or social media companies will be the instrument of suppression. As Justice Clarence Thomas summarized in 2021, “The government cannot accomplish through threats of adverse government action what the Constitution prohibits it from doing directly.”

The administration is afraid that voters will learn the truth. It is now up to a free media and the Republican candidate for president to make certain that voters know how to apply that fear.

Kenin M. Spivak is founder and chairman of SMI Group LLC, an international consulting firm and investment bank. He is the author of fiction and non-fiction books and a frequent speaker and contributor to media, including The American Mind, National Review, the National Association of Scholars, television, radio and podcasts. He received his A.B., M.B.A., and J.D. from Columbia University.

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

U.S. Supreme Court justices on June 24 rejected appeals brought over COVID-19 vaccines by Children’s Health Defense (CHD), a nonprofit founded by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., an independent candidate running for president.

The nation’s top court rejected an appeal seeking to overturn lower court rulings that found that CHD and its members lacked standing to sue the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) over its emergency authorizations of COVID-19 vaccines for minors.

The justices also rebuffed another CHD appeal in a case that challenged the COVID-19 vaccine mandate imposed on students at Rutgers University, a public college in New Jersey.

The Supreme Court did not comment on either denial. It included them in a lengthy list dealing with dozens of cases.

“Disappointing that the courts are closed to FDA fraud harming millions of Americans,” Robert Barnes, an attorney representing CHD in the FDA case, told The Epoch Times in an email.

He called for Congress to pass reforms.

Julio Gomez, an attorney representing CHD in the Rutgers case, told The Epoch Times in an email that the Supreme Court’s denials marked a sad day because clarity is needed on vaccines and the Supreme Court’s 1905 decision in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, which upheld a city’s law requiring vaccination against smallpox.

Mr. Gomez pointed to a recent federal appeals court ruling that determined that Jacobson did not apply to a case filed against a vaccine mandate in California because plaintiffs had produced evidence that the COVID-19 vaccines do not prevent the spread of COVID-19.

Lawyers for Rutgers and the government did not return requests for comment.

In the FDA case, CHD and parents in Texas and Florida argued that the regulatory agency cleared COVID-19 vaccines under emergency authorization despite COVID-19 posing less risk than influenza to children and without adequate clinical testing. The FDA also wrongly promoted the vaccines, the plaintiffs alleged.

U.S. District Judge Alan Albright tossed out the lawsuit in 2023, finding that CHD and the parents did not meet the requirements for standing, or the ability to sue over the actions, under Article III of the U.S. Constitution.

While the parents said their children were at risk of being vaccinated by other people, they did not show that they faced imminent harm because of the FDA issuing emergency authorization for COVID-19 vaccines, the judge said. Imminent harm is one requirement for standing.

The judge also said CHD had not shown that its resources were drained in responding to the FDA’s conduct and that it was airing a “generalized grievance,” which is not allowed under Supreme Court precedent.

A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in January upheld the ruling.

“Plaintiffs contend that the injury-in-fact element is satisfied because a third party might vaccinate their children over their objections, and that such vaccine could allegedly injure them and their children,” the panel stated. “Be that as it may, we agree with the district court that Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate an injury in fact because the alleged injury is neither concrete nor imminent.”

Mr. Barnes had urged the Supreme Court to look at the case.

“Can no one sue the FDA? Is that what Article III means?” he wrote in a filing

Government lawyers waived their right to file a brief to the court.

In the case against Rutgers, CHD and some of its members said the vaccine mandate was unconstitutional in part because the Constitution’s due process clause enables people to refuse medical treatment.

U.S. District Judge Zahid Quraishi ruled against the plaintiffs in 2022, finding that Rutgers mandated vaccination as part of a legitimate goal of protecting the school community from COVID-19 and that the students either brought claims that had become moot because they were granted religious exemptions to the mandate or failed to state a claim.

A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit upheld the decision in February.

In a filing to the Supreme Court, lawyers for CHD said the lower courts erred and that the justices should intervene.

“If government is allowed to mandate experimental vaccines that do not prevent transmission against a person’s right to freely exercise informed consent, then COVID-19 will have eroded one of our most basic liberties—the right to refuse a medical experiment,” they wrote.

Rutgers declined to file a brief with the court.

So much for “showing f**king AIPAC the power of the mother-f**king South Bronx”…

Fire alarm specialist Rep. Jamaal Bowman of New York just became the first member of the far-left ‘Squad’ to be unseated as he lost his primary battle to ‘moderate’ Westchester County executive George Latimer.

Mr. Latimer leads Mr. Bowman 54.5 percent to 45.5 percentage points, with 53 percent reporting.

The Associated Press called the race at 9:38 p.m ET.

The two-term congressman is also the first Democratic incumbent to lose their primary this year, capping off a contest that laid bare divisions within the Democratic party that have ruptured over the Israel-Hamas war.

As The Epoch Times’ Michael Washburn reports, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), a major pro-Israel group, emerges as another winner from the race after it poured $14 million in ads to boost Mr. Latimer, helping to make this primary the most expensive House race ever, according to ad tracker AdImpact.

Mr. Bowman’s District 16, which covers the northern Bronx and Westchester County, is solidly blue, so Mr. Latimer is likely to win the seat in November.

Bowman’s Two Terms

Washburn goes on to point out that, in 2020, Mr. Bowman unseated longtime incumbent Democrat Rep. Eliot Engel in the primary and then easily crushed his Republican challenger in the fall general election. Mr. Bowman won a second term in 2022, during which he consolidated his reputation as one of the most outspokenly progressive members of the Squad, with a message of antiracism, social justice, and economic equity.

In the race that just concluded, he enjoyed the endorsement of fellow Squad members such as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), and Rep. Cori Bush (R-Mo.), along with powerful Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.) and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Ma.).

Mr. Bowman has courted controversy over his staunch pro-Palestinian stance, and by calling accounts of the sexual abuse of Israeli hostages “propaganda,” for which he later apologized.

Last year, he also pulled a fire alarm inside a congressional building during a House vote, for which he pled guilty to misdemeanor charges. He maintains it was an accident.

Middle East in Focus

The congressman’s defeat is consistent with predictions in the run-up to the June 25 election from pollsters, as well as establishment Democrats.

FiveThirtyEight polls gave Mr. Latimer double-digit leads, while prominent Democrats, ranging from former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to former state Gov. Andrew Cuomo, had signaled their support for the challenger, who enjoys a reputation of being more in touch with the mainstream sentiment on the Gaza conflict and support for Israel’s war on Hamas.

“The message is clear: antisemitism in any and all forms will not be tolerated in New York. And you can’t call yourself a progressive without making progress,” Mr. Cuomo wrote in a post on X, formerly Twitter, on the morning of June 25, predicting Mr. Bowman’s defeat.

David Carlucci, a former New York state senator who ran in the District 17 primary, north of District 16, in 2020, and who worked for Mr. Engel two decades ago, acknowledged that many voters in Tuesday’s election considered first and foremost where the two candidates stood on Middle East policy.

“The contrast between Latimer’s pro-Israel stance and Bowman’s more critical perspective on U.S.-Israel relations has sharpened the divide among voters with strong opinions on this issue, and has been front and center in this race,” Mr. Carlucci told The Epoch Times.

Democratic candidate for New York’s 16th District George Latimer speaks during a press conference at the Mount Vernon Democratic headquarters on June 24, 2024, in Mount Vernon, N.Y. (Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)

At the same time, some voters made choices based on Rep. Bowman’s and Mr. Latimer’s respective positions on such issues as criminal justice reform, policing and public safety, climate action, and environmental sustainability, Mr. Carlucci said.

Hence, while the Middle East loomed large in this race, many voters’ decisions signify a wide schism between the radical and centrist factions of the Democratic Party, a divide that could grow still further in the months and years to come, he observed.

“This race could reflect broader national trends within the Democratic Party, regarding its diverse opinions and large tent,” he said.

Oakland, California Mayor Sheng Thao is well known for her woke activist policies; policies that have led to a severe spike in property crime (17%) and violent crime (21%) within the first year of her administration.  The problem has become so overwhelming that Thao and Alameda District Attorney Pamela Price are both facing potential recall.  One has to wonder if leftist politicians are so lax on criminal prosecution because they are engaging in the same kind of activities?

An FBI raid on Sheng Thao’s residence last week may help to answer this question.  Though she has not yet been arrested or charged, accusations indicate a corrupt web of illegal campaign finance and “pay to play” favors for special donors.  The investigation is allegedly focused on Thoa’s boyfriend, Andre Jones, as well as specific donors. 

Also targeted in the raids were two other houses in the Oakland Hills and a business office along the city’s waterfront. All three are tied to Andy Duong and his father, David, who owns the Oakland-based company California Waste Solutions, the city’s curbside recycling provider.

Authorities claimed the Duongs spent years illegally funneling thousands of dollars using third-party entities to disguise political contributions and flout campaign-donation limits to several City Council candidates, including Thao.  In one instance, the Fair Political Practices Commission cited an internal email for Thao’s campaign in 2018 that laid out exactly how important the Duongs’ donations could be for political newcomers, such as herself.

In it, a staff member asked, “Have you spoke with Andy Duong about $20,000 by June 30th? let me know when I should follow up with him, please,” a complaint alleges.  Within a week, Thao’s campaign received 14 contributions — seven of which were believed to have come from Duong himself through his network of “straw donors,” the complaint alleges.

Campaign finance corruption and donations for favors aside, Mayor Thao’s dismal management of Oakland could also be considered a crime.  The criminal investigation is simply a reflection of a much deeper problem.  However, as we all know, leftists never admit fault they only double down.  In a surreal press conference replete with tears, Thao declared her innocence while hinting at an insidious conspiracy of unnamed ‘radical right wing forces’ determined to sabotage her activist reforms and maintain their power within the greater Oakland area.

Oakland Mayor Sheng Thao cries, blames “radical right wing forces” for her political downfall.

Her house was raided last week over an investigation into her corruption.

40k signed a petition to recall her. pic.twitter.com/2yscbDEVXZ

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) June 24, 2024

So, now the radical right wing controls FBI investigations in Oakland, California?  Accusations of “lawfare” only make sense when the other side has control over the alphabet agency apparatus.  Thao seems to be confused about which party has the most influence over the FBI right now. 

Thao asserted that the FBI raid never would have happened ‘if she was rich’ and that the agency should have given her a warning.  The FBI is not required to give any mayor a heads up about potential raids on their home or office. Thao’s communications chief has resigned in the wake of the investigation. 

Her attorney, Tony Brass, has also parted ways with the mayor, noting that he was not informed of Thao’s press conference plans, nor did he advise her on interactions with the press.  Thao claims Brass did not leave and was instead “replaced.”  Brass stated that Thao is lying and that he received no communication from her about changing attorneys.  

Authored by Martin Armstrong via ArmstrongEconomics,

The government has become desperate for funding, seeking out money from their own citizens through taxation.

Not only have they raised taxes for every bracket, but the IRS managed to squeeze more money out of Americans through audits for fiscal year 2023 than any year on record. In fact, the IRS shook down Americans for an additional $7 billion in tax penalties alone – a 300% increase from FY22.

These funds are mere chump change as we send out far more than this to Ukraine on a regular basis. The people do not vote on how their taxes are frivolously spent, but they are responsible for the government’s spending. Biden claimed he would target the hated “rich” but reports have found that the majority of those targeted were gig economy workers and freelancers. Biden has done everything in his power to kill the gig economy. The IRS hates the gig economy because they believe those workers are stealing from Uncle Sam.

The average penalty for underestimating taxes was around $150 in 2022. This year, the average penalty was around $500.

The IRS also ramped up its campaign to fine anyone who missed the tax deadline. Late payment fees increased to $485 or 100% of the tax owed if that amount is less. Then there is the question of “How much do I owe?” The tax system in the US is so complex that there are careers dedicated toward figuring out that predicament. Every citizen and business would prefer if the government simply told them how much they needed to pay. Instead, they deliberately make the tax code vague in order to penalize everyone and anyone.

The penalty for underpayment rose in the past year from 3% to 8%. There is no grace for those who cannot afford to pay their due amount as the IRS charges interest on all payments that are not made in full. Those who intentionally disregarded their payments faced a $630 penalty or 10% of the amount owed.

Yet, the Biden Administration wants you to believe they care deeply about the working man. Biden wanted to hire far more IRS agents this year to raise these penalties. Public confidence dissolves when the state begins to hunt their own citizens for taxes. The government becomes the clear enemy. We have seen it happen countless times throughout history when citizens flee and later protest or revolt over absurdly high taxes. The fact that the Biden Administration has been using US taxpayer funds for foreign causes only adds insult to injury.

Major League Baseball’s Texas Rangers may be four games under .500, but they’re high atop the league in refusing to bow to America’s woke overlords: Extending an enviable several-year record, they’re once again the only MLB team that won’t host an LGBT “Pride Night” in 2024. The practice was supposedly pioneered by the Chicago Cubs, who first came out with it in 2001.

When asked the Rangers to justify their position, the team points to its history of sending volunteers to the Resource Center, an organization that serves the “LGBTQIA+ and HIV/AIDS communities in Dallas-Fort Worth.”  This week, responding to an inquiry from Associated Press, the Rangers said: 

“Our longstanding commitment remains the same: To make everyone feel welcome and included in Rangers baseball — in our ballpark, at every game, and in all we do — for both our fans and our employees. We deliver on that promise across our many programs to have a positive impact across our entire community.”

On Monday, former Texas Rangers pitcher Derek Holland applauded the team’s status as the league’s sole holdout against overlaying a night at the ballpark with a celebration of people’s varied sexual preferences. Holland, who was on the Rangers’ 2010 and 2011 World Series squads, responded to a tweeted report on the team’s unique “Pride Night” refusal with a GIF of the Texas Rangers mascot with the words “That’s a Rangers win.” 

https://t.co/WmxgtIIUlC pic.twitter.com/JkiInTqXnA

— Derek Holland (@Dutch_Oven45) June 25, 2024

When another Twitter user asked Holland why he “[felt] the need to go out of [his] way to put other people down,” Holland replied, “Why do we need to celebrate them choosing to be the way they are. Nobody cares if you’re gay or lesbian or whatever. Don’t need a whole month to celebrate. Have a day and move on.” Holland added that military service members and veterans — “real heroes!” — are more worthy of a month-long salute. 

Meanwhile, Will Davis, who recently traveled 200 miles from Marble Falls, Texas to see a game with his son’s youth team, spoke for many in endorsing the Rangers’ refusal to have Pride Night, telling AP: 

“It’s a private organization. And if they don’t want to have it, I don’t think they should be forced to have it. In something like this, this is a way for people to go as a state. We don’t want the political stuff shoved down our throats one way or the other, left or right. We’re coming out here to have a good time with friends or family and let it be.”

The LGBT crowd was already sensitive to the Rangers Pride-less status as the month began. Some were promptly triggered when the team chose the beginning of Pride month to rotate the slogan that appears in the banner atop the team’s official website. In a nod to its pursuit of back-to-back World Series titles, the website had used “Run It Back” for the past few months. As Pride month began, it changed to “Straight Up Texas.” 

The Texas Rangers — the only MLB team without a Pride Night — have changed their website banner. Here are screenshots from May 29 vs. today.

“Run it Back” has given way to “Straight Up Texas”

At best, it’s really unfortunate timing. At worst, it feels antagonistic. pic.twitter.com/qCv2YHqBIw

— Levi Weaver (@ThreeTwoEephus) June 3, 2024

The team insists the change to a slogan the team has used for four seasons was not meant to troll the Pride crowd or (God forbid) celebrate heterosexuality — without which there would be no humanity on Earth. “It certainly wasn’t done intentionally or to make some sort of statement,” an unidentified team executive told Inside the Rangers. “That’s ridiculous.”

By Charles Kennedy of OilPrice.com

Maintenance works at Russia’s busiest oil ports dragged down weekly crude oil shipments to the lowest level in over three months as the ports of Primorsk on the Baltic Sea and Kozmino in the Far East halted vessel departures for four days each in the week to June 23.

Last week, Russian crude oil exports by sea fell by 660,000 barrels per day (bpd) from the previous week, to the lowest level in more than three months – 3.04 million bpd, vessel-tracking data monitored by Bloomberg showed on Tuesday.

The four-week average exports also dropped, by around 45,000 bpd to 3.37 million bpd, according to the data reported by Bloomberg’s Julian Lee.

In the previous week to June 16, before the port maintenance, Bloomberg’s data showed that Russia continued to raise its crude oil exports by sea for a second consecutive week despite promising to stick strictly to its OPEC+ output target in June.

In the four weeks to June 16, Russian crude oil shipments jumped by some 80,000 bpd to 3.42 million bpd. The week to June 16 was the second consecutive week in which the four-week average of Russia’s crude export volumes increased compared to the prior four-week average.

Russia’s crude exports hit the highest level in 11 months in the week to April 14, as export terminals likely shipped more crude that couldn’t be processed at refineries knocked offline by Ukrainian drone attacks.

Between the middle of April and the beginning of June, crude flows out of Russia’s ports were trending down, according to the data analyzed by Bloomberg.

But in June, seaborne crude exports started rising again, and the volumes have recovered about one-third of their recent decline.

This came even as Russia’s Energy Ministry pledged earlier this month that Russia would reach its oil production quota in June after exceeding its target output under the OPEC+ deal in May.