Month: October 2024

Authored by Tom Luongo via Gold, Goats, ‘n Guns blog,

In a lot of my commentary I give the UK a lot of grief. I give many people a lot of grief. It’s kinda my thing.

But to remind everyone, I was one of the chief champions of Brexit, cutting my teeth hard during the endless Brexit negotiations of 2017-19, trying to explain why things were happening the way they were.

I always knew that Brexit was a fight between UK elites beholden to Davos, the same folks that overthrew Margaret Thatcher in the 1990s, and the people themselves, backed by what I’m now calling The British Remnant. This group is easy to understand, they are the group still clinging to the glory of an Empire lost and will graft themselves to whoever they have more influence with.

Neither of these groups love their native population, just to be clear. But the Remnant loves to invoke past glory to keep “Little Britain” still thinking someone cares about them. There are no good guys in this however, only villains and victims.

The heroes are few and far between. The people of the UK are victims. Their governments have been the villains. But the question always arises, is there a bigger villain?

To me that answer is yes, the EU. And I say that knowing that their desire to do away with the British Remnant is an unqualified good thing. It dovetails with what I would like to see. But I also say that knowing that those who are trying to replace the Remnant on the world stage are even worse, especially because a good portion of that British Remnant will happily cut a deal with the EU to advance its long-held agenda of global control if the US is successfully color revolution’d into splitting up.

Divide and rule. It is the prime strategic ploy of abusers, narcissists and villains. Triangulate two factions into fighting each other while you sidle up to both of them. It’s worked brilliantly for the British and their allies for hundreds of years.

So, there are a lot of mixed feelings in laying out these scenarios. Because someone is going to wriggle off the hook if things work out for the best, defined as the US surviving in its current 50-state form, the BRICS alliance forming up to unify Asia, and the post-WWII institutional order, including the old monetary system, is destroyed.

To be blunt, I give that outcome something like a 5-10% probability.

Some form of the British Remnant or the EU will survive this. Globalism will not die, but it can be weakened severely and set on a different path, one not quite so sinister. So, for today’s post I’m going to reframe my comments from that perspective, seeing the UK as a victim, trapped by their proximity and relationships with the EU.

This, of course, is not the real story, only a part of it.

So, let’s get to the meat of today’s comments:

Linked above is a pretty good video discussing the background to today’s overlapping crises in the UK. It’s worth watching for the statistics and the general arc of the story but it misses some essential elements of the larger picture.

Starting with the basics. London dominates the UK economy. Without London the UK is already an irrelevant economy. Taxes are insane, only surpassed by the regulatory burden on the middle class. I’ve talked about this in my post about the television show Clarkson’s Farm. The things Jeremy presents in that show, which I highly recommend as both entertainment and education, are just one angle on what’s been going on in the UK.

What the video misses is that all of this is purposeful policy and that policy has been very successful. They identify three shocks to the British economy that rocked it to the core: Brexit, COVID, Ukraine.

I’ll give them credit they integrated Ukraine into their analysis, few do.

Brexit

Let’s start with Brexit. While the video blames Britain’s lost decade on why the people were angry enough to vote to leave the EU, it implies this was the wrong choice. It wasn’t. Remember back to the Brexit vote and the main criticism of Brexiteers was that they were backed by big oligarchic “old money,” that it wasn’t a grassroots movement.

Nonsense, of course it was, but it was also an opportunity for The Remnant to change the course of the country, and begin triangulating between the US and Europe. The election of Donald Trump a few months later solidified that opportunity.

That was to the Remnant’s credit, but they made the now near-fatal mistake of using that opportunity to push the US, under Trump, further towards their long-stated goals of subjugating Russia, forking them from China, and getting back to their rightful business of running everything from the shadows.

The “uncertainty” over Brexit was a wholly manufactured uncertainty created by both the British government working in concert with the EU to punish the British people for ‘voting wrong.’ The Brexit ‘negotiations’ were a sham until the British people got involved, overthrowing Theresa May and bringing in Boris Johnson.

Three years it took to finally get the UK out of the EU, the drama ending in December 2019 with the election of Boris Johnson in an historic victory.

From the moment the Brexit vote was organized however that ‘uncertainty’ manifested itself in a major drop in the British pound vs. the Euro, as I presented in the Patron Market Report from 9/18.

In currency charts the numerator directly correlates. In this case up means stronger euro and weaker pound.

The key here is that the big weakening of the pound versus the euro was a major source of inflation in the UK in the years before COVID. But, at the same time, there should have been a big investment push into the UK that created new jobs etc. because of that same weaker pound.

Trump promised this and was ready to give the UK a good trade deal which would have been excellent for the middle class.

And, guess what? The globalists within the UK political class sabotaged that at every turn. The EU dragged out negotiations for three years, ultimately lost the fight thanks to the alliance between Trump and Boris Johnson (as well as Queen Elizabeth) and the UK got all of the inflation, none of the investment, and ever increasing debt and more regulation to help ensure EU interests were protected.

Billions of euros of welfare for Brussels not a pound for “Little Britain,” who, it can’t be stressed enough, both factions despise, Davos and The Remnant.

The UK pursued a typical IMF-style austerity program, higher taxes and lowered social services to keep spending down to hold the budget deficit under a proscribed level. This is pure nonsense and, as always, prioritized sovereign bond holders at the expense of the local economy. It’s a recipe for economic destruction of the middle class.

It’s policy. And policy is a choice.

It is prima facie evidence that governments in the West are corrupt to the core. It is the exact opposite of how a country exits the debt trap from the previous round of government spending.

The better plan is to reduce taxes and spending at the same time and allowing bond yields to rise but issue far fewer of them. The budgetary cost is the same. Lower taxes invites investment which ultimately raise tax collections overall while the debt grows at a much slower rate thanks to lower spending in the long run.

They know this. And they don’t ever do it. Why? Because they hate us.

The result was a strengthening of the pound vs. the euro and threatened a breakdown of the EUR/GBP cross which would drop the EUR/GBP out of the range, forcing Europe to be competitive.

At that point a stronger pound would have been beneficial, increasing British purchasing power coupled with Trump giving the UK favorable trade terms. So, from Daovs’ perspective that had to be crushed.

When Jerome Powell took over the Fed and began raising interest rates while in 2019 US banks began refusing to take Euro-zone sovereign debt at repo collateral, pressure on Eurobond markets rose and Boris Johnson came to power taking the UK out of the EU at the end of that year.

COVID-19 

Now, think about COVID-19. December 2019, Brexit gets done. Britain leaves the EU. Johnson and Trump become the main target of the globalist operation to destroy the global economy. Johnson is forced to backtrack hard on lockdowns, etc. after a couple of attempts on his life. The pound weakens again.

I’ve always viewed COVID-19 as some form of operation. I refused to even call it a pandemic because the political fallout from it was clear that this was a multi-theatre, multi-modal attack on the foundations of society itself. In the past I’ve discussed COVID from the perspective of it forcing the Federal Reserve back to the zero-bound after the US Treasury markets go ‘bidless.’ How does that happen?

Not without help, that’s how.

As the video points out, serious damage is done to the UK labor market as the promises of Brexit never materialize. It never recovers. Why? Because the EU refuses to allow investment into the UK because it is no longer a member state. With Trump dealing with COVID and a de facto lame duck, nothing was going to happen on Capitol Hill to help the UK break free of this economic stranglehold the EU placed them in.

They just ran the operation, ran out the clock on Trump, with the intention to getting everything back on track. Brexit and Trump, as I’ve said for years, forced Davos to bring forward their timetable from 2030 to 2020. And, in the end, it will be their undoing, but man, have they fucked up the world in the process.

After Trump is deposed and there is no trade deal, a strengthening pound will now retard foreign investment. Johnson gets crushed. Powell starts raising rates. The Bank of England raises ahead of him, crushing the pound and further eroding the British budget.

Once Powell starts raising hard, Lagarde announces the TPI to protect bond spreads and the currency band, meaning she is going to further tilt the board in her favor, as I’ve discussed in countless posts and interviews.

The whole euro-zone goes on a UST buying spree to keep the US dollar from rising too fast and keep both City of London and EU banks from imploding. If Gilt and Bund prices fall too far then we’ll have a banking crisis in both places.

It should be clear at this point that both the BoE and the ECB are on the offensive against their respective middle classes to foment the very currency crisis that we’re on the verge of.

2021 is the year in which the US, through the Fed, begins tightening the noose on both of them, first by draining excess dollar liquidity globally through the Reverse Repo facility and then, after Powell’s reconfirmation as FOMC Chair through raising interest rates and quantitative tightening.

{Please refer to literally everything I wrote here on the blog in the second half of 2021 and 2022 to get up to speed. I can’t link it all folks. But you can start here the podcasts from the time laying out the argument then are linked from there}

Ukraine War

Lastly we get the war in Ukraine, which, as Alex Krainer has pointed out, the UK guaranteed billions in IMF loans to Ukraine to fight the war. After reading Alex’s post linked above, I really recommend Podcast Episode #190 for more detail.

In the context of all of this it should come as no surprise, in hindsight, that NATO was pushing for this war in late 2021/early 2022. At that point they figured Powell was dead in the water, with Biden at the helm, and the insider trading scandal at the Fed robbing him of his lieutenants, Kaplan, Carida, and Rosengren. Build Back Better and the Infrastructure bills would force Powell to stay at the zero-bound while war broke out.

In hindsight, February 2022 is a major turning point in this story. In the same week we get Powell’s confirmation hearing and Putin surprises everyone by starting the war early. So, now, the plan which was to throw unlimited money at Ukraine at the zero-bound would now have to be funded at much higher rates, making it that much more difficult for the UK and the EU to finance their latest war for Asian physical collateral using US weaponry.

Liz Truss tried to implement a budget that would make the country energy self-sufficient and we get the Gilt crisis of Sept. 2022 because that budget looks unsustainable in the current rate environment. Davos activates Blackrock who begins pulling investments from British pension funds. This is effectively blackmailing the Bank of England who has to bail them out to the tune of 160 billion pounds, according to Mr. Krainer’s analysis.

That brought down Truss’ government and it was timed with the death of Queen Elizabeth II. The last gasp of the Remnant was swept away. Charles ascends to the throne and begins the last phase of the destruction of the old British economy on behalf of his Davos handlers/benefactors/jailors… whatever.

The video makes too big a point about the resultant labor deficit in the UK which was, like all of this, a manufactured outcome from the entire scheme to punish the country for Brexit. The EU warned Britons about this. They warned the US against voting for Trump. They will not stop until they have destroyed everything.

Rishi Sunak is brought in to maintain the current path to undermine Brexit by further saddling the country with unsustainable taxes, low purchasing power, more climate change/DEI/ESG bullshit to retard investment and prep the country for Keir Starmer. Sunak was brought in to destroy the Tories and prep the country for one party rule.

What set a lot of this in motion was Putin going for the decapitation strike on Kiev ahead of schedule. Putin did what he wasn’t supposed to do… go first and invite the cheap moralizing of Davos and the West.

Everyone plays word games to justify the hardcore geopolitics of the war but the framework is the same. The war was scheduled. It was inevitable. By going first with the wrong army for the task, Putin, achieves the most important strategic goal, forcing NATO and the West into fighting in the Donbass on his terms, not theirs.

They will now have to settle into a protracted and expensive meat grinder. And here is where the Remnant made their fatal mistake, by telling Ukrainian President Zelenskyy to stay the course and not surrender in March 2022 in Istanbul. By guaranteeing support to Ukraine via the debt issued for Ukraine to fight the war both Davos and the Remnant are at that moment pot-committed to playing this game out to the bitter end.

Putin knows that the longer this goes on, the worse it gets for both the UK ,with Brexit fully compromised and hundreds of billions in loan guarantees it can’t credibly back, and the EU, who are dealing with political revolts in their core economies — Germany, France and Italy.

The only way out for them is for the US to fully commit to the Ukraine war militarily through NATO.

And that brings us to the events of July of 2024. This was the schedule on the Gantt chart in Brussels.

• Sunak is deposed on US Independence day, just to rub our noses in it. Davos buttplug Keir Starmer comes to power and immediately begins the final betrayal of Little Britain.

• Emmanuel Macron in France loses but just well enough to remain in power with his opposition canceling each other out.

• Trump was scheduled to be assassinated in the 2nd week of July.

• Biden removed from the scene after the debate, and the keys to the castle handed to Queen-heir-apparent Kamala Harris.

• But a miracle occurred. Trump survived.

The buying spree in the US bond market had to intensify after that to finally force Powell to cut rates. But he held his water in July, waiting for the Bank of Japan to make their move on the last day of the month.

The Fed held rates high until last week. The bond market still sold off.

Now, with the end of LIBOR the BoE is trying to figure out how to survive and was forced to not cut at the September meeting.

So, now, with all of that in your head, let’s look at these past 2 years from the perspective of UK 10 year spreads versus their adversaries at Davos — the EU and the Biden Administration

First up UK/German 10 year spreads:

From the time Yellen went to China and had her magical mushroom moment, her compatriot at the ECB, Lagarde began sitting on credit spreads. At the time we all thought it was to contain Germany vs. Italy. But that wouldn’t hold together for long without help from a bigger market, in this case, the US.

But Powell was on a mission to send rates higher. So, enter Yellen who supports Lagarde at every turn to manage the supply and demand for US 10-year notes to keep a lid on German yields. And yet, in the past few weeks, since Powell began cutting and Ukraine defaulted on its IMF debt which the UK guarantees, referring back to Mr. Krainer, Gilt/Bund spreads are blowing out beyond Lagarde’s carefully constrained ranges at the same time the EUR/GBP is threatening to break down out of a 7-year range.

Now let’s look at the same events from Yellenville:

Note that both times that UK 10-years went +60 bps from US 10-years, something massive happened. Yellen went to China. I called it then saying that the reason for that was to save Europe’s hide getting China to stop selling US bonds to move price. China agreed and the TIC report is clear. China’s holdings of US debt have bounced around between $750 and $800 billion for more than a year.

What was the quid pro quo? No further NATO prospects for Ukraine. Credit crisis in G-7 debt avoided.

From the UK’s perspective, especially that of the British Remnant that is desperately clinging to their future, Yellen’s Yield Curve Control (YCC) began the process of blowing out those spreads towards that fateful +60 bps level.

It’s accelerated since July with Starmer at the helm, Trump surviving, etc.

So, now, if you are Davos and you are trying to destroy both of your enemies — the US and the Remnant — wouldn’t you keep them running on auto-pilot into wars neither can fight?

Or if you’re the Remnant, wouldn’t you try to get the US to fight your battles for you to send the signal to the bond holders of your debt that the plan is still working and soon, very soon, Russia will collapse and we’ll have all the collateral and rebuilding contracts and cash flow you could ever desire to pay back those measly couple hundred billion in loans. There are tens of trillions on the table in a winning scenario.

The Current State of Affairs

When you see the current UK government cut deals with Ukraine pledging support for another century we all laugh, thinking, “The UK isn’t going to be a thing in 100 years.” When you see Starmer and EU Commission President Ursula Von der Leyen do a lovey-dovey photo op on the sidelines of the UN meeting where Zelenskyy is given the rock star treatment we laugh and say, “Oh look, two has-beens on another reunion tour.”

War is the only path they see out of this. Their power rests on being able to convince bold holders there’s a path to paying back the debt. It’s why there couldn’t be political fractiousness in the UK. The Tories had to be destroyed to bring ‘unity’ under Starmer. The same goes in the EU, they need everyone brought to heel, which is why Macron wouldn’t leave power, and why AfD in Germany will never be allowed into any state government coalitions.

They will be forcibly disbanded before that ever happens.

Both Davos and The Remnant have to capture the Donbass at a minimum to balance the gameboard. Russia, at this point, is a stretch goal. They haven’t fully admitted this to themselves or to us, but I think it’s pretty clear.

And that’s why Israel is attacking in every direction. It’s why Zelenskyy begged the G-7 to allow him to send missiles to Moscow. It’s why Russian ammo dumps were hit with British built and French designed Storm Shadow missiles.

It’s why Biden was sidelined during the last four months of the campaign to keep the Neocon Zio-crazies at the State Dept. under Antony Blinken in charge. War is their only answer otherwise it’s default without the justification. So, Iran and/or Russia have to escalate to turn this again into the Great Chest Beating to destroy the implacable evil of Putler and the Mullahs.

But nothing is settled yet. They continue to act as if nothing has happened which will alter their plans. Think back to July and there was this eerie calm they all had between the Trump/Biden debate and the shooting in Butler, PA. It’s still there.

Are they fronting strength while they are screaming inside that it’s all about to collapse?

Or are there other fallback plans in place that are up on the Gantt chart at Evil Corp Central?

I think it’s both really.

The UK is truly in a very precarious position. Starmer is trying everything he can to deliver a broken UK to a rapacious EU. The EU is doing everything they can to ensure the US slides into a similarly desperate condition. Both want us to fight their wars for them.

If you look at the policies of the Biden administration, especially at the agency level, you see a similar state of affairs as you do in the UK. From Genzler at SEC to Samantha Power at USAID, to Merrick Garland at Justice or ButtGiggler at Transportation, it’s the same refrain over and over again.

They go to Congress, sneer openly at their threats, refuse to change policy, provide demanded details, and continue on continuing on as if nothing can touch them. They act like nothing can get to them. The tragedy in the wake of Hurricane Helene is the biggest tell yet.

Clearly they have been told, or just know, that there are other plans afoot to ensure that even if Trump returns to the White House nothing will change.

They are now just trying to wait out Powell at the Fed and resume the casual destruction of the country.

The difference however between the US and UK is stark. The UK is weak. It has been fully betrayed. The US is not. It’s weaker than it’s been but it is not objectively weak in comparison to its chief rivals.

And the big question you should be asking is, “Do they have the time to wait this all out?” The markets are telling us no. Events are being accelerated which support that. October is here and we had four surprises in one day. The day after City of London lost to New York over the future price of dollars.

They will not take this lying down. Look to the markets and where the money flows and you’ll see why the politics plays out the way it does… every…. single… time.

What’s been set in motion is a spiral to a bottom that no one should want to contemplate.

Join my Patreon if you are bottomless

Authored by James Gorrie via The Epoch Times,

At this point, China’s declining economic situation is well documented. The damage is too large to cover up with propaganda, and the Chinese people know it. Even the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP’s) 75th anniversary was austere. Negative economic factors have been building for years.

China was already having problems in 2018 and 2019 with the Trump administration’s imposition of steep tariffs on Chinese goods. But the COVID-19 pandemic and the CCP’s extreme “zero-COVID” three-year lockdown period made China’s economic downturn much worse.

China Is Being Tested

As we approach the last quarter of 2024, the CCP is being tested by unprecedented domestic economic conditions. As a result, civil unrest is 18 percent higher than last year. The slowdown has many facets, of course. We’ll name just a few in this space.

One big factor is the real estate sector, which is about 30 percent of GDP. It continues to crater, and at the time of this writing, there is no recovery in sight. Home prices and sales continue to decline. What’s more, Chinese consumers are buying less, with consumer spending making up just 38 percent of GDP. By contrast, that figure is 60–70 percent in developed countries.

Sloth and Disillusion

Not unexpectedly, unemployment among China’s youth (ages 16–24) had been at least 21 percent and likely higher when the CCP stopped publishing unemployment figures in June 2023. Then, in December of that year, the CCP released new statistics from a new method of measuring youth unemployment, which did not include students. That new approach dropped that figure down to 14.9 percent, but that’s still almost three times higher than China’s national rate of 5.1 percent.

High jobless rates for young people hinder future growth potential and have added to the “lie flat” trend amongst many in China’s new generation, who have little hope of or ambition to obtain the lifestyle that their parents enjoyed.

Sloth and disillusion are hardly the stuff that strong economies are made of. The risks and dangers of disaffected youth movements are not unknown in China. The ghost of Tianuare still haunts Chinese authorities, even though the surveillance and control that the CCP has over its people is light ahead of the Tiananmen Square era of 1989.

Embedded Political and Industrial Policies

Still, there are embedded economic realities that can’t easily be changed. Party doctrine dictates that China’s top economic advantage is found in its low levels of domestic consumption and high savings rate. These two factors mean domestic capital flows directly into the state-controlled banking system, which it can then allocate to specific industries. This gives the Party tremendous control over industrial policy and private capital.

For instance, China’s economic and development structures are geared toward high levels of industrial output. That may seem fine, but because China’s political organization and industrial arrangements within the Party are focused on large production capacity and not innovation or differentiation, the outcomes are massive overproduction that is often well beyond global demand and unprofitable factories.

Constant oversupplies, from electric vehicle batteries to electronics, result in Chinese manufacturers dumping massive amounts of cheap products into foreign markets, triggering trade friction such as tariffs and other retaliation, which also make conditions worse in China.

In short, China’s distorted industrial policies tied to a graft-loyalty political system have made it incapable of changing without disrupting the CCP structure and the loyalties that come with it.

No Stopping the Downward Spiral

For these reasons and others, over the past several years, China has found itself in a downward spiral of deflation, falling domestic consumption, and declining confidence in the CCP. What’s more, there are few real options that won’t threaten the CCP’s grip over the country. It must be made clear, however, that with its surveillance capabilities, the Party can handle a loss of confidence in the eyes of the people, but it can’t survive a loss of power. The two are not the same.

What the CCP will do is continue to support some critical areas of the economy, such as artificial intelligence, robotics, and military enhancements, while letting other sectors flail without little or no bailouts. Some sectors will eventually return, but not in the near future. This is clear to many within and outside of China, as billions of dollars in investment and capital continue to exit China.

Wolf Warrior Diplomacy Is Alive and Well

This brings us to China’s so-called wolf warrior diplomacy approach toward other nations, which it adopted in 2019 on the cusp of the COVID-19 outbreak and global criticism of Beijing’s disastrous handling of the pandemic. China was already under economic duress due to the rising trade war with the United States. Some observers attribute this approach to personal ambition among China’s diplomatic personnel and/or an attempt to improve the perceived investment environment in China.

Neither makes any sense when it’s understood that Xi Jinping is not allowing diplomats to make their own rules and policies, and pre-wolf warrior investment levels were high. Why would the CCP authorities imagine that increasing aggression on the global stage would make more countries want to invest there? They don’t.

A more realistic rationale for China’s rising aggression on the world stage is that Beijing feels the need to control the narrative at home and intimidate the rest of the world. The spillover between a declining economy and rising unrest is clear. At home, the CCP needs to blame the West and other foreigners for its blatant economic failures not only for exculpatory purposes but also to whip up nationalism and justify further aggressions as economic conditions continue to deteriorate.

Some observers have concluded that Beijing’s days of wolf warrior diplomacy are now over. Current events, however, defy such a conclusion. These include the Chinese regime’s provocative incursions with military planes and boats into or near territorial waters or air space of the United States, Taiwan, and the Philippines, border battles with India, as well as a desire to expand control of the South China Sea. On the global stage, as the return to bullets over diplomacy rises, Beijing sees an opportunity to influence and/or intimidate other nations.

Authored by Edward Carver via Common Dreams,

Local officials, academic researchers, and volunteer responders have raised concerns about chemical and biological contamination brought by the floodwaters of Hurricane Helene in the southeastern U.S. last week, which potentially threaten the safety not only of drinking water but also the quality of soil—leading experts to call for tighter regulations on stored pollutants.

Helene struck Florida as a Category 4 hurricane on September 26 and swept through a number of states in the days that followed. Most of the damage came from extreme rainfall that triggered flooding. The storm killed at least 232 people. The biological and chemical threats posed by floodwaters are typically manifold, often containing, for example, e. coli from overflowing sewage systems.

While it’s not yet clear what bacteria or chemicals Helene’s floodwaters may have contained, the storm passed through hundreds of industrial sites with toxic pollutants, including paper mills, fertilizer factories, oil and gas storage facilities, and even a retired nuclear plant, according to three researchers at Rice University, writing in The Conversation this week.

The researchers called for tighter regulations on the storage and release of chemical pollutants. “Hazardous releases remain largely invisible due to limited disclosure requirements and scant public information,” they wrote. “Even emergency responders often don’t know exactly which hazardous chemicals they are facing in emergency situations.”

“We believe this limited public information on rising chemical threats from our changing climate should be front-page news every hurricane season,” they added. “Communities should be aware of the risks of hosting vulnerable industrial infrastructure, particularly as rising global temperatures increase the risk of extreme downpours and powerful hurricanes.”

The devastation of infrastructure and the lack of drinking water in cities such Asheville, North Carolina, has rightly received national media attention following the storm. In North Carolina alone, more than 700,000 households lost power, and 170,000 still didn’t have it as of Thursday.

Yet the National Weather Service warns that while floodwaters can create clear-cut devastation, “what you can’t see can be just as dangerous.” Helene also brought with it public health concerns that are less obvious, including to other, non-public sources of drinking water.

Helene’s floodwaters overran many wells, rendering them unsafe to drink, at least until treatment and testing can be done. North Carolina’s Department of Health and Human Services advised residents not to use contaminated well water earlier this week.

One problem following Helene is that most studies of flooding’s impact on drinking water have been done in coastal areas, and it’s not clear how they apply to the mountainous areas of North Carolina that took the worst hit from the storm.

“We don’t have a lot of knowledge about mountain flooding, from a hydrology standpoint,” Kelsey Pieper, a professor in environmental engineering at Northeastern University, toldInside Climate News.

“Water velocities tend to be higher in mountain floodings because it’s getting funneled into the valley, where the water is accumulating. In a coastal area, you’re going to see more water spreading out,” she said. “The flooding mechanisms are different, and we know very little.”

Wells tested in eastern North Carolina after Hurricane Florence in 2018 showed some detections of e. coli or total fecal coliform, which were partly attributed to industrialized hog farms in the area, Inside Climate News reported.

Crops are often rendered unsafe after flooding due to biological or chemical contamination, according to Food Safety Alliance. Natural bodies of water are also often unsafe to swim in following floods. Virginia Department of Health and other agencies warned people to avoid them after Helene.

The period after a tropical storm brings increased risk of both biological contaminants, such as bacteria and viruses, and chemical contaminants, such as heavy metals and pesticides, according to the Duke University Superfund Research Center.

Following Helene, a grassroots volunteer cleanup effort has sprung up in western North Carolina, but it brings risks for the volunteers because of the potential contamination.

Another devastating scene due to Hurricane Helene’s impact in several states. We are in the historic downtown area of Marshall, N.C. where the clean up process has started. We’ve seen people with PPE and hazmat suits as we’ve been hearing the mud in this area is hazardous. pic.twitter.com/K52uZceDE4

— Cristina Corujo (@cristina_corujo) October 4, 2024

“We were supposed to get a big shipment of gloves, coveralls, masks, respirators, but we aren’t,” Rachel Bennett, a coordinating volunteer in the town of Marshall, which sits along the banks of the French Broad River, told the Citizen Times, an Asheville newspaper. “So, we’re hoping to get more. Those are the big things because we’re in cleanup right now. We need thick things.”

“Right now, it’s boots, and it’s hard to get people to put on gloves, because when you’re in this, you’re like, ‘I’m already exposed,'” she added.

A Marshall resident conducted a soil test this week but the results haven’t come back yet, the newspaper reported. “All of these rivers should be treated as hazmat sites,” Buncombe County spokesperson Stacey Wood said at a briefing Friday, according to a local journalist. Buncombe County encompasses Asheville and Marshall is just outside it.

The Rice University researchers called for better preparation for future storms in the form of stronger regulation. They’ve developed a map showing the U.S. areas that are most vulnerable to chemical pollution brought on by floodwaters. One hotspot is the area of Texas and Louisiana full of petrochemical industry sites.

Authored by Jennifer Sweenie via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

From hemp to pea to whey—protein powders are a staple for many people seeking to boost their overall protein intake and health. With the wide range of options available, each boasting unique benefits and potential drawbacks, navigating the spectrum of protein powders can be daunting. Understanding the various types is essential for making an informed choice that best aligns with your dietary and fitness goals.

Potential Benefits of Protein Powders

Protein powder is a concentrated dietary supplement derived from animal or plant sources. It offers a convenient way to boost protein intake and comes in various flavors.

Weight Management

A protein-rich diet can help you feel full for longer, potentially aiding in weight management. A systematic review published in Nutrition Reviews in 2018 found that protein supplementation may be effective for reducing fat mass and promoting weight control without sacrificing lean muscle mass when taken with meals—as opposed to between—and in conjunction with resistance training.

Muscle Growth and Repair

Protein powders support muscle recovery and growth, particularly following exercise sessions. A review of 49 studies encompassing nearly 2,000 people published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine in 2018 concluded that dietary protein supplementation “significantly enhanced” muscle strength and size during prolonged resistance exercise training in healthy adults.

Convenience With a Nutrition Boost

Protein powders offer a convenient and quick way to get more protein without extensive meal preparation. They’re particularly beneficial for those with higher protein needs or dietary restrictions, such as vegetarians and vegans.

Do You Need Protein Powder?

Consider your personal lifestyle and nutritional needs when deciding whether to incorporate a protein powder supplement into your routine.

The International Society of Sports Nutrition (ISSN) published a review in 2017 on protein and exercise. Their position was that “while it is possible for physically active individuals to obtain their daily protein requirements through the consumption of whole foods, supplementation is a practical way of ensuring intake of adequate protein quality and quantity while minimizing caloric intake, particularly for athletes who typically complete high volumes of training.”

Dr. Robert McLaughlin, a board-certified orthopedic surgeon, told The Epoch Times, “For most people, protein powder should be used to supplement, not replace whole foods.”

Protein supplementation is “unnecessary and potentially harmful for sedentary individuals or those with medical issues like kidney disease,” said McLaughlin, who also completed a fellowship in sports medicine. “Athletes and very active people can benefit from additional protein for muscle gain and repair.”

“The ideal type of protein powder depends on a person’s needs and diet. The amount of powder needed varies based on activity level, health, and goals,” McLaughlin said.

Animal vs. Plant-Based Protein Powder

Plant-based protein contains fewer essential amino acids and has a lower digestibility than animal-based protein, making animal-based sources generally easier for the body to absorb. However, when it comes to muscle gain, the differences appear to be negligible.

A study published in the Journal of Nutrition in 2022 comparing animal- and plant-based protein found no difference in postprandial muscle protein synthesis—the process of muscle protein being created after a meal—from the ingestion of 30 grams of milk protein compared to the equivalent amount of a blend of wheat, corn, and pea protein.

A systematic review and meta-analysis published in Nutrients in 2021 came to a similar conclusion—the source of protein did not affect absolute lean mass or muscle strength. However, animal protein gave a more significant boost to the percentage of lean mass, particularly in people younger than 50.

Animal-Based Protein Powder Sources

Protein powders are available from several sources and have unique characteristics and benefits. When choosing the best protein powder for you, consider factors such as your dietary preferences, fitness goals, and any allergies or sensitivities you may have.

Whey Protein Powder

Derived from cheese and other dairy products, whey protein is a popular supplement containing all essential amino acids. It’s quickly absorbed and has high levels of leucine, which is shown to stimulate muscle protein synthesis.

Casein Protein Powder

Casein, another milk-derived protein, digests slowly, steadily releasing amino acids into the bloodstream. For this reason, some people prefer to take it before bed to support muscle growth during sleep.

Bone Broth Protein Powder

Bone broth protein powder is derived from liquid bone broth from chicken, beef, or fish. Bones and connective tissue are simmered to extract nutrients. The resulting broth is dehydrated into a concentrated powder. It is rich in collagen, gelatin, calcium, and various minerals.

Collagen Powder

Collagen protein powder is made from collagen, a protein found in the connective tissues of animals. It is the most abundant protein in the body and makes up your skin, bones, muscles, tendons, and ligaments. Collagen is protein-rich and a high-quality source but not a complete protein. This means it does not contain all the amino acids that makeup protein.

A study published in Nutrients in 2019 found that collagen may not be effective at altering body composition in overweight women. Collagen powder has several benefits, including supporting gut lining, skin and hair health, and liver function.

Plant-Based Protein Powder Sources

Plant-based protein powders offer diverse options for people seeking alternatives to animal-derived proteins, catering to various dietary preferences and nutritional needs.

Pea Protein Powder

Extracted from yellow peas, this plant-based protein is popular among vegans and vegetarians. A 2015 study published in the Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition found that pea protein is as effective as whey for increasing muscle when combined with resistance training. Research also suggests that pea protein may increase satiety by slowing digestion. Peas are also high in dietary fiber, potassium, and B-group vitamins.

Soy Protein Powder

Soy protein powder is made from defatted soybean flakes. Soy protein isolate generally has a higher protein content than food sources, such as soy milk. It is a good source of fiber, as well as vitamins and minerals such as calcium, iron, magnesium, and zinc. The amino acid profile of soy protein is close to animal protein. However, the content of amino acids may vary among soy products due to different processing.

A 2020 randomized trial published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health found no difference between soy and whey protein in building lean mass and strength during strength training. The researchers noted that “slightly more” soy protein supplementation was needed to achieve the same effect as whey.

Hemp Protein Powder

Hemp protein is a plant-based protein powder option made from grinding hemp seeds into a fine powder and removing the oil. It contains all nine essential amino acids, making it a complete protein. Hemp contains omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids and is a good source of fiber.

Brown Rice Protein Powder

Extracted from brown rice, this powder contains vitamins and minerals, including iron, vitamin C, calcium, and fiber. Studies show it can be as effective as whey in improving exercise performance and body composition.

Due to the varying benefits of plant-based proteins, there are mixed protein powder products made from a blend of plant sources that may offer a more comprehensive nutrient profile.

Concentrates, Isolates, and Hydrolysates Explained

The main differences between concentrates, isolates, and hydrolysates lie in their protein content and powder processing methods. Each type has its benefits, and the choice between them depends on individual dietary and fitness goals.

“Concentrates and isolates differ in purity, while hydrolysates are pre-digested for faster absorption,” McLaughlin said.

Concentrates

Concentrates are up to 80 percent protein by weight. The remaining 20 percent is usually comprised of fat, lactose, minerals, and moisture. Concentrates tend to have a higher amount of lactose and, subsequently, higher sugar and carbohydrate content.

Isolates

Isolates are more concentrated than concentrates, with more than 90 percent protein by weight. They undergo further processing to reduce lactose and fat content, making them leaner and potentially more suitable for those with lactose sensitivity.

Hydrolysates

Hydrolysates also undergo additional processing, making them more readily digestible and absorbable by the body. Hydrolyzed protein powders are often more expensive than the former types.

A meta-analysis of eight studies published in Nutrients in 2019 compared the effects of whey protein powder in concentrated, hydrolyzed, and isolated forms against a placebo. The review found no positive effect on muscle gain regardless of the type of whey protein used, its protein concentration, or the level of physical activity. However, there was a “statistically significant” reduction in fat mass for whey protein concentrate and individuals who engaged in regular physical activity. However, other research, including that done in older adults, found whey could help build muscle mass.

A study published in 2018 in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research compared hydrolyzed chicken protein, beef protein isolate, and whey protein concentrate to a control group over eight weeks combined with resistance training. While all groups experienced increased strength, the protein-supplemented groups saw significant increases in lean mass and decreases in fat mass.

Which Is Best for You?

The existing data on the effects of concentrates, isolates, and hydrolysates surrounding muscle gain and fat loss is inconclusive, and more research is needed.  All three provide a quality source of protein. For most, it is a personal preference. Those sensitive to lactose (for whey varieties) or following a low-carb or low-fat diet may opt for an isolate over a concentrate. Some may choose a hydrolysate if they have any digestive issues or are concerned about nutrition timing, as it will be absorbed faster. Those with no sensitivities or dietary restrictions seeking to add protein to their diet at a lower price point may opt for a concentrate.

Potential Downsides of Protein Powders

There are some potential drawbacks to protein powders to be mindful of before adding one to your diet.

Overconsumption Risks

Protein powders could be too much of a good thing. Excessive protein intake can strain the kidneys and cause dehydration or digestive issues. A systematic review of 11 papers published in 2021 in Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism found that prolonged, excessive whey protein supplementation, especially when combined with a sedentary lifestyle, may adversely affect kidney and liver function. Excess protein can also be converted into glucose, which is counterintuitive if the goal is weight loss.

Quality Concerns

Certain protein powders may contain undesirable additives, such as sugars or artificial flavors. Research also uncovered the presence of heavy metals in protein powders.

An analysis of data reported from a U.S. Consumer Reports study and an evaluation by the Clean Label Project, published in Toxicology Reports in 2020, found that protein powder supplements may contain detectable levels of heavy metals and that plant-based protein powders tended to have a higher heavy metal burden than animal-based powders. However, the analysis ultimately concluded that using the typical serving size of protein powders as directed would not cause any adverse side effects from heavy metal exposure.

To be sure you’re selecting a high-quality protein powder:

• Look for powders with minimal ingredients and no artificial additives.
• Consider organic options to minimize potential contaminants.
• Check for NSF (National Sanitation Foundation) Certified for Sport or Informed Choice certifications.
• Consult with a health care professional or registered dietitian for personalized recommendations.

Nutrient Gaps

Over-reliance on protein powders may lead to missing out on essential nutrients found in whole-food protein sources.

Digestive Disturbances 

Varieties of protein powders containing lactose, such as whey, can be challenging for individuals with lactose intolerance. Whey protein isolate usually contains minimal lactose, while concentrates tend to contain more. If you are sensitive to lactose, look for a label that specifies the powder is lactose-free.

How to Use Protein Powders

For building muscle, ISSN recommends consuming protein within two hours of a workout. For weight loss, research suggests incorporating protein throughout the day to curb appetite and increase satiety.

“I have found whey protein isolate to be a high-quality option for many of my active patients looking to build muscle and recover from exercise,” McLaughlin said. “For those sensitive to dairy, a plant-based powder like pea protein can also work well and provide a complete amino acid profile,” he added. “Either way, I recommend choosing a powder with minimal added sugar.”

Any type of protein powder is simple to mix into a glass of water or milk or blend into a smoothie. However, protein powders have uses beyond just the glass.

“There are so many ways to add protein to your recipes and your plate,” Meredith Mann, founder of The Peachie Spoon, a certified holistic nutrition coach and recipe developer, told The Epoch Times in an email. “Baked goods like cookies, muffins, brownies, and baked oatmeal or n’oatmeal [grain-free porridge-like alternative] are favorites of mine,” she added.

“A plant-based protein powder, usually from rice and pea protein, can be a great option too, especially if your dietary preference is to not eat animal products,” said Mann. However, plant-based varieties tend to have a chalky taste, rendering them not the best option for adding to baked goods, she noted, suggesting mixing a serving of the powder into plain yogurt or cottage cheese and enjoying it with a spoon or using it as a dip for fruit.

Whatever source and form of protein you choose, quality is key when it comes to protein powders. Look for varieties with minimal ingredients.

Mann said, “Some protein supplements can contain additives, artificial sweeteners, and added sugars, which some people may want to avoid.”

Authored by Ryan McMaken via The Mises Institute,

This week, the US Supreme court announced that it will consider throwing out the Mexican government’s suit in the case of Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos. The Mexican government alleges that Smith & Wesson and wholesaler Witmer Public Safety Group Inc. are intentionally conspiring with middle-men to supply Mexican cartels with guns. 

The Mexican plaintiffs have never actually proven any of this, of course, and this is all part of a larger effort by the Mexican regime and its apologists who have looked for a scapegoat to blame for Mexico’s runaway homicide rates over the past twenty years. In truth, the Mexican government would do well to look a bit closer to home. Mexico’s crime problems are a result of Mexico’s corrupt state, its centralized government—which is a federal government in name only—and the fact Mexico essentially outlaws gun ownership for peaceful, law-abiding citizens. 

In the past I’ve covered in detail the ways that Mexican crime is a result of Mexican law and illegal gun running of Mexican guns in Mexico. At the core of Mexico’s failed claims is the fact that guns are far more common in the United States than in Mexico, yet crime is far, far worse in Mexico. Even along the border, American border towns have far less crime than the Mexican towns mere yards away on the other side of the border. On the American side of the border, legal guns are plentiful. On the Mexican side, the Mexican government ensures that guns are mostly in the hands of the cartels. Or, as I put it in 2018: 

Like much of Latin America, Mexico is a country with strict gun laws, but high homicide rates.

So how to explain the problem?

Well, in the case of Mexico, the answer for gun control activists is to blame the United States: “one way for Mexicans to get around their country’s strict gun laws is to simply walk across the border.”

The logic proceeds accordingly: The presence of more guns means more homicide. And, although Mexico has strict gun laws, Mexico is unfortunately located close to the United States where guns can be easily purchased. Guns are then introduced into Mexico where they drive a higher homicide rate.

There are some problems with this logic. Even if we account for all the black-market guns in Mexico, gun totals are still much higher in the US. That is, according to the 2007 Small Arms Survey, it is estimated that there are around 15 million privately-held guns in Mexico, on the high end. Even accounting for an additional increase since 2007, we’re looking at a rate of fewer than 20 guns per 100 people in Mexico. In the United States, on the other hand, that total is around 100 guns per 100 people.

So, if one is going to pin Mexico’s violence problem on “more guns,” they have to account for why there are more than five times as many guns in the US, with only a small fraction of the homicides.

Moreover, the often-quoted statistic allegedly showing that as much as 70 percent, or even 90 percent, of guns seized in Mexico come from the US is not true. That statistic is based only on seized guns that are also traced by the ATF. How many of all guns seized in Mexico come from the US? According to Stratfor, “almost 90 percent of the guns seized in Mexico in 2008 were not traced back to the United States.” Nor does the Mexican government ask the ATF to trace all guns seized in Mexico.

This is because many of those arms can be traced back to the Mexican government itself. 

Submitted by Brenton Smith,

Back in August, former President Donald Trump issued a proclamation to voters on Truth Social, “seniors should not pay tax on social security!” 

In layman terms, the statement from Trump implies that current retirees should get to keep more money at the expense of future retirees who would receive more painful reductions to benefits in eight years rather than nine.

While that trade-off may or may not appeal to voters in November, the taxation of Social Security benefits needs to be discussed before voters reach the polls in the coming election.

These rules date back 30 years, and Congress hasn’t monitored the rules as closely as it should.

On one hand, the taxation of benefits is a vital source of revenue for Social Security. It will generate nearly $60 billion in revenue this year for Social Security, which approximates the contribution of nearly nine million workers who will never collect benefits. Moreover, that revenue is projected to double over the next 10 years.

At the same time, we can’t justify a tax simply because the revenue is important.

For a bit of background, the taxation of benefits was added in 1983 as a compromise to generate income that would be needed to pay benefits far in the future. The policy option accounted for about 33 percent of the total effectiveness of the legislative package, which stabilized the program’s projected finances from 2030 through 2057.

Four decades later, the tax reaches an ever-increasing number of people for two reasons.

• First, the threshold that triggers the levy is not adjusted for inflation, so the definition of “substantial outside income” falls in real terms every year.

• Separately, the components of “outside income” are rising faster than inflation, particularly wages paid to people who are working during retirement.

As a consequence of these factors, more than 50 percent of beneficiaries who file taxes pay a levy on some portion of their benefits. An average worker in the United States working 30 hours per week, would generally expose his or her benefits to a marginal tax rate of more than 40 percent.

People wonder why the government taxes 85 percent of the check. In 1983, Congress required seniors to pay a tax on 50 percent of their benefits, but the portion was increased to 85 percent in 1993. Supporters of the change justified the increase based on research from the Social Security Administration actuarial team, which found that, even in a worst case scenario, someone collecting benefits today would make $0.85 cents of profit on every dollar received in the form of benefits.

Unfortunately for current retirees, no one knows whether the math done in the late 1980s has worked out for them as individuals.

At this point, the government collects an income tax from people who have to work in retirement to make ends meet at a marginal tax rate that is normally reserved for someone like Warren Buffett, when no one really knows whether the money is income or not. No one has bothered to check.

The one thing that we do know is that the trustees of the program expect seniors to pay an extra 8 to 9 billion dollars annually in taxes based on the expiration of the Tax Cut and Jobs Act in 2026.

So, there is a good chance that this unpopular tax will become even more unpopular.

This tax is vital to Social Security, but no one is watching it. The levy has drifted year to year; decade to decade; generation to generation without a lot of thought about who it affects or why it is applied. The rationale in Washington is retirees should pay the tax this year because they paid it last year.

Before anyone repeals the tax, Congress needs to figure out whether there is any profit in the money received by seniors, and then lawmakers can talk about to whom the tax might apply.

Authored by Maryanne Demasi via The Brownstone Institute,

A relatively unknown public records officer at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is now at the centre of a burgeoning scandal involving Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.

The saga unfolded after subpoenaed emails belonging to David Morens, a former top advisor to Anthony Fauci, revealed that someone had taught him to game the system and avoid emails being captured by FOIA requests.

“i learned from our foia lady here how to make emails disappear after i am foia’d but before the search starts, so i think we are all safe,” Morens wrote in a Feb 24, 2021, email.

“Plus i deleted most of those earlier emails after sending them to gmail.”

Morens implicated Margaret (Marg) Moore, known colloquially as “The FOIA lady” in trying to hide information from the American people, particularly that related to the origins of Covid-19, which is a felony.

It sparked an investigation by the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic to expose what Chairman Brad Wenstrup (R-OH) called a “cover-up.”

A letter to NIH director Monica Bertagnolli in May suggested “a conspiracy at the highest levels” of these once trusted public health institutions. 

“If what appears in these documents is true, this is an apparent attack on public trust and must be met with swift enforcement and consequences for those involved,” Wenstrup wrote.

Wenstrup said there was evidence that a former chief of staff of Fauci’s might have used intentional misspellings — such as “Ec~Health” instead of “EcoHealth” — to prevent emails from being captured in keyword searches by FOIA officials.

Today, Wenstrup announced a subpoena to compel Moore (The FOIA lady) to appear for a deposition on October 4, 2024, saying that she’d repeatedly resisted these efforts and delayed the Select Subcommittee’s investigation. 

“Her alleged scheme to help NIH officials delete COVID-19 records and use their personal emails to avoid FOIA is appalling and deserves a thorough investigation,” said Wenstrup.

“Holding Ms. Moore accountable for any role she played in undermining American trust is a step towards improving the lack of accountability and absence of transparency rapidly spreading across many agencies within our federal government,” he added.

Moore, however, has indicated through her lawyers that she would invoke her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

Her lawyers wrote to Wenstrup explaining that she’d cooperated with the Select Subcommittee to find “an alternative” to sitting for an interview, including expediting her own FOIA request for her own documents.

They also explained that Morens’ emails suggesting Moore gave tips “about avoiding FOIA,” were misleading because Morens, under oath said, “That was a joke…She didn’t give me advice about how to avoid FOIA.”

Nonetheless, Moore’s decision to plead the Fifth has only fuelled concern over the lack of transparency and accountability of one of the nation’s top health research institutions.

It’s not over until the FOIA lady sings!

Further reading: The great FOIA dodge

Republished from the author’s Substack

On Saturday French President Emmanuel Macron called for a halt to arms shipments to Israel for use in Gaza. He told national broadcaster France Inter in an interview that finding a “political solution” to the Gaza and Lebanon conflicts must be a “priority” and that a full arms embargo would help create the conditions.

He confirmed that France had already halted its arms deliveries to Israel. “I think we are not being heard,” Macron said, in reference to the ongoing Israeli military offensive in Gaza. “I think it is a mistake, including for the security of Israel.”

On the situation in Lebanon, where a ground war has started in the south and Israeli airstrikes have become frequent over Beirut, he said: “Our priority now is to avoid escalation. The Lebanese people must not, in turn, be sacrificed. Lebanon cannot become another Gaza.”

Israel is furious at the French leader’s remarks. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has called his comments urging an arms embargo a “disgrace”.

“Today, Israel is defending itself on seven fronts against the enemies of civilization,” he responded soon on the heels of Macron’s Saturday remarks. He has previously described that these seven fronts include: Gaza, Lebanon, the West Bank, Yemen, Syria, Iraq and Iran.

“As Israel fights the forces of barbarism led by Iran, all civilized countries should be standing firmly by Israel’s side,” Netanyahu continued. “Yet President Macron and other Western leaders are now calling for arms embargoes against Israel.”

He followed this with the words “Shame on them” – going on to describe that France is not calling out Iran for weaponizing its own proxies throughout the region. He asked whether Iran is imposing an embargo on its proxies such as the Houthis or Hezbollah. “Of course not.”

“But countries who supposedly oppose this terror axis call for an arms embargo on Israel,” he added. “What a disgrace!” Netanyahu then pledged that Israeli will “with or without their support,” and added, “But their shame will continue long after the war is won.”

⚡️One of the craziest videos ive seen so far, the Galilee this morning. pic.twitter.com/oYEJkn8wLN

— War Monitor (@WarMonitors) October 5, 2024

“Rest assured, Israel will fight until the battle is won — for our sake and for the sake of peace and security in the world,” Netanyahu concluded.

Lebanon in particular has long held special concern for France, given it was for a time alongside Syria a colony under the French Mandate period of the early 20th century. Paris especially cultivated ties with Lebanon’s Maronite Catholic population, which was at one point almost the majority of the country.

Dubai’s Emirates Airlines is the first major carrier outside of Lebanon to ban all passengers from carrying pagers and walkie-talkies on its flights, citing the dangers of last month’s exploding pagers and electronic devices attacks in Beirut.

“All passengers traveling to, from, or via Dubai are prohibited from transporting pagers and walkie-talkies in checked or cabin baggage,” the airline has announced in a statement on its website. It said this is part of enhanced security measures which will result in the confiscation of any prohibited items by Dubai Police.

The pager and walkie-talkie attacks, widely blamed on Israeli intelligence, were the result of the devices having been intercepted and manipulated during shipping. It’s believed small bomb materials were placed inside them, and then detonated when a signal was sent simultaneously to thousands of the electronics.

The death toll from the September 17 and 18 attacks was at least 42 killed and over 3500 injured. At least 12 civilians were killed as a result of the operation meant to disrupt Hezbollah, including children.

One big concern in the aftermath was the possibility of booby-trapped pager and device proliferation outside the country. What if someone with one of the thousands of manipulated pagers got on a plane?

This appears to be the fear that Emirates is addressing. Other regional carriers could follow suit. Emirates is the largest airline in the Middle East.

It is one among many global airlines which have suspended flights in and out of Beirut, and currently flights to Iraq and Iran remain halted until Tuesday. Services to Jordan will resume on Sunday.

Israel has continued large-scale airstrikes on Beirut, not just focusing on the southern suburbs and Hezbollah strongholds, but in the past days hitting central Beirut as well.

Footage of a pager exploding in the pocket of a Hezbollah operative while shopping in Beirut if you haven’t seen it.

Reportedly dozens or even hundreds were injured in simultaneous pager explosions.

This is absolutely insane. pic.twitter.com/6njfnwodll

— Patrick Webb (@RealPatrickWebb) September 17, 2024

An airstrike has also this week destroyed the primary border crossing between Lebanon and Syria, at Masnaa. Displaced refugees have since been seen walking over the mountainous and rough terrain border crossing.

Authored by Ian Miller via The Brownstone Institute,

It’s late 2024, and masking has managed to remain a contentious issue. Years of misinformation from supposed “experts” like Anthony Fauci and Deborah Birx and organizations like the CDC have convinced millions of Very Smart People to believe that masks are an effective tool to reduce the transmission of respiratory viruses. This applies also to the flu, despite those same experts and organizations somehow neglecting to recommend masks for the decades of flu seasons pre-2020.

Forcing anyone to mask, given the substantial and robust evidence base showing conclusively that masks don’t work, was an indefensible policy decision. But specifically forcing children to mask was decidedly much, much worse.

And not just because it was a pointless exercise in pandemic theater, with zero evidence of efficacy.

But because it was actively causing harm too, as a new study shows.

New Study Confirms Harms of Masking Children

A new study co-authored by Tracy Beth Høeg delves into the side effects of masking, a subject completely ignored by experts and politicians desperate to exert control over individual behavior.

And in their discussion, it’s immediately obvious why their research and conclusions will be completely ignored by the mainstream media.

“There is a lack of robust evidence of benefit from masking children to reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2 or other respiratory viruses,” they explain.

Couldn’t have said it better myself.

The highest quality evidence available for masking children for COVID-19 or other viral respiratory infections has failed to find a beneficial impact against transmission. Mechanistic studies showing reduced viral transmission from use of face masks and respirators have not translated to real world effectiveness.

Identified harms of masking include negative effects on communication and components of speech and language, ability to learn and comprehend, emotional and trust development, physical discomfort, and reduction in time and intensity of exercise.

It’s a masterpiece. No notes.

As the Cochrane Library review explained, as the data shows, as decades of accumulated evidence confirmed: Masks Don’t Work. For anyone, but especially for children, who could not wear or use masks properly, even if they were shown to have worked. Which they did not.

Experts demanded and politicians mandated that they wear them anyway, based on speculation, hope, and mechanistic studies that were conclusively disproven. And the harms were remarkable.

“Negative effects on communication and components of speech and language.”

“Ability to learn and comprehend.”

“Emotional and trust development, physical discomfort, and reduction in time and intensity of exercise.”

Just, you know, the basic building blocks of human development that children need to grow as well-adjusted, physically and mentally healthy teenagers and adults.

As Høeg and the other authors explain, this necessarily means that forcing children to mask fails any objective standard of harms and benefits.

Effectiveness of child masking has not been demonstrated, while documented harms of masking in children are diverse and non-negligible and should prompt careful reflection. Recommendations for masking children fail basic harm-benefit analyses.

Their next section is a complete dismantling of the CDC and the US public health bureaucracy, how they handled Covid, and how poor an example this sets for future pandemics.

In many locations in North America, children as young as two years of age were required to wear face masks daily for multiple consecutive hours, both indoors and outdoors, in school and childcare settings [1], [2]. This stood in stark contrast to European countries where masking was never recommended for children under the age of six and, in many countries, never under age twelve [3]. The United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)’s child masking recommendations deviated substantially from international guidelines [3], [4], [5]. The CDC continues to recommend masks for children down to age two in certain settings [1], [6], and this is in the absence of strategies for exiting these restrictions. In the event of a future public health threat, clear and consistent communication from public health officials about the criteria that will be used to withdraw temporary public health recommendations while data are gathered could serve to ease public anxiety, lessen distrust, and facilitate a return to a more normal life wherein ineffective recommendations are promptly discarded.

It’s a calm, thorough demolition of the incompetence and authoritarianism of the US public health establishment.

They repeat that there is no evidence to support masking children and explain that there is no real-world evidence showing the effectiveness of child mask mandates, with zero randomized controlled trials conducted to determine whether masking kids would prevent the spread of Covid. It’s inexcusable to mandate a policy with no evidence, but even worse considering the demonstrable harms.

“Speech, language, and learning: Humans rely on visual information provided by a speaker’s face to decode speech. Seeing mouth movements and facial gestures accelerates recognition of words and enhances speech comprehension [12], [19], [20], [21]. The integration of audio and facial information is crucial to speech perception and development. Visually impaired children often have delays in speech and language development [22], which may be due, at least in part, to reduced ability to perceive,” they write.

Masks prevent children from learning, from seeing mouth movements to facial gestures. They fundamentally detract from a child’s ability to develop speech and language. Among many other problems covered in the full study.

These harms were well-known before Covid. This isn’t new information, and it’s obvious common sense. So why did public health authorities ignore it, in favor of promoting evidence-free policies and mandates?

There are few reasonable explanations: panic, fear, or incompetence. Likely some combination of all three.

Forcing their absurd, fatalistic, hyper-safetyism on adults was and is one thing. Imposing it on children is another. And their refusal to admit they were wrong meant the growth and development of kids were most certainly harmed and stunted for years, while ensuring that there would be terrified, misinformed parents who would continue to force their kids to wear masks indefinitely.

When you consider those consequences, rationality fades, and a disturbing likelihood of malicious intent becomes a lot more realistic.

Republished from the author’s Substack