Month: November 2024

Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via The Epoch Times,

Some wild shifts are taking place in our time…

The low-tariff global trade order is falling apart.

Nationalist movements are gaining strength in every Western nation, not just the United States.

The major media is under serious financial strain to the point that the owner of the Washington Post has penned an editorial decrying the tendency to speak only to elites.

A presidential candidate is talking about scrapping the income tax.

The Supreme Court earlier this year ruled that 40 years of regulatory jurisprudence is essentially contrary to the Constitution.

The list goes on and on with the rise of homeschooling, the reliance on alternative media, the dramatic shift in partisan affiliations over healthy food, the unpredictable alliances over the U.S. role in the world, and so much more.

People are asking fundamental questions about issues that only a few years ago seemed fully settled. What was stable is unstable and what was believed by nearly everyone is now widely doubted.

It’s enough to make one’s head spin. What is happening and why is it happening?

The short answer is that we are living through a class paradigm shift.

One is going away and another is coming. We are in pre-paradigmatic times, which are surely the most exciting times to be alive.

The word paradigm entered into the mainstream of thought with an important book by Thomas Kuhn. His “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” appeared in 1962, and it completely upended the dominated assumptions about how science works.

More than that, it implicitly shook how people came to understand how progress takes place. He said it is not a linear process with every generation absorbing the best from the last but rather that progress is episodic, a shift from success to failure and back again, through titanic movements of large paradigms.

Kuhn arrived at this conclusion by looking at the long history of science and noticing the tendency toward complacency around an orthodoxy of some sort. This is the period he calls “normal science.” The practitioners have all been schooled in a certain way, deferring to teachers and dominant institutions that have captured government and the public mind. It’s a way of understanding the world and within that the main practitioners focus on problem-solving and applications.

This period of normal science can last a month or decades or centuries, rarely questioned. And then something happens. Kuhn writes that this orthodoxy comes to be challenged by certain features of reality that are not explained by normal science. Once these are more closely investigated, the anomalies start to pile up and then overwhelm the explanatory power of the settled paradigm. The longer this goes on, the more the paradigm comes under strain, as a new generation seizes on the failures and highlights the incapacity of the orthodoxy to account for the reality all around us.

That’s when the settled science breaks down. It can happen slowly or quickly, and sometimes paradigms overlap both in their popularity and their collapse. That collapse does not mean that every mind is changed. Kuhn observes that the practitioners of the old science continue on their merry way through retirement and final expiration, while the younger people work on cobbling together a new way of thinking that gradually emerges as the dominant paradigm.

Kuhn was writing about science and the profession thereof but his insight has broad application to sociological, cultural, and political ideas too. They do not evolve in a linear fashion, piling victory upon victory, as a Whiggish perspective of the 19th century would have it. Instead, change occurs episodically. One generation is as likely to forget the wisdom of the past as it is to overthrow the orthodoxies of the present. We are in a forever state of cobbling together truth rather than progressively unfolding it.

We’ve seen this happen in the postwar world, as planners built structures that were supposed to govern the world forever. But in a few short years, the world came to be divided rather than united by the Western perception of the new threat of Russian imperialism. That created the Cold War which lasted for 40 years until a new “end of history” was born, which put freedom, democracy, and U.S. hegemony on the commanding heights. That turn has been challenged by the rise of China and huge industrial shifts in the 21st century.

A worker is pictured with car batteries at a factory of Xinwangda Electric Vehicle Battery Co. Ltd., which makes lithium batteries for electric cars and other uses, in Nanjing in China’s eastern Jiangsu Province, on March 12, 2021. STR/AFP via Getty Images

If we were to name one dominant factor that has provoked the big change in our time, it would have to be the global response to the lab-created virus of SARS-CoV-2, which was met with Chinese Communist Party-style universal quarantines all over the world, and followed by shot mandates on most public institutions and many private businesses. These policies were extreme beyond which had been practiced in any period of history but also, and in many ways, merely an extension of the “normal science” of times.

The media, large corporations, and nearly all governments got behind the pandemic response and jeered the non-compliers. This was a huge error because it gave rise to a full generation of the incredulous who lost trust in elites at all levels: medical, academic, media, and government. It has all fallen apart in our time, leaving people scrambling in all directions for explanations of what could have gone so wrong and what should be done about it.

What fascinates me about our election year is not so much the issues on the table but the underlying template that everyone knows is there but no one dares mention; namely the utter discrediting of elite opinion over the last four years.

The claims of the experts simply became too implausible to compel public assent. And this time it was personal. People’s schools and churches were closed, loved ones forced on ventilators to die alone, and whole communities were shattered when public spaces were blocked.

In other words, the “normal science” became a threat to people’s lives, especially once the vaccine mandates came along that most people did not want or need and which ended up being far less effective and far more dangerous than advertised. That was the turning point, the mark at which the anomalies overwhelmed the orthodoxies and the expert classes fell into disrepute.

Nothing about any of this would shock Thomas Kuhn, who gave us a map of understanding back in 1962. Finding that new way of thinking is the essence of our times, which is why everything seems to be in question. The other day, Elon Musk suggested cutting $2 trillion next year from the federal budget. It barely made the headlines, even though it is a highly credible promise.

That’s the new world in which we live. It is being built on the embers of the old.

To be sure, this shift will not happen all at once. It will happen in fits and starts and be accompanied by a great deal of alarm and even pain along the way. But one way or another, it is going to happen, and for one simple reason. As Jeff Bezos explained in the Washington Post, reality is an undisputed champion.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.

As Democrats swear up and down that crime across the country is under control, the data continues to prove them otherwise. This week it was Washington stolen vehicle data, which showed the number of cars stolen across the nation is steadily approaching the 1 million mark. 

In fact, vehicle thefts jumped nearly 14% nationwide from 2020 to 2022, according to data by LendingTree and reporting by KOMO News. 

In Washington, the data was clear. Thefts rose by over 65%, with Oregon seeing a 40% increase, placing both states among the top five nationwide. Three Washington cities—Kennewick, Bremerton, and Wenatchee—rank in the nation’s top 10 for theft spikes, according to KOMO News.

The KOMO News report says that theft rates rose in 34 states, with Vermont leading. While theft impacts insurance rates, Washington’s rates remain 22% below the national average due to other balancing factors.

Rob Bhatt, LendingTree auto expert and insurance agent, commented: “We’re talking about smaller places that we don’t necessarily associate with big city problems like car thefts.”

“Some of the other things that play in to the equation include things like crash rates and also the cost of medical treatment, the cost of car repairs and all those things,” Bhatt added. “The auto makers have provided a fix and I think that’s working its way through the system. Why they didn’t have this anti-theft technology in the first place is baffling.”

Recall at the end of summer we wrote how car thefts were becoming a nationwide “epidemic”. 

We wrote that the number of cars seized at the Port of Newark was on the rise. Jeffrey Greene, acting director at the Port of New York and Newark, oversees customs officials using x-rays to inspect containers and seize stolen cars.

In one case this year, two junk vehicles concealed a pristine Mercedes, while another container held a stolen Chevy Silverado.

So far this year, they’ve seized 331 vehicles, on pace to surpass last year’s total. Investigators say West African markets, especially Nigeria, offer the highest prices. Social media videos show luxury SUVs being unloaded from containers, sometimes still sporting American license plates.

Greene commented: “So last year, the Port of New York-Newark here, we led the country in seized vehicles … We had 368 vehicles. That’s more than a car a day.”

The CBS report says young people are often recruited for car thefts, according to Homeland Security Special Agent William Walker, who leads an auto crime task force.

Authored by Ian Miller via The Brownstone Institute,

The party of “Science” apparently misled hundreds of millions of people on the actual science surrounding the Covid-19 pandemic. Stop the presses.

Starting in early 2020, the combined efforts of Dr. Anthony Fauci, the CDC, the Department of Health and Human Services, and their partners in the media caused an untold amount of damage to society and public health and might have even created conditions for increased Covid spread. How? By repeatedly, profoundly, and often purposefully communicating inaccurate information while spending hundreds of millions of dollars to get their preferred messages across.

Now, a new, massive 113-page report from the US House of Representatives Energy & Commerce Committee has detailed the remarkable abuses from the Biden-Harris administration and the manner in which they communicated during Covid. 

Biden, CDC Partners Literally Wasted a Fortune to Lie to the American People

The report details a number of unbelievable inaccuracies in 2021 coming from the Biden administration’s communications team and the CDC’s messaging apparatus. Fauci and Francis Collins’ National Institutes of Health were also responsible, creating guidance using taxpayer money, nearly $1 billion per the report, that misled millions of people and caused unimaginable harm in the process.

While the Biden-Harris administration’s public health guidance led to prolonged closures of schools and businesses, the NIH was spending nearly a billion dollars of taxpayer money trying to manipulate Americans with advertisements—sometimes containing erroneous or unproven information. By overpromising what the Covid-19 vaccines could do—in direct contradiction of the FDA’s authorizations—and over emphasizing the virus’s risk to children and young adults, the Biden-Harris administration caused Americans to lose trust in the public health system,” Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) said after the report’s release. “Our investigation also uncovered the extent to which public funding went to Big Tech companies to track and monitor Americans, underscoring the need for stronger online data privacy protections.”

One of the most damaging, and woefully incorrect messaging campaigns centered on vaccine efficacy against infection. As the report details, Biden’s “Stop the Spread” campaign was a pervasive marketing effort in conjunction with the CDC that claimed vaccines would end the pandemic by reducing infections. That had enormous knock-on effects, including decreasing trust in all vaccinations and ultimately harming public health.

“The entire premise of the Biden-Harris ‘Stop the Spread’ campaign was that if you got vaccinated for COVID-19, you could resume daily activities because they said vaccinated people would not spread the disease,” said Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chair Morgan Griffith (R-VA). “Despite lacking scientific basis, the administration bought into this CDC claim and misled the American public. As a result, vaccination coverage with other vaccines appears to have declined, I believe because of a growing distrust of information coming from our public health institutions.”

This campaign was even more disingenuous and purposefully misleading than previously realized. The “Stop the Spread” publicity blitz hid in plain sight a message from the CDC that even they didn’t know whether the vaccines actually stopped infection or transmission. The report shared a screenshot of a page from the Biden administration’s marketing that specifically said “science” wasn’t sure how well the vaccines worked against infection. 

Yet the Biden administration made life-altering policy decisions such as vaccine mandates, discriminatory entry processes, and military vaccination requirements regardless. And that was in addition to the less quantifiable impacts like nudging millions of people to follow their preferred course of action.

CDC Guidance Exacerbated Existing Problems

The report also explains how the Biden administration relied heavily on guidance from the CDC, an organization that thoroughly disgraced itself during the pandemic. There were several examples highlighted, chief among them that CDC “experts” went far beyond what even the FDA claimed Covid vaccines could do.

Without evidence, the report says Biden’s marketing claimed that “COVID vaccines were highly effective against transmission.” Within just a few months, it was clear that all the available evidence pointed towards the exact opposite direction. Per the report, this had a “negative impact on vaccine confidence and the CDC’s credibility when proven untrue.” 

The CDC also had “inconsistent and flawed messaging about the effectiveness of masks,” which created seemingly endless mandates and, again, overconfidence in an ineffective policy. Some of those mandates even continue to this day.

That’s just the tip of their misinformation. A wealth of data and public embarrassments for the CDC confirmed that the organization “consistently overstated the risk of COVID-19 to children,” the report states. That fear-mongering had disastrous consequences, from unnecessarily terrifying parents to prolonged school closures and lack of socialization—setting an entire generation of children back in the process.

Still, after being repeatedly and profoundly proven wrong, the CDC has demonstrated they’ve yet to learn their lesson. In late 2024, the CDC continues to recommend Covid-19 vaccines for babies starting at six months old. That makes the US a global outlier compared to European nations that have maintained at least some level of intellectual honesty.

How Do We Fix CDC Abuses?

The report detailed several recommendations to fix these organizations after their disastrous work during the pandemic. Even implementing just a select few, listed below, would do wonders for fixing the institutional rot that influenced these mistakes. 

• Congress should consider clarifying responsibility for evaluating the safety of vaccines and streamlining existing reporting systems for capturing vaccine injuries and adverse reactions.

• HHS and its agencies should embrace a culture of transparency and accountability.

• The CDC and federal public health officials should not attempt to silence dissenting scientific opinions.

Also highlighted in the report is how the CDC and NIH used their weight in their attempts to censor scientists who dissented from their preferred narratives. Beyond their mistakes, profound inaccuracies, and nearly unlimited spending, their censorship efforts are equally concerning.

As we learned during Covid, if there’s one thing “experts” hate, it’s being told that they were proven wrong. Instead of learning, adjusting, and apologizing, they move to censor, criticize and mislead. This new report is the latest confirmation of these unacceptable “mistakes.” And reaffirms the importance of ensuring they never happen again.

Republished from the author’s Substack

Authored by Mary West via The Epoch Times,

Metformin, a common Type 2 diabetes, may offer protection against a subtype of age-related macular degeneration (AMD), according to a study published in Investigative Ophthalmology & Vision Science (IOVS).

This is the latest among other studies suggesting that the medication may have several uses beyond diabetes, such as promoting longevity and weight loss and protecting against neurological disorders, cancer, and cardiovascular disease. Most of the proposed uses are off-label, which means the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not approved the medication to treat those conditions.

While research on some off-label metformin uses is promising, studies on other uses are inconsistent. Some are controversial because they may not offer the best approach for addressing a health issue. Additionally, although metformin is generally well-tolerated, it does have some adverse effects and is not for everyone.

Metformin and Macular Degeneration Subtype

Macular degeneration, a condition mainly associated with aging, affects the retina and involves the loss of central vision. The primary types of AMD are wet AMD and dry AMD. Geography atrophy (GA) is a subtype of dry AMD. GA leads to legal blindness in 16 percent of those who have it.

In recent years, anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) medications, which decrease the growth of blood vessels in the eye, have revolutionized treatment for wet AMD.

Conversely, treatments for GA have lagged. In 2023, pegcetacoplan and avacincaptad pegol came on the market, but they only slow GA’s progression rather than prevent the condition.

Studies on the treatment of dry AMD with metformin have been encouraging, but they have not focused on GA specifically. Because of the limited research on metformin’s effect on GA and the condition’s debilitating visual effects, researchers undertook the IOVS study.

This case-control experiment involved older individuals with new-onset GA and a control group who did not have it. The researchers looked at exposure to metformin in the preceding year to determine whether any correlations were present. Data analysis indicated an association between metformin and reduced risk of new-onset GA. The researchers concluded that further research is necessary to verify the findings, but metformin may provide a noninvasive alternative treatment in preventing GA.

Mechanisms of action underlying the benefit of metformin on GA are unclear, but there are several possibilities. Instead of the protective effects stemming from a blood sugar-lowering action useful for diabetes, the effects may be due to the medication’s anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties, based on animal and test tube studies.

Metformin and Aging

Is it possible that taking a pill can prolong your life? A review published in Frontiers in Endocrinology noted that metformin may decrease the likelihood of early death associated with diabetes, cancer, cognitive decline, and cardiovascular disease, which could lengthen the period of life spent in good health.

Factors underlying metformin’s anti-aging effects include its ability to lower high blood sugar, boost insulin sensitivity, and decrease oxidative stress. The medication also has a direct protective effect on blood vessel function, which may improve blood flow.

Despite these positive effects, the researchers expressed reservations about using metformin as a prophylactic (preventive) measure to promote longevity. Dependence on a pill could reduce the incentive to adopt healthy lifestyle practices, such as exercise and a nutritious diet, which have proven beneficial. Additionally, long-term metformin use may cause vitamin B12 deficiency. In light of these considerations, people should not view the drug as a “quick fix” for aging.

Dr. Markus Ploesser, a psychiatrist and integrative medicine physician at Open Mind Health, concurs with the researchers’ viewpoint. In an email to The Epoch Times, he stated that metformin has several beneficial effects that may enhance longevity; “however, its use as an anti-aging drug is still not fully proven.”

Ploesser added that it is essential to balance the possible benefits against risks and to consider it within a broader context of other longevity-promoting strategies, such as diet, exercise, sleep optimization, and stress management.

“Taking a pill alone is unlikely to be the healthiest approach for most people, as a comprehensive lifestyle strategy has much stronger evidence for promoting longevity,” he said.

Metformin and Weight Loss

Metformin may promote weight loss, but its use is best reserved for a select population.

A review published in Current Obesity Reports stated that it suppresses the appetite and may also increase the abundance of bacterial strains in the gut microbiome, an effect associated with healthier weight. However, research on the weight-loss effects of metformin shows either modest improvement or inconsistent results. Consequently, the FDA has not approved the medication for obesity.

Guidelines from the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and the American College of Endocrinology advise the use of metformin for obese individuals who have prediabetes or insulin intolerance and have not responded to other medications for obesity or lifestyle modifications. Current use of the drug for obesity is strictly off-label, but doctors often prescribe it for people with a high risk of obesity-related complications who can’t tolerate other interventions, noted the Current Obesity Reports review.

Dr. Michael Lahey, a physician specializing in metabolic health and weight management at My Weight Loss Partner, told The Epoch Times via email that although some research shows metformin might promote weight loss, it is not an anti-obesity medication.

“In my experience, I stand to defend the facts that making the necessary lifestyle changes—such as proper dieting, reliable exercise, and positive behavioral change—has the strongest bearing for long-term, effective weight loss,” he said. “It can be suggested that metformin may be used as a second-line treatment, in particular, if insulin resistance is quite pronounced; nonetheless, it should not be used alone.”

Metformin and Neurological Disorders

A review published in the International Journal of Molecular Sciences indicates that metformin may protect against neurological conditions, including Alzheimer’s disease and major depressive disorder.

The mechanisms that underlie the protection are not fully understood, but several actions may play a role. Metformin may help prevent damage to the blood-brain barrier (BBB), a tight layer of cells that prevents harmful substances from entering the brain. Damage to the BBB can result in neuroinflammation and injury, leading to neurodegeneration.

Metformin also moderates autophagy, a natural cleaning process that improves cellular function. It also regulates synaptic transmission, where neurotransmitters are released that send signals from one nerve cell to another, and plasticity, or the ability of neural networks to grow and reorganize.

Metformin and Cardiovascular Protection

A review published in Pharmaceuticals reported that an estimated two-thirds of the deaths of people with diabetes are attributable to cardiovascular disease. Among this group, approximately 40 percent stem from coronary artery disease, 15 percent from heart failure and other types of heart disease, and about 10 percent from stroke. Consequently, reducing the likelihood of these risks is paramount.

Most clinical studies indicate that metformin may decrease the likelihood of chronic blood vessel-related complications of diabetes and significantly lower modifiable cardiovascular risk factors. The latter includes increased platelet aggregation, unhealthy blood lipids, belly fat, obesity, oxidative stress, high blood glucose, and inflammation.

Metformin and Kidney Protection

According to the Pharmaceuticals review, chronic kidney disease affects about 30 percent of people with Type 1 diabetes and approximately 40 percent of those with Type 2 diabetes. This result of chronically high blood sugar affects tiny blood vessels and frequently leads to end-stage kidney disease. Existing medications are ineffective, and many people eventually need dialysis or a kidney transplant.

Metformin has kidney-protective properties that can stop kidney tissue injuries caused by various toxins, including high blood glucose.

This benefit’s underlying mechanisms of action are complex and not fully known. A factor that plays a key role is metformin’s activation of the enzyme AMP-activated protein kinase (AMPK), which results in beneficial effects in kidney cells. AMPK serves as a vital energy source in the cell and regulates cellular protein, glucose, and lipid metabolism.

Metformin and Cancer

People with diabetes, particularly Type 2 diabetes, have a higher risk of developing certain cancers, including breast, bladder, endometrium, pancreas, liver, and colon and rectum, noted the review in Pharmaceuticals. Metformin has a desirable effect on certain cancer risk factors, such as high body weight, high blood sugar, and insulin sensitivity.

Research shows the medication reduces the risk of cancer in people with diabetes, but exactly how it achieves this protective effect is only partly understood. One factor involves an indirect action on tumor cells caused by the blood sugar- and insulin-lowering effects, which may suppress cancer cell proliferation. Additionally, researchers have proposed that metformin has several direct anti-cancer effects, such as the activation of AMPK in tumor cells.

While some studies suggest the medication may reduce the risk of cancer, others do not. The inconsistency shows that randomized studies are needed to determine the value of metformin in cancer.

Safety Concerns

Metformin is generally well-tolerated, but up to 30 percent of people experience gastrointestinal effects, such as nausea, diarrhea, and vomiting.

Australian physician and board-certified nutritionist Dr. Peter Brukner told The Epoch Times via email that people with the following conditions or risk factors should avoid metformin:

• Kidney problems: The kidneys remove metformin from the body, so the medication is not eliminated properly if they are not working well. This can cause lactic acidosis, a complication where the blood pH drops and becomes acidic, causing severe illness.

• Liver problems: The liver also has a job in handling metformin. Liver disease puts a person at risk of lactic acidosis.

• Breathing problems or heart issues: A person with severe breathing problems or heart issues might not get enough oxygen. This, too, can make them more likely to develop lactic acidosis.

• History of lactose acidosis: If someone has experienced lactic acidosis before, it is a good idea not to take metformin because the problem may come back.

• Pregnant or breastfeeding women: Metformin is not always suggested for women who are pregnant or breastfeeding since its impact on the baby is not entirely known. Doctors often seek safer choices in such situations.

• Certain medications: Some medications do not go well with metformin and can create problems. These include those that raise the risk of lactic acidosis, such as bupropion, carbonic anhydrase inhibitors, and cephalexin and medications that enhance its blood sugar-lowering effect, such as salicylates and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). Individuals should inform their doctor about all the medications they use to avoid drug interactions.

Anyone desiring to take metformin with one of these conditions should discuss it with their doctor, Brukner advises.

Risk Versus Benefit

While further research is needed, metformin’s uses for disease prevention may be valid. However, doctors must weigh the benefits against the risks for each individual. In cases where a person is highly likely to develop a particular condition, the benefits may exceed the risks.

Authored by Andrew Korybko via Substack,

Over a week has passed since the latest BRICS Summit in Kazan so it’s possible to assess what exactly it achieved now that the dust has settled. The primary takeaway is the Kazan Declaration, which Director General of the prestigious Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC) Andrey Kortunov described as “a manifesto for the new world order”. His praise shouldn’t be taken lightly since he’s an archetypical realist who also earlier tempered expectations about what BRICS was capable of agreeing to.

Titled “What BRICS Cannot and What It Can Deliver”, Kortunov explained that: “BRICS cannot become a global economic integration project”; BRICS will not turn into a multilateral political or security alliance of an anti-Western nature”; BRICS is not likely to contribute a lot to resolving disputes between its members or disputes between its members and third parties”; and “BRICS will never become an analogue to G7.”

He then juxtaposed these assessments with his expectations that “BRICS can promote trade and investments among its members, as well as contribute to economic and social development of these members”; “BRICS could help to shape common non-Western approaches to global problems”; “BRICS is capable of contributing to the dialogue of civilizations”; and “BRICS can become an important source of ideas and proposals for UN, G20 and other universal bodies.”

This background places his description from the introduction into context, which will now be elaborated on. According to Kortunov, “For the first time in BRICS’ history, the Declaration sets out in detail the group’s shared vision of the current state of the international system, the common or overlapping approaches to the fundamental global problems of our time and to acute regional crises, and the contours of a desirable and achievable world order as the members of the group currently see it.”

He then immediately added that “While the document does not provide specific timetables for individual tasks or roadmaps for specific areas of work, it does cover a number of key objectives that the group should or could pursue over the next few years.” In his assessment, “there is a clear balance between the security and development agendas”, which he considers to be a deliberate choice “to maintain its very broad mandate” instead of focusing on purely economic and financial affairs.

He thus surmised that “BRICS intends to position itself as a multitasking laboratory of global governance, where new algorithms of multilateral cooperation and innovative models for solving the world’s major economic and political problems can be tested, including trade, finance and strategic stability.” To that end, BRICS is balancing between reforming the Western-centric world order and creating alternative institutions, and it’s the latter which excites the group’s enthusiasts the most.

Before proceeding, however, it’s important to clarify a few matters. Putin declared prior to the summit that a common BRICS currency isn’t currently being considered and then he said during the event that Russia isn’t fighting against the dollar. Kremlin spokesman Peskov later added that BRICS as a whole isn’t trying to defeat the dollar either and that their financial messaging service won’t be an alternative to SWIFT. These policy reminders bring the analysis around to discussing the group’s three main initiatives.

Sputnik published a handy guide here about BRICS Bridge, BRICS Clear, and BRICS Pay, which are correspondingly a financial messaging service, an independent blockchain-based depository system, and a cashless payment service. As was earlier written, they don’t aim to replace their Western antecedents but simply to create alternatives for others to use in order to hedge against the risk of the West one day weaponizing these existing platforms against them like they did against Russia from 2022 onward.

None of them have yet to be rolled out, but progress was made on their creation and eventual implementation during the summit. The same goes for Russia’s proposals to set up grain and precious metals exchanges, which could in theory help form the foundation for a new currency or at least a common unit of account that some have simply called “the unit”. This could consist of a combination of commodities and a basket of members’ currencies, but it’ll likely take years to agree upon, if ever.

Much more successful was BRICS’ bestowing of partnership status on around a dozen countries, though no official list has yet to be published, but some countries like Cuba already celebrated receiving this status while others like Venezuela were upset that they didn’t get it (in this case due to Brazil’s veto). Even so, it was explained last month that “BRICS Membership Or Lack Thereof Isn’t Actually That Big Of A Deal”, namely because any country can voluntarily coordinate their financial policies with BRICS.

In other words, while this distinction is prestigious and being snubbed like Venezuela was by Brazil is thus a deep insult, it doesn’t really matter whether any country participates in discussions on financial multipolarity processes as an official member, observers as a partner, or hears about the outcome afterwards. All cooperation is voluntary so anyone – be they a member, partner, or non-associate – can either implement BRICS’ proposals or decline if they feel that they don’t meet their national interests.

Seeing as how one’s ties with BRICS therefore don’t really matter either way, the group’s partnership expansion is thus purely symbolic, which means that nothing of tangible significance was agreed to during last week’s summit. The same came be said about every prior summit apart from the Fortaleza one in 2014 where members agreed to create the New Development Bank (NDB), which is the only tangible manifestation of BRICS’ efforts to create alternative institutions, but it’s also clearly imperfect.

NDB President Dilma Rousseff confirmed in July 2023 that “The NDB reiterated that it is not planning new projects in Russia and operates in compliance with applicable restrictions on international financial and capital markets.” Simply put, the NDB that Russia itself co-founded complies with the US’ sanctions against it, thus making this less of a real alternative to Western institutions and more of a complement. That might also have to do with China, where it’s based, complying with most Western sanctions.

“Russia & China’s US-Provoked Payment Problems Caught Most BRICS Enthusiasts By Surprise” after RT revealed the extent of these long-running challenges in early September here once they began to reach critical proportions following the latest US pressure on China at the time. Although India is reportedly defying these restrictions and is on pace to become the world’s third-largest economy by 2030, without China doing the same, BRICS as a whole will struggle to create truly alternative institutions.

China has been more cautious about provoking the US’ threatened secondary sanctions than India due to it being considered by the US to be a systemic rival, the perception of which it doesn’t want to inadvertently confirm, hence why it’s complied with so many of the sanctions so far. In fact, Russia’s Special Presidential Representative for SCO Affairs Bakhtiyor Khakimov revealed last week that his country can’t even pay its dues because the bank is located in China and they also only use dollars.

If the political will was present, then China would have devised a workaround by now instead of dragging the issue on for so long that Khakimov felt compelled to complain to the public about it, which just goes to show how strictly China is complying with the sanctions inside BRICS and even the SCO. To be sure, bilateral trade continues to grow so some alternative channels have been created, but they’re seemingly segmented based on industry (ex: energy, tech) and don’t facilitate payments to others like the NDB.

Reflecting on everything that was shared, both Kortunov’s insight and that which followed, the latest BRICS Summit was symbolic just like every prior one apart from 2014’s that led to the creation of the clearly imperfect NDB. BRICS’ purely voluntary nature means that it’ll never become what its enthusiasts expect since there are too many asymmetries between its members. There’s also no realistic chance of BRICS making compliance with its proposals mandatory either since that would lead to its dissolution.

These observations greatly limit what BRICS could foreseeably achieve, but they don’t rule out the creation of more alternative institutions like those represented by BRICS Bridge, BRICS Clear, and BRICS Pay. Grain and precious metals exchanges are also possible, but in those cases, only on the basis of minilaterals within BRICS that are then given the group’s branding after everyone else agrees. A common BRICS currency or a common unit of account is a much longer-term goal that’s unobtainable for now.

The disappointing precedent established by the NDB’s compliance with US sanctions makes one worry about just how much of a true alternative the abovementioned institutions that Russia seeks to also co-found will be. There’s no doubt that Russia learned from that experience so nobody should assume that it already invested the time and resources required for creating these new institutions without first devising a way to prevent them from sanctioning it too, but it remains to be seen how this will work.

The conclusion is that it’s a lot easier to talk about creating truly alternative institutions than actually doing so, which means that BRICS will likely just remain a talking club, or a “multitasking laboratory of global governance” as Kortunov diplomatically described it. That’s not to downplay the group’s role since it’s important for major and developing non-Western countries to discuss pressing issues of the evolving world order, especially economic-financial ones, but that’s not the same as what enthusiasts expected.

At the end of the day, the Alt-Media Community went overboard hyping up BRICS and the latest Kazan Summit, only for nothing of tangible significance to emerge from the first since 2014’s decision to create the clearly imperfect NDB that later sanctioned Russia while the second had no tangible outcome at all. The latter did indeed lay the basis for creating more alternative institutions, although it’s unclear when they’ll be unveiled and how Russia will ensure that they don’t sanction it like the NDB ended up doing.

The Kazan Summit therefore wasn’t a failure, and in fact, it succeeded in its only realistic goal all along of gathering its members and partners together to discuss ways to voluntarily accelerate financial multipolarity processes such as through the increased use of national currencies. The outcome was always going to be more symbolic than tangible due to the group’s purely voluntary nature, though some observers had false expectations and thus feel bitter, but now they know what BRICS is really about.  

From coast to coast, wine is often seen as a staple on tables across the U.S, with certain regions raising their glasses a little more often.

From California’s Napa Valley to New York’s Finger Lakes, the U.S. is home to several world-renowned wine regions, and ranked third in Forbes’ list of top 10 countries for wine lovers.

This map, via Visual Capitalist’s Kayla Zhu, visualizes the annual per capita ethanol consumption of wine in gallons in 2022, by state.

The data comes from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA), which measures alcohol consumption in ethanol volume.

For reference, the average bottle of wine (750 mL, 12.9% ABV) contains 0.0256 gallons of ethanol.

Consumption figures only include residents age 14 or older, and is based on alcoholic beverage sales data collected by the Alcohol Epidemiologic Data System (AEDS), the National Alcohol Beverage Control Association, and from various reports produced by beverage industry sources.

Which States Consume the Most Wine?

Below, we show the per capita ethanol consumption in gallons of wine for each state.

State	Per capita ethanol consumption in gallons of wine
District of Columbia	1.05
New Hampshire	0.8
Vermont	0.72
Delaware	0.68
California	0.62
Hawaii	0.58
Florida	0.57
Massachusetts	0.57
Nevada	0.57
Oregon	0.57
Alaska	0.53
Connecticut	0.53
Rhode Island	0.52
New Jersey	0.51
Virginia	0.51
Montana	0.5
North Carolina	0.49
Washington	0.49
Illinois	0.48
Colorado	0.47
New York	0.46
Maine	0.42
Michigan	0.39
Minnesota	0.39
Wisconsin	0.39
Arizona	0.38
Indiana	0.36
Missouri	0.35
Maryland	0.34
Tennessee	0.34
Louisiana	0.33
Texas	0.33
North Dakota	0.31
Ohio	0.31
New Mexico	0.3
Pennsylvania	0.3
Idaho	0.29
Wyoming	0.29
Georgia	0.25
Alabama	0.24
South Carolina	0.24
Arkansas	0.23
Iowa	0.22
Kentucky	0.22
Nebraska	0.21
South Dakota	0.21
Mississippi	0.19
Oklahoma	0.18
Utah	0.17
Kansas	0.15
West Virginia	0.11

The average annual per capita ethanol consumption from wine in the U.S. is 0.42 gallons, which is equivalent to about 16.4 bottles of wine.

Overall wine consumption in the U.S. has been on the decline in the past few years, according to reports by Silicon Valley Bank.

Wine sales and tasting room visitations both dropped for the second straight year, and as of 2024, an oversupply of planted vineyards may lead to discounting and price reduction.

In 2022, D.C. residents had the highest per capita wine consumption in the U.S., with an annual average of 1.05 gallons of ethanol from wine, or 41 bottles of wine.

New Hampshire’s lack of state sales tax makes alcohol, including wine, significantly cheaper than in neighboring states, which likely drives higher wine purchases and consumption as residents from nearby areas cross state lines to take advantage of the lower prices.

To learn more about alcohol consumption in the U.S., check out this graphic that shows beer consumption by U.S. state.

Authored by Naveen Athrappully via The Epoch Times,

New cases of tuberculosis globally reached a record high in 2023, according to the World Health Organization (WHO).

Roughly 8.2 million individuals were newly diagnosed with tuberculosis (TB) last year, which is the highest number since the organization began monitoring the disease in 1995, the WHO said in an Oct. 29 statement.

“This represents a notable increase from 7.5 million reported in 2022, placing TB again as the leading infectious disease killer in 2023, surpassing COVID-19,” the WHO stated.

TB caused an estimated 1.25 million deaths last year, according to an Oct. 29 WHO report.

The total number of people falling ill with tuberculosis has been rising since 2021, the report said. Last year, 10.8 million individuals contracted the disease, a small increase from 10.7 million in the previous year, but much higher than the 10.1 million in 2020.

The WHO noted that most of the increase in TB cases between 2022 and 2023 reflected population growth. The rate of incidence largely remained similar in both years.

Just five nations accounted for 56 percent of new annual tuberculosis cases—India, Indonesia, China, the Philippines, and Pakistan.

Dr. Tereza Kasaeva, director of the organization’s Global Tuberculosis Program, called the numbers a “sobering reality,” stressing the need for collective action to deal with the issue. There is an “urgent need to tackle drug-resistant tuberculosis, a significant driver of antimicrobial resistance.”

“Reductions in the number of deaths from TB since 2022 and the slowing increase in the TB incidence rate are the result of substantial post-COVID recovery in TB diagnosis and treatment,” the report said.

The WHO noted that a key barrier to plugging diagnostic and treatment gaps among TB-affected individuals is the financial costs. Roughly 50 percent of individuals face medical costs that are more than 20 percent of their annual incomes, which the WHO called “catastrophic.”

“The fact that TB still kills and sickens so many people is an outrage when we have the tools to prevent it, detect it, and treat it,” said WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus.

US Tuberculosis Situation

According to data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), there were 8,331 reported tuberculosis cases in the country in 2022. The agency further estimated that up to 13 million individuals in the United States could be living with latent or inactive infection.

“During 2020, TB case counts and incidence rates declined substantially, likely because of factors associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2021, TB case counts and incidence partially rebounded, but remained lower compared with 2019,” the agency said.

“In 2022, reported TB cases and incidence rates increased for the second year in a row, but remained lower compared with 2019 prior to the COVID-19 pandemic.”

The CDC pointed to birth outside the United States as a “key risk factor” for tuberculosis. Incidence rate among non-U.S.-born individuals was 17.1 times higher compared to those born in the country.

While several types of bacteria can cause TB, the majority of American cases are from Mycobacterium tuberculosis, the agency noted.

Symptoms include a cough that lasts for three weeks or longer, weakness or fatigue, coughing up blood, loss of appetite, fever, chills, and chest pain. The CDC warns that active TB can be fatal without proper treatment.

In April, Chicago’s Health Department revealed that some of the illegal immigrants who had recently entered the city had tuberculosis. The agency estimated that 10–20 percent of people who come from Central and South America already have latent tuberculosis.

California issued a health advisory in April, warning about a “substantial increase” in TB cases in the state. In 2023, California reported 2,100 tuberculosis infections, up 15 percent from the previous year.

In many cases, the individuals had latent TB before the disease became active, by which time it had spread to other individuals.

Larry Fink’s BlackRock appears to have used a PR agency to tap TikTok influencers for a launch event in New York City to promote a new exchange-traded fund focused on the top 20 US stocks. 

According to TikTok influencer Piper Cassidy Phillips, she and other influencers were invited “to an influencer event with BlackRock” earlier this week. They were invited to a wine bar in the West Village. 

Phillips said this was the first time she had seen a financial institution inviting influencers to an event to promote an ETF product. She added that Fink’s BlackRock worked with “a huge PR agency” to put on the event. 

Phillips discussed the iShares Top 20 US Stocks ETF (TOPT) in the video, which is focused on the 20 largest US stocks by market capitalization. 

I cannot believe BlackRock invited a bunch of influencers to their ETF a launch party like it’s a tequila brand. Truly incredible stuff pic.twitter.com/tpwVftMKTf

— SPANE (Sperrys and Nike Elites) (@SperrysandNikes) October 31, 2024

Many of Phillips’ followers on the Chinese social media platform were upset that BlackRock used influencers to promote financial products to retail investors.

“FINRA is gonna have a field day with this one,” one TikToker wrote. 

X users respond…

Here’s where we are in the cycle. 

“Selling your soul to BlackRock for a couple bucks,” another TikTok said. 

Authored by Alexander Frei via The Epoch Times,

Americans can readily see the effects of record-high inflation every time they shop. Prices have soared, from the grocery store to the gas pumps. Although inflation has cooled, families are still feeling the pinch.

And the harm doesn’t end there: Inflation also is making stock markets appear stronger than they really are and cutting into returns for everyone, including those with retirement accounts.

We seldom hear about that last point. When media outlets discuss the latest inflation rate, they typically highlight the average annual percentage change in the consumer price index. The CPI tracks a basketful of goods, including housing, food, energy, insurance, and more, measuring the average price increases of these items over time.

From 2016 to 2020, the inflation rate averaged 1.9 percent, which resulted in a cumulative price increase of about 7.7 percent over four years. The Federal Reserve’s target rate—about 2 percent—typically goes unnoticed by consumers, as wages tend to rise at a similar pace.

But from 2021 to the present, the inflation rate has averaged 4.9 percent, leading to a cumulative price increase of 19.6 percent. At these elevated levels, wages struggle to keep up, making inflation more noticeable for consumers. A recent poll revealed that 63 percent of voters say they believe the U.S. economy is on the wrong track and 62 percent characterize it as weak.

Yet despite this negative sentiment, the stock market appears to be booming. On Oct. 21, the Dow Jones and the S&P 500 hit all-time highs.

However, these indexes alone don’t tell the full story.

Inflation can distort how we perceive market gains. Although it may appear that investments in the stock market are yielding record-breaking returns, these returns are more moderate once they’re adjusted for inflation.

In short, inflation not only hurts consumers, it hurts investors—which includes most Americans. This hidden tax on savings and investments quietly eats away at real profits, leaving Americans with far less purchasing power than it appears on the surface.

To estimate how this would affect someone who invested in the stock market in January 2021, you compare the Dow Jones Industrial Average with its inflation-adjusted counterpart. Although the nominal stock market gains since 2021 show an increase of 39 percent, this growth shrinks to just 15 percent when adjusted for inflation.

Inflation, often overlooked in stock market discussions, has a tangible impact on investment returns. Investors who focus solely on nominal gains without considering inflation may develop a false sense of optimism about their portfolio’s performance.

So how can inflation have such a notable effect?

In simple terms, as prices rise, even significant returns lose their purchasing power. More money is required to buy the same goods and services, eroding the real value of one’s gains. As everything becomes more expensive, higher earnings or investment returns don’t stretch as far, making it harder to keep up with the true cost of living.

For comparison, one can track the average returns starting from 2016 to 2020. During this period, both the Dow and the inflation-adjusted Dow are much closer together, suggesting that inflation had a lesser effect on eroding profits. Indeed, despite the COVID-19 shock, the inflation-adjusted Dow rose by approximately 65 percent while the non-adjusted Dow increased by 81 percent.

Inflation is not just a consumer issue—it affects everyone, from families trying to make ends meet to investors on Wall Street. The disconnect between nominal market gains and their inflation-adjusted counterparts helps explain why many Americans, despite a seemingly booming stock market, voice concerns about the economy.

This illusion of growth highlights the need for a sharper focus on controlling inflation. Reducing wasteful government spending and bringing down inflation is essential not only to preserve the real value of investments, but to ensure that economic prosperity is felt across all levels of society.

Reprinted by permission from The Daily Signal, a publication of The Heritage Foundation.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.

Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times,

Officials in Pennsylvania’s Monroe County announced this week that they discovered mail ballot request forms in the county that were found to be fraudulent.

Monroe County District Attorney Mike Mancuso wrote on social media that after a regular review of mail-in ballot requests and voter registration request forms, the Monroe County Board of Elections found “approximately 30 irregular forms,” which were then segregated.

“Several of the Voter Registration Applications and Mail in Ballot Request forms have been found to be fraudulent as they were not authorized by the persons named as applicants,” he said on Tuesday, noting that the named applicant in one instance “is in fact deceased.”

The fraudulent registration forms were traced to a specific individual and a company, Field and Media Corps, an Arizona-based organization and subsidiary of Fieldcorps working out of Pennsylvania’s Lancaster County.

The company “in turn was responsible for submitting the forms in question to county officials,” the district attorney’s office said.

“The broader investigation continues with reference to Fieldcorp’s involvement. Our office is in regular contact and working with investigators from the Attorney General’s Office as well as others.”

The company is a consulting firm that specializes in media and field work for its clients, its website shows. It also helps with voter registration drives, phone banking, and text campaigns, it adds.

Officials in Pennsylvania have said that Field and Media Corps, also called Field+Media Corps, was linked to voter registration forms and mail ballot applications that are being investigated in York and Lancaster counties.

Field and Media Corps has also been linked to voter registration forms and mail-in ballot applications that are being looked at by York County officials, according to a report by Harrisburg TV station FOX43.

The Epoch Times contacted Field and Media Corps for comment on Thursday but received no response by publication time.

The company released a statement to a local news outlet, the Allentown Morning Call, that it attempted to contact York County and will speak to officials in Monroe County.

“We are proud of our work to help expand access to voting through our nonpartisan voter registration program. We have not been contacted by election officials in PA counties and we have no additional information on the alleged problematic registration forms,” the company said in a statement.

“We would hope that if Field+Media Corps were the subject of any active investigation, that we would be proactively contacted by the appropriate officials. If we are contacted, we will work with local officials to help resolve any discrepancies to allow eligible people to vote.”

For the 2024 election, Pennsylvania is considered a key battleground state that could determine who wins the presidential contest between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump. It is one of the most closely observed states and was the subject of considerable litigation in the 2020 election.

New Legal Challenges

The Pennsylvania Democratic Party submitted a lawsuit on Wednesday in Pennsylvania’s Erie County arguing that a number of voters have not received a mail-in ballot ahead of the Nov. 5 election.

In their lawsuit, Democrats alleged that between 10,000 and 20,000 voters who requested the mail ballots “have not received or submitted such ballots” to date and that the return rate for mail ballots in the county is 15 percentage points below Pennsylvania’s mail-ballot average.

Some 552 voters, the lawsuit also alleged, contacted a hotline that was set up by the Democratic Party in Erie County because they received “an incorrect mail-in ballot or have yet to receive any mail-in ballot whatsoever.”

Erie County’s election board released a statement on Tuesday saying it was aware of the issue and that voters haven’t received mail-in ballots after they requested them. But the board did not disclose why the mail ballots weren’t sent out.

“The Board has been working diligently with the Voter Registration Department, the Pennsylvania Department of State, and the United States Post Office to determine the origin and scope of this matter,” the statement said.

A judge this week sided with Trump’s campaign and Republicans by agreeing to extend the in-person voting option in Bucks County, a suburb of Philadelphia that saw long lines this week at early polling sites.

Judge Jeffrey Trauger wrote in a one-page order that Bucks County voters who want to apply for an early mail ballot now have until Friday, Nov. 1.

The lawsuit sought a one-day extension, through Wednesday at 5 p.m., for Bucks County voters to apply in person for a mail-in ballot, a method referred to as on-demand mail voting in Pennsylvania. The judge’s order permits applications through the close of business on Friday.

“Today’s ruling really is kind of a victory for making sure Pennsylvanians are going to have a secure and orderly process,” said Bill McGinley, an attorney for the Republican National Committee and Trump campaign.

Pennsylvania does not allow early voting on voting machines in polling places, as some states do. A RealClearPolitics aggregate of recent polls shows Trump with a 0.7 percent lead over Harris in the state, which has 19 electoral votes.