Today’s News 10th April 2022

• NATO To Engage In Asia-Pacifc To Counter China
  NATO To Engage In Asia-Pacifc To Counter China

  Authored by Victoria Kelly-Clark via The Epoch Times,

  The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) has announced that it will begin engaging in the Asia-Pacific region both practically and politically in light of Beijing’s growing influence and coercion and its unwillingness to condemn Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

  

  Speaking following the meetings of NATO Ministers of Foreign Affairs on April 7, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said the global implications of the Ukrainian conflict had propelled the organisation to step up its engagement with Asia-Pacific partners for the first time.

  “We have seen that China is unwilling to condemn Russia’s aggression. And Beijing has joined Moscow in questioning the right of nations to choose their own path,” Stoltenberg said.

  “This is a serious challenge to us all. And it makes it even more important that we stand together to protect our values.”

  NATO and its Asia-Pacific partners—Australia, Japan, New Zealand, and the Republic of Korea—met in Brussels to discuss international support for Ukraine.

  Stoltenberg said the gathered foreign ministers agreed that NATO’s next Strategic Concept briefing, expected to be finalised for the Madrid Summit in June, must deliver a response on how they relate to Russia in the future and how, for the first time, they take into account that their security is affected by China’s growing influence and coercive policies.

  “NATO and our Asia-Pacific partners have now agreed to step up our practical and political cooperation in several areas, including cyber, new technology, and countering disinformation,” he said.

  “We will also work more closely together in other areas such as maritime security, climate change, and resilience. Because global challenges demand global solutions.”

  

  NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg holds a news conference during a NATO summit to discuss Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, in Brussels, Belgium, on March 24, 2022. (Gonzalo Fuentes/Reuters)

  Australia Announces NATO Cooperation

  The news of the Pacific engagement comes as Australian Foreign Minister Marise Payne announced that Australia will be cooperating with NATO to help the organisation better counter hybrid threats and disinformation and reinforce Australia’s support for NATO.

  Payne said on April 7 that Australia would partner with the NATO Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence (SCCE) to deepen Australia’s insights into the strategic communications and security challenges facing NATO, NATO Allies, and partners.

  “The importance of improving strategic communications has been underscored by Russia’s use of disinformation and propaganda during its illegal and unprovoked war against Ukraine,” Payne said.

  “We will offer the Centre a clear-eyed view of the geostrategic dynamics in the Indo-Pacific and its implications for NATO.”

  The SCCE, which is located in Riga, Latvia, is an international military organisation that has been accredited by NATO but is separate from the NATO Command Structure. Its focus is to contribute to enhancing the strategic communications capabilities between the member states of the NATO Alliance and other allied nations

  Australia is an Enhanced Opportunities Partner of NATO, which means they work to enhance interoperability, take part in NATO military training and exercise programs, and share information on issues of mutual interest.

  According to Payne, the cooperation will be kicked off by the secondment of one Australian official to the SCCE, from which Australia will then work to combat disinformation and other hybrid threats.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 04/09/2022 – 23:30

• How Automaker Logos Have Evolved Over The Past Century
  How Automaker Logos Have Evolved Over The Past Century

  Can you picture Ford’s blue oval, or Mercedes’ three-pointed star? These are some of the most recognizable logos in the world, thanks to a number of reasons.

  For starters, automakers are some of the world’s biggest advertisers. In 2020, the automotive industry spent $33 billion on advertising in the U.S. alone.

  Automakers also maintain a strong physical presence by placing their logo on every car they produce. This form of self-promotion is an automotive tradition, and because of it, car logos are designed to be eye-catching and memorable.

  To learn more, Visual Capitalist’s Marcus Lu and Zack Aboulam have illustrated the histories of six brands of interest.

  

  Editor’s note: There are obviously many automotive brands with strong histories, but for this visualization we selected brands that we thought had the most interesting stories and graphical decisions behind their emblems. In the future, we may add more or create a follow-up post if readers express interest.

  A Closer Look at Car Logos

  Automakers often pack hidden meanings and details into their logos.

  For example, Mazda’s current logo, introduced in 1997 and updated in 2015, depicts a pair of wings that represent the brand’s desire to “drive powerful, continuous growth.” The concept of flight is believed to embody the company’s pursuit of ongoing improvement. Of course, the wings also resemble a capital “M” for Mazda, similar to Honda’s “H” logo.

  An interesting design choice of the Mazda lettering is that all of the letters except “D” are in lowercase. This was done because Mazda wanted to express precision, and a lower case “d” would have protruded above the upper line of the other letters.

  Another logo with deeper meaning is Mercedes-Benz’s 3-pointed star, adopted in 1909. This symbol was based off a postcard that Paul and Adolf Daimler, sons of the company founder, got from their father in which the location of their home was marked by a 3-pointed star.

  Today, the three points are believed to represent the strength of Mercedes’ engines across land, sea, and air.

  Going Minimal

  Over the past decade, many brands have taken their logos in a more minimalist direction. Many recently redesigned car logos are devoid of any 3D effects or color.

  Audi is one of the most prominent examples of this trend. In 2016, it removed the chrome effect on its “four rings” and opted for a flat black version instead. This clean and modern emblem is better suited for digital media and appears more bold. Furthermore, the name “Audi” is no longer included at the bottom—a statement of the four rings’ strength.

  BMW took a similar approach with its logo in 2020, stripping away the black outer ring and 3D effect. This minimalist and transparent logo is for “brand communication” only, meaning the logos on its cars will remain unchanged.

  Finally, there’s Cadillac, which unveiled its own minimalist logo in 2021. This logo is being used to represent the brand’s full-electric future, and features a monochromatic version of the classic Cadillac Crest.

  An Opportunity to Reinvent

  The race for EV dominance has provided automakers with the chance to update or reinvent their brands. In addition to the companies mentioned previously, Volkswagen and General Motors (GM) have also rolled out recent updates.

  

  You may have already noticed Volkswagen’s new branding, which was updated in 2019. On trend with the rest of the industry, the company now uses a 2D logo which offers “outstanding flexibility in digital media”.

  More importantly, the company’s branding is intended to feel much more colorful and natural, symbolizing a fresh start from Volkswagen’s 2015 diesel-gate scandal.

  Shortly after, GM revealed a new logo as part of a campaign to promote its future electric vehicles. Unlike its minimalist competitors, GM’s new logo features a gradient of light blues that evokes “the clean skies of a zero-emissions future”.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 04/09/2022 – 23:00

• The Anatomy Of Big Pharma's Political Reach
  The Anatomy Of Big Pharma’s Political Reach

  Authored by Rebecca Strong via Medium.com,

  They keep telling us to “trust the science.” But who paid for it?

  

  After graduating from Columbia University with a chemical engineering degree, my grandfather went on to work for Pfizer for almost two decades, culminating his career as the company’s Global Director of New Products. I was rather proud of this fact growing up — it felt as if this father figure, who raised me for several years during my childhood, had somehow played a role in saving lives. But in recent years, my perspective on Pfizer — and other companies in its class — has shifted. Blame it on the insidious big pharma corruption laid bare by whistleblowers in recent years. Blame it on the endless string of big pharma lawsuits revealing fraud, deception, and cover-ups. Blame it on the fact that I witnessed some of their most profitable drugs ruin the lives of those I love most. All I know is, that pride I once felt has been overshadowed by a sticky skepticism I just can’t seem to shake.

  In 1973, my grandpa and his colleagues celebrated as Pfizer crossed a milestone: the one-billion-dollar sales mark. These days, Pfizer rakes in $81 billion a year, making it the 28th most valuable company in the world. Johnson & Johnson ranks 15th, with $93.77 billion. To put things into perspective, that makes said companies wealthier than most countries in the world. And thanks to those astronomical profit margins, the Pharmaceuticals and Health Products industry is able to spend more on lobbying than any other industry in America.

  While big pharma lobbying can take several different forms, these companies tend to target their contributions to senior legislators in Congress — you know, the ones they need to keep in their corner, because they have the power to draft healthcare laws. Pfizer has outspent its peers in six of the last eight election cycles, coughing up almost $9.7 million. During the 2016 election, pharmaceutical companies gave more than $7 million to 97 senators at an average of $75,000 per member. They also contributed $6.3 million to president Joe Biden’s 2020 campaign. The question is: what did big pharma get in return?

  When you’ve got 1,500 Big Pharma lobbyists on Capitol Hill for 535 members of Congress, it’s not too hard to figure out why prescription drug prices in this country are, on average, 256% HIGHER than in other major countries.

  — Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) February 3, 2022

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  ALEC’s Off-the-Record Sway

  To truly grasp big pharma’s power, you need to understand how The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) works. ALEC, which was founded in 1973 by conservative activists working on Ronald Reagan’s campaign, is a super secretive pay-to-play operation where corporate lobbyists — including in the pharma sector — hold confidential meetings about “model” bills. A large portion of these bills is eventually approved and become law.

  A rundown of ALEC’s greatest hits will tell you everything you need to know about the council’s motives and priorities. In 1995, ALEC promoted a bill that restricts consumers’ rights to sue for damages resulting from taking a particular medication. They also endorsed the Statute of Limitation Reduction Act, which put a time limit on when someone could sue after a medication-induced injury or death. Over the years, ALEC has promoted many other pharma-friendly bills that would: weaken FDA oversight of new drugs and therapies, limit FDA authority over drug advertising, and oppose regulations on financial incentives for doctors to prescribe specific drugs. But what makes these ALEC collaborations feel particularly problematic is that there’s little transparency — all of this happens behind closed doors. Congressional leaders and other committee members involved in ALEC aren’t required to publish any records of their meetings and other communications with pharma lobbyists, and the roster of ALEC members is completely confidential. All we know is that in 2020, more than two-thirds of Congress — 72 senators and 302 House of Representatives members — cashed a campaign check from a pharma company.

  Big Pharma Funding Research

  The public typically relies on an endorsement from government agencies to help them decide whether or not a new drug, vaccine, or medical device is safe and effective. And those agencies, like the FDA, count on clinical research. As already established, big pharma is notorious for getting its hooks into influential government officials. Here’s another sobering truth: The majority of scientific research is paid for by — wait for it — the pharmaceutical companies.

  When the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) published 73 studies of new drugs over the course of a single year, they found that a staggering 82% of them had been funded by the pharmaceutical company selling the product, 68% had authors who were employees of that company, and 50% had lead researchers who accepted money from a drug company. According to 2013 research conducted at the University of Arizona College of Law, even when pharma companies aren’t directly funding the research, company stockholders, consultants, directors, and officers are almost always involved in conducting them. A 2017 report by the peer-reviewed journal The BMJ also showed that about half of medical journal editors receive payments from drug companies, with the average payment per editor hovering around $28,000. But these statistics are only accurate if researchers and editors are transparent about payments from pharma. And a 2022 investigative analysis of two of the most influential medical journals found that 81% of study authors failed to disclose millions in payments from drug companies, as they’re required to do.

  Unfortunately, this trend shows no sign of slowing down. The number of clinical trials funded by the pharmaceutical industry has been climbing every year since 2006, according to a John Hopkins University report, while independent studies have been harder to find. And there are some serious consequences to these conflicts of interest. Take Avandia, for instance, a diabetes drug produced by GlaxoSmithCline (GSK). Avandia was eventually linked to a dramatically increased risk of heart attacks and heart failure. And a BMJ report revealed that almost 90% of scientists who initially wrote glowing articles about Avandia had financial ties to GSK.

  But here’s the unnerving part: if the pharmaceutical industry is successfully biasing the science, then that means the physicians who rely on the science are biased in their prescribing decisions.

  

  Photo credit: UN Women Europe & Central Asia

  Where the lines get really blurry is with “ghostwriting.” Big pharma execs know citizens are way more likely to trust a report written by a board-certified doctor than one of their representatives. That’s why they pay physicians to list their names as authors — even though the MDs had little to no involvement in the research, and the report was actually written by the drug company. This practice started in the ’50s and ’60s when tobacco execs were clamoring to prove that cigarettes didn’t cause cancer (spoiler alert: they do!), so they commissioned doctors to slap their name on papers undermining the risks of smoking.

  It’s still a pretty common tactic today: more than one in 10 articles published in the NEJM was co-written by a ghostwriter. While a very small percentage of medical journals have clear policies against ghostwriting, it’s still technically legal —despite the fact that the consequences can be deadly.

  Case in point: in the late ’90s and early 2000s, Merck paid for 73 ghostwritten articles to play up the benefits of its arthritis drug Vioxx. It was later revealed that Merck failed to report all of the heart attacks experienced by trial participants. In fact, a study published in the NEJM revealed that an estimated 160,000 Americans experienced heart attacks or strokes from taking Vioxx. That research was conducted by Dr. David Graham, Associate Director of the FDA’s Office of Drug Safety, who understandably concluded the drug was not safe. But the FDA’s Office of New Drugs, which not only was responsible for initially approving Vioxx but also regulating it, tried to sweep his findings under the rug.

  “I was pressured to change my conclusions and recommendations, and basically threatened that if I did not change them, I would not be permitted to present the paper at the conference,” he wrote in his 2004 U.S. Senate testimony on Vioxx. “One Drug Safety manager recommended that I should be barred from presenting the poster at the meeting.”

  Eventually, the FDA issued a public health advisory about Vioxx and Merck withdrew this product. But it was a little late for repercussions — 38,000 of those Vioxx-takers who suffered heart attacks had already died. Graham called this a “profound regulatory failure,” adding that scientific standards the FDA apply to drug safety “guarantee that unsafe and deadly drugs will remain on the U.S. market.”

  This should come as no surprise, but research has also repeatedly shown that a paper written by a pharmaceutical company is more likely to emphasize the benefits of a drug, vaccine, or device while downplaying the dangers. (If you want to understand more about this practice, a former ghostwriter outlines all the ethical reasons why she quit this job in a PLOS Medicine report.) While adverse drug effects appear in 95% of clinical research, only 46% of published reports disclose them. Of course, all of this often ends up misleading doctors into thinking a drug is safer than it actually is.

  Big Pharma Influence On Doctors

  Pharmaceutical companies aren’t just paying medical journal editors and authors to make their products look good, either. There’s a long, sordid history of pharmaceutical companies incentivizing doctors to prescribe their products through financial rewards. For instance, Pfizer and AstraZeneca doled out a combined $100 million to doctors in 2018, with some earning anywhere from $6 million to $29 million in a year. And research has shown this strategy works: when doctors accept these gifts and payments, they’re significantly more likely to prescribe those companies’ drugs. Novartis comes to mind — the company famously spent over $100 million paying for doctors’ extravagant meals, golf outings, and more, all while also providing a generous kickback program that made them richer every time they prescribed certain blood pressure and diabetes meds.

  Side note: the Open Payments portal contains a nifty little database where you can find out if any of your own doctors received money from drug companies. Knowing that my mother was put on a laundry list of meds after a near-fatal car accident, I was curious — so I did a quick search for her providers. While her PCP only banked a modest amount from Pfizer and AstraZeneca, her previous psychiatrist — who prescribed a cocktail of contraindicated medications without treating her in person — collected quadruple-digit payments from pharmaceutical companies. And her pain care specialist, who prescribed her jaw-dropping doses of opioid pain medication for more than 20 years (far longer than the 5-day safety guideline), was raking in thousands from Purdue Pharma, AKA the opioid crisis’ kingpin.

  Purdue is now infamous for its wildly aggressive OxyContin campaign in the ’90s. At the time, the company billed it as a non-addictive wonder drug for pain sufferers. Internal emails show Pursue sales representatives were instructed to “sell, sell, sell” OxyContin, and the more they were able to push, the more they were rewarded with promotions and bonuses. With the stakes so high, these reps stopped at nothing to get doctors on board — even going so far as to send boxes of doughnuts spelling out “OxyContin” to unconvinced physicians. Purdue had stumbled upon the perfect system for generating tons of profit — off of other people’s pain.

  Documentation later proved that not only was Purdue aware it was highly addictive and that many people were abusing it, but that they also encouraged doctors to continue prescribing increasingly higher doses of it (and sent them on lavish luxury vacations for some motivation). In testimony to Congress, Purdue exec Paul Goldenheim played dumb about OxyContin addiction and overdose rates, but emails that were later exposed showed that he requested his colleagues remove all mentions of addiction from their correspondence about the drug. Even after it was proven in court that Purdue fraudulently marketed OxyContin while concealing its addictive nature, no one from the company spent a single day behind bars. Instead, the company got a slap on the wrist and a $600 million fine for a misdemeanor, the equivalent of a speeding ticket compared to the $9 billion they made off OxyContin up until 2006. Meanwhile, thanks to Purdue’s recklessness, more than 247,000 people died from prescription opioid overdoses between 1999 and 2009. And that’s not even factoring in all the people who died of heroin overdoses once OxyContin was no longer attainable to them. The NIH reports that 80% of people who use heroin started by misusing prescription opioids.

  Former sales rep Carol Panara told me in an interview that when she looks back on her time at Purdue, it all feels like a “bad dream.” Panara started working for Purdue in 2008, one year after the company pled guilty to “misbranding” charges for OxyContin. At this point, Purdue was “regrouping and expanding,” says Panara, and to that end, had developed a clever new approach for making money off OxyContin: sales reps were now targeting general practitioners and family doctors, rather than just pain management specialists. On top of that, Purdue soon introduced three new strengths for OxyContin: 15, 30, and 60 milligrams, creating smaller increments Panara believes were aimed at making doctors feel more comfortable increasing their patients’ dosages. According to Panara, there were internal company rankings for sales reps based on the number of prescriptions for each OxyContin dosing strength in their territory.

  “They were sneaky about it,” she said.

  “Their plan was to go in and sell these doctors on the idea of starting with 10 milligrams, which is very low, knowing full well that once they get started down that path — that’s all they need. Because eventually, they’re going to build a tolerance and need a higher dose.”

  Occasionally, doctors expressed concerns about a patient becoming addicted, but Purdue had already developed a way around that. Sales reps like Panara were taught to reassure those doctors that someone in pain might experience addiction-like symptoms called “pseudoaddiction,” but that didn’t mean they were truly addicted. There is no scientific evidence whatsoever to support that this concept is legit, of course. But the most disturbing part? Reps were trained to tell doctors that “pseudoaddiction” signaled the patient’s pain wasn’t being managed well enough, and the solution was simply to prescribe a higher dose of OxyContin.

  Panara finally quit Purdue in 2013. One of the breaking points was when two pharmacies in her territory were robbed at gunpoint specifically for OxyContin. In 2020, Purdue pled guilty to three criminal charges in an $8.3 billion deal, but the company is now under court protection after filing for bankruptcy. Despite all the damage that’s been done, the FDA’s policies for approving opioids remain essentially unchanged.

  

  Photo credit: Jennifer Durban

  Purdue probably wouldn’t have been able to pull this off if it weren’t for an FDA examiner named Curtis Wright, and his assistant Douglas Kramer. While Purdue was pursuing Wright’s stamp of approval on OxyContin, Wright took an outright sketchy approach to their application, instructing the company to mail documents to his home office rather than the FDA, and enlisting Purdue employees to help him review trials about the safety of the drug. The Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act requires that the FDA have access to at least two randomized controlled trials before deeming a drug as safe and effective, but in the case of OxyContin, it got approved with data from just one measly two-week study — in osteoarthritis patients, no less.

  When both Wright and Kramer left the FDA, they went on to work for none other than (drumroll, please) Purdue, with Wright earning three times his FDA salary. By the way — this is just one example of the FDA’s notoriously incestuous relationship with big pharma, often referred to as “the revolving door”. In fact, a 2018 Science report revealed that 11 out of 16 FDA reviewers ended up at the same companies they had been regulating products for.

  While doing an independent investigation, “Empire of Pain” author and New Yorker columnist Patrick Radden Keefe tried to gain access to documentation of Wright’s communications with Purdue during the OxyContin approval process.

  “The FDA came back and said, ‘Oh, it’s the weirdest thing, but we don’t have anything. It’s all either been lost or destroyed,’” Keefe told Fortune in an interview. “But it’s not just the FDA. It’s Congress, it’s the Department of Justice, it’s big parts of the medical establishment … the sheer amount of money involved, I think, has meant that a lot of the checks that should be in place in society to not just achieve justice, but also to protect us as consumers, were not there because they had been co-opted.”

  Big pharma may be to blame for creating the opioids that caused this public health catastrophe, but the FDA deserves just as much scrutiny — because its countless failures also played a part in enabling it. And many of those more recent fails happened under the supervision of Dr. Janet Woodcock. Woodcock was named FDA’s acting commissioner mere hours after Joe Biden was inaugurated as president. She would have been a logical choice, being an FDA vet of 35 years, but then again it’s impossible to forget that she played a starring role in the FDA’s perpetuating the opioid epidemic. She’s also known for overruling her own scientific advisors when they vote against approving a drug. Not only did Woodcock approve OxyContin for children as young as 11 years old, but she also gave the green light to several other highly controversial extended-release opioid pain drugs without sufficient evidence of safety or efficacy. One of those was Zohydro: in 2011, the FDA’s advisory committee voted 11:2 against approving it due to safety concerns about inappropriate use, but Woodcock went ahead and pushed it through, anyway. Under Woodcock’s supervision, the FDA also approved Opana, which is twice as powerful as OxyContin — only to then beg the drug maker to take it off the market 10 years later due to “abuse and manipulation.” And then there was Dsuvia, a potent painkiller 1,000 times stronger than morphine and 10 times more powerful than fentanyl. According to a head of one of the FDA’s advisory committees, the U.S. military had helped to develop this particular drug, and Woodcock said there was “pressure from the Pentagon” to push it through approvals. The FBI, members of congress, public health advocates, and patient safety experts alike called this decision into question, pointing out that with hundreds of opioids already on the market there’s no need for another — particularly one that comes with such high risks.

  Most recently, Woodcock served as the therapeutics lead for Operation Warp Speed, overseeing COVID-19 vaccine development.

  Big Pharma Lawsuits, Scandals, and Cover-Ups

  While the OxyContin craze is undoubtedly one of the highest-profile examples of big pharma’s deception, there are dozens of other stories like this. Here are a few standouts:

  In the 1980s, Bayer continued selling blood clotting products to third-world countries even though they were fully aware those products had been contaminated with HIV. The reason? The “financial investment in the product was considered too high to destroy the inventory.” Predictably, about 20,000 of the hemophiliacs who were infused with these tainted products then tested positive for HIV and eventually developed AIDS, and many later died of it.

  In 2004, Johnson & Johnson was slapped with a series of lawsuits for illegally promoting off-label use of their heartburn drug Propulsid for children despite internal company emails confirming major safety concerns (as in, deaths during the drug trials). Documentation from the lawsuits showed that dozens of studies sponsored by Johnson & Johnson highlighting the risks of this drug were never published.

  The FDA estimates that GSK’s Avandia caused 83,000 heart attacks between 1999 and 2007. Internal documents from GSK prove that when they began studying the effects of the drug as early as 1999, they discovered it caused a higher risk of heart attacks than a similar drug it was meant to replace. Rather than publish these findings, they spent a decade illegally concealing them (and meanwhile, banking $3.2 billion annually for this drug by 2006). Finally, a 2007 New England Journal of Medicine study linked Avandia to a 43% increased risk of heart attacks, and a 64% increased risk of death from heart disease. Avandia is still FDA approved and available in the U.S.

  In 2009, Pfizer was forced to pay $2.3 billion, the largest healthcare fraud settlement in history at that time, for paying illegal kickbacks to doctors and promoting off-label uses of its drugs. Specifically, a former employee revealed that Pfizer reps were encouraged and incentivized to sell Bextra and 12 other drugs for conditions they were never FDA approved for, and at doses up to eight times what’s recommended. “I was expected to increase profits at all costs, even when sales meant endangering lives,” the whistleblower said.

  When it was discovered that AstraZeneca was promoting the antipsychotic medication Seroquel for uses that were not approved by the FDA as safe and effective, the company was hit with a $520 million fine in 2010. For years, AstraZeneca had been encouraging psychiatrists and other physicians to prescribe Seroquel for a vast range of seemingly unrelated off-label conditions, including Alzheimer’s disease, anger management, ADHD, dementia, post-traumatic stress disorder, and sleeplessness. AstraZeneca also violated the federal Anti-Kickback Statute by paying doctors to spread the word about these unapproved uses of Seroquel via promotional lectures and while traveling to resort locations.

  In 2012, GSK paid a $3 billion fine for bribing doctors by flying them and their spouses to five-star resorts, and for illegally promoting drugs for off-label uses. What’s worse — GSK withheld clinical trial results that showed its antidepressant Paxil not only doesn’t work for adolescents and children but more alarmingly, that it can increase the likelihood of suicidal thoughts in this group. A 1998 GSK internal memo revealed that the company intentionally concealed this data to minimize any “potential negative commercial impact.”

  In 2021, an ex-AstraZeneca sales rep sued her former employer, claiming they fired her for refusing to promote drugs for uses that weren’t FDA-approved. The employee alleges that on multiple occasions, she expressed concerns to her boss about “misleading” information that didn’t have enough support from medical research, and off-label promotions of certain drugs. Her supervisor reportedly not only ignored these concerns but pressured her to approve statements she didn’t agree with and threatened to remove her from regional and national positions if she didn’t comply. According to the plaintiff, she missed out on a raise and a bonus because she refused to break the law.

  At the top of 2022, a panel of the D.C. Court of Appeals reinstated a lawsuit against Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson, Roche, and GE Healthcare, which claims they helped finance terrorist attacks against U.S. service members and other Americans in Iraq. The suit alleges that from 2005–2011, these companies regularly offered bribes (including free drugs and medical devices) totaling millions of dollars annually to Iraq’s Ministry of Health in order to secure drug contracts. These corrupt payments then allegedly funded weapons and training for the Mahdi Army, which until 2008, was largely considered one of the most dangerous groups in Iraq.

  Another especially worrisome factor is that pharmaceutical companies are conducting an ever-increasing number of clinical trials in third-world countries, where people may be less educated, and there are also far fewer safety regulations. Pfizer’s 1996 experimental trials with Trovan on Nigerian children with meningitis — without informed consent — is just one nauseating example. When a former medical director in Pfizer’s central research division warned the company both before and after the study that their methods in this trial were “improper and unsafe,” he was promptly fired. Families of the Nigerian children who died or were left blind, brain damaged, or paralyzed after the study sued Pfizer, and the company ultimately settled out of court. In 1998, the FDA approved Trovan only for adults. The drug was later banned from European markets due to reports of fatal liver disease and restricted to strictly emergency care in the U.S. Pfizer still denies any wrongdoing.

  

  “Nurse prepares to vaccinate children” by World Bank Photo Collection is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

  But all that is just the tip of the iceberg. If you’d like to dive a little further down the rabbit hole — and I’ll warn you, it’s a deep one — a quick Google search for “big pharma lawsuits” will reveal the industry’s dark track record of bribery, dishonesty, and fraud.

  In fact, big pharma happens to be the biggest defrauder of the federal government when it comes to the False Claims Act, otherwise known as the “Lincoln Law.” During our interview, Panara told me she has friends still working for big pharma who would be willing to speak out about crooked activity they’ve observed, but are too afraid of being blacklisted by the industry. A newly proposed update to the False Claims Act would help to protect and support whistleblowers in their efforts to hold pharmaceutical companies liable, by helping to prevent that kind of retaliation and making it harder for the companies charged to dismiss these cases. It should come as no surprise that Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Merck, and a flock of other big pharma firms are currently lobbying to block the update. Naturally, they wouldn’t want to make it any easier for ex-employees to expose their wrongdoings, potentially costing them billions more in fines.

  Something to keep in mind: these are the same people who produced, marketed, and are profiting from the COVID-19 vaccines. The same people who manipulate research, pay off decision-makers to push their drugs, cover up negative research results to avoid financial losses, and knowingly put innocent citizens in harm’s way. The same people who told America: “Take as much OxyContin as you want around the clock! It’s very safe and not addictive!” (while laughing all the way to the bank).

  So, ask yourself this: if a partner, friend, or family member repeatedly lied to you — and not just little white lies, but big ones that put your health and safety at risk — would you continue to trust them?

  Backing the Big Four: Big Pharma and the FDA, WHO, NIH, CDC

  I know what you’re thinking. Big pharma is amoral and the FDA’s devastating slips are a dime a dozen — old news. But what about agencies and organizations like the National Institutes of Health (NIH), World Health Organization (WHO), and Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC)? Don’t they have an obligation to provide unbiased guidance to protect citizens? Don’t worry, I’m getting there.

  The WHO’s guidance is undeniably influential across the globe. For most of this organization’s history, dating back to 1948, it could not receive donations from pharmaceutical companies — only member states. But that changed in 2005 when the WHO updated its financial policy to permit private money into its system. Since then, the WHO has accepted many financial contributions from big pharma. In fact, it’s only 20% financed by member states today, with a whopping 80% of financing coming from private donors. For instance, The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) is now one of its main contributors, providing up to 13% of its funds — about $250–300 million a year. Nowadays, the BMGF provides more donations to the WHO than the entire United States.

  Dr. Arata Kochi, former head of WHO’s malaria program, expressed concerns to director-general Dr. Margaret Chan in 2007 that taking the BMGF’s money could have “far-reaching, largely unintended consequences” including “stifling a diversity of views among scientists.”

  “The big concerns are that the Gates Foundation isn’t fully transparent and accountable,” Lawrence Gostin, director of WHO’s Collaborating Center on National and Global Health Law, told Devex in an interview.

  “By wielding such influence, it could steer WHO priorities … It would enable a single rich philanthropist to set the global health agenda.”

  

  Photo credit: National Institutes of Health

  Take a peek at the WHO’s list of donors and you’ll find a few other familiar names like AstraZeneca, Bayer, Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, and Merck.

  The NIH has the same problem, it seems. Science journalist Paul Thacker, who previously examined financial links between physicians and pharma companies as a lead investigator of the United States Senate Committee, wrote in The Washington Post that this agency “often ignored” very “obvious” conflicts of interest. He also claimed that “its industry ties go back decades.” In 2018, it was discovered that a $100 million alcohol consumption study run by NIH scientists was funded mostly by beer and liquor companies. Emails proved that NIH researchers were in frequent contact with those companies while designing the study — which, here’s a shocker — were aimed at highlighting the benefits and not the risks of moderate drinking. So, the NIH ultimately had to squash the trial.

  And then there’s the CDC. It used to be that this agency couldn’t take contributions from pharmaceutical companies, but in 1992 they found a loophole: new legislation passed by Congress allowed them to accept private funding through a nonprofit called the CDC Foundation. From 2014 through 2018 alone, the CDC Foundation received $79.6 million from corporations like Pfizer, Biogen, and Merck.

  Of course, if a pharmaceutical company wants to get a drug, vaccine, or other product approved, they really need to cozy up to the FDA. That explains why in 2017, pharma companies paid for a whopping 75% of the FDA’s scientific review budgets, up from 27% in 1993. It wasn’t always like this. But in 1992, an act of Congress changed the FDA’s funding stream, enlisting pharma companies to pay “user fees,” which help the FDA speed up the approval process for their drugs.

  A 2018 Science investigation found that 40 out of 107 physician advisors on the FDA’s committees received more than $10,000 from big pharma companies trying to get their drugs approved, with some banking up to $1 million or more. The FDA claims it has a well-functioning system to identify and prevent these possible conflicts of interest. Unfortunately, their system only works for spotting payments before advisory panels meet, and the Science investigation showed many FDA panel members get their payments after the fact. It’s a little like “you scratch my back now, and I’ll scratch your back once I get what I want” — drug companies promise FDA employees a future bonus contingent on whether things go their way.

  Here’s why this dynamic proves problematic: a 2000 investigation revealed that when the FDA approved the rotavirus vaccine in 1998, it didn’t exactly do its due diligence. That probably had something to do with the fact that committee members had financial ties to the manufacturer, Merck — many owned tens of thousands of dollars of stock in the company, or even held patents on the vaccine itself. Later, the Adverse Event Reporting System revealed that the vaccine was causing serious bowel obstructions in some children, and it was finally pulled from the U.S. market in October 1999.

  Then, in June of 2021, the FDA overruled concerns raised by its very own scientific advisory committee to approve Biogen’s Alzheimer’s drug Aduhelm — a move widely criticized by physicians. The drug not only showed very little efficacy but also potentially serious side effects like brain bleeding and swelling, in clinical trials. Dr. Aaron Kesselheim, a Harvard Medical School professor who was on the FDA’s scientific advisory committee, called it the “worst drug approval” in recent history, and noted that meetings between the FDA and Biogen had a “strange dynamic” suggesting an unusually close relationship. Dr. Michael Carome, director of Public Citizen’s Health Research Group, told CNN that he believes the FDA started working in “inappropriately close collaboration with Biogen” back in 2019. “They were not objective, unbiased regulators,” he added in the CNN interview. “It seems as if the decision was preordained.”

  That brings me to perhaps the biggest conflict of interest yet: Dr. Anthony Fauci’s NIAID is just one of many institutes that comprises the NIH — and the NIH owns half the patent for the Moderna vaccine — as well as thousands more pharma patents to boot. The NIAID is poised to earn millions of dollars from Moderna’s vaccine revenue, with individual officials also receiving up to $150,000 annually.

  Operation Warp Speed

  In December of 2020, Pfizer became the first company to receive an emergency use authorization (EUA) from the FDA for a COVID-19 vaccine. EUAs — which allow the distribution of an unapproved drug or other product during a declared public health emergency — are actually a pretty new thing: the first one was issued in 2005 so military personnel could get an anthrax vaccine. To get a full FDA approval, there needs to be substantial evidence that the product is safe and effective. But for an EUA, the FDA just needs to determine that it may be effective. Since EUAs are granted so quickly, the FDA doesn’t have enough time to gather all the information they’d usually need to approve a drug or vaccine.

  

  “Operation Warp Speed Vaccine Event” by The White House is licensed under CC PDM 1.0

  Pfizer CEO and chairman Albert Bourla has said his company was “operating at the speed of science” to bring a vaccine to market. However, a 2021 report in The BMJ revealed that this speed might have come at the expense of “data integrity and patient safety.” Brook Jackson, regional director for the Ventavia Research Group, which carried out these trials, told The BMJ that her former company “falsified data, unblinded patients, and employed inadequately trained vaccinators” in Pfizer’s pivotal phase 3 trial. Just some of the other concerning events witnessed included: adverse events not being reported correctly or at all, lack of reporting on protocol deviations, informed consent errors, and mislabeling of lab specimens. An audio recording of Ventavia employees from September 2020 revealed that they were so overwhelmed by issues arising during the study that they became unable to “quantify the types and number of errors” when assessing quality control. One Ventavia employee told The BMJ she’d never once seen a research environment as disorderly as Ventavia’s Pfizer vaccine trial, while another called it a “crazy mess.”

  Over the course of her two-decades-long career, Jackson has worked on hundreds of clinical trials, and two of her areas of expertise happen to be immunology and infectious diseases. She told me that from her first day on the Pfizer trial in September of 2020, she discovered “such egregious misconduct” that she recommended they stop enrolling participants into the study to do an internal audit.

  “To my complete shock and horror, Ventavia agreed to pause enrollment but then devised a plan to conceal what I found and to keep ICON and Pfizer in the dark,” Jackson said during our interview.

  “The site was in full clean-up mode. When missing data points were discovered the information was fabricated, including forged signatures on the informed consent forms.”

  A screenshot Jackson shared with me shows she was invited to a meeting titled “COVID 1001 Clean up Call” on Sept. 21, 2020. She refused to participate in the call.

  Jackson repeatedly warned her superiors about patient safety concerns and data integrity issues.

  “I knew that the entire world was counting on clinical researchers to develop a safe and effective vaccine and I did not want to be a part of that failure by not reporting what I saw,” she told me.

  When her employer failed to act, Jackson filed a complaint with the FDA on Sept. 25, and Ventavia fired her hours later that same day under the pretense that she was “not a good fit.” After reviewing her concerns over the phone, she claims the FDA never followed up or inspected the Ventavia site. Ten weeks later, the FDA authorized the EUA for the vaccine. Meanwhile, Pfizer hired Ventavia to handle the research for four more vaccine clinical trials, including one involving children and young adults, one for pregnant women, and another for the booster. Not only that, but Ventavia handled the clinical trials for Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, and Novavax. Jackson is currently pursuing a False Claims Act lawsuit against Pfizer and Ventavia Research Group.

  Last year, Pfizer banked nearly $37 billion from its COVID vaccine, making it one of the most lucrative products in global history. Its overall revenues doubled in 2021 to reach $81.3 billion, and it’s slated to reach a record-breaking $98-$102 billion this year.

  “Corporations like Pfizer should never have been put in charge of a global vaccination rollout, because it was inevitable they would make life-and-death decisions based on what’s in the short-term interest of their shareholders,” writes Nick Dearden, director of Global Justice Now.

  As previously mentioned, it’s super common for pharmaceutical companies to fund the research on their own products. Here’s why that’s scary. One 1999 meta-analysis showed that industry-funded research is eight times less likely to achieve unfavorable results compared to independent trials. In other words, if a pharmaceutical company wants to prove that a medication, supplement, vaccine, or device is safe and effective, they’ll find a way.

  With that in mind, I recently examined the 2020 study on Pfizer’s COVID vaccine to see if there were any conflicts of interest. Lo and behold, the lengthy attached disclosure form shows that of the 29 authors, 18 are employees of Pfizer and hold stock in the company, one received a research grant from Pfizer during the study, and two reported being paid “personal fees” by Pfizer. In another 2021 study on the Pfizer vaccine, seven of the 15 authors are employees of and hold stock in Pfizer. The other eight authors received financial support from Pfizer during the study.

  

  Photo credit: Prasesh Shiwakoti (Lomash) via Unsplash

  As of the day I’m writing this, about 64% of Americans are fully vaccinated, and 76% have gotten at least one dose. The FDA has repeatedly promised “full transparency” when it comes to these vaccines. Yet in December of 2021, the FDA asked for permission to wait 75 years before releasing information pertaining to Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine, including safety data, effectiveness data, and adverse reaction reports. That means no one would see this information until the year 2096 — conveniently, after many of us have departed this crazy world. To recap: the FDA only needed 10 weeks to review the 329,000 pages worth of data before approving the EUA for the vaccine — but apparently, they need three-quarters of a century to publicize it.

  In response to the FDA’s ludicrous request, PHMPT — a group of over 200 medical and public health experts from Harvard, Yale, Brown, UCLA, and other institutions — filed a lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act demanding that the FDA produce this data sooner. And their efforts paid off: U.S. District Judge Mark T. Pittman issued an order for the FDA to produce 12,000 pages by Jan. 31, and then at least 55,000 pages per month thereafter. In his statement to the FDA, Pittman quoted the late John F. Kennedy: “A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.”

  As for why the FDA wanted to keep this data hidden, the first batch of documentation revealed that there were more than 1,200 vaccine-related deaths in just the first 90 days after the Pfizer vaccine was introduced. Of 32 pregnancies with a known outcome, 28 resulted in fetal death. The CDC also recently unveiled data showing a total of 1,088,560 reports of adverse events from COVID vaccines were submitted between Dec. 14, 2020, and Jan. 28, 2022. That data included 23,149 reports of deaths and 183,311 reports of serious injuries. There were 4,993 reported adverse events in pregnant women after getting vaccinated, including 1,597 reports of miscarriage or premature birth. A 2022 study published in JAMA, meanwhile, revealed that there have been more than 1,900 reported cases of myocarditis — or inflammation of the heart muscle — mostly in people 30 and under, within 7 days of getting the vaccine. In those cases, 96% of people were hospitalized.

  “It is understandable that the FDA does not want independent scientists to review the documents it relied upon to license Pfizer’s vaccine given that it is not as effective as the FDA originally claimed, does not prevent transmission, does not prevent against certain emerging variants, can cause serious heart inflammation in younger individuals, and has numerous other undisputed safety issues,” writes Aaron Siri, the attorney representing PHMPT in its lawsuit against the FDA.

  Siri told me in an email that his office phone has been ringing off the hook in recent months.

  “We are overwhelmed by inquiries from individuals calling about an injury from a COVID-19 vaccine,” he said.

  By the way — it’s worth noting that adverse effects caused by COVID-19 vaccinations are still not covered by the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Companies like Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson are protected under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act, which grants them total immunity from liability with their vaccines. And no matter what happens to you, you can’t sue the FDA for authorizing the EUA, or your employer for requiring you to get it, either. Billions of taxpayer dollars went to fund the research and development of these vaccines, and in Moderna’s case, licensing its vaccine was made possible entirely by public funds. But apparently, that still warrants citizens no insurance. Should something go wrong, you’re basically on your own.

  Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccine business model: government gives them billions, gives them immunity for any injuries or if doesn’t work, promotes their products for free, and mandates their products. Sounds crazy? Yes, but it is our current reality.

  — Aaron Siri (@AaronSiriSG) February 2, 2022

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  The Hypocrisy of “Misinformation”

  I find it interesting that “misinformation” has become such a pervasive term lately, but more alarmingly, that it’s become an excuse for blatant censorship on social media and in journalism. It’s impossible not to wonder what’s driving this movement to control the narrative. In a world where we still very clearly don’t have all the answers, why shouldn’t we be open to exploring all the possibilities? And while we’re on the subject, what about all of the COVID-related untruths that have been spread by our leaders and officials? Why should they get a free pass?

  

  Photo credit: @upgradeur_life, www.instagram.com/upgradeur_life

  Fauci, President Biden, and the CDC’s Rochelle Walensky all promised us with total confidence the vaccine would prevent us from getting or spreading COVID, something we now know is a myth. (In fact, the CDC recently had to change its very definition of “vaccine ” to promise “protection” from a disease rather than “immunity”— an important distinction). At one point, the New York State Department of Health (NYS DOH) and former Governor Andrew Cuomo prepared a social media campaign with misleading messaging that the vaccine was “approved by the FDA” and “went through the same rigorous approval process that all vaccines go through,” when in reality the FDA only authorized the vaccines under an EUA, and the vaccines were still undergoing clinical trials. While the NYS DOH eventually responded to pressures to remove these false claims, a few weeks later the Department posted on Facebook that “no serious side effects related to the vaccines have been reported,” when in actuality, roughly 16,000 reports of adverse events and over 3,000 reports of serious adverse events related to a COVID-19 vaccination had been reported in the first two months of use.

  One would think we’d hold the people in power to the same level of accountability — if not more — than an average citizen. So, in the interest of avoiding hypocrisy, should we “cancel” all these experts and leaders for their “misinformation,” too?

  Vaccine-hesitant people have been fired from their jobs, refused from restaurants, denied the right to travel and see their families, banned from social media channels, and blatantly shamed and villainized in the media. Some have even lost custody of their children. These people are frequently labeled “anti-vax,” which is misleading given that many (like the NBA’s Jonathan Isaac) have made it repeatedly clear they are not against all vaccines, but simply making a personal choice not to get this one. (As such, I’ll suggest switching to a more accurate label: “pro-choice.”) Fauci has repeatedly said federally mandating the vaccine would not be “appropriate” or “enforceable” and doing so would be “encroaching upon a person’s freedom to make their own choice.” So it’s remarkable that still, some individual employers and U.S. states, like my beloved Massachusetts, have taken it upon themselves to enforce some of these mandates, anyway. Meanwhile, a Feb. 7 bulletin posted by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security indicates that if you spread information that undermines public trust in a government institution (like the CDC or FDA), you could be considered a terrorist. In case you were wondering about the current state of free speech.

  The definition of institutional oppression is “the systematic mistreatment of people within a social identity group, supported and enforced by the society and its institutions, solely based on the person’s membership in the social identity group.” It is defined as occurring when established laws and practices “systematically reflect and produce inequities based on one’s membership in targeted social identity groups.” Sound familiar?

  As you continue to watch the persecution of the unvaccinated unfold, remember this. Historically, when society has oppressed a particular group of people whether due to their gender, race, social class, religious beliefs, or sexuality, it’s always been because they pose some kind of threat to the status quo. The same is true for today’s unvaccinated. Since we know the vaccine doesn’t prevent the spread of COVID, however, this much is clear: the unvaccinated don’t pose a threat to the health and safety of their fellow citizens — but rather, to the bottom line of powerful pharmaceutical giants and the many global organizations they finance. And with more than $100 billion on the line in 2021 alone, I can understand the motivation to silence them.

  The unvaccinated have been called selfish. Stupid. Fauci has said it’s “almost inexplicable” that they are still resisting. But is it? What if these people aren’t crazy or uncaring, but rather have — unsurprisingly so — lost their faith in the agencies that are supposed to protect them? Can you blame them?

  Citizens are being bullied into getting a vaccine that was created, evaluated, and authorized in under a year, with no access to the bulk of the safety data for said vaccine, and no rights whatsoever to pursue legal action if they experience adverse effects from it. What these people need right now is to know they can depend on their fellow citizens to respect their choices, not fuel the segregation by launching a full-fledged witch hunt. Instead, for some inexplicable reason I imagine stems from fear, many continue rallying around big pharma rather than each other. A 2022 Heartland Institute and Rasmussen Reports survey of Democratic voters found that 59% of respondents support a government policy requiring unvaccinated individuals to remain confined in their home at all times, 55% support handing a fine to anyone who won’t get the vaccine, and 48% think the government should flat out imprison people who publicly question the efficacy of the vaccines on social media, TV, or online in digital publications. Even Orwell couldn’t make this stuff up.

  

  Photo credit: DJ Paine on Unsplash

  Let me be very clear. While there are a lot of bad actors out there — there are also a lot of well-meaning people in the science and medical industries, too. I’m lucky enough to know some of them. There are doctors who fend off pharma reps’ influence and take an extremely cautious approach to prescribing. Medical journal authors who fiercely pursue transparency and truth — as is evident in “The Influence of Money on Medical Science,” a report by the first female editor of JAMA. Pharmacists, like Dan Schneider, who refuse to fill prescriptions they deem risky or irresponsible. Whistleblowers, like Graham and Jackson, who tenaciously call attention to safety issues for pharma products in the approval pipeline. And I’m certain there are many people in the pharmaceutical industry, like Panara and my grandfather, who pursued this field with the goal of helping others, not just earning a six- or seven-figure salary. We need more of these people. Sadly, it seems they are outliers who exist in a corrupt, deep-rooted system of quid-pro-quo relationships. They can only do so much.

  I’m not here to tell you whether or not you should get the vaccine or booster doses. What you put in your body is not for me — or anyone else — to decide. It’s not a simple choice, but rather one that may depend on your physical condition, medical history, age, religious beliefs, and level of risk tolerance. My grandfather passed away in 2008, and lately, I find myself missing him more than ever, wishing I could talk to him about the pandemic and hear what he makes of all this madness. I don’t really know how he’d feel about the COVID vaccine, or whether he would have gotten it or encouraged me to. What I do know is that he’d listen to my concerns, and he’d carefully consider them. He would remind me my feelings are valid. His eyes would light up and he’d grin with amusement as I fervidly expressed my frustration. He’d tell me to keep pushing forward, digging deeper, asking questions. In his endearing Bronx accent, he used to always say: “go get ‘em, kid.” If I stop typing for a moment and listen hard enough, I can almost hear him saying it now.

  People keep saying “trust the science.” But when trust is broken, it must be earned back. And as long as our legislative system, public health agencies, physicians, and research journals keep accepting pharmaceutical money (with strings attached) — and our justice system keeps letting these companies off the hook when their negligence causes harm, there’s no reason for big pharma to change. They’re holding the bag, and money is power.

  I have a dream that one day, we’ll live in a world where we are armed with all the thorough, unbiased data necessary to make informed decisions about our health. Alas, we’re not even close. What that means is that it’s up to you to educate yourself as much as possible, and remain ever-vigilant in evaluating information before forming an opinion. You can start by reading clinical trials yourself, rather than relying on the media to translate them for you. Scroll to the bottom of every single study to the “conflicts of interest” section and find out who funded it. Look at how many subjects were involved. Confirm whether or not blinding was used to eliminate bias. You may also choose to follow Public Citizen’s Health Research Group’s rule whenever possible: that means avoiding a new drug until five years after an FDA approval (not an EUA, an actual approval) — when there’s enough data on the long-term safety and effectiveness to establish that the benefits outweigh the risks. When it comes to the news, you can seek out independent, nonprofit outlets, which are less likely to be biased due to pharma funding. And most importantly, when it appears an organization is making concerted efforts to conceal information from you — like the FDA recently did with the COVID vaccine — it’s time to ask yourself: why? What are they trying to hide?

  In the 2019 film “Dark Waters” — which is based on the true story of one of the greatest corporate cover-ups in American history — Mark Ruffalo as attorney Rob Bilott says: “The system is rigged. They want us to think it’ll protect us, but that’s a lie. We protect us. We do. Nobody else. Not the companies. Not the scientists. Not the government. Us.”

  Words to live by.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 04/09/2022 – 22:30

• Russia Urges BRICS Nations To Create Own 'SWIFT' System, Warns 'Sanctions Are Destroying International Order'
  Russia Urges BRICS Nations To Create Own ‘SWIFT’ System, Warns ‘Sanctions Are Destroying International Order’

  The dollar reserve system is facing its greatest threat yet.

  Russian Finance Minister Anatoly Siluanov said on Saturday that the five BRICS countries – Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa  – could mitigate the backlash of Western sanctions against Russia on their economies by pooling their efforts and using a range of financial instruments at their disposal.

  “The current crisis is man-made and BRICS countries have all the instruments necessary to mitigate its consequences for the national and global economies,” Siluanov was cited as saying by the Russian Finance Ministry.

  

  The minister blamed economic sanctions on Russia for “destroying the foundation of the existing international monetary and financial system based on the US dollar” and urged BRICS to rely more on their national currencies in foreign trade, integrate payment systems and create an alternative to the SWIFT payment messaging platform.

  Siluanov on Friday told a ministerial meeting with BRICS that the global economic situation had worsened substantially due to the sanctions, a statement from his ministry said on Friday.

  “This pushes us to the need to speed up work in the following areas: the use of national currencies for export-import operations, the integration of payment systems and cards, our own financial messaging system and the creation of an independent BRICS rating agency,” Siluanov said.

  

  As The Statesman reports, central banks of the BRICS countries have already agreed to conduct the fifth test of a banking mechanism that will allow them to jointly pool “alternative currency” reserves to shield their economies from outside shocks, the ministry said.

  Siluanov’s comments echoed Dmitry Medvedev’s comments on Telegram.

  The Deputy Head of Russia’s Security Council warned of the geopolitical consequences of Western sanctions and the weaponization of the US dollar reserve system:

  “Their result will be a destroyed international order and extremely difficult consequences for the world economy and the life of individual countries,” adding that:

  “It will be clear to everyone that the supposed effectiveness of sanctions is an absolute lie.”

  

  Perhaps even more ominously, Medvedev believes that anti-Russian sanctions can be regarded as an act of aggression:

  “The whole combination of the legal and political circumstances prompts the conclusion that sanctions in the current situation can be qualified as an act of aggression against Russia and a form of hybrid war,” Medvedev wrote, adding:

  “In the first place, when they are aimed at undermining economic independence, and, consequently, state sovereignty, which endangers the very existence of the state. As a matter of fact, as our opponents say, it is a declaration of economic war.”

  If this all sounds like the rantings of a biased politician under the control of Russia’s propaganda arm, that maybe so… but it is also clear to many that the ‘weaponization’ of the dollar (payment system) could well have serious unintended consequences.

  For instance, First Deputy Managing Director Gita Gopinath of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) told The Financial Times, that the recent financial sanctions imposed on Russia for its invasion of Ukraine are threatening to weaken the dominance of the U.S. petrodollar as the world currency,

  Russia had been planning for years to reduce its dependence on the petrodollar since the United States imposed sanctions in retaliation for its annexation of Crimea in 2014.

  The current crisis in Ukraine has only accelerated those plans… and it now seems the entire BRICS group may be ready to cross the chasm as Bretton Woods III begins to form.

  The implications, needless to say, are staggering (and, worse, while ZoltanPoszar does not explicitly state it, he clearly believes that world war is coming):

  Empires fall and rise. Currencies fall and rise. Wars have winners and losers.

  When Wellington beat Napoleon, the trade was to buy gilts. I am no expert on geopolitics, but I am an interest rate strategist and I think the level of inflation and interest rates and the size of the Fed’s balance sheet will depend on the steady state that emerges after this conflict is over. Three is a magic number:

  The four prices of money are managed via Basel III and central banks as DoLR.

  The four pillars of commodity trading are shaped by war, hopefully not WWIII.

  The new world order will bring a new monetary system – Bretton Woods III.

  A BRICS-based payment system would be the ultimate challenge to the dollar-hegemon-based system in place today. Even if this is nothing but talk, it underscores the fact that the dollar is on shaky ground. US policymakers would be wise to consider future dollar weaponization carefully.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 04/09/2022 – 22:00

• China Insiders Steal Billions From US Investors
  China Insiders Steal Billions From US Investors

  Op-Ed authored by Anders Corr via The Epoch Times,

  China’s corporate insiders are cheating small American investors of billions of dollars through advance information that enables lucrative trades just before the stock price falls.

  

  The total losses that insiders of Chinese companies listed on American exchanges have avoided by selling prior to price drops are at least $10 billion between 2016 and the middle of 2021, according to a new study of their security filings.

  Chinese company shares fell an average of 21 percent a year after the Chinese company insiders sold large quantities of stock, compared to a 2 percent rise after insiders from American companies sold. Given inflation, that American number zeros out.

  The Alibaba Case

  The Wall Street Journal covered the study and used Alibaba Group Holding Ltd. as an example. In October 2020, “Alibaba’s payments affiliate, Ant Group Co., was preparing for its initial public offering, a move that would have likely increased the value of Alibaba’s one-third stake,” according to the Journal.

  But Alibaba’s founder and CEO, Jack Ma, publicly criticized China’s financial regulators, who canceled the listing. Instead of rising, which the market predicted, Alibaba shares fell 8 percent on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE).

  One day prior to Ma’s announcement, Sky Scraper Enterprises Ltd. sold approximately $150 million worth of Alibaba stock. An Alibaba insider controls Sky Scraper, but nobody knows his or her identity.

  Whoever controls Sky Scraper, according to the Journal, which cited the Financial Times, “was one of the company’s best-paid executives in recent years and had been granted huge swaths of stock as compensation.”

  This unknown Alibaba executive avoided losses totaling hundreds of millions of dollars through what appears to be insider trading. American and other investors who got caught on their back feet—because they couldn’t know the inside information no matter how much research they did—apparently got cheated.

  The SEC, Big Banks, and China Collude Against Small Investors

  The researchers—Robert Jackson, Bradford Lynch, and Daniel Taylor—point out that U.S. securities law actually advantages and enables China’s insiders relative to those in the United States.

  “Executives and other major shareholders at American companies have to disclose their trades within two days in a filing that is posted on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website and freely available to investors,” according to the Journal.

  That deters bad behavior because American insiders do not want to appear to have acted on inside information. They don’t want to signal other market participants to sell the stock and, thus, decrease its value.

  

  China’s insiders don’t have the same problem because U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) regulators treat them with kid gloves. To encourage China’s companies to list on NYSE and other U.S. exchanges in the early 1990s, regulators gave China’s companies several key preferences relative to U.S. companies.

  For example, unlike American insiders, China’s insiders don’t have to report their trades in a timely and highly public manner electronically but instead can mail paper disclosures. The paper reporting may, by law, be thrown out after three months.

  That preference gives China’s insiders weeks before their trades are discovered and a window of just three months for investors with a lot of time on their hands to visit the SEC offices and discover the trades. Traders typically don’t have that time, so China’s insider trades are rarely discovered and seldom signal the market in the timely manner required to shield American investors from unfair losses.

  As Western institutional investors increasingly invested in China stocks since the 1990s, however, they acquired an interest in lobbying U.S. regulators to continue providing China’s companies with regulatory advantages, which kept up their Chinese stock prices.

  That sordid party is ending, but addicted institutional investors are scheming an afterparty and trying to smuggle out their drugs, which are the tanking Chinese assets.

  SEC Loopholes for Chinese Firms Should Be Closed Immediately

  The three researchers want the insider trading loophole closed, but, as usual, the SEC is dragging its feet and continues to give China’s companies a major advantage that likely bilks small American investors of billions of dollars.

  There are other SEC loopholes for China’s publicly-listed companies as well. The SEC does not require the same auditing standards of Chinese companies listed on U.S. exchanges that are required of U.S. companies.

  Some of these auditing loopholes are being closed through legislation rather than quick executive action, which should be the rule. The executive branch is more beholden to big bank lobbying on China than is Congress.

  But even this legislation is taking years to effect. Audits are only extracted from China’s companies through the too-gradual threat of delisting, with a three-year warning. And new loopholes are being negotiated with China by the Biden administration at this very moment.

  Due to the threat of delisting, the China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) is proposing that it jointly investigate with U.S. and other authorities, which would give it influence on decisions and a patina of respectability that it does not deserve as a democratically unaccountable authority. It would also provide plenty of opportunities for Beijing officials to attempt to corrupt American SEC officials who are supposed to be laser-focused on integrity.

  

  There is a more significant political reason for the proposal as well. “China doesn’t want to be seen as making concessions just to the U.S.,” a China financial analyst told the Wall Street Journal. Thus, China’s regulators are negotiating face-saving measures for Beijing and advantages for Chinese companies that they don’t deserve, given their lack of transparency.

  The CSRC should be told in no uncertain terms to pound sand. U.S. authorities should investigate China’s companies listed on U.S. exchanges.

  Yet the Biden administration is showing weakness. China’s companies could hire Western auditors that subcontract key work to Chinese auditors without checking the work closely. This auditing chain that relies on auditors in China—who are beholden to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and unreachable by American and other democratic authorities—will be unreliable and should be forbidden by the SEC.

  As usual, the devil is in the details.

  All of these loopholes and bargaining by the Biden administration give as much time and space as possible to U.S. banks to unravel their positions, even as their research departments publicly claim that China assets are underpriced. Small American investors, who do not have the time to do the research, have paid the price.

  Last month, according to Institute of International Finance (IIF) data, $11.2 billion flowed out of China bonds, and $6.3 billion flowed out of China stocks. It is an “unprecedented dynamic that suggests a market rotation” away from China, according to the IIF.

  Compare that to emerging markets ex-China, which saw $10.8 billion flow into debt and an outflow of less than $400 million from stocks, according to the IIF data. Emerging markets ex-China means emerging markets except for China.

  Stronger US Government Action Needed

  U.S. loopholes that give China’s companies and insiders advantages are an obvious mistake of current and past administrations since the early 1990s—none of which fixed the problem, despite years of China’s economic and military growth into an existential threat to both the United States and democracy more generally.

  The political influence of the big banks, all of which are deeply invested in China, is mainly to blame. So the researchers are right—inside trading loopholes for China’s companies should be closed immediately.

  But much more is needed.

  Even if the SEC closes all loopholes and preferences that favor China, China’s insiders could continue to trade on inside information and escape legal consequences if they are far from American law enforcement. That China’s insiders are beyond American law—and the law of other democracies—needs to be corrected.

  Anyone caught insider trading anywhere in the world, if outside the reach of law enforcement in democracies, should at minimum be subject to individualized economic and visa sanctions by democratic governments. This is absolutely necessary for democratic accountability, the rule of law, fair treatment of small investors, and the smooth functioning of international markets.

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

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 04/09/2022 – 21:30

• American Airlines To Offer Bus Service In Place Of Connecting Flights Due To Soaring Gas Prices, Pilot Shortage
  American Airlines To Offer Bus Service In Place Of Connecting Flights Due To Soaring Gas Prices, Pilot Shortage

  As gas prices continue to rise into the peak driving (and flying season), expect to see more bizarre twists in conventional behavior… like airlines offering bus service in place of connecting flights.

  Take American Airlines, which according to the Associated Press is “expanding” its network into and out of Philadelphia with a new bus service that will connect the carrier’s hub with two other airports in the region. Starting in June, the company will begin offering buses as connecting flights to and from Philadelphia International Airport with both Lehigh Valley International Airport and Atlantic City International Airport.

  

  Passengers traveling to or from Philly, Allentown or Atlantic City will be able to book connecting itineraries through American, according to The Points Guy: travelers whose trips begin in Allentown or Atlantic City will check their bags and go through security as if they were taking a normal flight. However, passengers will board a bus rather than a flight to Philly, where they will be dropped off at their terminals without having to go through security again. Bags will be automatically transferred to their connecting flights. Similarly, travelers landing in Philly will head to a dedicated gate from where the bus will pick up. Bags will be automatically transferred to the bus.

  The buses will consist of 35 leather seats, complimentary Wi-Fi, streaming options and power outlets.

  American’s connecting bus service will operate three round-trips per day between Atlantic City and Philly and two daily runs to and from Allentown. Tickets will go on sale Monday, with trips scheduled to begin June 3.

  According to Philly Voice, American said that the forthcoming bus service will be an “easier way” for passengers to travel between the airports, which of course is laughable propaganda. In reality, the airline’s “expansion” into busing is driven by pilot shortages and higher gas prices, Airline Weekly reported, forcing carriers like American to explore more cost-effective travel options for passengers.

  Staffing shortages have already forced American to suspend dozens of routes flown by regional affiliates across its network this spring and summer. American’s regional affiliate, American Eagle, services flights from Allentown to Chicago and Charlotte.

  The airline previously operated flights between Philly and Allentown until the route was suspended in May 2020. The two airports are separated by only 73 miles.

  Atlantic City International Airport is a new addition to American’s map. Before merging with American in 2015, U.S. Airways served Atlantic City nonstop from Philly on and off again until 2003. The two airports are separated by only 56 miles.

  Next: as part of a more aggressive cost-saving plan American (which has much stock to repurchase) will generously offer its transatlantic passengers the far more convenient option of jumping on a Gloucester fishing trawler to arrive in Dover two delightful weeks later.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 04/09/2022 – 21:00

• JPMorgan Predicts That Global Commodities Prices May Rise By 40%… Or More
  JPMorgan Predicts That Global Commodities Prices May Rise By 40%… Or More

  Authored by Bryan Jung via The Epoch Times,

  Commodities prices could rise by 40 percent and will likely continue to go higher, according to a note from JPMorgan Chase from April 7, as raw materials hit a record high last month following Western sanctions on Russia due to its invasion of Ukraine.

  

  Russia is a main supplier for up to 10 percent of global energy production and about 20 percent of global wheat production.

  The commodities affected include oil, which is already up 33 percent from the same month the previous year, while natural gas has gone up by 65 percent since the invasion roiled the markets.

  Metals excluding gold, such as copper, are up by 7 percent from 2021, while wheat has surged upward by 33 percent.

  The bank said it was reviewing the long-term positioning in commodities by global investors, and compared that to allocations in cash, stocks, and bonds.

  “In dollar terms, the total open interest of commodity futures ex gold stands at around $1.4 trillion, which, although high by historical standards, looks much lower compared to the stock of equities, bonds, and cash in the world,” said the bank.

  JPMorgan said that while investors’ implied commodity allocation of 0.72 percent is higher than the average seen after the Lehman Brothers crash, it is still well below the record highs of 2008 and 2011.

  “In the current juncture, where the need for inflation hedges is more elevated, it is conceivable to see longer-term commodity allocations eventually rising above 1 percent of total financial assets globally, surpassing the previous highs seen during 2008 or 2011,” said the JPMorgan note.

  Commodities in those categories could see another 30 to 40 percent upside from current levels, according to the bank’s experts, who said that while investors have increased their allocation to commodity assets over the past year above historical averages, they have plenty of room to overweigh them in their portfolios.

  The current numbers suggest further scope for gains in raw materials, according to the note, as commodities are far into record territory and that there is “room for further increases in investors’ allocation to commodities,” in a period of rising inflation, according to the bank.

  The spike in commodities is being fueled by increased demand from consumers who are spending more in a post-pandemic world, but the Western sanctions on Russia have worsened the global supply of those resources.

  Already high inflation rates are being worsened by the conflict, spurring tougher measures from the Federal Reserve this year and prompting investors to assess reshuffling the weighting of assets between stocks, bonds, and raw materials in their portfolios.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 04/09/2022 – 20:30

• 7 In 10 Americans See Russia As An Enemy
  7 In 10 Americans See Russia As An Enemy

  Americans’ views of Russia have soured since the invasion of Ukraine, according to a new poll by the Pew Research Center.

  As Statista’s Anna Fleck details below, a significant 70 percent of U.S. respondents now say that they would consider Russia as an enemy, up from 41 percent in January.

  

  You will find more infographics at Statista

  It’s an issue that appears to have created some consent across the aisle, with 72 percent of Democrats and 69 percent of Republicans now calling Russia an enemy. The two parties have seen divides deepen throughout the Trump era – including on the issue of Russia – but seem to be finding common ground over views on the rival superpower in light of the war in Ukraine.

  At the same time, only 6 percent of Americans say they have confidence in Russian President Vladimir Putin. This is in stark contrast to the 72 percent of people who have expressed confidence in his Ukrainian counterpart, President Volodymyr Zelensky.

  According to Gallup, U.S. perceptions of Russia have been rocky throughout Putin’s era. While they started off favorable in 2006, with 73 percent of Americans calling Russia a friend or ally, they have seen a downward trend ever since 2013, following the war with Georgia and then the annexation of Crimea.

  

  While sentiments seemed to warm somewhat under the Trump administration, and Pew polls even indicated that 49 percent of Americans considered the country as merely a competitor at the beginning of this year, the first chart above shows that number has sunk once more.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 04/09/2022 – 20:00

• Psaki Calls Abbott's Plan To Bus Illegal Aliens To DC A "Publicity Stunt"
  Psaki Calls Abbott’s Plan To Bus Illegal Aliens To DC A “Publicity Stunt”

  Authored by Nick Ciolino via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  White House press secretary Jen Psaki is calling Texas Gov. Greg Abbott’s plan to bus illegal aliens who have crossed the border to Washington a “publicity stunt.”

  

  Abbott on Wednesday said that his government will provide charter buses or flights from Texas to Washington to transport illegal aliens released from federal custody into his state on the southern border.

  Abbott says Texas has been “overwhelmed by hordes of illegal immigrants who are being dropped off by the Biden administration” and that the state will send illegal aliens to Washington “where the Biden administration will be able to more immediately address the needs of the people that they are allowing to come across our border.”

  Psaki responded to the Texas Republican Thursday saying that Abbott does not have the authority to “compel anyone to get on a bus.”

  “I think it’s pretty clear this is a publicity stunt,” Psaki said. “[Abbott’s] own office admits that a migrant would need to voluntarily be transported and that he can’t compel them to.  Because again, enforcement of our country’s immigration laws lies with the federal government, not a state.”

  Doocy: “The Texas Governor is saying that he’s going to start busing border crossers to Washington D.C., when they get here are you guys going to help them find a place to stay and something for them to do?”

  Psaki: “I think it’s pretty clear this is a publicity stunt.”

  Watch: pic.twitter.com/9cSFMOm7CL

  — El American (@ElAmerican_) April 7, 2022

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, another Republican, also vowed this week to send illegal aliens from his state to Delaware, which is President Joe Biden’s home state.

  This back and forth between red states and Washington comes days after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announced plans to end its Title 42 health provision on May 23—the rule first invoked in March of 2020 to minimize the spread of the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus by ensuring that only essential travel occurred at U.S. borders.

  The rule put into place under former President Donald Trump directed that illegal aliens could be quickly expelled back into Mexico as a pandemic precaution, rather than be processed under Title 8 immigration law, which is a much more protracted process inside the United States.

  When asked Thursday what the federal government plans for the estimated 18,000 migrants a day expected at the southern border when Title 42 ends, Psaki said the federal government is “taking steps to convey this is not the time to come” to the United States.

  “Individuals who come to the border—this is what would happen: CBP (Customs and Border Protection) and ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) would work together to ensure that anyone who enters the country without authorization is put into immigration proceedings as quickly as possible,” said Psaki.

  Psaki revealed Wednesday that illegal aliens that are allowed into the United States as part of an Alternative to Detention (ATD) program, are given cellphones and ankle monitors meant to track the individuals who crossed the border to ensure they show up for scheduled court dates.

  She repeated Thursday that nearly 80 percent of non-citizens waiting in the interior under prosecutorial discretion have either received a notice to appear or are still within their 60-day window to report.

  Isabel van Brugen and Jack Phillips contributed to this report.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 04/09/2022 – 19:30

• "Unique Atmospheric Sight" Over Alaska Ignites Wild Social Media Speculation 
  “Unique Atmospheric Sight” Over Alaska Ignites Wild Social Media Speculation 

  v Thursday morning, footage of a bizarre cloud formation over Alaska’s Lazy Mountain sparked a tweetstorm as people searched for answers. 

  “The Russians?” Aliens?!” “Plane crash?” People were stunned by the vortex-like cloud posted on Twitter and across all social media platforms. 

  

  The mysterious cloud went viral, forcing the Alaska State Troopers and the Alaska Rescue Coordination Center to release a public advisory statement: 

  “There have been no reports of overdue aircraft or ELT activations indicating an aircraft crash. 

  “A rescue team on a helicopter flew a mission around the Lazy Mountain area this morning and located nothing suspicious and there were no signs of crashed aircraft,” Alaska State Troopers said. 

  Others posted similar photos and speculated it could’ve been a rocket launch, a meteor, or even a volcano. 

  

  After Alaska State Troopers flew a reconnaissance mission in the area, they found nothing. Officials eventually revealed the bizarre cloud was a contrail for a commercial jet. 

  “Further investigation revealed that a large commercial jet was flying in that area around the time that the photos and video were taken. The aircraft was contacted and reported normal flight operations on its way to JFK airport in New York. Troopers believe that the photos and videos showed a contrail from the commercial jet combined with the rising sun which together caused the unique atmospheric sight,” the statement read. 

  Even though officials offered their explanation, some on social media are skeptical that the crazy vortex cloud could’ve been something else. 

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 04/09/2022 – 19:00

• Biden Signs Bill Downgrading Russia's Trade Status, Paving Way For Tariffs
  Biden Signs Bill Downgrading Russia’s Trade Status, Paving Way For Tariffs

  Authored by Dave DeCamp via AntiWar.com,

  On Friday, President Biden signed into law a bill that suspends normal trade relations with Russia and Belarus. He also signed legislation codifying an executive order he signed last month banning the import of Russian oil, gas, and coal.

  The Suspending Normal Trade Relations with Russia and Belarus Act strips the two nations of their “most favored nation trade status,” which paves the way for tariffs and other trade restrictions. The bill blasted through the Senate in a vote of 100-0 and overwhelmingly passed the House with only three Republican Reps. voting against it.

  

  The votes demonstrate the bipartisan support for the US-led Western sanctions campaign against Russia. Also on Friday, the EU imposed new sanctions on Moscow that include a ban on Russian coal and other products. It’s estimated the new measures will slash 10% of the EU’s total imports from Russia.

  Under the coal ban, the EU plans to wind down imports over the next four months. The sanctions are significant as the EU relies on Russia for about 45% of its coal imports, and the ban is expected to impact about $8.7 billion of Russian exports.

  Responding to the ban, Kremlin spokesman  Dmitry Peskov said Russian coal would be sent to other markets. “Shipments of coal, as Europe refuses [its] consumption … will be redirected to alternative markets,” Peskov said, according to Tass. “Of course, coal is still a very popular commodity.”

  Meanwhile, hawks in the West are eyeing ratcheting anti-Russian measures further as the inter-EU debate continues over whether to halt Russian energy into Europe…

  Time for democratic countries buying this Russia energy to start taxing these imports. Revenues from new tariffs could be used to subsidize energy consumption of the poorest in these countries and to provide funds for a Ukrainian reconstruction fund. https://t.co/xujWyfJb1G

  — Michael McFaul (@McFaul) April 7, 2022

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  So far, the sanctions campaign has done nothing to stop the fighting in Ukraine. While Russia’s economy is taking a serious hit, Russian President Vladimir Putin appears to be unphased. In March, his approval rating reached 83%, up from 69% in January.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 04/09/2022 – 18:30

• Calm Before The Storm? Transpacific Sea-Freight Rates Fall Amid China COVID Lockdowns 
  Calm Before The Storm? Transpacific Sea-Freight Rates Fall Amid China COVID Lockdowns 

  Top Chinese manufacturers have shuttered operations as expanding COVID-19 lockdowns choke off logistical networks from factories to ports and simultaneously alleviate congested transpacific shipping lanes. Though, once factories in China reopen, another wave of supply chain chaos will slam US West Coast ports. 

  Stringent government measures to mitigate the spread of COVID have resulted in widespread lockdowns in Shanghai. Tens of millions of people are locked down in the industrial metro area. Factories, such as Tesla’s and component makers for Apple, have restricted output or closed altogether. 

  Disruptions to factories, trucking, warehouses, and port operations in Shanghai have depressed shipping rates because the flow of goods to the US has come to a crawl. 

  A 40-foot container from Shanghai to Los Angeles slumped 3.2%, from $9,112 a week ago to $8,824 this week. The benchmark transpacific route is down more than 30% from the September peak of $12,424 but still five times higher than in April 2019. 

  

  The market for ocean freight is cooling because of the disruptions in China. Ahead of the lockdowns, we described demand would sink for container ships. We outlined once factories reopened, another shipping crisis would materialize: 

  This may lead to depressed shipping rates on an intermediate basis because of the lack of demand. However, long term, shipping rates should rebound due to a backlog of products that would need to be shipped once factories reopen.  

  Michael Every of Rabobank agrees with our view that China’s Zero COVID policies to stop the spread will ease US port backlogs. He said, “it also means far fewer people will be getting their orders from China at all,” adding that “this disruption might be structural if it is going to be China’s policy response to a virus.” 

  What comes next is a giant backlog of Chinese products that will need to be shipped to the US. Once China reopens, US importers will be racing to secure containers, which will drive shipping rates higher. That should result in a tsunami of freight that will clog up US West Coast ports and may induce even more supply chain-related inflation. 

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 04/09/2022 – 18:00

• German Defense Minister: No More Bundeswehr Weapons For Ukraine
  German Defense Minister: No More Bundeswehr Weapons For Ukraine

  Since the start of Russia’s military incursion into Ukraine, the West has been all too eager to supply the Ukrainians with weapons, from javelin anti-aircraft missiles to Soviet-era T-72M tanks. But as the European powers contemplate their own security needs in the face of the growing ‘threat’ from the East, it looks like that generosity has reached its limits – despite Volodymyr Zelensky’s claims that the West has blood on its hands.

  

  In an interview with Die Augsburger Allgemeine Zeitung published on Saturday, Germany’s Defense Minister Christine Lambrecht told a German paper that while “we all have an obligation to support Ukraine in its courageous fight” with “supplies from the Bundeswehr’s stockpiles” Germany has “reached [its] limit,” and that the German military must be “able to ensure” the country’s defense.

  To be sure, “…that doesn’t mean we can’t do more for Ukraine,” Lambrecht added, suggesting that Kiev could directly buy equipment it needed from German manufacturers directly. The minister pointed out that the German government “was constantly coordinating” with the authorities in Kiev to facilitate such purchases.

  When asked exactly what kind of weaponry was being considered for delivery to Ukraine, Lambrecht demurred, refusing to go into detail. “There are good reasons why we have classified precisely this information as secret,” she said.

  She also claimed that it was Ukraine that “emphatically” asked Germany not to divulge specifics.

  “One must always bear in mind: The moment the deliveries are published in detail, Russia would also have this information. And that alone would have military strategic implications,” she said.

  But the most important reason for cutting off military support for the Ukrainians? Fear of provoking the Russian bear, which is already playing havoc with the German economy with its weapons.

  Lambrecht admitted there’s a concern in Germany that weapons supplies could trigger a reaction by Moscow and “war may expand to other areas.” That’s why, she said, it is important “that we act very prudently and with a cool head in these difficult and horrific times.”

  We can’t help but wonder: is this a model that the rest of Europe will follow, for fear that Vladimir Putin just might launch WWIII?

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 04/09/2022 – 17:00

• Rickards: "They've Secretly Raised Your Taxes"
  Rickards: “They’ve Secretly Raised Your Taxes”

  Authored by James Rickards via DailyReckoning.com,

  Inflation is not a guessing game anymore; it’s here. Every time you buy gas at the pump or groceries at the supermarket or book a plane ticket, the price increases are staring you in the face.

  The problem is that inflation cannot be isolated. It’s not limited to what you pay to fill up your car, for example. Truckers have to pay the same higher prices for diesel fuel, which add to transportation costs and to the final prices of delivered goods.

  It’s a clear example of the ripple effect.

  That much is clear. What is less clear are the thousands of ways that inflation hurts you that are invisible. The most important of these is that inflation is a tax.

  

  The government borrows dollars, and you earn dollars. Taxation is one way that governments take money from citizens to pay off government debt. But taxes are unpopular and hard to get approved by Congress.

  Inflation works much better.

  It reduces your real income since the dollars you earn are worth less. And it reduces the government debt because the money the government owes is easier to repay for the same reason – the dollars are worth less.

  So inflation works the same as a tax increase except that you can’t see it and Congress doesn’t have to lift a finger.

  Nice, right?

  Sleight of Hand

  Another damaging effect of inflation has to do with the difference between nominal income and real income. Nominal income is the amount of money you make measured in dollars. Real income is the amount those dollars are actually worth when adjusted for inflation.

  For example, your wages might have gone up 5% (that’s the latest annualized wage increase as of April 1, according to the Labor Department). That’s a nice gain, but with inflation of 7.9% (also the latest data we have), your real wages actually went down 2.9% (5.0 – 7.9 = -2.9).

  You got a raise in nominal terms, but you took a pay cut in real terms. Many people are not familiar with this simple formula for converting nominal gains to real gains. But everyone is familiar with how long their paycheck lasts.

  More and more Americans are finding that by the time they pay the rent or mortgage, put gas in the car, buy groceries and pay some medical bills, they’re out of money. They’re waiting for the next paycheck. There’s nothing left over for a dinner out, a new pair of shoes or a visit with family members.

  The economic consequences of this decline in real incomes are huge. If you buy coffee at the grocery store instead of going to Starbucks or go jogging instead of paying a visit to the gym, then service and retail industries all around the country start to suffer.

  This can be followed by layoffs at some of those outlets and even more cuts in discretionary spending as the laid-off workers tighten their belts.

  China Locks Down 26 Million in Shanghai

  A lot of the inflation today comes from the supply side, not the demand side. It has to do with supply chain disruptions and the cascade of consequences from the economic sanctions because of the war in Ukraine. None of these situations will show any improvement in the short run.

  They may actually get worse, as the situation in China suggests…

  China is currently experiencing a severe outbreak of COVID. The reason for this is China’s badly flawed and ineffective zero COVID policy. When a case does emerge, they immediately shut down the surrounding area, quarantine everyone, test everyone, trace any contacts and send the infected to isolation camps for two weeks or longer.

  When an outbreak spreads, they will lock down entire cities and ban all transportation to or from that city. This is happening in Shanghai now. The entire city of 26 million has been shut down. Citizens are being ordered to stay inside. Visits outside for food and water are severely limited.

  Shanghai is one of the largest cities in the world and is adjacent to Ningbo, one of the largest container cargo ports in the world. With the latest lockdown, you can expect further supply chain disruptions. China’s policies are a drag on global growth and represent another disruption to global supply chains.

  There’s nothing the Fed can do to stop the inflation because it’s coming from the supply side, which the Fed has no control over. Higher interest rates won’t increase the supply of oil. The Fed has no mandate to drill for oil or discover natural gas resources.

  The Fed is essentially helpless.

  A Drop (of Oil) in the Bucket

  To help lower gas prices, Biden plans to release 1 million barrels of oil per day from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. But that will accomplish nothing at all. Here’s why…

  The U.S. uses about 20 million barrels of oil per day. So the 1 million barrel release from the reserve only adds about 5% to the supply. But it doesn’t really add anything to the supply because importers will simply reduce imports or domestic drillers will reduce output to equilibrate for the new oil.

  There never was an oil shortage in the U.S., so adding a new source of oil doesn’t alleviate a shortage that never existed. It simply causes some oil to be redirected to other buyers.

  Oil is a global market. The price is set mainly on futures exchanges in London and New York. Those markets focus on a wide variety of market variables of which the release from the reserve is only one.

  In fact, global output is about 92 million barrels per day, so the U.S. reserve addition is only 1.08% of total output. That’s hardly enough to affect the world price one way or the other.

  A Cheap Political Stunt

  It’s also the case that U.S. refineries are not geared to process the type of oil in the reserve without significant modifications that take time. In short, the oil from the reserve does not convert easily to refined product and will have minimal impact on retail gas prices.

  Finally, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is meant to be strategic. It’s not a short-term price manipulation tool; it’s meant to give the U.S. a cushion in the event of a war or natural disaster that directly affects the U.S. itself.

  Biden’s release will reduce the cushion and leave the U.S. more vulnerable to a true disaster. Biden’s release from the reserve will not affect the price at the pump, not affect the world price and reduce U.S. readiness.

  It’s a cheap and dangerous publicity stunt.

  The bottom line is there is practically only one way for the Fed to stop the inflation. That’s by raising rates until they cause a recession. It’s a fair question whether the cure (recession) is worse than the disease (inflation).

  Since this is the incompetent Fed we’re talking about, we may even get both inflation and recession.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 04/09/2022 – 16:30

• Elon Musk Suggests Tesla May Eventually Wind Up Mining For Its Own Lithium
  Elon Musk Suggests Tesla May Eventually Wind Up Mining For Its Own Lithium

  Having already apparently secured his company’s nickel needs well in advance of this year’s chaos in the nickel markets, Tesla looks to now be focused on securing its lithium needs – by suggesting that it may need to go into lithium mining.

  The company’s “plans” have only made it as far as an Elon Musk tweet, which admittedly is where many ideas have gone to die off. But the suggestion garnered significant media attention when Musk Tweeted this week:

  “Tesla might actually have to get into the mining & refining directly at scale, unless costs improve.”

  He continued: “Price of lithium has gone to insane levels. There is no shortage of the element itself, as lithium is almost everywhere on Earth, but pace of extraction/refinement is slow.”

  Musk was responding to a Tweet that showed the skyrocketing price of lithium, from $4,450 in 2012 to $78,032 (per tonne) in 2022. 

  Price of lithium has gone to insane levels! Tesla might actually have to get into the mining & refining directly at scale, unless costs improve.

  There is no shortage of the element itself, as lithium is almost everywhere on Earth, but pace of extraction/refinement is slow.

  — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 8, 2022

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  As CNBC noted, there are numerous deposits of lithium all over the U.S., citing information from the U.S. Geological Survey, a division of the U.S. Department of Interior.

  Lithium is crucial in the EV space because of its use in EV batteries. “batteries made with lithium have a high power-to-weight ratio, which is important when dealing with transportation,” CNBC reported. 

  Recall just days ago we wrote how Tesla sidestepped the spike in nickel prices through a “secret deal” with Vale. A multiyear supply deal for nickel has been in place and covers nickel from Canada, we wrote. “Unlike most of its peer automakers, Tesla has spent years focusing on how to secure its own nickel supplies,” a report from Bloomberg said last week. 

  Gene Munster of Loup Ventures said: “What Tesla has done with nickel is a hidden competitive advantage. Tesla continues to be a couple of steps ahead of the rest.”

  And Munster is right, in that Musk has “repeatedly” flagged nickel as a concern for the company amidst broader sector demand that is expected to more than triple by 2030. 

  So while many of Musk’s “ventures” that have started as Tweets haven’t panned out, maybe Tesla will wind up mining lithium after all…

   

   

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 04/09/2022 – 16:00

• US Now Appears Willing To Overlook Turkey’s S-400 Transgression With F-16 Sale
  US Now Appears Willing To Overlook Turkey’s S-400 Transgression With F-16 Sale

  Authored by Kyle Anzalone & Will Porter via The Libertarian Institute,

  A potential sale of F-16 fighter jets to Turkey would be consistent with US policy objectives, the State Department told lawmakers in a letter, months after Ankara asked to purchase dozens of warplanes and upgrade kits. Dated March 17, the letter to Congress stopped short of endorsing the F-16 sale outright, but said Turkey is “an important deterrent to malign influence in the region” and suggested it may be willing to go through with the deal.

  Turkey’s Daily Sabah points out that “Considering U.S. Congress’ opposition to Ankara purchasing arms due to several lingering issues, it was thought that it would be difficult to win approval for the deal, however, reports have said that the new U.S. administration supports it.”

  

  While Turkey is a NATO member and owns a fleet of F-16s, its defense ties with the United States have deteriorated since Ankara bought the S-400 air defense system from Russia in 2017. The Donald Trump administration insisted the missile platform is incompatible with other NATO defense infrastructure and could even compromise US weapons systems, ultimately expelling Turkey from the F-35 fighter jet program and imposing sanctions on several officials in retaliation.

  Despite the controversy, Ankara asked to buy 40 new F-16s and 80 F-16 modernization kits last October, having abandoned hopes to ever see the newer F-35 in its arsenal. It has so far received no public response from the White House. 

  With a new president in the Oval Office and in light of Russia’s attack on Ukraine, however, Washington now appears willing to overlook Turkey’s S-400 transgression and resume weapons sales after all..

  “The administration believes that there are nonetheless compelling long-term NATO alliance unity and capability interests, as well as US national security, economic and commercial interests that are supported by appropriate US defense trade ties with Turkey,” the State Department letter said, adding that Turkey had already paid “a significant price” for its decision to buy the Russian system. 

  .@StateDept’s letter to members of Congress on potential F16 sale to Turkey pic.twitter.com/o8gzQTOPWf

  — Lena Argiri (@lenaargiri) April 6, 2022

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Before finalizing any deal, the State Department will have to formally notify Congress, but some lawmakers remain vocally opposed to the sale. The letter from Foggy Bottom came in response to a previous missive from more than 50 reps in both parties who “strongly” urged Biden to reject the transfer, citing “vast human rights abuses” in Turkey.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 04/09/2022 – 15:30

• Palm Springs Moves Forward With Measure To Provide Universal Basic Income To Low-Income Trans, Nonbinary Residents
  Palm Springs Moves Forward With Measure To Provide Universal Basic Income To Low-Income Trans, Nonbinary Residents

  It looks like universal basic income could soon become a reality for some Americans.

  And those Americans are transgendered people living in Palm Springs, California. 

  The city’s town council voted to allocate $200,000 to Queer Works and DAP Health, two non-profits, to develop a pilot program that would provide cash support to transgender, nonbinary and intersex residents in the form of cash payments. 

  The city council considered the measure for “an hour and a half” last Thursday, before unanimously voting to support it. The Washington Post said the proposal could be “the first guaranteed basic income program specifically for low-income transgender and nonbinary people to be implemented in the country.”

  Christy Holstege, a Palm Springs City Council member, commented: “We are a beacon in the country and in the world, a place where LGBTQ people have fled for decades to seek sanctuary and safety and their own community. And so I think it’s really important for Palm Springs to be on the front lines of supporting the trans community … especially when they’re under attack throughout the country.”

  

  She has noted that there is an “undercurrent of poverty” in the city. 

  The mayor of Palm Springs is a transgender woman and the city has a history of funding queer and trans organizations in the community. 

  The city has also suffered from “worsening income inequality” and skyrocketing housing prices that have disproportionately affected transgender and nonbinary people, the report says. 

  Jacob Rostovsky, who helped push the measure, said that for people with low incomes “regular, unrestricted cash payments” are a “huge benefit”. 

  “Most of my community is trying to decide if they should eat that night, have somewhere safe to sleep, be able to afford their hormone care of therapy. They’re making decisions constantly, daily, that many cisgender individuals don’t even think about, and that includes homeless or housing unstable cisgender individuals,” he concluded. 

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 04/09/2022 – 15:00

• Major Row In Greek Parliament After Zelensky Features Neo-Nazi Azov Fighters In Address
  Major Row In Greek Parliament After Zelensky Features Neo-Nazi Azov Fighters In Address

  Authored By Joe Lauria via Consortium News,

  Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has been making a virtual world tour with video hookups to parliaments around the globe, as well as to the Grammy Awards and the U.N. Security Council, sometimes with troublesome results.  

  On Thursday a major row erupted when Zelensky brought along a Ukrainian soldier of Greek heritage from the city of Mariupol, who just happened to be a member of the neo-Nazi Azov Regiment. Greece was under Nazi occupation during World War II and fought a bitter partisan war against Nazism (later to be betrayed by Britain and the United States.)

  

  With Zelensky in the screen, the man, who gave only his first name, told Parliament: “I speak to you as a man of Greek descent. My name is Michail. My grandfather fought against the Nazis in the Second World War. I am born in Mariupol and I am now also fighting to defend my city from the Russian nazis.”  

  Alexis Tsipras, leader of the main opposition party, SYRIZA-Progressive Alliance, blasted the appearance of the Azov fighter before parliament.  

  “Solidarity with the Ukrainian people is a given. But nazis cannot be allowed to speak in parliament,” Tsipras said on social media. “The speech was a provocation.”  He said Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis “bears full responsibility. … He talked about a historic day but it is a historical shame.”  

  Former Greek Prime Minister Antonis Samaras called the video being played in parliament a “big mistake”. And former Foreign Affairs Minister Nikos Kotzias said: “The Greek government irresponsibly undermined the struggle of the Ukrainian people, by giving the floor to a Nazi. The responsibilities are heavy. The government should publish a detailed report of preparation and contacts for the event.”

  Former Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis’  MeRA25 party said the event turned into a “Nazi fiesta. The Greek Reporter said a government spokesman admitted the mistake but then used it to smear SYRIZA as Russian apologists:

  “The socialist KINAL party issued a statement asking why Greek lawmakers had not been informed about the video intervention of an Azov Battalion member and called on the president of the Greek Parliament to bear responsibility.

  Government spokesperson Giannis Oikonomou said the inclusion of the Azov Battalion message was ‘incorrect and inappropriate.’ However, he did not say who should be held responsible for this.

  Oikonomou, nevertheless, slammed SYRIZA for allegedly ‘using that mistake… to justify the Russian invasion. … It is time for a clear answer: are they on the side of the Ukrainians, who are fighting for their freedom, or [on the side of] Putin’s invaders?’ he said.”

  Group of Syriza MPs walk out of Zelenskyy speech after man identifying himself as member of Azov Battalion speaks in recorded portion of message. #Greece #Ukraine pic.twitter.com/2dXmD6VZVV

  — Derek Gatopoulos (@dgatopoulos) April 7, 2022

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Zelensky’s Spotty Sense of History

  In his speech, Zelensky said:

  “I have been waking up every day for more than a month thinking about Mariupol, which is being destroyed by Russian troops. There are still 100,000 people on the border with Mariupol. There is no building left. Mariupol has been destroyed …

  Ukraine is one of the Orthodox countries that was Christianised by the Greeks. In Ukrainian culture and history it will be seen that we will lose a big part of history if we lose the culture brought by Greek culture.

  Freedom or Death was what your revolutionaries were saying. We are shouting the same today.” [a reference to a slogan of the Greek Revolution of 1821.]

  Ignoring Greece’s suffering under German Nazism was a slight made worse by bringing a Nazi along to address Greek lawmakers. Zelensky has gotten into trouble before by referring to a nation’s history in his addresses to parliaments. He caused outrage in Israel for comparing what Ukraine is going through today to the Holocaust while completely ignoring the role Ukrainian fascists played in that Holocaust.

  In his address to the U.N. Security Council on Tuesday Zelensky said Russia had committed the worst war crimes since World War II, ignoring the much bigger crime of aggression by the United States against Iraq built totally on lies.

  Just as Western governments and corporate media are doing, the Ukrainian embassy in Athens denied Azov is a Neo-Nazi regiment, despite sporting the Waffen-SS Wolfsangel on their uniforms and their open political alignment with Nazism. The embassy instead tried to turn the tables. 

  “For many years Russia tried to ‘plant’ into Greek minds the myth that ‘Azov’ Regiment is a paramilitary independent unit operating in Mariupol,” the embassy said in a statement. “The video … has nothing to do to those Nazi deeds, Russians commit on our land and against our people.” 

  Indeed, Western media have largely ignored the story. Neither The New York Times nor The Washington Post wrote anything about what happened at the Greek parliament and The Wall Street Journal only ran a photo story that didn’t mention the controversy. 

  Here is the full video of Zelensky’s address (in Greek):

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 04/09/2022 – 14:30

• "We Are On A Fast Track To Disaster" – Green Radicals Claim Humanity Has Only 3 Years Left To Stop 'Climate Apocalypse'
  “We Are On A Fast Track To Disaster” – Green Radicals Claim Humanity Has Only 3 Years Left To Stop ‘Climate Apocalypse’

  Earlier this week, Democrats in the House dragged the CEOs of America’s largest oil companies before a Congressional subcommittee where they were subjected to an aggressive interrogation (intended, of course, to glean clips to be used for the onslaught of political ads expected to be released this fall), where members accused them of deliberately driving prices higher to boost their companies profits.

  

  But as they carefully explained in their testimony, individual American oil companies have little control over the price of oil and gas. Rather, entities like OPEC+, and international demand dynamics have a much greater impact. The real hypocrisy, however, is the fact that Democrats’ own energy policies – including a key metric called the “social cost of carbon” which Biden hiked from $7 under Trump to $51 under Biden – are responsible for suppressing domestic production.

  And as millions of Americans struggle to make ends meet during a period of soaring inflation, climate activists, seemingly unsympathetic to their plight, are doing everything in their power to drive oil and gas production in the US even lower.

  Using the release of the IPCC’s latest report on climate change as their rallying, climate activists like the members of “Scientist Rebellion” (an offshoot of the UK’s “Extinction Rebellion”) are now claiming that the world has only three years to prevent the climate apocalypse. This despite last year’s admission from the UN that its most dire projections are now “extremely unlikely”.

  But ignore all that, because as one climate scientist-turned-activist wrote in the Guardian this week, climate radicals are chaining themselves to JP Morgan’s offices in protest of the bank’s work financing the oil and gas industry.

  I’m a climate scientist and a desperate father. How can I plead any harder? What will it take? What can my colleagues and I do to stop this catastrophe unfolding now all around us with such excruciating clarity?

  On Wednesday, I was arrested for locking myself to an entrance to the JP Morgan Chase building in downtown Los Angeles with colleagues and supporters. Our action in LA is part of an international campaign organized by a loosely knit group of concerned scientists called Scientist Rebellion, involving more than 1,200 scientists in 26 countries and supported by local climate groups.

  Our day of action follows the IPCC Working Group 3 report released Monday, which details the harrowing gap between where society is heading and where we need to go. Our movement is growing fast.

  The new report is called the “Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change”. It’s the third and final installment of the IPCC’s Sixth Climate Assessment. And contributors to the report have been telling any liberal media outlet that will listen that humanity now has only three years to prevent the climate catastrophy.

  Here’s a summary of the report, courtesy of Buzzfeed:

  Global average emissions measured roughly 59 gigatons of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2019, about 12% higher than levels in 2010 and 54% higher than in 1990, per the new report. This is a staggering increase.

  But the blame for rising emissions does not fall on everyone equally.

  “The 10% of households with the highest per capita emissions contribute a disproportionately large share of global [greenhouse gas] emissions,” according to a summary of the new report. For example, in 2019, Small Island Developing States are estimated to have released 0.6% of global greenhouse gas emissions.

  The only way to prevent widespread climate damage is to immediately stop this trend. To keep the 1.5 degree Celsius future alive, per the report, people worldwide must collectively peak their emissions by 2025 and then reduce emissions 43% by 2030. Crucially, this involves cutting emissions of the potent greenhouse gas methane by 34% by 2030.

  Finally, by 2050, people must achieve net zero emissions, which is when they are releasing into the atmosphere the same levels of emissions they are pulling out of it.

  UN Secretary-General further contributed to the hysteria by declaring that humanity is on “the fast track to climate disaster”.

  “We are on a fast track to climate disaster,” United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres said on Monday while announcing the new report by the United Nation’s preeminent climate body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

  “This is not fiction or exaggeration,” he added. “It is what science tells us will result from our current energy policies. We are on a pathway to global warming of more than double 1.5 degrees.”

  One of the author’s of the report added that humanity must act now, or accept the worst-case scenario that climate activists have long described.

  “It’s now or never, if we want to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit),” Imperial College London’s Jim Skea, one of the report co-authors, said in a statement. “Without immediate and deep emissions reductions across all sectors, it will be impossible.”

  So, according to the climate radicals, the world has seen the timeline for the climate apocalypse move from roughly a decade to just three years, even as the growth of emissions has been slowing this entire time.

  Is it just us, or does something not add up here?

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 04/09/2022 – 14:00

Digest powered by RSS Digest