Today’s News 22nd February 2024

• COVID-19 Tested Our Commitment To Freedom. Three Years Later, We're Still Failing
  COVID-19 Tested Our Commitment To Freedom. Three Years Later, We’re Still Failing

  Authored by John & Nisha Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,

  “The remedy is worse than the disease.”

  – Francis Bacon

  The government never cedes power willingly.

  Neither should we.

  

  If the COVID-19 debacle taught us one thing it is that, as Justice Neil Gorsuch acknowledged, “Rule by indefinite emergency edict risks leaving all of us with a shell of a democracy and civil liberties just as hollow.”

  Unfortunately, we still haven’t learned.

  We’re still allowing ourselves to be fully distracted by circus politics and a constant barrage of bad news screaming for attention.

  Three years after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, which gave world governments (including our own) a convenient excuse for expanding their powers, abusing their authority, and further oppressing their constituents, there’s something being concocted in the dens of power.

  The danger of martial law persists.

  Any government so willing to weaponize one national crisis after another in order to expand its powers and justify all manner of government tyranny in the so-called name of national security will not hesitate to override the Constitution and lockdown the nation again.

  You’d better get ready, because that so-called crisis could be anything: civil unrest, national emergencies, “unforeseen economic collapse, loss of functioning political and legal order, purposeful domestic resistance or insurgency, pervasive public health emergencies, and catastrophic natural and human disasters.”

  COVID-19 was a test to see how quickly the populace would march in lockstep with the government’s dictates, no questions asked, and how little resistance the citizenry would offer up to the government’s power grabs when made in the name of national security.

  “We the people” failed that test spectacularly.

  Characterized by Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch as “the greatest intrusions on civil liberties in the peacetime history of this country,” the government’s COVID-19 response to the COVID-19 pandemic constituted a massively intrusive, coercive and authoritarian assault on the right of individual sovereignty over one’s life, self and private property.

  In a statement attached to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Arizona v. Mayorkas, a case that challenged whether the government could continue to use it pandemic powers even after declaring the public health emergency over, Gorsuch provided a catalog of the many ways in which the government used COVID-19 to massively overreach its authority and suppress civil liberties:

  “Executive officials across the country issued emergency decrees on a breathtaking scale. Governors and local leaders imposed lockdown orders forcing people to remain in their homes. They shuttered businesses and schools, public and private. They closed churches even as they allowed casinos and other favored businesses to carry on. They threatened violators not just with civil penalties but with criminal sanctions too. They surveilled church parking lots, recorded license plates, and issued notices warning that attendance at even outdoor services satisfying all state social-distancing and hygiene requirements could amount to criminal conduct. They divided cities and neighborhoods into color-coded zones, forced individuals to fight for their freedoms in court on emergency timetables, and then changed their color-coded schemes when defeat in court seemed imminent.”

  Truly, the government’s (federal and state) handling of the COVID-19 pandemic delivered a knockout blow to our civil liberties, empowering the police state to flex its powers by way of a bevy of lockdowns, mandates, restrictions, contact tracing programs, heightened surveillance, censorship, overcriminalization, etc.

  What started off as an experiment in social distancing in order to flatten the curve of an unknown virus (and not overwhelm the nation’s hospitals or expose the most vulnerable to unavoidable loss of life scenarios) quickly became strongly worded suggestions for citizens to voluntarily stay at home and strong-armed house arrest orders with penalties in place for non-compliance.

  Every day brought a drastic new set of restrictions by government bodies (most have been delivered by way of executive orders) at the local, state and federal level that were eager to flex their muscles for the so-called “good” of the populace.

  There was talk of mass testing for COVID-19 antibodies, screening checkpoints, mass surveillance in order to carry out contact tracing, immunity passports to allow those who have recovered from the virus to move around more freely, snitch tip lines for reporting “rule breakers” to the authorities, and heavy fines and jail time for those who dared to venture out without a mask, congregate in worship without the government’s blessing, or re-open their businesses without the government’s say-so.

  It was even suggested that government officials should mandate mass vaccinations and “ensure that people without proof of vaccination would not be allowed, well, anywhere.”

  Those tactics were already being used abroad.

  In Italy, the unvaccinated were banned from restaurants, bars and public transportation, and faced suspensions from work and monthly fines. Similarly, France banned the unvaccinated from most public venues.

  In Austria, anyone who had not complied with the vaccine mandate faced fines up to $4100. Police were to be authorized to carry out routine checks and demand proof of vaccination, with penalties of as much as $685 for failure to do so.

  In China, which adopted a zero tolerance, “zero COVID” strategy, whole cities—some with populations in the tens of millions—were forced into home lockdowns for weeks on end, resulting in mass shortages of food and household supplies. Reports surfaced of residents “trading cigarettes for cabbage, dishwashing liquid for apples and sanitary pads for a small pile of vegetables. One resident traded a Nintendo Switch console for a packet of instant noodles and two steamed buns.”

  For those unfortunate enough to contract COVID-19, China constructed “quarantine camps” throughout the country: massive complexes boasting thousands of small, metal boxes containing little more than a bed and a toilet. Detainees—including children, pregnant women and the elderly— were reportedly ordered to leave their homes in the middle of the night, transported to the quarantine camps in buses and held in isolation.

  If this last scenario sounds chillingly familiar, it should.

  Eighty years ago, another authoritarian regime established more than 44,000 quarantine camps for those perceived as “enemies of the state”: racially inferior, politically unacceptable or simply noncompliant.

  While the majority of those imprisoned in the Nazi concentration camps, forced labor camps, incarceration sites and ghettos were Jews, there were also Polish nationals, gypsies, Russians, political dissidents, resistance fighters, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and homosexuals.

  Culturally, we have become so fixated on the mass murders of Jewish prisoners by the Nazis that we overlook the fact that the purpose of these concentration camps were initially intended to “incarcerate and intimidate the leaders of political, social, and cultural movements that the Nazis perceived to be a threat to the survival of the regime.”

  How do you get from there to here, from Auschwitz concentration camps to COVID quarantine centers?

  You don’t have to be a conspiracy theorist to connect the dots.

  You just have to recognize the truth in the warning: power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

  This is about what happens when good, generally decent people—distracted by manufactured crises, polarizing politics, and fighting that divides the populace into warring “us vs. them” camps—fail to take note of the looming danger that threatens to wipe freedom from the map and place us all in chains.

  It’s about what happens when any government is empowered to adopt a comply-or-suffer-the-consequences mindset that is enforced through mandates, lockdowns, penalties, detention centers, martial law, and a disregard for the rights of the individual.

  This is the slippery slope: a government empowered to restrict movements, limit individual liberty, and isolate “undesirables” to prevent the spread of a disease is a government that has the power to lockdown a country, label whole segments of the population a danger to national security, and force those undesirables—a.k.a. extremists, dissidents, troublemakers, etc.—into isolation so they don’t contaminate the rest of the populace.

  The slippery slope begins with propaganda campaigns about the public good being more important than individual liberty, and it ends with lockdowns and concentration camps.

  As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, the danger signs are everywhere.

  COVID-19 was merely one crisis in a long series of crises that the government has shamelessly exploited in order to justify its power grabs and acclimate the citizenry to a state of martial law disguised as emergency powers.

  Everything I have warned about for years—government overreach, invasive surveillance, martial law, abuse of powers, militarized police, weaponized technology used to track and control the citizenry, and so on—has become part of the government’s arsenal of terrifying lockdown powers should the need arise.

  What we should be bracing for is: what comes next?

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 02/21/2024 – 23:40

• Which Lifestyle Changes Can Make You Live Longer?
  Which Lifestyle Changes Can Make You Live Longer?

  Lifestyle and habits can have a big effect on our health – and our life expectancy. A recently released study that followed U.S. veterans of the age group 40 to 99 between the years 2011 and 2019 is attempting to show just how much.

  As Statista’s Katharina Buchholz details below, according to mortality trends collected among 719,147 veterans and lifestyle factors assessed among 276,132, being physically active lowered the risk of death among the sample population the most – by 46 percent – opposite someone with no healthy habits and factors.

  

  You will find more infographics at Statista

  The study applied the Department of Health’s recommendation of 150 minutes of moderate exercise or 75 minutes of vigorous exercise per week as a threshold participants had to meet to be classified as physically active.

  Never smoking shaved off 30 percent off the risk of dying, while eating a diet that includes many plant-based foods lowered the risk of death by 21 percent. The recommendation here is to stick to healthy plant-based foods instead of just any.

  Not engaging in frequent binge drinking and getting restorative sleep of seven to nine hours (by not undercutting the hours of one’s usual sleep) could be expected to lead to a mortality risk decrease of 18 and 19 percent, respectively, according to the study. Having positive social interactions lowered the risk of dying by just 5 percent.

  The study also shows how combining different lifestyle factors can add up.

  Adopting just one led to a lower mortality risk in the study group of 26 percent on average. Adopting six positive habits even led to a decrease of 73 percent. The study also included the factors depression/anxiety and opioid addiction. Being free of either was associated with a decrease in mortality of 29 percent and 38 percent, with opioid disorder therefore scoring lower as a harmful behavior than physical inactivity.

  Adopting or being free of all eight factors was associated with a lower risk of dying of 87 percent.

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 02/21/2024 – 23:20

• New York AG Says She May Seize Trump Buildings, Assets If He Can't Pay $355 Million Penalty
  New York AG Says She May Seize Trump Buildings, Assets If He Can’t Pay $355 Million Penalty

  Authored by Caden Pearson via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  New York Attorney General Letitia James said on Feb. 20 that she’s prepared to seize former President Donald Trump’s buildings and assets if he can’t pay the penalty imposed in the state’s civil fraud case.

  

  The former president was recently ordered to pay nearly $355 million and barred from doing business in New York state for three years by state Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron.

  During an interview with ABC News, Ms. James said that it was “really not my business” if President Trump doesn’t have the money to pay the penalty, while also noting that she has her eyes on the Trump Building in Lower Manhattan.

  “If he does not have funds to pay off the judgment, then we will seek, you know, judgment enforcement mechanisms in court, and we will ask the judge to seize his assets,” she said.

  “We are prepared to make sure that the judgment is paid to New Yorkers, and yes, I look at 40 Wall Street each and every day,” she added, referring to the Trump Building.

  President Trump’s attorneys have vowed to appeal the case; he and his attorneys have described the case as a “political witch hunt” and the verdict as “manifest injustice.”

  Throughout the trial, the Trump team accused Justice Engoron of judicial malpractice, and the president has asserted that he should be the one being awarded damages.

  Responding to the Trump camp’s intention to appeal and their sentiment, Ms. James expressed confidence that her office would prevail.

  “I cannot be paralyzed by fear. And I cannot allow anyone to bully me into silence. And I cannot allow anyone to have a chilling effect on the work that I do and this office does each and every day,” Ms. James said.

  President Trump’s legal team has argued that no fraud occurred and that the state attorney general failed to prove intent to defraud. He has said that there were “no victims because the banks made a lot of money.”

  In her comments on Feb. 20, Ms. James rejected such arguments, reportedly saying that financial fraud isn’t a victimless crime. The attorney general reportedly said that leveling the playing field is within her wheelhouse and that if the average person isn’t allowed to inflate the value of their assets to secure loans, then neither should President Trump.

  Ms. James brought the lawsuit against President Trump and his co-defendants in 2022. Justice Engoron found President Trump liable and ruled that he inflated his assets to get better loans weeks before the trial began.

  

  In addition to civil fraud cases, President Trump faces four criminal cases ahead of the 2024 elections. These include a case related to “hush money” payments before the 2016 elections, two cases related to his attempts to challenge the results of the 2020 elections, and a case related to the handling of classified documents.

  President Trump recently called for an end to the legal cases against him, alleging that they amount to election interference against the Republican 2024 presidential front-runner.

  “This is communism and a threat to democracy,” he declared in a post on Truth Social on Feb. 19.

  “All political prosecutions of your favorite president, me, must stop immediately. We are in the middle of an election, perhaps the most important election in the history of our country, and these radical left lunatic prosecutors and judges are not allowed to be doing this,” he said.

  During a town hall-style interview with Fox News’ Laura Ingraham on Feb. 20, President Trump once again described his legal battles as being comparable to what opposition leaders might face in a communist country, noting the death of Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny.

  “We are turning into a communist country in many ways,” he said.

  Drawing parallels with Mr. Navalny’s plight, President Trump asserted that he’s facing several trials “all because of the fact that I’m in politics.”

  Amid the legal battles, President Trump has so far notched victories by large margins in crucial GOP presidential primary contests in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 02/21/2024 – 23:00

• Biden Defies Supreme Court Again, Cancels $1.2 Billion In Student Debt From 153,000 Borrowers
  Biden Defies Supreme Court Again, Cancels $1.2 Billion In Student Debt From 153,000 Borrowers

  Demonstrating yet again that nobody is quite about the law – and the constitutions – like the Biden crime family…

  Joe Biden: “The Supreme Court of the United States blocked me, but they didn’t stop me!” pic.twitter.com/iwsxmyBEyv

  — RNC Research (@RNCResearch) February 5, 2024

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

  … months after the Supreme Court voted that BIden’s student loan relief is illegal, the Biden administration said on Wednesday that it would forgive another $1.2 billion in student debt for nearly 153,000 borrowers enrolled its new repayment program, called the Saving on a Valuable Education, or SAVE, plan. According to CNBC, the relief will go to borrowers who have been in repayment for a decade or longer, and originally took out $12,000 or less.

  Borrowers usually get debt forgiveness under income-driven repayment plans, including SAVE, after 20 or 25 years of payments. But under the SAVE plan, those who borrowed less can get their debt canceled after just a decade.

  In January, the Biden administration said it would soon start to forgive the debt of these borrowers who had signed up for its new plan.

  “With today’s announcement, we are once again sending a clear message to borrowers who had low balances: if you’ve been paying for a decade, you’ve done your part, and you deserve relief,” U.S. Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona said in a statement.

  Eligible borrowers will begin receiving emails from President Joe Biden on Wednesday and do not need to take any further action to receive the relief, the U.S. Department of Education said.

  Starting today, the first round of folks who are enrolled in our SAVE student loan repayment plan who have paid their loans for 10 years and borrowed $12,000 or less will have their debt cancelled.

  That’s 150,000 Americans and counting.

  And we’re pushing to relieve more.

  — President Biden (@POTUS) February 21, 2024

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

  After the Supreme Court blocked Biden’s sweeping student loan forgiveness plan last June, his administration has found ways to defy the highest legal entity that has not yet been corrupted by Soros’ billions and has explored all of its remaining authority to leave people with less education debt, even if it meant violating the law.

  The latest round pushes the total relief approved by the Biden administration to nearly $138 billion, benefiting 3.9 million borrowers. That number could grow as more people become eligible for forgiveness under the SAVE program, which has 6.9 million people enrolled. Administration officials have declined to estimate how many borrowers will eventually see loans forgiven under the program.

  Yet even with the latest abuse of the Supreme Court ruling, Biden’s efforts to buy votes fall short of the president’s proposal for more sweeping student loan cancellation — as much as $20,000 in relief per borrower – that was struck down last year by the US Supreme Court. That forgiveness plan was estimated to cost $400 billion.

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 02/21/2024 – 22:40

• 'Sue And Settle' Looks To Some Like Crony Democracy… And Under Biden's Lawfaring Eco-Politics, It's Back
  ‘Sue And Settle’ Looks To Some Like Crony Democracy… And Under Biden’s Lawfaring Eco-Politics, It’s Back

  Authored by James Varney via RealClear Wire,

  When the Biden administration announced in 2022 that it would remove some 4 million acres of federal land in Western states from oil and gas exploration, environmental groups hailed the decision as a milestone in their fight against global warming.

  

  “With the oil and gas industry bent on despoiling American’s public lands and fueling the climate crisis, this is a critical opportunity for the Biden administration to chart a new path toward clean energy and independence from fossil fuels,” said Jeremy Nichols, a director with WildEarth Guardians.

  But Nichols could just as easily have slapped himself on the back: The administration’s move was part of a private settlement of a lawsuit filed by WildEarth and others over the objections of energy consortiums, whose efforts to intervene in the matter were dismissed.

  A similar thing happened last August, when the Biden administration announced it had agreed to exclude 6 million acres of the energy-rich Gulf of Mexico seabed from exploration to settle a lawsuit brought by environmental groups, including the Sierra Club – an announcement that triggered operational delays for the industry and expensive litigation to overturn.

  Administration critics say these moves reflect the resurgence of a practice embraced by the Obama administration and rejected during Donald Trump’s presidency: “sue and settle.” The tactic is simple: An advocacy group sues a federal agency for failing to enforce laws or regulations. Agency officials and the plaintiffs then come to a private agreement and that deal is ratified by the courts via a binding consent decree.

  The practice is common at every level of government. New York City, for example, is obligated to house and feed tens of thousands of migrants because of a consent decree it entered into to settle a 1979 lawsuit brought by advocates for the homeless. But it is most prevalent in the environmental field, where well-funded groups commonly sue the Environmental Protection Agency or the Bureau of Land Management within the Department of the Interior alleging failure to enforce provisions of the Clean Air Act or regulations regarding federal leases for energy production.

  Although such consent decrees do not have the force of laws passed by Congress or regulations issued by the government that have gone through formal review and allow for public comment, they set the rules of the road. Critics say it has allowed government to advance policy goals that cannot be achieved through normal democratic channels. 

  “It’s not really an adversarial lawsuit, and with a settlement agreement and consent decree the case is never really over,” said Dave Tryon, director of litigation at the free-market Buckeye Institute. “The EPA is anxious to increase its power and control; it’s always happy to expand that.”

  The legal maneuver represents, according to this view, a return to the proverbial smoked-filled backrooms of politics. Huddled privately, without input from citizens or businesses that may be adversely affected by the decisions – let alone the public at large – lawsuits that often involve parties more simpatico than adversarial are settled. The plaintiffs and defendants are familiar to one another from years in the environmental lobbying and litigation world – and because of the “revolving door” between environmental groups and Democratic administrations. These like-minded players approach the issue seeking similar goals, a process that has only intensified with the Biden administration and leftist environmental groups sharing the belief that global warming is an existential threat.

  “Overall, it’s harkening back to the bad old days – they do this in order to avoid scrutiny and bypass the regulatory process,” said Thomas Pyle, president of the American Energy Alliance, an advocacy arm of the Institute for Energy Research. “It’s a way to advance an agenda that may be rejected by voters. It’s a nefarious practice in which the agency and the environmental groups get what they want.”

  Sue-and-settle is part of an even broader effort known as “lawfare,” in which political parties and advocacy groups seek to achieve their goals not through elections or legislation but in the courts. This encompasses everything from President Trump’s “stop the steal” efforts to overturn the 2020 election through the courts to myriad efforts by Democrats, whose lawfare campaigns have ranged from getting courts to confiscate Trump’s businesses and charge him criminally to removing him from the 2024 ballot.

  Settlements are common in the courts. They are often welcomed as a way to avoid costly, protracted litigation while also clearing dockets. But sue-and-settle is different, said Paul Seby, an attorney with GreenbergTraurig in Denver, who often represents the state of North Dakota in energy matters.

  “Those deals where someone is asked to enforce mandatory actions – that’s all legit and there’s no real beef with that,” Seby said. “The problem is when there is footsie going on between an agency of the Department of Justice and the non-governmental organization. That’s where they make a deal in a consent decree that says a department must do something more than just comply with some deadline they missed.”

  The Western states’ suit, filed in the D.C. federal circuit, is a good example, according to critics. The lawsuit was first filed against the Bureau of Land Management in 2016, alleging insufficient attention had been paid to global warming when approving leases in Wyoming, Utah, and Colorado. So the BLM and the states agreed to re-do studies under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and, after concluding that the leases complied with the law, the Trump administration-led agency approved the leases again. Environmental groups filed another lawsuit in 2021 and Biden’s BLM settled the case, in effect giving the groups what they wanted.

  “You can always do more ‘analysis’ as the environmental groups demand, and the usual remedy is to re-do the analysis,” said Kathleen Sgamma, president of the Western Energy Alliance, another industry consortium that sought to intervene in the case. “But instead of the small things, BLM will agree to reopen the whole resource management. In other words, BLM just agrees to do what the plaintiffs wanted.”

  The Trump administration had moved to stop the practice. In 2017, then-EPA administrator Scott Pruitt issued a memo prohibiting the agency from entering into consent decrees with non-governmental actors and also began publicizing any such suit when it was filed. “The era of regulation through litigation is over,” Pruitt declared.

  Those policies were rescinded by Biden’s EPA chief Michael Regan, who spent eight years as a vice president with an advocacy group involved in many such suits, the Environmental Defense Fund.

  One sign of how the practice has taken off under the Biden administration is the explosion in plaintiffs’ legal fees as part of settlements – meaning taxpayers foot the bill for environmental lawsuits.

  In the two years since the Biden administration lifted most of the Pruitt memo restrictions, those fees have jumped to almost $7 million, according to a January report from the fiscal watchdog group OpenTheBooks. That is nearly double the total of Trump’s four years of $3.6 million. It is also more than the $5.8 million in attorney fee payouts for suits brought under the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act during Obama’s second term, OpenTheBooks found.

  The EPA disputed the characterization that it has radically changed course under Biden. While it acknowledged Regan’s “litigation transparency memorandum revoked and replaced” Pruitt’s October 2017 memo, an EPA spokesperson insisted the agency “has not discontinued or rolled back and practices under Administrator Pruitt’s 2017 directive that the prior Administration had been maintaining.”

  “EPA has taken steps to enhance public awareness of environmental claims against the Agency and to provide an opportunity for public review and comment on proposed settlement of those claims,” an agency spokesperson said.

  But the EPA did not respond to RCI’s interview requests and did not answer questions about how many settlement agreements it may have reached overall with specific plaintiffs. So the exact number of consent decrees signed with them remains uncertain.

  The EPA does have a place at its website that lists more than 500 lawsuits against it going back to the Obama administration. That shows that the significantly higher attorneys’ costs under Biden have happened with fewer settlements overall than in Obama’s second term or Trump’s term. A EPA collection of links to consent decrees is not formatted by date, and both congressional committees and attorneys for energy companies believe it is incomplete.

  “There’s lawsuits sometimes we don’t know about and there are just so many cases where you would want or need to intervene,” said Sgamma of the Western Energy Alliance.

  That intervention can sometimes succeed but it is expensive. In the Gulf of Mexico exploration settlement, a lawsuit filed by the American Petroleum Institute, the state of Louisiana and Chevron managed to overturn the agreement reached between federal agencies and the environmental NGOs. That victory was upheld by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and the lease sales went through in December – three months after the date initially mandated for them by Congress.”

  Most of the environmental groups RCI contacted did not respond to questions or an interview request – including the Sierra Club, the Center for Biological Diversity, and the Environmental Defense Fund. But the National Resources Defense Council defended its courtroom efforts.

  “These steps and safeguards serve the public interest,” said John Walke, a senior attorney with the NRDC. “They provide the public direct opportunity to influence the scope of federal rules and safeguards. They ensure that agencies administer our laws in ways that achieve what Congress intended.”

  Walke also noted the framework of suits and settlements is not new.

  “The practice did not stop under the Trump administration, nor did it resume under the Biden administration,” he said. “It is a long-standing, common and unremarkable feature of the federal courts themselves, not unique to federal agencies at all.”

  There is an historical irony in that the germ of sue-and-settle tactics came under Richard Nixon when advocacy groups were warning of “agency capture,” meaning the companies that various federal agencies regulate had allegedly come to control the bureaucrats charged with crafting policy. Thus, individual groups were given standing to file lawsuits against the federal government with the idea of empowering those groups that presumably lacked the political and lobbying muscle of big business.

  On the environmental front, the policy became widespread during President Obama’s second term, when the EPA was run by Gina McCarthy, who later served as president and CEO of the National Resources Defense Council.

  As McCarthy’s move from the EPA to the NRDC indicates, the players reaching the deal are generally familiar to each other. The NRDC and the Center for Biological Diversity, two litigious groups, currently have executives that previously served at the EPA or in the Obama White House in an environmental job.

  It’s a tight network of federal appointees and executives of environmental advocacy groups. In addition to Regan, Lisa Garcia, the administrator for the EPA’s Region 2 covering New York, New Jersey and other territory, was with EarthJustice after serving under McCarthy. Matthew Tejada, a senior vice president, and Christy Goldfuss, an executive director, both held positions in the Obama administration, as did Maggie Coulter, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity.

  This cross-pollination between environmental regulatory agencies and the litigious groups also extends to the myriad “environmental law clinics” at law schools across the country.

  “Usually, the federal government vigorously defends itself against lawsuits challenging its actions. But not always,” attorney Andrew Grossman, a partner with Baker Hostetler, testified to the House Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government. “Sometimes regulators are only too happy to face collusive lawsuits by friendly ‘foes’ aimed at compelling government action that would otherwise be difficult or impossible to achieve.”

  Whether blindsided by regulations the market never saw coming, or handcuffed by the blanket of inactivity a consent decree may throw over an area, the practice of sue-and-settle is a pernicious one, according to its critics.

  “The whole thing is bypassing democracy because the litigation delegates power to outside groups,” said Walter Olson, a conservative legal scholar at the Cato Institute. “Because the consent decrees can set the future course of how agencies do business, it means that behind closed doors they are tying the hands of future voters and administrators. That’s not at all how it’s supposed to be.”

  In addition, the very nature of the deals, struck between two sides firmly committed to the idea the economy should be pushed toward net zero emissions, reflects what is happening, according to critics. Given that plaintiffs and defendants share the same outlook on global warming and would like to put vast areas off-limits to oil and gas exploration, it is no surprise that is exactly what the settlements accomplish, said Sgamma.

  Some believe legislation could reign in global warming lawfare, while empowering voters and taxpayers. House Republicans held at least two hearings on the tactic in 2023, the most recent last December – though critics note that the issue has been a political football at least since the Reagan administration.

  In November, the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability announced it would investigate the EPA’s “use of secretive ‘sue-and-settle’ practices,” and how the Biden administration is “using sue-and-settle tactics to avoid congressional oversight and implement more burdensome regulations at the bidding of special interests.”

  At the end of the year, a handful of Republican lawmakers introduced the “No Regulation Through Litigation” act that would “codify that a federal agency cannot enter into a settlement agreement or consent decree that exceeds the authority of the court,” while also prohibiting the payment of attorneys’ fees in cases that result in such deals.

  Despite congressional debate in the House, lawmakers proved reticent about discussing possible solutions to sue-and-settle. RCI reached out to all the Republicans and some Democrats on the committees who heard testimony about the matter last year, and Virginia Rep. Bob Good was the only representative to respond.

  “The Obama administration often bypassed Congress, using sue and settle tactics to accomplish what they could not via the legislative process,” Good said. “Biden is continuing that unconstitutional legacy and weaponizing the government against the people.”

  Similarly, the members of both the American Energy Alliance and the Western Energy Alliance are skittish about angering regulatory agencies and thus declined to discuss the matter.

  “The way to solve this is by bringing more people and transparency into the process,” the Buckeye Institute’s Tryon said. “Now, it’s impossible to follow all the lawsuits, and we don’t even know all the things that are happening. With more openness it could be monitored more closely because now people who are afflicted by

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 02/21/2024 – 22:20

• Iran Sends Russia Hundreds Of Ballistic Missiles, Washington Powerless
  Iran Sends Russia Hundreds Of Ballistic Missiles, Washington Powerless

  Back in early 2022 just weeks into the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Western officials began raising suspicions that the Islamic Republic of Iran was supplying arms, and especially kamikaze drones, to Moscow for use on the Ukrainian battlefield. This proved true, and allegations of Tehran supplying ballistic missiles soon followed. 

  Now, just days away from the grim two-year mark of the start of the major war, there are fresh reports of a dramatic escalation in Iran’s military supply pipeline to Russia. Reuters reports Wednesday that Tehran has provided Moscow with a “large number of powerful surface-to-surface ballistic missiles.”

  

  The report alleged an estimated 400 missiles, mostly from the Fateh-110 family of short-range ballistic weapons, have been provided. These are mobile-launched and have a range of up to 435 miles.

  “The shipments began in early January after a deal was finalized in meetings late last year between Iranian and Russian military and security officials that took place in Tehran and Moscow, one of the Iranian sources say,” according the report.

  “There will be more shipments,” one Iranian official has boasted. “There is no reason to hide it. We are allowed to export weapons to any country that we wish to.”

  Starting last fall, the US administration began getting creative on ways it could retaliate against Iran. The Pentagon at that time announced that it was sending seized shipments of illicit Iranian arms (usually intercepted in waters off the Arabian peninsula) to Ukraine’s armed forces.

  “The US will transfer thousands of seized Iranian weapons and rounds of ammunition to Ukraine, in a move that could help to alleviate some of the critical shortages facing the Ukrainian military as it awaits more money and equipment from the US and its allies,” US officials said at the time.

  In the below brief analysis, the hawkish think tank The Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) had hailed this Biden policy as one which “turns the tables” on both Tehran and Moscow…

  The U.S. transfer of Iranian arms to Ukraine turns the tables on both Tehran and Moscow, which have doubled down on their defense partnership following Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine. Tehran provides drones to Moscow and helps the Russians localize their production. In March 2023, Iran agreed to purchase 24 advanced Sukhoi Su-35 fighters from Russia, significantly upgrading the capabilities of the Islamic Republic’s air force. In 2019, 2021, 2022, and 2023, Russia and Iran conducted joint naval drills in the Gulf of Oman. Russia and Iran are also sharing intelligence and cooperating in a joint effort to push U.S. military forces out of the region.

  In this way there are now Iranian arms on ‘both’ sides of the Ukraine-Russia conflict. However, hundreds of Iranian ballistic missiles on the Russian side means it won’t run low on missiles anytime soon.

  The Ukrainian side, meanwhile, is still hurting for more arms and manpower, as it’s being beaten back from frontline positions, especially in the east and with the latest loss at Avdiivka.

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 02/21/2024 – 22:00

• New York's Radical Gun Restrictions Headed To Supreme Court
  New York’s Radical Gun Restrictions Headed To Supreme Court

  Submitted by Gun Owners of America,

  Gun Owners of America is taking New York to the Supreme Court over their mistakenly named “Concealed Carry Improvement Act,” or CCIA in our case Antonyuk v. Nigrelli.

  🚨HUGE FILING FROM GOA & GOF TODAY!🚨

  We are hopeful SCOTUS will take up our case and make NY and @GovKathyHochul fall in line with the Constitution and the Bruen decision. 👏

  They have been treading on the rights of New Yorkers for TOO LONG! https://t.co/mTNLzWG5Mt

  — Gun Owners of America (@GunOwners) February 21, 2024

  The CCIA represents New York’s blatant refusal to comply with the mandate set forth in the landmark case NYSRPA v. Bruen in 2022. For those unfamiliar, Bruen overturned New York’s may-issue licensing scheme for concealed carry permits. Unfortunately for New York gun owners, the CCIA’s system to replace this scheme is somehow even more restrictive than what preceded it.

  That’s because the CCIA is an attempt to nullify the Bruen decision. In the immediate aftermath of the case, New York politicians decried that decision as “reprehensible,” vowing to resist the “insanity” of “gun culture.”

  New York decided that, if the State must issue concealed carry licenses to ordinary citizens after Bruen, they would have to do whatever they could to discourage applicants. They did this by imposing novel and onerous licensing requirements, and then render any remaining licenses practically void by prohibiting carry virtually everywhere in the State by declaring a multitude of brand new “sensitive locations.”

  In New York’s defense of the Concealed Carry Improvement Act, they have relied almost entirely on a few outlier laws from the late nineteenth century as justification for their new restrictions. These laws that New York uses as examples were created to disarm minority communities during the reconstruction period after the Civil War.

  Gun Owners of America sued over these restrictions and won at the district level. However, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals was eager to intervene on behalf of New York’s anti-gun politicians.

  In their ruling, the 2nd Circuit ended upholding most of New York’s law. And while GOA did manage to squash parts of the law, some of the most egregious sections remain intact, including the “good moral character” requirement.

  The “good moral character” requirement of the CCIA stands in direct opposition to the Supreme Court’s clear rejection of discretionary “suitability” determinations in the Bruen case.

  So why would the 2nd Circuit uphold so much of a law that directly defies the Supreme Court? Well, the answer may lie in a Law Review article that was cited in the 2nd Circuit’s decision.

  In the article titled “The Dead Hand of a Silent Past: Bruen, Gun Rights, and the Shackles of History,” the author refers to the Bruen decision as “unsatisfying” and lays out a playbook for Judicial responses to the law. Additionally, lower Courts are encouraged to “engage in the time-honored practice of narrowing Supreme Court precedent from below.”

  It’s clear that the 2nd Circuit means to defy the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bruen. But the consequences of this ruling could be wide-reaching if not taken up by the high court. If lower courts ignore case law set by the Supreme Court, the consequences for any law or ruling could change based on the political alignment of the jurisdiction. It would be anarchy.

  This is why GOA is petitioning the Supreme Court to take up our case and answer the following questions:

  1. Whether the proper historical time period for ascertaining the Second Amendment’s original meaning is 1791 rather than 1868; and
  2. Whether “the people” must convince government officials of their “good moral character” before exercising their Second Amendment right to bear arms in public.

  Erich Pratt, Gun Owners of America’s Senior Vice President, had this to say:

  “New York politicians just couldn’t help themselves when they quickly doubled down with their unconstitutional edicts following the Bruen decision. I’m incredibly confident the justices will take an extra close look at this case since their previous ruling was ignored by the insubordinate tyrants in Albany. We’re excited about the opportunity to serve Kathy Hochul and her cabal another plate of humble pie if the Court takes the case.”

  Sam Paredes, on behalf of the Board of Directors for the Gun Owners Foundation, added:

  “We sent the warning out to politicians far and wide following Bruen, fall in line or we will make you. Sadly, New York refused to honor the Constitution, so we have no choice but to follow through on our threat. We urge the Court to take the case and once again rebuke New York’s unconstitutional gun control.”

  The Supreme Court must clarify these questions in the wake of the Bruen decision and set the record straight for lower courts across the country.

  *   *   *

  We’ll hold the line for you in Washington. We are No Compromise. Join the Fight Now.

  *   *   *

  Here’s more on the case: 

   

   

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 02/21/2024 – 21:40

• "Consolidate Or Get Eaten": Wall Street Finally Embracing Shale After $250 Billion In Oil Deals Last Year
  “Consolidate Or Get Eaten”: Wall Street Finally Embracing Shale After $250 Billion In Oil Deals Last Year

  It’s no sooner than we’ve been documenting the collapse of ESG and ‘clean green investing’ on Wall Street, than the world of finance seems ready to give a big warm embrace to shale drillers. 

  It’s almost as if money managers wind up chasing wherever the best returns are. Imagine that…

  Bloomberg wrote last week that shale is now in an ‘arms race’ with Diamondback Energy Inc.’s takeover of Endeavor Energy Resources LP announce last week capping $250 billion in oil and gas deals last year. 

  Diamondback, self-proclaimed as “the must-own” stock in America’s wealthiest oil region, saw its stock soar 11% within hours, defying the usual downturn faced by acquiring companies. This surge signaled strong investor endorsement – something the street hasn’t seen in oil for years. 

  

  Mark Viviano, a managing partner at Kimmeridge Energy Management Co. told Bloomberg: “It has become a big-company game. Now you have an arms race for operational scale and investor relevancy.”

  The report noted that as the shale industry evolves during a period where energy constitutes only 3.8% of the S&P 500 Index, despite the U.S. leading in global oil production with 45% more crude than Saudi Arabia, the sector has seen significant consolidation.

  The number of publicly traded shale companies has decreased by 40% in six years to about 50, Warwick Investment Group LLC notes.

  Kate Richard, chief executive officer at Warwick, said: “It’s kind of like Pac-Man right now: consolidate or get eaten. We’re probably going back to the ‘70s, where there were seven to 10 major players in the US.”

  Diamondback CFO Kaes Van’t Hof added: “It put us in a new weight class, which is a good thing in this business. The perception is that bigger means more durability.”

  

  Following the deal’s revelation, Diamondback now trades at 9.9 times earnings, surpassing EOG, which opted out of the current acquisition frenzy. This leap will elevate Diamondback from 275th to approximately 150th in the S&P 500 by market value, capturing the attention of major investors eager for greater involvement in the Permian Basin, the abundant oil field across Texas and New Mexico.

  Deloitte’s Teresa Thomas commented: “Big buyers are likely to spearhead a fresh wave of efficiency gains driven by technological advancements in both production and cost management.”

  Endeavor founder Autry Stephens is now set to become America’s richest oil magnate after the deal closes. Sam Sledge, CEO of Midland concluded: “He’s one of the last original wildcatters, funding things out of your own back pocket and taking risk. We’re playing a different game now.”

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 02/21/2024 – 21:20

• South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem Sending National Guard To Border 'Warzone'
  South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem Sending National Guard To Border ‘Warzone’

  Authored by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times (Emphasis ours),

  South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem has ordered the state’s National Guard troops to deploy to the southern border to help Texas deal with record-shattering waves of illegal immigration.

  

  Ms. Noem, a Republican, said that 60 South Dakota National Guard soldiers will deploy to the U.S.-Mexico border later this spring, on a rolling basis over a period of three months.

  “The border in a warzone, so we’re sending soldiers,” Ms. Noem said in a Feb. 20 statement.

  South Dakota was the first state to deploy National Guard troops in response to Texas Gov. Greg Abbott’s call two-and-a-half years ago for help securing the border.

  Ms. Noem said the National Guard troops will assist with construction of a border wall.

  “These soldiers’ primary mission will be construction of a wall to stem the flow of illegal immigrants, drug cartels, and human trafficking into the United States of America,” she said.

  The newly announced deployment will be South Dakota’s fifth since Mr. Abbott issued the call for help.

  “Texas—with the support of America’s Governors—will fight to do the job Biden refuses to do,” Mr. Abbott said in a post on X, in which he noted that the U.S. Constitution gives states the right to “secure our borders against invasion.”

  Amid a surge in illegal immigration, Mr. Abbott in September declared an “invasion” at the southern border. He then ordered the Texas National Guard and state law enforcement agencies to secure the border, including by setting up razor wire and marine barriers.

  The Biden administration sued Texas, leading the U.S. Supreme Court to rule that federal agents could remove the razor wire.

  It’s estimated that over 10 million illegal immigrants have crossed the border since President Joe Biden took office.

  Texas Fights Back

  Texas officially started building its own state-funded border wall in December 2021, when Mr. Abbott alleged that President Joe Biden “refuses to enforce laws passed by Congress to secure the border and enforce immigration laws” and so “Texas is stepping up to do the federal government’s job.”

  That came after President Biden signed an executive order scrapping federal construction of a border wall, a signature project of former President Donald Trump. In a proclamation on Jan. 20, 2021, President Biden called the wall a “waste of money that diverts attention from genuine threats to our homeland security.”

  Following President Biden’s decision to axe the wall, Mr. Abbott announced he would seek funding for his state to build its own border barrier, which came as the influx of illegal immigrants into Texas swelled to near-record proportions.

  

  Roughly 450 miles of the larger border wall were built under President Trump, a project that was criticized by President Biden, though an internal Department of Homeland Security (DHS) memo contradicted this view, finding that physical barriers  are the most cost-effective tool to deter illegal border-crossing activity.

  President Biden has taken a dim view of his predecessor’s vision for a grand barrier, pledging while still a presidential candidate in 2020 that “there will not be another foot of wall constructed in my administration.”

  On the day that he took office, President Biden issued a proclamation that rescinded the national emergency declaration that President Trump had relied on to divert some $10 billion from Pentagon coffers to border wall construction.

  The Biden administration later quietly auctioned off millions of dollars of border wall materials, for which it faced sharp criticism from Republican circles.

  

  Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) sponsored a bill in May 2023 that would force the Pentagon to allow millions of dollars worth on unused border wall parts to be used to extend the wall in Texas and elsewhere along the southern border.

  Mr. Wicker’s legislative proposal (pdf) came after an investigation by the Armed Services Committee found that the Pentagon was spending $47 million per year to store the wall panels and other elements.

  Amid reports that the Biden administration was busy selling off border wall parts rather than allowing them to be used to build more barrier, Mr. Wicker called the development “outrageous, behind-the-scenes maneuvering.”

  “This sale is a wasteful and ludicrous decision by the Biden administration that only serves as further proof they have no shame,” he told The New York Post.

  In October 2013, the Biden administration did an about-face of sorts, waiving 26 federal laws in South Texas to allow for the construction of another 20 miles of border wall.

  President Biden explained at the time that the reason for resuming border wall construction was because the money had already been appropriated and attempts to redirect the funds to other projects failed.

  “There’s nothing under the law other than they have to use the money for what it was appropriated for. I can’t stop that,” President Biden said at the time.

  Asked by reporters if he thought border wall was effective, he replied “no.”

  

  A coalition of 27 states has formed to support Texas’s right to defend itself after the Supreme Court ruled that federal agents can remove the razor wire put up by Texas to prevent the flow of illegal immigrants from Mexico.

  Other States Send Troops

  A handful of other states have sent National Guard troops to Texas to bolster local efforts to secure the southern border amid the Lone Star State’s ongoing dispute with the Biden administration over border security.

  In a recent move, Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry, a Republican, said on Feb. 8 that his state would send 150 National Guard troops, who would work in three 50-man rotations, for a 90-day deployment to Texas.

  “Because the president will not do his job, because the federal government will not act, because Congress refuses to put in place a solid immigration plan that protects this country and allows people to come in and out of this country the way that it’s been done since the beginning, then the states are going to act,” he said at a press conference in Baton Rouge.

  

  The deployment—scheduled for March at a cost of roughly $3 million—is needed to help Texas tackle issues such as cross-border human trafficking and the fentanyl crisis, he said.

  “There are 125,000 Americans that we are losing on an annual basis due to this crisis,” Mr. Landry said, citing Texas Gov. Greg Abbott’s recent announcement that 30,000 pounds of fentanyl had been seized at the border in Texas.

  “That’s enough to kill almost everyone in the country,” he said.

  Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis recently announced plans to deploy even more National Guard, State Guard, and Highway Patrol officers to assist Texas in securing its southern border.

  “If we don’t have a border, then we are not a sovereign country,” Mr. DeSantis said in Jacksonville, Florida, on Feb. 1. “You either have a border, or you don’t. You’re either a sovereign country, or you’re not.

  Florida has been helping Texas secure its border since 2021, and has deployed more than 700 members of the state’s National Guard.

  Indiana Gov. Eric Holcomb said on Feb. 9 that he had ordered the deployment of 50 Indiana National Guard troops to Texas to assist with border security efforts.

  “I am sending 50 #Hoosier Guardsmen to the southern border to support the Texas National Guard on their security mission,” Mr. Holcomb wrote in a social media post on the morning of Feb. 9. “These soldiers will begin mobilizing for the mission immediately and will arrive in Texas in mid-March.”

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 02/21/2024 – 21:00

• Watch: Dr. Phil Explains The Insanity Of "Gender Affirming Care" Laws That Remove Parental Rights
  Watch: Dr. Phil Explains The Insanity Of “Gender Affirming Care” Laws That Remove Parental Rights

  It cannot be denied, there has been a massive institutional effort underway in the past several years to normalize trans ideology in the western world.  Billions of dollars from corporate and NGO backers flows into a swarm of DEI programs pushing gender fluid theory and a host of state and national governments are attempting to codify the movement into law.  This includes making it a “hate crime” to merely question the validity of trans concepts.

  

  A vital pillar of the trans normalization agenda is the targeting of children as young as preschool age with propaganda, and perhaps the most important element of this is the mechanism of public schooling.  Without the involvement of government controlled schools and woke teachers unions, the trans trend would probably not exist at all. 

  The reaction by the majority of parents has been shock, followed by anger and a growing move to demand an explanation.  Instead of addressing the concerns of parents in a reasonable way, leftists have instead sought to remove them from the discussion entirely. 

  Not long ago, this agenda was denied as “conspiracy theory” by educational organizations and the corporate media.  Today, it is openly admitted.  In blue states like Washington, there are already laws in place to allow for sex change surgeries for minors without parental consent.  Illinois Democrats are trying to pass a law which would make it a crime for parents to interfere with sex change treatments or abortions for their children.  In Canada, the same laws are being implemented on a national scale. 

  The strategy operates under the guise of “children’s rights and safety” while separating parents from kids and giving the state control over children’s psychological and physical healthcare.  In other words, the mutilation of children is being established as a political imperative and concerned parents are treated as the enemy.  In a recent interview with Joe Rogan, psychologist and talk-show host Dr. Phil explains his take on the trans situation and the insanity of government interference in parental affairs.

  These are 9 of the most satisfying minutes ever!@DrPhil fully understands the madness of child transition.

  Everybody with a conscience is waking up! Our momentum is unstoppable because the truth is unstoppable.

  This abuse will come to a crashing end!pic.twitter.com/gNB7D35lOb

  — Billboard Chris 🇨🇦🇺🇸 (@BillboardChris) February 21, 2024

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

  Only ten years ago, such a debate was unthinkable.  Today, sadly, it’s all too real.  With zero scientific evidence in support, the trans movement rationalizes the legal isolation of children from their families in the name of “gender affirming care.”  And, as Dr. Phil and Joe Rogan point out, once isolated, vulnerable children can be convinced of almost anything.  The promise of feeling “special” and accepted by the collective is a temptation for many kids; peer pressure is real.  The only thing holding them back from making terrible decisions is the wisdom and love of parents who are now being increasingly marginalized by the state.

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 02/21/2024 – 20:40

• Too Much Niacin May Increase Risk Of Heart Disease: Study
  Too Much Niacin May Increase Risk Of Heart Disease: Study

  Authored by Amie Dahnke via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  High levels of niacin, also known as vitamin B3, have been shown to contribute to cardiovascular disease in a recent study.

  

  The new study out of the Cleveland Clinic, published in Nature Medicine, determined there is a delicate balance between too much niacin and just enough—a sort of Goldilocks effect.

  Niacin used to be a first choice for lowering LDL, or “bad,” cholesterol. However, as observed by the Cleveland Clinic team, too much niacin creates a byproduct known as 4PY. This product circulates within the bloodstream and is associated with a higher risk of heart attack, stroke, and other cardiac events. Additionally, 4PY was shown in preclinical studies to trigger vascular inflammation, damaging blood vessels and eventually leading to atherosclerosis.

  The researchers discovered this by examining data from 1,162 patients who had experienced major cardiovascular events. Just under half of the patients (442) were female. Initially, the team sought common markers that could lead to cardiovascular events. The most common factor within the pool of patients was excess levels of niacin.

  The findings led to additional studies to validate the initial research. Both cohort studies, conducted in the United States and Europe, confirmed that niacin breakdown predicted an individual’s future risk of heart attack, stroke, and death from cardiovascular disease.

  “What’s exciting about these results is that this pathway appears to be a previously unrecognized yet significant contributor to the development of cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Stanley Hazen, chair of Cardiovascular and Metabolic Sciences at Cleveland Clinic’s Lerner Research Institute and co-section head of preventive cardiology in the Heart, Vascular & Thoracic Institute, said in a press release. “What’s more, we can measure it, meaning there is potential for diagnostic testing. These insights set the stage for developing new approaches to counteract the effects of this pathway.”

  What Is Niacin?

  For years, niacin was a go-to supplement for preventing cardiovascular disease due to its ability to lower cholesterol. The body uses it to turn food into energy and maintain the health of the nervous and digestive systems and the skin. Most people get enough niacin through diet, especially if they follow a well-balanced one. Foods high in niacin include yeast, milk, meat, oats, and flour.

  The recommended amount of niacin includes 16 milligrams a day for adult males and 14 milligrams a day for adult women who aren’t pregnant.

  Prescription niacin, such as Niacor and Niaspan, has been used to regulate cholesterol. It works by increasing good cholesterol while flushing bad cholesterol from the bloodstream. However, research has since shown that niacin is less effective than other cholesterol treatments and is actually associated with adverse effects and higher death rates.

  “Niacin’s effects have always been somewhat of a paradox,” Dr. Hazen said. “Despite niacin lowering of cholesterol, the clinical benefits have always been less than anticipated based on the degree of LDL reduction. This led to the idea that excess niacin caused unclear adverse effects that partially counteracted the benefits of LDL lowering. We believe our findings help explain this paradox. This illustrates why investigating residual cardiovascular risk is so critical; we learn so much more than what we set out to find.”

  Dr. Hazen and his team noted that additional research is needed to determine the long-term effect of chronic high levels of 4PY.

  “The main takeaway is not that we should cut out our entire intake of niacin—that’s not a realistic approach,” he said in a Cleveland Clinic press release. “Given these findings, a discussion over whether a continued mandate of flour and cereal fortification with niacin in the U.S. could be warranted.”

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 02/21/2024 – 20:20

• BuzzFeed Shares Soar After Sale Of Complex 
  BuzzFeed Shares Soar After Sale Of Complex 

  Corporate media is on life support. Advertising revenues are sliding, mass layoffs are hitting woke publications, and ‘restructurings’ are happening all over.

  Last month, Authentic Brands Group sent rights holder Arena Group a letter terminating Sports Illustrated’s license after failing to pay a $3.75 million quarterly payment at the end of 2023. In other words, the publisher likely wasn’t bringing in enough profit to maintain the iconic brand. Arena Group also announced mass layoffs for the brand. 

  News broke late Wednesday that BuzzFeed, facing severe financial difficulties, is selling Complex, a media start-up focusing on streetwear and pop culture, at a massive loss. 

  

  The buyer of Complex is Ntwrk, an e-commerce company backed by Main Street Advisors and LiveNation Entertainment. Ntwrk agreed to pay $108.6 million for Complex. It will also pay BuzzFeed $5.7 million to cover severance expenses for laid-off Complex employees. 

  The company also announced a planned strategic restructuring intended to reduce expenses by implementing a 16% reduction in the remaining workforce, which is expected to yield approximately $23 million in annualized compensation cost savings. – BuzzFeed wrote in a statement 

  BuzzFeed is taking a massive loss on Complex, which it bought for $294 million in cash and stock in 2021. 

  Jonah Peretti, BuzzFeed’s co-founder and chief executive, said: 

  “The sale of Complex represents an important strategic step for BuzzFeed, Inc. as we adapt our business to be more profitable, more nimble, and more innovative.” 

  BuzzFeed’s valuation has sharply declined since its public debut in 2021. The sale of Complex will pay off more than $60 million in debt. According to financial records, BuzzFeed is grappling with $150 million in debt maturing in 2026 and another $33.8 million from a credit line. 

  BuzzFeed shares jumped more than 100% in the after-hours trading session to nearly 47 cents. 

  

  As for the rest of the industry, over 30,000 workers were laid off by media companies in 2023. 

  While corporate media has been imploding, ZeroHedge has been growing. We thank you for your readership.

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 02/21/2024 – 20:00

• COVID Vaccine mRNA Can 'Spread Systemically' To Placenta And Infants Of Women Vaccinated During Pregnancy
  COVID Vaccine mRNA Can ‘Spread Systemically’ To Placenta And Infants Of Women Vaccinated During Pregnancy

  Authored by Megan Redshaw via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  A new report suggests vaccine mRNA does not remain at the injection site following vaccination but can “spread systemically” to the placenta and umbilical cord blood of infants whose mothers are vaccinated during pregnancy.

  

  In a peer-reviewed pre-proof accepted for publication in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, researchers presented two cases that demonstrate, for the first time, the ability of COVID-19 vaccines to penetrate the fetal-placental barrier and reach the inside of the uterus. Additionally, researchers detected spike protein in placental tissue, indicating the bioactivity of the mRNA in reaching the placenta.

  Researchers vaccinated two pregnant women with mRNA vaccines shortly before delivery to determine whether the mRNA in COVID-19 vaccines reached the placenta or fetus following maternal vaccination.

  “The primary objective of the study was to investigate the knowledge gaps surrounding mRNA therapies during pregnancy, utilizing the COVID-19 vaccine as a foundation for future mRNA therapeutic developments, given its established use,” the study’s corresponding author, Dr. Nazeeh Hanna, a neonatologist, told The Epoch Times by email.

  Researchers Find Vaccine mRNA in Samples

  The first patient, “Patient 1,” was a 34-year-old woman at 38 weeks and four days gestation who received two Pfizer vaccine doses and two booster doses—one Pfizer and one Moderna. The Moderna booster dose was administered two days before the delivery of a healthy baby by cesarean section.

  The second patient, “Patient 2,” was a 33-year-old woman at 40 weeks gestation. She received two Pfizer vaccine doses. The last dose was given 10 days before vaginal delivery of a healthy baby.

  According to the paper, researchers found detectable vaccine mRNA in both placentas tested. The localization of the vaccine mRNA was mainly in the villus stroma—the connective tissue layer that supports the fetal capillaries and villous trophoblast. The villous trophoblast, the primary barrier between maternal and fetal tissues, supports the exchange of nutrients between a mother and her fetus.

  Researchers also detected a “notably high signal” of vaccine mRNA in the placental decidua tissue of Patient 1, who received four vaccine doses. The decidua is the specialized endometrium layer that forms the base of the placental bed.

  Spike protein expression was also detected—but only in the placenta of Patient 2. However, vaccine mRNA was detected in Patient 1’s cord and maternal blood samples, which were unavailable for the second patient.

  The authors said the expression of spike protein in the placenta of the second patient but not in the first suggests that more than two days are necessary following vaccination for the mRNA to reach the placenta and be translated into the spike protein, which is then expressed in placental tissue.

  Finally, researchers found the integrity of vaccine mRNA varied across different samples—the vaccine’s ability to activate an immune response relies upon fully intact mRNA. According to the findings, vaccine mRNA was largely fragmented in the cord blood and less fragmented in the placenta. In the placentas, 23 percent and 42 percent of the initial integrity was retained in Patients 1 and 2, respectively. In maternal blood from Patient 1, the vaccine’s mRNA had a high level of integrity at 85 percent. Integrity decreased to 13 percent in cord blood, suggesting limited bioactivity.

  COVID-19 mRNA vaccines use lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) to deliver mRNA. “The findings suggest that lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) are capable of reaching the placenta and releasing mRNA within placental cells, where it is then translated into the spike (S) protein. However, by the time the mRNA reaches the fetus, it is no longer encapsulated by the LNPs, leading to its degradation (only 13% of the mRNA is intact in fetal circulation),” Dr. Hanna told The Epoch Times.

  Dr. Hanna noted that the authors of the recently published paper did not evaluate the implications of transient spike protein expression in the placenta or the effects of degraded mRNA on the fetus.

  Dr. Christiane Northrup, an obstetrician-gynecologist, is an advisory board member of MyCycleStory. She told The Epoch Times in an email, the group has been studying this kind of thing since the vaccine rollout in 2021. “There is no question whatsoever that the Covid 19 ‘vaccine’ ingredients are present in the placenta and throughout the body.”

  “There have also been VAERS [Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System] reports of infants dying of thrombocytopenia (low platelets) following maternal vaccination, and also evidence of infants having heart attacks in the womb following maternal vaccination. None of this is new information. It has simply been widely and systematically censored,” she added.

  Dr. Dan McDyer, an obstetrician-gynecologist, told The Epoch Times in an email that he is not surprised by the “discovery of evidence of mRNA from the SARS CoV-2 injections and/or SARS CoV-2 spike protein present in fetal cord blood and placental tissues.”

  “To me, the recommendation of administering this medication to pregnant women was one of the most irresponsible actions in the history of modern medicine. I am so disappointed that the entities charged with the mission of protecting public health (FDA) and women’s health (ACOG) were derelict in their duties because it only took me about 15 minutes of online research to determine that these lipid nanoparticles were going to cross the placenta and infect the fetus,” Dr. McDyer said.

  Dr. James Thorp, a board-certified obstetrician-gynecologist and maternal-fetal medicine physician, told The Epoch Times by email that the paper shows mRNA from both Pfizer and Moderna vaccines can cross the placenta into the fetal blood entering the placental tissue.

  “These authors observed a ‘notably high signal’ in the decidua, which is the lining of the uterus. This concentrated mRNA in the decidual tissues will be translated into high concentrations of spike protein, likely contributing to a myriad of devastating effects on human reproductive function—not just severe abnormalities of menstrual periods, but infertility, multiple pregnancy complications, and severe bleeding in pregnancy and in the post-partum period,” Dr. Thorp said.

  Dr. Thorp added that despite their “horrifying” findings, the authors still concluded their evidence “overwhelmingly supports” the COVID-19 vaccine’s effectiveness in mitigating the morbidity and mortality of COVID-19 in pregnant and non-pregnant women.

  Initial Clinical Trials Excluded Pregnant Women, Yet Studies Suggest mRNA Biodistribution

  Initial clinical trials for mRNA COVID-19 vaccines excluded pregnant women, so there was no biodistribution data on the mRNA in COVID-19 vaccines and its ability to reach the placenta or fetus following maternal vaccination. However, assessment reports provided to the European Medicines Agency by Pfizer and Moderna show that mRNA is distributed to various tissues, including the liver, adrenal glands, spleen, and ovaries in animal studies.

  An animal study cited by the authors of the paper shows that lipid nanoparticles of similar composition in other mRNA injections delivered functional mRNA to the placenta and other fetal organs.

  Two previous human studies by the same researchers assessed whether the mRNA in COVID-19 vaccines is present in the placenta following maternal vaccination using different methods. The first study failed to detect mRNA in maternal and cord blood or placental tissue. The researchers attributed this to the long interval between vaccination and delivery and the methodology used in the study. The second study using improved sensitivity to detect mRNA also did not reveal vaccine mRNA. However, the authors attributed this to the probe that targeted the SARS-CoV-2 gene rather than the vaccine mRNA sequence.

  In the current study, the authors used a more sensitive and robust approach which allowed them to have a more precise quantification of vaccine mRNA for superior accuracy, and a probe tailored explicitly for the vaccine mRNA, ensuring more reliable detection.

  “Animal work clearly shows the distribution of the lipid nanoparticles to several organs, including the liver, adrenal glands, spleen, and ovaries. So, reaching the placenta was not surprising. In humans, we have previously published that the vaccine mRNA can be distributed to breast milk.” Dr. Hanna told The Epoch Times.

  ‘Catastrophic on Several Levels’

  Dr. McDyer said the ability of the lipid nanoparticles to cross the placenta and infect the fetus could be “catastrophic on several levels,” impacting a developing fetal immune system.

  “Imagine this: The fetal immune system ‘learns’ the appearance of ‘self’ early on by recognizing molecules, MHCs (Major Histocompatibility Complexes), on the surface of all of our cells. This appearance of ‘self’ is most certainly disrupted by the appearance of spike protein on the surface of these cells (cell membranes) as induced by the ‘vaccines,’’’ he told The Epoch Times.

  “Additionally, fragments of spike protein will also likely appear in the MHCs on the cell surfaces. This causes a slight disfigurement of these MHCs which is likely to have an effect on the immune system’s capability to recognize ‘self,’” he added.

  Dr. McDyer said he is certain disrupting cellular homeostasis by distracting the fetal cells to produce foreign proteins, such as the spike protein, instead of the proteins necessary for a developing fetus, will have detrimental unknown consequences. He believes this explains why one of his colleagues, a pediatric neurosurgeon, has seen a few unborn babies who have had strokes, an event he says he has never heard of in his entire career until now.

  “We know that spike [protein] initiates clot formation, which can result in strokes,” Dr. McDyer said. “This is all so sad as it was completely unavoidable if normal, historical precautionary approaches were in place.”

  Dr. Hanna believes that introducing mRNA to the fetus may pose potentially plausible risks but may also yield biologically plausible benefits. “The potential of mRNA-based interventions in addressing maternal and fetal health issues is profound. Such insights could substantially advance the crafting of safer and more effective mRNA-based therapies during pregnancy,” he said.

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 02/21/2024 – 19:40

• Nvincible Nvidia Surges After Smashing Estimates, Guiding Sharply Higher
  Nvincible Nvidia Surges After Smashing Estimates, Guiding Sharply Higher

  It’s now officially the “most important stock on planet earth“, and thus everyone was watching what Nvidia would report after the close, with option markets expecting a 10% swing (a $200 billion delta) after hours. And while many were hoping that the company to continue its relentless meltup ways, Goldman’s trading desk was less euphoric with TMT specialist Peter Callahan warning overnight that there is “plenty of tactical debate whether this print will be a local top or a ‘break-out’ moment for the stock and for the A.I. trade (from my seat, feels like consensus is learning more towards the former). 

  In retrospect he may have been right because even though NVDA reported stellar Q4 results, they may not have been stellar enough and the stock is now sliding after hours.

  Here is what NVDA reported for Q4 earnings:

  • Adjusted EPS $5.16, smashing estimates of $4.53
  • Revenue $22.10 billion, up 265% from $6.05 billion y/y, and beating the estimate $20.41 billion
    • Data center revenue $18.4 billion, up 409% from $3.62 billion y/y, beating estimates of $17.21 billion
    • Gaming revenue $2.9 billion, up 58% y/y from $1.8 billion, and beating estimates of $2.72 billion
    • Professional Visualization revenue $463 million, up 11% from $226 million y/y, and beating the estimate of $435.5 million
    • Automotive revenue $281 million, down 4.4% from $294 million, and also beating estimates of $272.1 million

  Some more details on the revenue breakdown

  • Data Center revenue for the fourth quarter was a record, up 409% from a year ago and up 27% sequentially. These increases reflect higher shipments of the NVIDIA Hopper GPU computing platform used for the training and inference of large language models, recommendation engines, and generative AI applications, along with InfiniBand end-to-end solutions. Data Center revenue for fiscal year 2024 was up 217%. In the fourth quarter, large cloud providers represented more than half of our Data Center revenue, supporting both internal workloads and external customers. Strong demand was driven by enterprise software and consumer internet applications, and multiple industry verticals including automotive, financial services, and healthcare. Customers across industry verticals access NVIDIA AI infrastructure both through the cloud and on-premises. Data Center sales to China declined significantly in the fourth quarter due to U.S. government licensing requirements. Data Center compute revenue was up 488% from a year ago and up 27% sequentially in the fourth quarter; it was up 244% in the fiscal year. Networking revenue was up 217% from a year ago and up 28% sequentially in the fourth quarter; it was up 133% in the fiscal year

  The chart below shows all you need to know about the company’s main revenue driver

  

  • Gaming revenue was up 56% from a year ago and flat sequentially. Fiscal year revenue was up 15%. The year-on-year increases for the quarter and fiscal year reflect higher sell-in to partners following the normalization of channel inventory levels and growing demand. The launch of our GeForce RTX 40 SUPER Series family of GPUs also contributed to revenue in the quarter.
  • Professional Visualization revenue was up 105% from a year ago and up 11% sequentially. Fiscal year revenue was up 1%. The year-on-year increase for the quarter primarily reflects higher sell-in to partners following normalization of channel inventory levels. The sequential increase was primarily due to the ramp of desktop workstations based on the Ada Lovelace GPU architecture.
  • Automotive revenue was down 4% from a year ago and up 8% sequentially. Fiscal year revenue was up 21%. The sequential increase was driven by self-driving platforms. The year-on-year decrease for the quarter was driven by AI Cockpit, offset by an increase in self-driving platforms. The year-on-year increase for the fiscal year primarily reflected growth in self-driving platforms.

  

  Going down the line:

  • Adjusted gross margin 76.7% vs. 66.1% y/y, beating estimates of 75.4%
    • R&D expenses $2.47 billion, +26% y/y, beating estimates of $2.43 billion
  • Adjusted operating expenses $2.21 billion, +25% y/y, below the estimate of $2.23 billion
  • Adjusted operating income $14.75 billion vs. $2.22 billion y/y, beating estimates of $13.14 billion
  • Free cash flow $11.22 billion vs. $1.74 billion y/y, also beating estimates of $10.82 billion

  Gross Margin:

  • GAAP and non-GAAP gross margins for the fourth quarter increased significantly from a year ago and sequentially on strong Data Center revenue growth primarily driven by our Hopper GPU computing platform. Our gross margins in the fourth quarter also benefited from favorable component costs

  Expenses:

  • Non-GAAP operating expenses for the fourth quarter were up 25% from a year ago and up 9% sequentially. The year-on-year increase was driven by growth in employees and compensation increases. The sequential increase reflected higher compute and infrastructure investments.
  • Fiscal year non-GAAP operating expenses were up 13% from a year ago, reflecting growth in employees and compensation increases.

  The financial results in a nutshell:

  

  Commenting on the results, CEO Jensen Huang said that “accelerated computing and generative AI have hit the tipping point. Demand is surging worldwide across companies, industries and nations.” He added that “our Data Center platform is powered by increasingly diverse drivers — demand for data processing, training and inference from large cloud-service providers and GPU-specialized ones, as well as from enterprise software and consumer internet companies. Vertical industries — led by auto, financial services and healthcare — are now at a multibillion-dollar level.

  “NVIDIA RTX, introduced less than six years ago, is now a massive PC platform for generative AI, enjoyed by 100 million gamers and creators. The year ahead will bring major new product cycles with exceptional innovations to help propel our industry forward. Come join us at next month’s GTC, where we and our rich ecosystem will reveal the exciting future ahead.”

  And while the Q4 results were stellar, it was once again the company’s guidance that blew away investors – even if it did take algos a few minutes to process it – and send the stock sharply higher after hours.

  • Revenue is expected to be $24.00 billion, plus or minus 2%, Est. $21.9BN
  • GAAP and non-GAAP gross margins are expected to be 71.5% and 72.5%, missing the estimate of 75.5%
  • GAAP and non-GAAP operating expenses are expected to be approximately $2.95 billion and $2.00 billion, vs est of $2.4 billion
    • GAAP and non-GAAP tax rates are expected to be 14.5%, plus or minus 1%, excluding any discrete items.
    • GAAP and non-GAAP operating expenses are expected to be approximately $2.95 billion and $2.00 billion, respectively.

  Unlike two quarters ago, when the company announced a $25BN stock buybacks, there was no such kicker this time, although judging by the market’s reaction the company probably won’t be need to repurchase shares any time soon. NVDA reported that at the end of the year, cash and cash equivalents were $26.0 billion, up from $13.3 billion a year ago and $18.3 billion a quarter ago. The increases primarily reflect higher revenue partially offset by taxes paid and stock repurchases.

  In response to the stunning earnings, NVDA stock first dumped – perhaps as the company’s guidance missed the whisper number of $25 billion and also disappointed on the gross margin guidance, but then reversed all losses and ended up spiking  about 9% after hours. But since option straddles were pricing in a 10% move in either direction, tomorrow a whole lot of put and call buyers will be left very disappointed when they see the value of their options vaporize.

  

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 02/21/2024 – 19:35

• How Do Democrats & Republicans Feel About Certain US Industries
  How Do Democrats & Republicans Feel About Certain US Industries

  Much and more has been written, in the last decade particularly, about the U.S. political sphere becoming increasingly polarized. The two main parties – Democrats and Republicans – have clashed over how to run the economy, as well as on key social issues.

  Perhaps unsurprisingly then, Democrat and Republican voters are also divided on various U.S. industries, per a YouGov poll conducted in 2022.

  Between November 7-9th of that year, the market research firm polled 1,000 adult Americans, (sampled to represent prevailing demographic, racial, and political-party-affiliation trends in the country) on their opinions on 39 industries. They asked:

  “Generally speaking, do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of the following industry?”

  – YOUGOV POLL.

  In this chart, Visual Capitalist’s Pallavi Rao visualizes the percentage with a favorable view of an industry minus those with unfavorable view, categorized by current voter status.

  A higher percentage means more Democrats or Republicans rated the industry as favorable, and vice-versa. Negative percentages mean more respondents responded unfavorably.

  

  Democrats vs. Republicans on Industry Favorability

  From a glance, it’s immediately noticeable that quite a few industries have divided Democrats and Republics quite severely.

  For example, of the sampled Democrats, a net 45%, found Higher Education “favorable.” This is compared to 0% on the Republican side, which means an equal number found the industry favorable and unfavorable.

  Here’s the full list of net favorable responses from Democrats and Republicans per industry.

  Industry	Democrat Net Favorability	Republican Net Favorability
  Agriculture	44%	55%
  Trucking	27%	55%
  Restaurant	53%	54%
  Manufacturing	27%	53%
  Construction	23%	49%
  Dairy	45%	46%
  Higher education	45%	0%
  Technology	44%	36%
  Food manufacturing	15%	37%
  Transportation	27%	37%
  Railroad	37%	35%
  Mining	-3%	36%
  Automotive	19%	36%
  Grocery	35%	22%
  Hotels	30%	35%
  Textiles	24%	34%
  Entertainment	34%	-17%
  Shipping	24%	33%
  Retail	31%	31%
  Book publishing	30%	29%
  Alcohol	23%	16%
  Television	22%	3%
  Waste management	15%	22%
  Education services	21%	-16%
  Wireless carriers	19%	19%
  Broadcasting	17%	-30%
  News media	17%	-57%
  Airlines	11%	3%
  Oil and gas	-28%	7%
  Real-estate	-2%	6%
  Utilities	2%	6%
  Health care	3%	4%
  Fashion	4%	-6%
  Cable	-12%	3%
  Finance	2%	-2%
  Professional sports	1%	-2%
  Insurance	-12%	-14%
  Pharmaceutical	-18%	-14%
  Tobacco	-44%	-27%

  The other few immediately noticeable disparities in favorability include:

  • Mining and Oil and Gas, (more Republicans in favor),

  • Entertainment, Education Services, and News Media (more Democrats in favor).

  Tellingly, the larger social and political concerns at play are influencing Democrat and Republican opinions about these parts of the economy.

  For example Pew Research pointed out Republicans are dissatisfied with universities for a number of reasons: worries about constraints on free speech, campus “culture wars,” and professors bringing their politics into the classroom.

  In contrast, Democrats’ criticisms of higher education revolved around tuition costs and the quality of education offered.

  On a more recent note, Citadel CEO Ken Griffin, a big Harvard donor, pulled funding after criticizing universities for educating “whiny snowflakes.” In October, donors to the University of Pennsylvania withdrew their support, upset with the university’s response to the October 7th attacks and subsequent war in Gaza.

  Meanwhile, the reasons for differences over media favorability are more obvious. Commentators say being “anti-media” is now part of the larger Republican leadership identity, and in turn, is trickling down to their voters. Pew Research also found that Republicans are less likely to trust the news if it comes from a “mainstream” source.

  But these are industries that are already adjacent to the larger political sphere. What about the others?

  U.S. Politics and the Climate Crisis

  The disparity over how the Oil & Gas and Mining industries are viewed is a reflection, again, of American politics and the partisan divide around the climate crisis and whether there’s a noticeable impact from human activity.

  Both industries contribute heavily to carbon emissions, and Democrat lawmakers have previously urged the Biden transition to start planning for the end of fossil-fuel reliance.

  Meanwhile, former President Trump, for example, has previously called global warming “a hoax” but later reversed course, clarifying that he didn’t know if it was “man-made.”

  When removing the climate context, and related environmental degradation, both industries usually pay high wages and produce materials critical to many other parts of the economy, including the strategic metals needed for the energy transition.

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 02/21/2024 – 19:20

• Study Dismantles Link Between Preterm Birth And Autism
  Study Dismantles Link Between Preterm Birth And Autism

  Authored by Amie Dahnke via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  Contrary to previous research and popular belief, premature birth alone does not lead to autism.

  

  A new study out of Israel shows there is no significant link between premature birth and autism spectrum disorder (ASD), reaffirming that the exact cause of autism is much more complex.

  The study, published in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, initially found a strong link between preterm birth and autism. However, after considering other factors, including ethnicity, maternal age, and the size and sex of the infant, the significant association vanished.

  The findings were presented during The Pregnancy Meeting, an annual meeting of the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine on Feb. 14.

  Researchers looked at records from hospitals and community clinics for almost 115,000 deliveries in Israel between 2005 and 2017. The data included mothers and infants who were Jewish, Muslim, and Bedouin, a Muslim minority group. Just over 93 percent of the births were delivered at term, defined as 37 weeks or more. Only 1.2 percent were preterm, while 6 percent were late- or moderately late-term.

  Rather than preterm birth being linked to autism, the research team believes that multiple factors likely account for a child developing the developmental condition.

  “The exact cause of autism is complex,” Dr. Sapir Ellouk, lead author of the study, said in a press release. “But based on our data, a single obstetric factor is unlikely to be the cause of ASD. A more plausible theory involves the simultaneous presence of multiple factors.”

  Research into the cause of autism, particularly research aimed at investigating the possible link between preterm birth and autism, has been controversial.

  Some previous studies have suggested that preterm birth can increase the risk of a child developing autism substantially and that the risk is correlated with the gestation period. One study found that eight in 657 (1.22 percent) preterm babies born before 28 weeks developed autism, while 80 of 13,108 preterm babies (0.61 percent) born between 33 and 38 weeks did.

  However, even previous research noted that differences in sex and other environmental factors could potentially play a role in a child’s potential for developing the disorder.

  Autism Rates on the Rise in the US, Early Signs

  In 2020, in the United States, one in 36 children had autism, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Boys are more likely to be diagnosed with the developmental disorder at a rate of four in 100 versus one in 100 for girls. Autism is also more prevalent in black, Hispanic, Asian, or Pacific Islander children than white, the CDC reports. These rates are higher than those reported in 2000–2018.

  The definition of ASD is vague because researchers still don’t have a firm grasp on how the disorder develops. Additionally, the disorder presents in myriad ways from person to person. Individuals with ASD might behave, communicate, learn, or interact in ways that are different from others, but often, there is nothing else that sets them apart. In fact, the skill sets of those on the autistic spectrum vary wildly; some people may have advanced language and conversation skills, while others may be nonverbal.

  According to the CDC, ASD typically begins to show around age 3 and often lasts throughout an individual’s life, though symptoms can improve. Some early signs include the child missing certain developmental milestones, such as:

  • Not responding to their name at 9 months old
  • Lack of facial expressions of emotions at 9 months old
  • Not playing simple interactive games at 12 months old
  • Using few or no simple gestures at 12 months old
  • Lack of common interests with peers at 15 months old
  • Not showing empathy when others are hurt at 24 months old
  • Not playing with other children at 3 years old
  • Not engaging in pretend play at 4 years old
  • Not singing, dancing, or acting at 5 years old

  Other related characteristics include delayed language, movement, and cognitive or learning skills; hyperactivity, impulsiveness, or inattention; epilepsy or sleeping disorders; unusual eating habits; gastrointestinal disorders; unusual mood or emotional reactions; anxiety; and lack of fear or more fear than expected.

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 02/21/2024 – 19:00

• US Court Ruling Sends Venezuela’s Oil-Backed Bonds into Collapse
  US Court Ruling Sends Venezuela’s Oil-Backed Bonds into Collapse

  By Charles Kennedy of OilPrice.com

  A day after a New York court ruling that Venezuelan law would determine the validity of bonds issued by state-run PDVSA oil company, Bloomberg reports that bonds have “collapsed”, slumping on questions over their validity. At stake is $2 billion in PDVSA bonds, and PDVSA notes dropped 17 cents following Tuesday’s ruling, according to Bloomberg. 

  

  On Tuesday, the New York State Court of Appeals ruled on the matter after Venezuelan opposition, which controls the state-run oil company’s U.S. assets, said the bonds set to mature in 2020 were invalid because they had not been approved by Venezuela’s National Assembly. The New York Court of Appeals ruled that validity must be determined by local law in the place of issuance. 

  Venezuela’s opposition is seeking to have the bonds invalidated because they are backed by a 50.1% stake in Citgo Holding, the holding group that gives state-run PDVSA ownership of Citgo. In turn, bond invalidation would prevent creditors from seizing Citgo, Reuters reports.

  In mid-October, PDVSA bonds soared after the Biden administration moved to allow U.S. investors to buy the bonds in line with a sanctions relief package for Venezuela. The removal of those restrictions led to a 10-cent jump in Venezuelan government bonds immediately, along with a doubling of the price of PDVSA bonds. Bloomberg reported. 

  The bonds are highly attractive to U.S. investors because of their price and hedging that relations between the U.S. and Venezuela will eventually normalize. 

  “The lifting of the trading ban is likely to unleash significant pent-up demand from US persons,” London-based EMFI’s senior strategist, Guillermo Guerrero, wrote in a note carried by Bloomberg in October.  “This, alongside the general optimism that these developments will inevitably bring, guarantees a significant rise in bond prices.”

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 02/21/2024 – 18:20

• Israeli Jets Attack Damascus Apartment Building, Killing Two
  Israeli Jets Attack Damascus Apartment Building, Killing Two

  Several presumed Israeli airstrikes rocked a residential area of the Syrian capital of Damascus on Wednesday. A wave of initial strikes reportedly activated Syria’s anti-air defenses, but there was at least one direct hit on an apartment building. 

  “Israeli strikes hit a neighborhood of the Syrian capital on Wednesday morning, killing two people and causing material damage, Syria’s state TV said,” according to the Associated Press.

  

  Hours after this initial attack, new explosions were reported in regional media, however few details were given on the presumed second round of strikes. Several missiles hit the western neighborhood of Kfar Sousseh, reportedly near what’s being described as an Iranian school.

  “The strike damaged the fourth floor of a 10-story building, shattered window glass on nearby buildings and also damaged dozens of cars parked in the area,” the AP continued. “An empty parked bus for the nearby Al-Bawader Private School was also damaged and people were seen rushing to the school to take their children.”

  Likely Israeli officials will seek to justify the new aggression by saying Iranian officials were being targeted. It follows a major December airstrike on a suburb of Damascus which killed Iranian general Seyed Razi Mousavi.

  Israeli attacks on Syria have grown more frequent of late once again after a temporary lull last year. Syria for its part in the weeks after Oct.7 had launched missiles on the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights. 

  Things are also heating up in nearby Lebanon, as Israeli attacks in response to daily Hezbollah rockets and drones increase and are getting deeper into Lebanese territory. Syria’s President Assad is seen as a staunch ally of Hezbollah and the Iranians. Israel has long warned about the Iranian presence on Syrian soil, after a decade-long proxy war there.

  On Tuesday an Israeli Knesset member said a Hezbollah drone fell on his residential property…

  🇮🇱HEZBOLLAH SENDS DRONE TO ISRAELI MINISTER’S HOUSE

  He wasn’t too happy about the “present.”

  Moshe Davidowitz: “In broad daylight, Hezbollah sends a drone near my yard. This is not escalation, this is war.”

  Source: News Cabinet pic.twitter.com/7MZQQXQFmb

  — Mario Nawfal (@MarioNawfal) February 20, 2024

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

  Many analysts expect that if broader war opens between Hezbollah and Israel, the conflict could engulf the whole region, given also the Hezbollah presence in Syria.

  At the same time pro-Iran Iraqi militias have in recent months launched major attacks on US bases in the region, resulting in a few waves of US missile attacks, in retaliation for the killing of three US Army soldiers along the Syria-Jordan border.

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 02/21/2024 – 18:00

• Bankruptcy Judge Allows Rudy Giuliani To Appeal $148 Million Defamation Verdict
  Bankruptcy Judge Allows Rudy Giuliani To Appeal $148 Million Defamation Verdict

  Authored by Caden Pearson via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  A New York bankruptcy judge has allowed Rudy Giuliani to appeal a $148 million defamation verdict so long as he uses pre-approved donors for legal expenses.

  

  U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Sean Lane, in his order on Tuesday, specified that such fees and expenses must not be paid from Mr. Giuliani’s current assets.

  “Any fees and expenses incurred by the Debtor and his advisors in the Freeman Litigation in connection with any Post-Trial Filings and the Notice of Appeal shall not be paid by, and shall not result in a claim against, the Debtor or his estate,” Judge Lane wrote.

  The former New York City mayor filed for bankruptcy protection late last year, one day after he was ordered to immediately pay $148 million to two former Georgia election workers. Ruby Freeman and her daughter, Wandrea Moss, sued him for defamation while he was working as a lawyer for former President Donald Trump.

  In early January, Mr. Giuliani asked the New York bankruptcy judge overseeing his case to lift the automatic stay, a legal provision that pauses certain proceedings during bankruptcy, for the “limited purpose” of filing post-judgment motions to modify the judgment.

  Judge Lane, from the Southern District of New York, granted the limited relief on Tuesday.

  The judge’s order permits Mr. Giuliani to file a notice of appeal and post-trial motions in the Freeman case.

  However, Judge Lane stated that the former mayor must obtain the judge’s consent for any external payment of legal fees and expenses, which can’t come from Mr. Giuliani’s current assets.

  Furthermore, any parties paying such fees or expenses are prohibited from seeking reimbursement from Mr. Giuliani or his estate until the court approves such payments.

  According to the order, Mr. Giuliani is required to provide at least five business days’ notice to the Objecting Parties and the official committee of unsecured creditors before filing any post-trial motions, except for any motions filed on Feb. 20.

  “For the avoidance of doubt, the automatic stay is modified solely as set forth above and the Post-Trial Filings shall be adjudicated in the discretion of the District Court. Except with respect to the filing of a Notice of Appeal, any appeal of the Freeman Litigation shall remain subject to the automatic stay,” Judge Lane wrote.

  Ms. Freeman and Ms. Moss sued Mr. Giuliani for defamation and emotional distress, alleging he spread false claims about their conduct during the 2020 election.

  A widely circulated video clip after the 2020 election implicated the election workers in allegedly mishandling ballots, damaging their reputation. Although later cleared by a Georgia Elections Board investigation, the women argued that the harm was already done. The pair claimed they were subject to relentless abuse.

  Attorney Michael Gottlieb urged the jury to award significant damages, emphasizing the need for punitive damages to send a message that Mr. Giuliani’s actions wouldn’t be tolerated.

  The multimillion-dollar payout the women were seeking would spell “the end” for Mr. Giuliani, his attorney, Joseph Sibley, told the court, equating it to be “the civil equivalent of a death penalty.”

  One day after being ordered to pay $148 million to the Georgia election workers, Mr. Giuliani filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, listing $10 million in assets.

  In a Dec. 20 ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Beryl Howell, an appointee of President Barack Obama, supported the two election workers’ claim that Mr. Giuliani lacked immediate financial means to pay them after a 30-day delay on the payouts was lifted.

  Ms. Freeman and Ms. Moss raised concerns with the court that Mr. Giuliani might possibly “alienate or dissipate“ assets during the 30-day payment delay. Judge Howell cited Mr. Giuliani’s ”uncooperative” behavior, mounting debts, and numerous legal battles as reasons to believe he might hide financial assets from future judgments.

  On Dec. 11, the day the defamation damages trial commenced, Mr. Giuliani backed his statements about the former election workers, asserting to reporters that “everything I said about them is true.”

  Mr. Giuliani acted as President Trump’s legal adviser in 2020.

  Apart from facing financial difficulties, Mr. Giuliani is one of 19 individuals, along with President Trump, who have been indicted by a grand jury in Fulton County, Georgia. The indictment is related to their efforts to challenge the results of the 2020 presidential election in the state.

  Tom Omizek contributed to this report.

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 02/21/2024 – 17:40

Digest powered by RSS Digest