Jul 29

Today’s News 29th July 2017

  • DRaiN THe SWaMP!
  • Report: Trump Fired Reince Priebus via Twitter

    Content originally published at iBankCoin.com

    Let’s be clear about the firing of Reince Priebus. This was the most humiliating and excoriating firing in the history of America. Not only was he chewed out in a Bronx style chorus of expletives by newcomer Scaramucci, but, according to Howard Finerman’s inside sources, he was fired through the President’s twitter account.

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    There’s no way Trump would do this, unless of course he knew Reince betrayed him. Even Howard Finerman admits that. Here’s the entire take.

    Reince, of course, denies being the leaker and wishes everyone in the White House well and to receive bountiful amounts of God’s blessings.

    If you’re wondering the type of man who will be replacing Reince, look no further than this video, where Gen. Kelly says leakers are guilty of treason.

    He’s a marine corps General and will restore discipline to the White House, one way or another.

  • The Elites Are Jumping Ship As The Financial Collapse Draws Near

    Authored by Mac Slavo via SHTFplan.com,

    It’s easy to think of the political and financial elites who run our world as lofty and all powerful. They command dangerous governments that can wield devastating weapons, central banks that treat our economy like a rigged casino, media conglomerates that pacify the minds of the public, and unbelievably wealthy corporations that have concentrated wealth to an unprecedented degree.

    However, they’re certainly not invincible, and the systems of control that they’ve created are rapidly diminishing. Most notably, they seem all to aware of the fact that the global economy is headed for a crash. On the rare occasion where you can catch one of the elites in a moment of candor, they’ll tell you that the party is almost over.

    Mohamed A. El-Erian is a bona fide member of the global power elite (a former deputy director of the IMF and president of the Harvard Management Co.). Yet he writes in a fairly accessible style on the popular Bloomberg website. When El-Erian talks, we should all listen.

     

    In a recent article he raises serious doubts about the sustainability of the bull market in stocks because of reduced liquidity resulting from simultaneous policy tightening by the Fed, European Central Bank (ECB) and the Bank of England.

     

    He says stocks rose on a sea of liquidity and they may crash when that liquidity is removed. This is a warning to other elites, but it’s also a warning to you.

    Their actions are quite telling as well. Sovereign wealth funds, which are largely funded and owned by powerful governments to invest in domestic industries, are jumping ship.

    Among sovereign wealth funds, the Government of Singapore Investment Corp. (GIC) is one of the largest, with over $354 billion in assets. So what does the head of GIC say about markets today?

     

    Lim Chow Kiat, CEO of GIC, warns that “valuations are stretched, policy uncertainty is high” and investors are being too complacent.

     

    GIC allocates 40% of its assets to cash or highly liquid bonds and only 27% of its assets to developed economy equities.

     

    Meanwhile, the typical American small retail investor probably has 60% or more of her 401(k) in developed economy equities, mostly U.S.

    In other words, the investment arms of wealthy nations are pulling out of the stock market and out of companies in their own economies (developed economy equities), and putting their money into assets that can be quickly turned into cash. It’s practically an admission by the elites, that they think the economy is completely unstable.

    But this is just the latest warning sign that the elites are getting nervous. Corporate executives have been selling their stocks at an unprecedented rate for several months. Meanwhile, ordinary people are still placing their faith and their bets on a stock market that most experts agree is completely unsustainable.

    And let’s not forget that “luxury bunkers” have become immensely popular, and that the super-wealthy have also been buying remote retreats all over the world. Are they afraid of what the public is going to do to them when their phony economy crashes and leaves everyone broke? Are they positioning themselves for a crash that they know is coming?

    All of this suggests that the wealthiest and most connected among us know that chaos is in our future, and they’re getting ready for it. Ignore them at your own peril.

  • Visualizing The Richest People In Human History (Part 1)

    The Richest People in Human History (Up until the Industrial Revolution)

    Click here for a larger, more legible version of the infographic that you can explore in-depth.

    Attributable to: The Money Project, a collaboration between Visual Capitalist and Texas Precious Metals

    When we think of wealth today, we often think of the massive personal fortunes of business magnates like Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, or Warren Buffett. However, it is only since the Industrial Revolution that measuring wealth by one’s bank account has been a norm for the world’s richest.

    For most of recorded human history, in fact, the lines around wealth were quite blurred. Leaders like Augustus Caesar or Emperor Shenzong had absolute control of their empires – while bankers like Jakob Fogger and Cosimo de Medici were often found pulling the strings from behind.

    This infographic focuses on the richest people in history up until the Industrial Revolution – and in the coming weeks, we will release a second version that covers wealth from then onwards (including figures like Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller, Jeff Bezos, etc.).

    Is This List of People Definitive?

    While it is certainly fun to speculate on the wealth of people from centuries past, putting together this list is exceptionally difficult and certainly not definitive.

    Here’s why:

    Firstly, much wealth in early periods is tied to land (Genghis Khan) or entire empires (Augustus, Akbar), which makes calculations extremely subjective. What is most of Asia’s land worth in the year 1219? What separates personal fortune from the riches of an empire that one has full control of? There are a wide variety of answers to these questions, and they all influence the figures chosen to be represented.

     

    Secondly, records kept from Ancient eras are scarce, exaggerated, or based on legends and oral histories. Think of King Solomon or Mansa Musa – these are characters described as immeasurably rich, so trying to put their wealth in modern context is fun, but certainly not guaranteed to be historically accurate.

     

    Lastly, wealth and conversion rates can be approached in different ways as well. Take Crassus in the Roman Republic, who had a peak fortune of “200 million sesterces”. Well, that’s a problem for us in modernity, because that stash could be worth anywhere from $200 million to $169.8 billion, depending on how calculations are done.

    So, enjoy this list of the wealthiest historical figures, but keep in mind that it is mostly for fun – and that the list of the wealthiest people in history changes depending on who you ask!

  • Trump Confirms He Will Sign Russia Sanctions Bill

    Following the approval from overwhelming majorities in both the House (419-3) and Senate (98-2), President Trump has just confirmed that he will sign the Russia sanctions bill into law.  The confirmation comes despite days of speculation after Anthony Scaramucci told CNN that Trump could sign the sanctions bill or “veto the sanctions and negotiate an even tougher deal against the Russians.”

    “President Donald J. Trump read early drafts of the bill and negotiated regarding critical elements of it.  He has now reviewed the final version and, based on its responsiveness to his negotiations, approves the bill and intends to sign it.”

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

     

    Your move, Mr. Putin.

    * * *

    For those who missed it, here is some background on the bill from our prior posts:

    Two days after the House passed bipartisan legislation in a 419-3 vote codifying and imposing further sanctions against Russia, Iran and North Korea and preventing the president from acting unilaterally to remove certain sanctions on Russia, moments ago the Senate also overwhelmingly approved the measure in a 98-2 vote.  Only Senators Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders voting no. The bill will now head to the White House where it will be either signed into law by the president or vetoed, setting up a potential showdown with the White House over Russia. The move marks congressional Republicans’ first rebuke of Trump’s foreign policy, where the administration’s warmer stance toward Russia has drawn heavy skepticism from both parties.

    The three countries named in the bill are accused of violating “the international order” by Senator Bob Menendez, the former chairman of the foreign relations committee.

    Under the bill, existing sanctions on Russia for its aggression in Ukraine and interference in the 2016 election would be codified into law. New sanctions would go into effect against Iran for its ballistic missile development, while North Korea’s shipping industry and people who use slave labor would be targeted amid the isolated nation’s efforts to launch an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM).

    While a full breakdown of the key details in the legislation is provided at the bottom of this post, in a nutshell the sanctions target Russian gas and pipeline developments by codifying six of Barack Obama’s executive orders implementing sanctions on Russia for its alleged interference in the US elections.

    John McCain lauded the bipartisan process that supported the bill: “We will not tolerate attacks on our democracy!” the Senator, who chairs the armed services committee, said from the Senate floor. “That’s what this bill is all about.”

    The Senate passage now sends the sanctions bill to Trump’s desk, although lawmakers expressed mixed expectations on whether the president would sign it into law. In recent days, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders offered mixed messages in recent days.  On Sunday, Sanders told ABC’s “This Week” that the administration supports the bill. But on Monday, she told reporters on Air Force One that Trump is “going to study that legislation” before making a final decision.

    * * *

    Should Trump sign the bill into law, a prompt Russian response is imminent. On Thursday, Russia’s Kommersant newspaper reported that Russia is planning “symmetrical” response to earlier U.S. actions, including expelling diplomats and seizing U.S. Embassy properties, if and when Trump signs the new sanctions legislation.

    It noted that Russia may take the Serebryany Bor vacation complex, and send home 35 diplomats, the same number as the Russian diplomats who were expelled by Barack Obama late in December. Komersant added that Russia may also limit maximum number of U.S. diplomatic personnel, which currently exceeds Russian staff in U.S.

    Also on Thursday, Vladimir Putin said that Russia would be forced to retaliate if Washington pressed ahead with what he called illegal new sanctions against Moscow, describing U.S. conduct towards his country as boorish and unreasonable.

    “As you know, we are exercising restraint and patience, but at some moment we’ll have to retaliate. It’s impossible to endlessly tolerate this boorishness towards our country,” Putin told a joint news conference during a press conference in Findland.

    “When will our response follow? What will it be? That will depend on the final version of the draft law which is now being debated in the U.S. Senate.”

    Putin also spoke about an ongoing diplomatic row between Moscow and Washington which erupted last December when then U.S. President Barack Obama ordered the seizure of Russian diplomatic property in the United States and the expulsion of 35 Russian diplomats.

    “This goes beyond all reasonable bounds,” said Putin. “And now these sanctions – they are also absolutely unlawful from the point of view of international law.” Calling the proposed sanctions “extremely cynical,” Putin said the demarche looked like an attempt by Washington to use its “geopolitical advantages … to safeguard its economic interests at the expense of its allies”.

    * * *

    But while Russia’s adverse reaction is to be expected, it is the EU’s response that will be closely watched.

    According to an internal memo leaked to the FT earlier in the week, Brussles said it should act “within days” if new sanctions the US plans to impose on Russia prove to be damaging to Europe’s trade ties with Moscow. Retaliatory measures may include limiting US jurisdiction over EU companies. The memo, reported by the Financial Times and Politico, has emerged amid mounting European opposition to a US bill seeking to hit Russia with a new round of sanctions. 

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    The document said European Commission chief Jean-Claude Juncker was particularly concerned the sanctions would neglect the interests of European companies. Juncker said Brussels “should stand ready to act within days” if sanctions on Russia are “adopted without EU concerns being taken into account,” according to the Financial Times.

    The EU memo also warns that “the measures could impact a potentially large number of European companies doing legitimate business under EU measures with Russian entities in the railways, financial, shipping or mining sectors, among others.”

    The freshly leaked memo suggests that the EU is seeking “a public declaration” from the Trump administration that it will not apply the new sanctions in a way that targets European interests.  Other options on the table include triggering the ‘Blocking Statute,’ an EU regulation that limits the enforcement of extraterritorial US laws in Europe. A number of “WTO-compliant retaliatory measures” are also being considered, according to the memo.

    Over the weekend, we reported that Brussles expressed its concerns over the sanctions bill, when the European Commission said in a statement that “the Russia/Iran sanctions bill is driven primarily by domestic considerations,” adding that it “could have unintended consequences, not only when it comes to Transatlantic/G7 unity, but also on EU economic and energy security interests.” 

    And so, trapped between looking like a Russian crony on one hand if he refuses to sign the bill, and inflaming relations with not only Moscow but also Europe if he does sign, it will be up to Trump to determine if the feud with Russia escalates even more and involves European nations who are far closer to Russia in socio-economic terms than they would like to admit.

    * * *

    Finally, courtesy of Goldman, here are the main details of the legislation:

    Here are the main details of the draft legislation:

    • Codifies existing US sanctions on Russia and requires Congressional review before they are lifted.
    • Reduces from 30 days to 14 days the maximum allowed maturity for new debt and new extensions of credit to the state controlled financial institutions targeted under the sectoral sanctions.
    • Reduces from 90 days to 60 days the maximum allowed maturity for new debt and new extensions of credit to sectoral sanctions targets in the energy sector, although this largely only brings US sanctions in line with existing EU sanctions, which already impose a 30-day maximum for most energy companies.
    • Expands the existing Executive Order authorising sectoral sanctions to include additional sectors of the Russian economy: railways and metals and mining.
    • Requires sanctions on any person found to have invested $10 million or more, or facilitated such an investment, in the privatisation of Russian state-owned assets if they have “actual knowledge” that the privatisation “unjustly benefits” Russian government officials or their close associates or family members.
    • Authorises (but does not require) sanctions “in coordination with allies” on any person found to have knowingly made an investment of $1 million or more (or $5 million or more in any 12-month period), or knowingly provided goods or services of the same value, for construction, modernisation, or repair of Russia’s energy export pipelines.
    • Orders the treasury, in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence and the Secretary of State, to prepare detailed reports within the next 180 days:
      • on Russia’s oligarchs and parastatal companies including individual oligarchs’ closeness to the Russian state, their involvement in corrupt activities and the potential impact of expanding sanctions with respect to Russian oligarchs, Russian state-owned enterprises, and Russian parastatal entities, including impacts on the entities themselves and on the economy of the Russian Federation, as well as the exposure of key US economic sectors to these entities.
      • on the impact of debt- and equity-related sanctions being extended to include sovereign debt and the full range of derivative products.

  • Is The Bitcoin Civil War Over?

    Authored by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

    Before I get going, let me start out with the usual disclaimer. I’m not a Bitcoin expert, nor do I claim to be. I love people who live and breathe Bitcoin every day, and I have the utmost respect for all of you, but that’s not me. As you can tell from a quick glance at my website, my current focus revolves around the current political environment as well as the geopolitical implications of a declining U.S. empire. That said, I’ve been involved in Bitcoin since 2012, and I care deeply about it. In my opinion, globally interconnected humans functioning within decentralized systems of economics and political governance provide the best framework for the human species going forward. We have the tools, we just need the desire.

    Today’s post is about an alt-coin that is about to fork from Bitcoin, led by a contingency in the civil war known as the big blockers. This piece is not meant for newbies, but is written for people who own Bitcoin and already have a good understanding of all the drama that’s been going on and may continue to periodically resurface after August 1. If you aren’t already up to speed on these things you should probably stop reading. The post will just sound confusing and won’t have much impact on your decision making anyway.

    First of all, I don’t think there will be any debate around what the “real Bitcoin” is following the fork and creation of an alt-coin called Bitcoin Cash (BCC). This coin will be a pet project of big blockers wanting to both save face, and also potentially hurt the original Bitcoin (BTC). Only time will tell if some of those considered “bad actors” will try to target the original Bitcoin out of pettiness, but you should never underestimate what people with a lot of money/power and huge egos will do. History is replete with the ruins of the crazed actions of these types of individuals.

    If you control your private keys, you should be able to access BCC sometime after August 1st. Some people are describing this as a dividend, although it seems more like an asset spinoff to me. Either way, BCC will have some sort of value on or around August 1st, and a market will start being made. So how should people concerned about potential bad actors on the side of BCC think about all of this? Let’s start with a few tweets from Whale Panda that I think are important to ponder.

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    With that in mind, take a watch of this recent interview of Roger Ver. Roger is considered to be one of the largest holders of Bitcoin out there, and owns bitcoin.com.

    That video definitely made me feel that Roger could act in a hostile way following the launch of BCC. I really hope he swallows his pride and doesn’t go down that route, but we can’t make that assumption. I think we absolutely need to prepare for the possibility that some bad actors will try to harm Bitcoin using BCC. Here are a few more tweets from Whale Panda.

    Since I think Whale Panda is onto something, the most logical way to defend against the threat from a market psychology perspective is to hold onto your BCC even if you think it’s garbage. You have to understand that if bad actors want to make Bitcoin look bad and their alt-coin look good, price will be a huge part of their strategy.

    It might make sense to not dump your BCC right away, which could let bad actors control the entire float. If you do that, they can then dump their BTC on the market while controlling all the BCC and ensure it goes up while Bitcoin drops. I’m not saying this is my assumption, I’m saying its possible. As such, hold on to your BCC to prevent them from executing this strategy. Then if BTC does drop as BCC rises, you have dry powder to take the other side of the trade. The risk in this strategy is that BCC crashes right away and never recovers and you lose that free money, but if that happens you’ll still probably benefit from a rising BTC price.

    At the end of the day, everyone should do what they feel is right. I could be completely nuts here. I’m just putting all of this out there in the event some of you haven’t thought through this potential outcome yet. I at least want people to be aware of what might happen. I have no idea of the likelihood of such a scenario.

    Personally, I hope Roger, Jihan and whoever else don’t go down that route. If they do, they will be rightly demonized and remembered as the egomaniacs who tried to kill Bitcoin. Sure float your alt-coin and let people choose, but don’t start playing nefarious games. If you do, the Bitcoin community will rally together like never before and it won’t be good for you. I ask that you stand down.

  • Wynn Resorts Macau Casino Books $10M "Black Swan" Gambling Loss

    Wynn Resorts, the casino and resort company controlled by billionaire mogul and former Trump political adviser Steve Wynn, booked a staggering gambling loss that one economist described as a “black swan” during the second quarter when one of its subcontractors in charger of keeping the casino stocked with high rollers lost money for a whole month.

    The loss was revealed by Wynn during the company’s second-quarter earnings call earlier this week, when he described how Suncity Group, a junket operator that recruits high-roller clients for the casinos, brought in clients whose winnings cost the casino more than $10 million in April, according to Bloomberg.

    "On Tuesday, casino billionaire Steve Wynn revealed that a junket operator in his Macau casinos – essentially a subcontractor – brought in clients whose winnings cost the casino more than $10 million in April, an astonishing swing for a business that can generate profit of as much as $50 million.

    'We had probably the most unique statistical anomaly in my 50 years of doing this,' the founder and chief executive officer of Wynn Resorts told analysts on a conference call. 'And that is with enormous volume, one of our leading outlets lost money for the entire month.'"

    The high-rollers made millions, Wynn explained, with the casino on the hook for it.

    “The bottom fell out and all of the players won millions of dollars,” said the 75-year-old casino mogul.

    According to Bloomberg, the loss occurred at the Wynn Palace baccarat tables. The Palace is Wynn’s new $4.2 billion resort on Macau’s Cotai Strip, a market teeming with high rollers. Macau has a system where junket operators like Suncity bring high rollers to casinos, front them cash and pay for private rooms. The casinos then pay the operators a commission based on the amount their clients bet.

    Though the anecdote was clearly intended to amuse, it also contains some insight into the behavior of Wynn shares following the company’s Tuesday earnings release. The company’s stock dropped 4% despite the company beating on the top-line numbers as investors raised concerns about weakness in the company’s mass-market business, which tends to be more profitable – and more stable – than the VIP business segment.

    Robert Hannum, a professor of risk at the University of Denver who was interviewed by Bloomberg, explained that a string of losses of this magnitude is extremely unlikely in baccarat, though the game does have some of the best odds for players.

    “The odds are astronomically high,” he said in an e-mail. “Of course, black swans do occur and some might say that anything can happen in the casino business.”

    In baccarat, the house advantage averages 1.2 percent – meaning a player can expect to lose $1.20 for every $100 bet over time. That’s compared with a loss ratio as high as $12 for slots. The inherent volatility of the casino business, a phenomenon with which President Donald Trump is well acquainted, has forced some resort companies to use creative accounting techniques to prevent a stretch of bad luck from ruining a quarter.

    “The volatility of the business has prompted some casino operators to report their results on a hold-adjusted basis, meaning they also tell investors what revenue would have been had winnings been more in line with historical norms.

     

    In January, Las Vegas Sands Corp. blamed one lucky gambler for contributing in part to a $15 million to $20 million shortfall at its new Parisian resort in Macau. On Wednesday, the company said the volatile high-end baccarat play contributed to a $100 million revenue bump at its Marina Bay Sands in Singapore.”

    Wynn is becoming known for his antics during earnings calls. During the company’s Q1 2016 call, Wynn launched into an epic tirade about naked short-sellers before excoriating HFT firms for front-running orders and other market-rigging techniques, saying “have very little respect for the integrity of the trading on the exchange in most stocks.”
     

  • Only 3% Of Germans Think The State Is Reacting Correctly To Extremism

    The ferocious street riots during the G20 summit earlier this month in Hamburg have fueled the discussion about political extremism and violence in Germany. One talking point is centered on the question if the state and the police reacted adequately, and how extremism should best be countered in general.

    Just days before the summit, German Federal Minister of the Interior, Thomas de Maizière, presented an annual report on extremist activities in Germany. As Statista's Dyfed Loesche points out, according to the domestic intelligence service (BfV), the overall number of politically motivated offenses is on the rise.

    In total, there were 23,555 offenses on the right, 9,389 on the left, and 3,372 offences committed by foreign actors (such as the Kurdish PKK and their sympathisers) in 2016.

    Infographic: What To Do About Extremism in Germany? | Statista

    You will find more statistics at Statista

    According to a recent survey by YouGov, 81 percent of Germans are under the impression that extremism is on the rise too. 78 percent of the respondents thought the state wasn't on top of the situation. Asked how the state should react, 61 percent thought stricter sentencing would be advisable, 46 percent also thought that extremist parties should be outlawed.

    Just 3 percent thought the state was reacting correctly to extremism…

  • Demographic Dysphoria Looms As Doctors Discover Sperm Counts In Western Men Plummeted Nearly 60%

    Population growth is responsible for the majority of GDP growth…so a downturn in population growth matters…particularly when population growth shifts from wealthy or developing nations to the poorest.  I'm not describing something that may happen in the future…I'm describing what has already happened that is continuing to send progressively larger tsunamis swamping the world economy and has the central bankers doing everything and anything to try to sustain the unsustainable.

    Which means, as Econimica's Chris Hamilton recently noted, the next business cycle recession will be unending and is very likely to run years into decades and perhaps a century or more.  A declining population already indebted with record debt and zero interest rates will consume less…meaning overcapacity and excess inventories will never be fully cleared before the next downturn…and on and on and on.

    But the absence of a growing consumer base isn't just a US issue…this is a global problem.  The annual growth of the 0-64yr/old population of the combined OECD nations (most the EU, US, Canada, Mexico, Chile, Japan, S. Korea, Australia / New Zealand) plus China, Brazil, and Russia show the growth that has driven nearly all economic growth has come to an end…and begins declining from here on. 

    And when importers are shrinking, exporters have no one to export to…and on and on and on.  The depopulation we are now facing is not simply a demographic issue that so many believe; the end of growth is the start of the SHTF scenario in which we now find ourselves.  While this situation offers short term nirvana to investors, the economic repercussions are ultimately disastrous.

    And it may be about to get even worse.

    As TheAntiMedia.org reports, According to a new analysis published Tuesday, sperm counts in Western men have plummeted nearly 60 percent over the last four decades. Though researchers say the specific drivers behind the trend will require further scientific investigation, current data suggest a link between the sharp decline and living in the industrialized world.

    “The results are quite shocking,” Hagai Levine, an epidemiologist from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, told The Guardian. Levine led the international team of researchers, who examined 185 individual studies conducted between 1973 and 2011.

    The analysis, published in the medical journal Human Reproduction Update, additionally revealed that on average, Western men’s sperm concentration — the number of sperm within a semen ejaculate — is falling 1.4 percent a year. Added up, that calculates to an overall drop of more than 50 percent since the early 1970s.

    “This is a classic under the radar huge public health problem that is really neglected,” said Levine. The team notes in its report that recent studies have shown an association between poor sperm counts and overall morbidity and mortality.

    Unlike with Western nations, the team found no similar trend among the male populations of less-developed countries, such as those in Africa and South America.

    “Therefore,” the team writes, “sperm count may sensitively reflect the impacts of the modern environment on male health throughout the life course.” Researchers acknowledge, however, that far fewer studies have been conducted in those nations and that more data needs to be compiled before a final conclusion can be drawn.

    While the scientific community seems to agree that the Western trend is likely being driven by a confluence of factors, one member of the team, Professor Shanna Swan of the Ichan School of Medicine in New York, told the Independent that the lack of declining sperm counts in less-industrialized nations is something that can’t be ignored.

    “The fact that the decline is seen in Western countries strongly suggests that chemicals in commerce are playing a causal role in this trend,” she said.

    Just as startling as the trend, says Professor Richard Sharpe of Edinburgh University, is the fact that it shows no sign of slowing down. Speaking to The Independent, Sharpe, who was not involved with the research, said:

    “As the authors point out, the continuous nature of the decline is of as much concern as the decline itself, given that we still do not know what lifestyle, dietary or chemical exposures might have caused this decrease.”

    Calling the trend “real beyond any reasonable doubt,” Sharpe says that with more and more women wanting to have babies later in life when conception is considerably more difficult, there now exists a “double whammy for couple fertility” in Western societies.

    “Therefore, looking ahead,” he said, “I can only conclude that couple infertility is set to increase. Hopefully, this new study will serve as a wake-up call for health and research authorities as well as for the public, and for young people in particular.”

Digest powered by RSS Digest