- Will 5G Cell Phone Technology Lead To Dramatic Population Reduction As Large Numbers Of Men Become Sterile?
Authored by Michael Snyder via The End of The American Dream blog,
I know that the title of this article is controversial, but the scientific research that has been done in this area inevitably leads us to some conclusions that are inescapable.
Our current cell phone technology produces electromagnetic radiation that damages male fertility, and the radiation produced by the new 5G technology will be much more powerful and therefore much more dangerous. But most people don’t know about this. Instead, most people are greatly looking forward to the rollout of 5G technology because it will be up to 100 times faster than our current 4G technology, and who wouldn’t want that? The big cell phone companies will be spending hundreds of billions of dollars to install hundreds of thousands of new 5G antennas, and every single one of those antennas will be constantly emitting very powerful electromagnetic radiation. Since we can’t see the radiation, to many people the threat does not seem real, but the truth is that if you live in a major urban area you are constantly being bombarded by it. And once the new 5G network is completely rolled out, you would literally have to live in the middle of nowhere to get away from it completely.
5G is a quantum leap from 4G, but because the smaller 5G waves do not travel as well, a lot more antennas will be required…
In order to achieve faster speeds, 5G relies on millimeter waves, which are even smaller than microwaves and operate at a higher frequency. These smaller waves are more easily absorbed by buildings, trees and other things (like people), so more towers will be needed in order to maintain connectivity. The industry has created specialized “small cell” stations and new, larger base stations to accommodate the demands of 5G tech. Even so, it’s expected that a small cell will need to be installed every 250 meters in cities for 5G to work properly. There will be one on every street corner.
In addition, 5G technology is “ultra high frequency and ultra high intensity”…
5G cell towers are more dangerous than other cell towers for two main reasons. First, compared to earlier versions, 5G is ultra high frequency and ultra high intensity. 1G, 2G, 3G and 4G use between 1 to 5 gigahertz frequency. 5G uses between 24 to 90 gigahertz frequency. Within the RF Radiation portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, the higher the frequency the more dangerous it is to living organisms.
So basically the radiation that we will constantly be absorbing will be much, much, much more powerful than before, and the sources emitting the radiation will be much closer to us.
Are you starting to get the picture?
If that wasn’t bad enough, an investigation conducted at a university in Israel discovered that the surface of the human body actually draws 5G radiation in “like an antenna”…
What’s further disturbing about 5G radiation is how the human body responds to and processes it. Dr. Ben-Ishai from The Hebrew University of Jerusalem discovered as part of a recent investigation that human skin acts as a type of receptor for 5G radiation, drawing it in like an antenna.
“This kind of technology, which is in many of our homes, actually interacts with human skin and eyes,” writes Arjun Walia for Collective Evolution about the study.
“… human sweat ducts act like a number of helical antennas when exposed to these wavelengths that are put out by the devices that employ 5G technology,” he adds.
But because we cannot detect this radiation with our five senses, most people will never even understand what is happening to them.
Okay, now let’s talk about fertility.
Several early studies found that our current cell phone technology has a negative affect on male fertility…
A 2005 mouse study found “a significant genotoxic [DNA-damaging] effect on…spermatozoa.”
A 2007 rat study found “significantly higher incidence of sperm cell death,” suggesting “that carrying cellphones near reproductive organs could negatively affect male fertility.” And a 2009 rat study found that the radiation from cellphones “negatively affects semen quality and may impair male fertility.”
And about a decade ago, a study that looked at men that were being treated at an infertility clinic concluded that using a cell phone had a substantial impact on sperm quality…
In 2008, for instance, scientists led by Ashok Agarwal, director of research at the Center for Reproductive Medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, announced the findings of a study on 361 men treated at a fertility clinic. About 10 percent rarely or never used a cellphone, while just over half were on their cell more than two hours a day. Using a cellphone, the scientists concluded, “decrease[s] the semen quality in men by decreasing the sperm count, motility, viability, and normal morphology.” Or, as Agarwal put it less formally, “semen quality tended to decline as daily cellphone use increased. Men who said they used their phones for more than four hours each day had the lowest average sperm count and motility and the lowest numbers of normal, viable sperm.”
But even more alarming was a 2014 University of Exeter study that came up with some extremely frightening numbers…
In 2014, another study on this matter was released, this one led by the University of Exeter. This study utilized 1,492 semen samples collected from fertility clinics and research centers. 50-80 percent of the samples had normal movement, but that number fell by 8 percent when the samples were exposed to cell phone radiation. This suggests that sperm viability and overall quality deteriorates when exposed to cell phone frequencies.
The same study goes on to propose that the reason 14 percent of couples in high and middle income countries experience infertility is because so many adults now have cell phones.
By now, you have probably heard that if you want to have a baby, you should not carry your cell phone around in your pants.
Well, one couple that was unable to conceive actually tried this, and it worked…
In her 2010 book Disconnect: The Truth About Cell Phone Radiation, What the Industry Has Done to Hide It, and How to Protect Your Family, Devra Davis recounts the story of a couple who had been unable to conceive. One doctor told them to keep their cellphones off their bodies and use them only to text or with a corded headset for two months. Within a year, they had a baby.
Now let’s take a step back and look at the broader picture.
Overall, it is undeniable that sperm counts have been steadily declining in the western world.
In fact, one recent study found that sperm counts in the western world have been declining by about 2 percent a year…
Male fertility is falling every year in the Western world — and experts blame chemicals and modern lifestyles.
A study of 124,000 men visiting fertility clinics in Europe and the USA found sperm quality reducing by almost 2% per year.
Separate research focusing on 2,600 sperm donors [men with above-normal fertility] showed a similar pattern.
2 percent may not sound like a lot, but over time it really starts adding up.
In fact, a different study found that sperm counts in the western world had fallen by a total of 59 percent from 1973 to 2011…
While most men can still father a child, scientists say the human race faces extinction if the trend continues.
It follows a landmark study last year showing a 59% cut in Western sperm counts from 1973 to 2011.
If sperm counts in the western world continue falling this dramatically, pretty soon most men in the western world will be infertile.
And if that happens, there will be dramatic population reduction.
At this point, the CDC is telling us that the birth rate in the United States has already hit an all-time record low…
The research comes after the US National Center for Health Statics – the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) data arm – announced in July of 2017 that fertility in the US had reached an all-time low.
Birth rates among American women have been falling for decades, but took a sharp downward turn beginning around 2010.
By 2016, the fertility rate in the US was only 62 live births per every 1,000 women.
It is interesting to note that the very first iPhone was released in 2007.
The implications of what I have shared with you so far are staggering, and we desperately need an open and honest public debate about these issues.
And in this article, I haven’t even had room to discuss the scientific studies that link cell phone use to cancer and other debilitating diseases.
Of course all of the studies mentioned in this article examined the impact of our current cell phone technology or older technologies. Now we are moving on to 5G, and there has not been any safety testing done on 5G technology at all.
According to Dr. Martin L. Pall, a PhD and Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry and Basic Medical Sciences at Washington State University, rolling out 5G without any safety testing at all is an incredibly foolish idea…
“Putting in tens of millions of 5G antennae without a single biological test of safety has got to be about the stupidest idea anyone has had in the history of the world.”
But despite the objections of Dr. Pall and countless other scientists, we are going to do it anyway.
And at this point, there isn’t much that anyone can do. According to federal law, local communities are banned from considering health concerns when deciding whether or not to put in new cell phone antennas…
However, according to federal law the city simply can’t consider health concerns. It’s outlined in a small section of the Telecommunications Act, based on science from 1996, back when we were still talking on cellphones that looked like bricks.
“I find it really unfair,” said Hiestand.
If cities do consider health, cell companies can sue them.
We need to get the word out about this.
We are talking about one of the biggest health dangers in American history, and once 5G technology has been completely rolled out nationwide it will be too late to do anything about it.
- Chinese Hackers Stole Maritime Military Secrets From Group Of Universities
What has become an entrenched pattern of optimistic US-China trade headlines being followed by fresh reports about China’s cyberespionage campaign played out once again on Tuesday, when the Wall Street Journal published a story about Chinese hackers’ efforts to infiltrate more than two dozen universities in the US and around the globe to try and steal maritime military technology.
Instead of citing government sources, WSJ cited findings by private research firm iDefense, which argued that the University of Hawaii, the University of Washington and Massachusetts Institute of Technology were among at least 27 universities in the US, Canada and Southeast Asia that had been targeted by Beijing.
The report essentially previewed a report set to be published by iDefense later this week. In the report, the agency confirms that Robert Lighthizer was right when he warned that China’s cyberespionage efforts had only intensified since the beginning of the trade spat, even as the US has insisted that China must cease such activities to win a trade deal. By now, regular readers are familiar with the many different MSS-backed hacking groups that have actively worked to steal trade secrets – groups like ATP10, which was reportedly responsible for the expansive “operation Cloudhopper”.
According to iDefense, the organization that masterminded the university intrusions, which focused on undersea technology and mostly targeted schools with ties to the Massachusetts oceanographic institute, is called “Temp.Periscope.” The firm has also been linked to the infiltration of Navy contractors and subcontractors.
The research, to be published this week, is the latest indication that Chinese cyberattacks to steal U.S. military and economic secrets are on the rise. The findings, reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, name a substantial list of university targets for the first time, reflecting the breadth and nature of the ongoing cyber campaign that iDefense said dates to at least April 2017.
Chinese officials didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment, but have denied that they engage in cyberattacks.
iDefense said it identified targeted universities by observing that their networks were pinging servers located in China and controlled by a Chinese hacking group known to researchers interchangeably as Temp.Periscope, Leviathan or Mudcarp. Researchers at the U.S. cyber firm FireEye , who have studied the same group, said the iDefense findings were generally consistent with their own intelligence.
An explanation for the name wasn’t provided.
Some of the schools had been targeted because of their proximity to the South China Sea (see South Korea’s Sahmyook University). Others, because they had been awarded Navy research contracts.
A university consortium called the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, a research organization with ties to many of the schools targeted by the group, appeared to be a focus for the hackers. Its systems had been infiltrated, as the hackers apparently sought to obtain research that Woods Hole had lead on undersea communications technology.
Nearly all of the universities shared a common link to Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, a research and education nonprofit located in Woods Hole, Mass. iDefense said it had high confidence that Woods Hole’s network likely had been breached by the Chinese hackers.
With specialization in marine science and engineering, Woods Hole is the largest independent oceanographic research institution in the US, boasting notable achievements that include locating the Titanic in 1985, more than 70 years after it sunk.
Some of the targeted schools, including MIT, Penn State and the University of Washington, are affiliated with a unit at Woods Hole known as the Acoustic Communications Group, which works on undersea communications technology, according to the nonprofit’s website.
That group also partners with the Navy’s Naval Undersea Warfare Center in Newport, R.I. Reports last year said the Temp.Periscope team had hacked into an unidentified company under contract with the warfare center and stolen secret plans to build a supersonic antiship missile planned for use by American submarines.
Whether this will have any material impact on the trade deal that China and the US are scrambling to finish remains to be seen. But if the past is any indication, Trump will likely brush off this report, like he has so many others, as he tries to secure a deal at any cost.
- Democrats Search For A Crime To Punish Trump And Americans Who Voted For Him
The House Judiciary Committee’s Democratic Chairman Rep. Jerrold Nadler is a man in search of a crime. Nadler and his colleague House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff have moved the conversation from Russian collusion and are now promising to investigate virtually everything connected to President Donald Trump.
Mind you, we the tax payers will be paying for these investigations and it will drag America and the administration into another two years of endless witch hunts.
Yes, a witch-hunt.
Can you imagine if someone despised you so much that all they did day in and day out was search for something, anything, that would get those around you to doubt your intentions. Imagine having to fight every single day of your life against never ending accusations. Even when those accusations are later proven false it won’t matter because the original lie has already been thoroughly disseminated far and wide among the population.
Why are Nadler, D-NY, and Schiff, D-CA, promising these investigations? Because they want to impeach Trump. It’s just that simple. They also want to send a message to the American people: your vote really didn’t matter because in the end it’s Congress that holds the power.
Think about that. There was never any evidence of crime that called for Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to establish a special counsel. Yet, he did. In fact, he wrote the letter authorizing Trump to fire former FBI Director James Comey. Comey would’ve been fired the first day had Hillary Clinton been president.
However, obstruction charges are at the top of the Nadler’s list of investigations. He also promises to investigate all of Trump’s financial dealings and past business associations.
Nadler and Schiff are creating their own special counsel.
Why? The pair realize that Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report will not do the damage they were hoping it would. Both Democratic leaders, supported by their party, realize that Mueller has found no evidence of a conspiracy with the Russians.
It has left believers like Schiff, Nadler and many former Obama Administration officialswho’ve worked diligently over the past several years to destroy Trump, seething.
They do not want to go on the defensive.
Nadler and Schiff don’t want to explain that their narrative has been debunked. They do not want Americans to look too close because in the end what will be discovered is that the crimes they are accusing others of committing are the ones they themselves have committed.
So what do they do? They fish for a crime, use the media to propagate their lies and spread malicious rumors. Those crimes can be anything from obstruction of justice, process crimes or financial crimes. The lawmakers will use the power of America’s purse. They will investigate Trump’s children, those who support him and those who work closely with him at the White House.
However, remember this: It is the American people, liberty and the principals endowed in our Constitution that will pay the heaviest burden.
Nadler announced his probe on Monday into potential “obstruction of justice.” He will lob accusation, after accusation, against the Trump administration and his family. He will seek documents and communications from over 60 individuals connected with the White House. He will look for that needle in a haystack for as long as it takes.
Nadler and Schiff will conduct what they describe as thorough investigations. They will keep these lengthy investigations going to buy time on the clock until they get close to the Democratic National Convention.
Nadler will do so at the cost of our nation. Don’t be fooled. He doesn’t care about the American people or justice. In the end, this all about ‘getting back’ for the Democrats.
Not getting back at Trump but at the American people who voted for Trump. This isn’t about truth and justice – those who oppose Trump don’t care about those fundamental principals.
Nadler is already setting the stage.
“We are going to initiate investigations into abuses of power, into corruption … and into obstruction of justice,” said Nadler.
“It’s our job to protect the rule of law.”
This isn’t about the rule of law.
If the rule of law was important to the Democrats, they should be aghast at the abuse of power that has occurred within the Obama Administration.
The weaponization of the intelligence community, leaking of highly classified information to the press, gross negligence in the handling of classified information by Hillary Clinton, unmasking of Americans, malfeasance within the FBI, abuse of power within the Justice Department, plans by Rosenstein to wear a wire to record the president and the proposed plan to invoke the 25th Amendment to remove him from power.
Instead this is what Nadler is accusing the president of:
“It’s very clear that the president obstructed justice…
Before you impeach somebody, you have to persuade the American public that it ought to happen.”
GOP Rep. Kevin McCarthy said it himself on Monday, “they’re setting a whole new course because there’s no collusion so they want to build something else.”
They do want something else: they want to find a way to coup the president before the eyes of the American people.
Possibly only future historians will truly understand what is happening to our nation. But for now, we sit on a precipice of a divided nation. This division is being egged on by lawmakers who care more about destroying Trump than seeking truth and justice.
The issue that matters most is the rule of law and guiding principals that make our nation great must take precedence.
Without it, the America we know may disappear into the annals of history. If that happens, it’s “we the people” who will have only ourselves to blame.
- "None Of Their Business": Qatar Blasts Saudi Objections To Possible Russian S-400 Purchase
Russia and Qatar appear to be getting closer to striking a landmark deal for transfer of the S-400 anti-missile defense system to Doha, considered the most advanced anti-air system of its kind, and lately the result of tensions with the West wherever it is present, whether in Syria or Turkey.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stated at a press conference Monday while standing alongside Qatari Foreign Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al-Thani that Moscow is “ready to consider Doha’s requests for weapons delivery, if such requests appear,” according to TASS news agency.
Meeting on Monday between Sergey Lavrov and Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani, via the AFP “Our military-technical cooperation with Qatar is regulated in a bilateral manner, 18 months ago we signed an intergovernmental agreement on military-technical cooperation,” Lavrov said. “Today, we reaffirmed the need to follow this agreement.”
“When our Qatari partners send us requests for delivery of Russian military products, we will consider them,” the Russian FM added. Al-Thani confirmed earlier on Monday that Doha is currently holding negotiations with Moscow on the purchase of S-400 missile systems, but that no decision has been reached.
This brings up two pressing and potentially explosive issues: the ongoing diplomatic and economic war between Qatar and Saudi Arabia, and the fact that Qatar hosts the largest US military base in the Middle East at Al Udeid air base.
Russian S-400 systems, via Sputnik Over the past year Saudi Arabia has routinely leveled the charged that Qatar is a state-sponsor of terror and thus should be prevented by global powers from purchasing advanced weapons, a charge that Qatar denies. In its corner Saudi Arabia also has other Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states like the UAE that have long sought to isolate Doha.
But since Saudi-led GCC states initiated a blockade against tiny but oil and gas rich Qatar staring in 2017, ties between Doha and Moscow have actually improved and grown. Qatari FM al-Thani addressed the continuing GCC crisis by saying:
With regards to Saudi or other countries, it is none of their business, it’s a sovereign decision by Qatar.
Last month reports suggested the Saudi king had threatened “military action” in a personal letter to French President Emmanuel Macron should Qatar move forward with obtaining the S-400s from Russia. The letter reportedly said “the kingdom would be ready to take all necessary measures to eliminate this defense system, including military action,” according to a French Le Monde report.
For the past two years Russia has aggressively promoted its S-400 with agreements recently reached with Saudi Arabia and Turkey, something which has alarmed US defense planners.
Broader proliferation of the advanced system in the Middle East would mark a significant and potentially irreversible retreat for already waning American influence in the region. This would mean the Middle East could soon witness the Russian-made S-400 in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, and Syria.
- OPCW Syria Report Crushes Western "Chemical Weapons" Narrative
Authored by Tony Cartalucci via New Eastern Outlook,
The OPCW (Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons) has presented its final report regarding an alleged chemical weapons attack on Douma, Syria on April 7, 2018. Despite attempts by the Western media to hail it as “proof” that the Syrian government used chemical weapons in Douma – the report says nothing of the sort.
In fact, the report fails to link any of the alleged 43 deaths to apparent chlorine found at the scene of the alleged attack.
Claims of the attack were made by US-backed militants on the eve of their defeat – with the Syrian military retaking Douma the following day. Initial reports claimed sarin or chlorine chemical weapons were deployed through the use of two yellow gas canisters modified as bombs.
No sarin of any kind was found by OPCW inspectors.
While the report suggests two modified yellow gas canisters were used in the attack and that they appeared to have been dropped onto two buildings (locations 2 and 4), the report also mentions that OPCW inspectors found a nearly identical canister in a workshop used by militants to construct weapons.
The alleged “chemical weapons” attack prompted the United States, UK, and France to launch missiles strikes against Syrian military targets on April 14, 2018, long before the first OPCW inspectors even arrived at the sites of the alleged attack on April 21.
No Link Between Chlorine and Casualties
The OPCW report would note video and photographic evidence of alleged victims of chemical exposure could not be linked to any specific chemical including traces of chlorine OPCW inspectors found. The report would specifically claim (emphasis added):
Many of the signs and symptoms reported by the medical personnel, witnesses and casualties (as well as those seen in multiple videos provided by witnesses), their rapid onset, and the large number of those reportedly affected, indicate exposure to an inhalational irritant or toxic substance. However, based on the information reviewed and with the absence of biomedical samples from the dead bodies or any autopsy records, it is not currently possible to precisely link the cause of the signs and symptoms to a specific chemical.
In other instances, the OPCW report would cite witnesses – including medical staff who allegedly treated victims of the supposed attack – who expressed doubts of the presence of any chemicals at all.
The report would state (emphasis added):
A number of the interviewed medical staff who were purportedly present in the emergency department on 7 April emphasised that the presentation of the casualties was not consistent with that expected from a chemical attack. They also reported not having experience in the treatment of casualties of chemical weapons. Some interviewees stated that no odour emanated from the patients, while other witnesses declared that they perceived a smell of smoke on the patients’ clothes.
Other accounts reviewed by the OPCW suggest a large number of casualties were owed to smoke and dust inhalation from conventional bombardment.
The report would specifically state (emphasis added):
Some witnesses stated that many people died in the hospital on 7 April as result of the heavy shelling and/or suffocation due to inhalation of smoke and dust. As many as 50 bodies were lying on the floor of the emergency department awaiting burial. Others stated that there were no fatalities in Douma Hospital on 7 April and that no bodies were brought to the hospital that day.
The conflicting witness reports, the lack of any evidence linking chlorine to even a single death on April 7, and other inconsistencies and contradictions make it impossible to use the report’s conclusions as “proof” that the Syrian government carried out a deadly chemical attack on the eve of its victory in Douma.
Similar Canisters Found in Militant Workshop
While the Western media has focused on the report’s conclusion that chlorine was present and possibly emanated from the two canisters that appear to have been dropped onto two buildings in the area, another crucial finding has been predictably glossed over.
A militant-run weapons workshop investigated by OPCW inspectors revealed a large number of resources for working with chemicals to make explosives. Among an array of chemicals and equipment associated with making explosives, a yellow gas canister was found.
The report would admit:
Although the team confirmed the presence of a yellow cylinder in the warehouse, reported in Note Verbale of the Syrian Arab Republic (Annex 10, point 2) as a chlorine cylinder, due to safety reasons (risk involved in manipulating the valve of the cylinder, see Figure A.8.2) it was not feasible to verify or sample the contents. There were differences in this cylinder compared to those witnessed at Locations 2 and 4. It should be noted that the cylinder was present in its original state and had not been altered.
The lack of interest by the OPCW in the canister despite the obvious implications of its presence in a weapons workshop controlled by militants calls into question the inspectors’ diligence and agenda.
The canister’s “differences” are owed to the fact that those at locations 2 and 4 were modified to appear as bombs, while – admittedly – the canister in the militant workshop remained unaltered.
The obvious implications of a nearly identical canister turning up in a militant workshop making weapons is that the militants may likely have also made the two converted canisters found at locations 2 and 4. OPCW inspectors found other improvised ordnance in the workshop including, “a number of 20-litre metallic drums, some fitted with crude cord-type fuses, which appeared to have been filled with plastic explosives to serve as improvised explosive devices.”
Western media organizations have tried to dismiss the presence of the canister at the workshop by suggesting it was a “setup” orchestrated by the Syrian Arab Army. Huffington Post UK senior editor Chris York would go as far as referring to the workshop as:
…the rebel explosives lab that had been captured by the SAA days before and which they were desperately trying to make look like a chemical weapons lab.
In reality, the OPCW itself would suggest nothing of the sort, and noted that all of the equipment present was consistent with a weapons workshop. Nowhere does the OPCW suggest anything was altered – including the canister – which the OPCW specifically noted “had not been altered.”
The presence of a canister nearly identical to those found at locations 2 and 4 in a militant weapons workshop provides at least as much evidence that militants staged the supposed chemical attack as the Western media claims the canisters at locations 2 and 4 suggest it was the Syrian government.
In the absence of definitive evidence regarding who created and deployed the canisters found at locations 2 and 4, or how they truly ended up there, a better question to ask is “why” they would have ended up there.
Chemical Weapon Attack in Douma… Cui Bono?
Why would the Syrian government – in the middle of a major military offensive it was on the literal eve of concluding in complete victory, drop only 2 canisters filled with a limited amount chemicals to kill – at most – 43 people? A simple artillery barrage could kill just as many people – or very likely – many more.
The use of chemical weapons even on a large scale have historically proven less effective than conventional military weapons – and the use of chlorine on such a small scale as claimed in Douma serves no conceivable purpose at all – at least not for the Syrian military.
Despite claims otherwise, the Syrian government has derived no benefit whatsoever had it been behind any of the chemical attacks it has been accused of by militants and their Western sponsors over the course of the Syrian conflict.
The Douma attack – were it the Syrian military – would have served no tactical, strategic, or political purpose.
Conversely, it would serve as one of the very few actions the Syrian government could take to jeopardize its victory by justifying a large scale Western-led military attack on Syrian forces.In fact, just one week after the alleged attack, the US, UK, and France would indeed launch as many as 100 missiles into Syria in retaliation, the Guardian would report.
On the other hand, militants who had been occupying Douma had every reason to stage the attack.
By staging the attack on the eve of their defeat and producing graphic scenes of human suffering – particularly among children – the militants would have a propaganda tool readily able to invoke global public concern, sympathy, and outcry in defense of their cause – a propaganda tool their Western sponsors eagerly amplified through their global-spanning media platforms.
With the United States having previously launched entire wars based on false accusations of merely possessing chemical weapons, the militants correctly assumed the US would use the staged attack as a pretext for further direct military aggression against the Syrian state – possibly saving them.
The US still to this day cites “chemical weapons” and the Douma incident on April 7, 2018 specifically – as part of its pretext to maintain its illegal occupation of Syrian territory and its continued support of militants attempting to overthrow the Syrian government.
The alleged use of “chemical weapons” by the Syrian government also regularly serves as a primary talking point used by the Western media when attacking anti-war politicians, pundits, and commentators.
The OPCW report’s conclusions are too ambiguous to draw a conclusion one way or the other. The presence of a nearly identical canister in a militant workshop raises serious questions and associated implications suggesting the attack was staged – questions that must be adequately investigated and answered.
That the Syrian government gained nothing from the attack and was only further jeopardized politically and strategically by it – raises questions about motivations that likewise need to be answered before drawing conclusions.
But as the Western media has proven many times before – it is fully capable of producing entirely irrational lies based on tenuous evidence or no evidence at all – and even repeating those lies after being blatantly caught telling them previously.
That the Western media is still attempting to sell WMD lies regarding Syria after being caught fabricating them to justify war in neighboring Iraq should be at the forefront of the global public’s mind when considering their “interpretations” of this latest OPCW report regarding Douma, Syria.
- In Deathbed Video, 'Godfather' Of Climate Science Begs World Leaders To Deploy Last-Ditch Solar Shield
Before passing away from heart disease on February 18, climate scientist Wallace Smith Broecker left behind a “final warning” to fellow scientists – telling them in a video recorded days before his death that humanity must deploy a volcano-inspired “solar shield” in order to cool down the atmosphere, according to NBC News.
Broecker, who popularized the phrase “global warming” in 1975 (right as the notion of “global cooling” became unpopular) – warned that world leaders aren’t acting quickly enough to halt the production of carbon dioxide, and the only solution is to geoengineer “the sulfur solution.”
The theory is that the planet might be cooled, in a worst-case scenario, by releasing massive amounts of sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere some 70,000 feet above the Earth’s surface. The idea would be for jets to release so much SO2 that they would mimic a massive volcanic eruption, like the one at Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines in 1991, which shrouded much of the planet in a sulfurous cloud, cooling the Earth by about 1 degree Fahrenheit for a full year. –NBC News
“If we are going to prevent the planet from warming up another couple of degrees, we are going to have to go to geoengineering,” said Broecker, adding that continued inaction could result in “many more surprises in the greenhouse,” known as Earth.
Wallace Broecker receiving the National Medal of Science from President Bill Clinton in 1996. Photo: Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory Broecker said that he had worked with another prominent climatologist on mechanical units that could remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, but that at least 100 million of them would be required to get the job done.
Nevermind all that death
As Phys.org noted in November 2017, blocking out the sun is probably a really bad idea according to a group of scientists from the University of Exeter.
new research led by climate experts from the University of Exeter suggests that targeting geoengineering in one hemisphere could have a severely detrimental impact for the other.
They suggest that while injections of aerosols in the northern hemisphere would reduce tropical cyclone activity – responsible for such recent phenomena including Hurricane Katrina – it would at the same time lead to increased likelihood for drought in the Sahel, the area of sub-Saharan Africa just south of the Sahara desert.
In response, the team of researchers have called on policymakers worldwide to strictly regulate any large scale unilateral geoengineering programmes in the future to prevent inducing natural disasters in different parts of the world.
“Our results confirm that regional solar geoengineering is a highly risky strategy which could simultaneously benefit one region to the detriment of another. It is vital that policymakers take solar geoengineering seriously and act swiftly to install effective regulation,” said University of Exeter climate science expert Dr. Anthony Jones.
Lets not forget that this is how the Matrix also started – albeit we aren’t doing it to fight sentient robots, yet.
- Be Wary Of Unrealistic Shale Growth Expectations
Authored by Nick Cunningham via Oilprice.com,
U.S. shale drillers are facing a serious problem: Their wells are not producing as much oil and gas as they had anticipated.
When facing shareholder scrutiny, shale drillers have countlessly hyped the litany of technological breakthroughs, efficiency gains and innovative drilling techniques. Indeed, production from U.S. E&Ps has skyrocketed over the past decade, save for interruption during the 2014-2016 bust. But even then, shale executives argued that the downturn made them lean and mean, and that they would use their newfound frugality to ramp up production and profits.
But the hype has slammed into reality on a few fronts.
First, after years of bankrolling the shale industry in hopes of juicy profits, Wall Street is starting to lose patience. Some companies turn a profit, but the industry on the whole has been losing money since its inception in the mid-2000s. Executives are once again promising that enormous profits are just around the corner, but you could forgive the skeptics for questioning whether that will turn out to be the case.
A second – and no less damning – development is starting to occur on the operational side of things. Shale companies are finding that the returns on pushing their drilling practices to evermore intense frontiers are beginning to fizzle. For years, drillers increased the length of their laterals, injected more and more sand and water underground, and packed wells closer and closer together. These techniques of intensification promised to produce more oil and gas for less money.
Suddenly, there is evidence that the industry is running into a wall. The Wall Street Journal reported that shale wells placed too close together are starting to report unexpectedly disappointing results. The thinking is that the wells are interfering with each other. Adding more wells seems to be reducing the productivity of all the wells situated in close proximity. This so-called “parent-child” well problem, in which additional wells (the “child” wells) undercut the performance of the original well (the “parent”), may be the beginning of a larger problem with the shale industry.
The WSJ says that some of the newer wells are producing as much as 50 percent less than the parent wells. Ultimately, when all is said and done, adding more wells may actually result in less oil and gas recovered since the pressure drops and the reservoir suffers damage. Not only are child wells less productive than the parent, but they actually cannibalize production from the parent wells by sapping reservoir pressure and in some cases flooding the parent well with fracking fluids from the child well.
For instance, wells placed 375 feet apart may produce 28 percent less than wells produced 600 feet apart, the WSJ analysis finds. The figures grow worse the more the wells are packed tightly together – placing them only 275 feet apart results in a 40 percent decline in output relative to those placed 600 feet apart.
But companies can’t simply space out the wells and still achieve the same production targets. They have finite acreage, sometimes carved up in a patchwork, so it’s not always possible to simply stretch out the same number of planned wells over longer distances.
In other words, the parent-child well problem may mean that companies will have to drill fewer wells than they had anticipated. That means that they could be facing “an industrywide write-down if they are forced to downsize the estimates of drill sites they have touted to investors, some of which promised decades’ worth of choice spots,” the WSJ concluded.
There are enormous ramifications for this problem. The valuation of shale E&Ps is based on forecasts for long-term production. As the WSJ reported in January, many of the rosy production forecasts from shale drillers over the past few years have not come to fruition.
But the implications stretch beyond the share prices of individual companies. Medium- and long-term oil market forecasts depend very heavily on robust U.S. shale growth. In other words, global supply 5 and 10 years from now will be affected by the parent-child well problems. A study by Wood Mackenzie found that the Permian could undershoot expected growth by 1.5 million barrels per day.
A revealing exchange occurred in late February on a fourth quarter earnings call for Centennial Resource Development. When asked why the company’s production guidance disappointed Wall Street estimates, Mark Papa, formerly of EOG Resources and now CEO at Centennial, testily dismissed the premise of the question.
“Let me just make a simple statement here. All those expectations for production growth emanated from Wall Street expectations. None of those expectations came from Centennial guidance,” Papa said.
He added that Centennial’s guidance “was very accurate and we’re just simply not responsible for guidance that’s created by Wall Street.”
The discrepancy points to a larger problem – after years of buying into the promise of shale, Wall Street still hasn’t exactly woken up to the full scale of the parent-child well problem. Some companies are undershooting expected production growth because they are spacing wells too closely together. “The issue for the entire Permian Basin relates to parent-child wells. Every year, every company is drilling a higher percentage of child wells and those wells are simply not as powerful as the parent wells,” Papa said.
Papa said that one reason that Wall Street may be confused as that so much M&A activity makes it hard to compare apples to apples. Companies have been growing, in some cases, because of consolidation rather than impressive operational results.
Papa cut to the chase and issued a stark warning. He said that Centennial was like every other shale company in the Permian.
“[W]e have some of the best acreage in the Delaware Basin and what we are seeing is the increasing impact of the child wells,” he said.
“[B]ut that is just what I have been talking about really for a couple of years is that although the whole shale revolution appears to be quite powerful…If you look just under the hood, you see that every company has to run faster and faster to achieve growth because you’re seeing the effect of geology and well interference that is taking a toll.”
- ECB Preview: Here Comes TLTRO?
Submitted by RanSquawk
On Wednesday at 1:45pm CET/7:45am EST, the ECB’s latest monetary policy decision is due. Here is what consensus expects:
- Unanimous expectations look for the ECB to leave its three key rates unchanged
- Inflation and growth forecasts set to be lowered
- Will the Bank provide any further clarity on potential new TLTROs?
PREVIOUS MEETING: The most recent policy announcement saw the Central Bank stand pat on rates as expected and maintain their guidance on rates and reinvestments. Focus for the press conference largely centred around the Bank’s assessment of the growth outlook for the Euro-area with policymakers opting to classify risks as now being ‘tilted to the downside’ vs. their prior view of ‘moving to the downside’. President Draghi stated that the implications for monetary policy from the assessment tweak were not discussed. Elsewhere on the policy front, the matter of TLTROs was raised during the press conference with Draghi stating that subject was brought up by several officials but no decision was taken as the monetary case for a fresh round needs to be presented.
ECB MINUTES: ECB minutes provided little in the way of fresh insight with policymakers concluding that any decision taken on the TLTRO should not be taken too hastily and should serve policy objectives. Furthermore, the account revealed that the Bank perceives that current market pricing is in-line with their current guidance; something that Draghi alluded to in his January press conference. From a growth perspective, central bankers believed that near-term growth momentum is likely to be weaker than earlier expected, the extent of this conviction will likely be a key source of focus for the March staff economic projections.
SOURCE REPORTS: Since the previous press conference, various source reports have painted a conflicting view about the Bank’s attitude to fresh funding measures with one report suggesting that TLTROs are seen as a priority, whilst another stated that the governing council sees no urgent need to unveil a fresh round of funding and questioned the necessity in doing so at all. On forward guidance, sources suggested that some ECB policy makers are hesitant to change interest rates guidance as it would impact the term of the next ECB President.
ECB RHETORIC: Since the prior meeting, notable communications highlights include comments from ECB’s Coeure who stated that the economic slowdown is stronger and broader than they expected, the inflation path will be shallower, adding that a new TLTRO is possible and the ECB are currently discussing it. Elsewhere, Chief Economist Praet noted he expects near-term projections to be revised lower but what counts is the medium-term and they see positive and negative factors there, adding that a rebound is likely but too early to tell by how much. ECB-hawk Nowotny suggested that the ECB has no conclusions yet on TLTRO, adding that if the slowdown is driven by one-offs, TLTRO may not be needed; decision to be made later than March. Interestingly, Nowotny also stated that he sees a discrepancy between ECB guidance and market expectations. Finally, ECB President Draghi gave little away during his Parliamentary hearing at the end of January by reiterating that significant monetary policy stimulus remains essential.
DATA: From a growth perspective, Q4 2018 Eurozone GDP printed at 0.2% with RBC suggesting that early signals indicate that Q1 2019 will see only a marginal improvement at best. On the inflation front, February Y/Y CPI ticked higher to 1.5% from 1.4% amid a minor uptick in energy prices and unprocessed food, however, the ‘super core’ metric slipped to 1% from 1.1%, highlighting the weakness in underlying price developments. The latest batch of PMI readings saw composite PMI for Feb rise to 51.9 from 51.0 (prelim 51.4) with Pantheon Macro noting a “robust headline, signalling that services continue to show relative resiliency in the face of the sustained slowdown in manufacturing”. On the labour front, Unemployment ticked lower once again in January to 7.8% from the prior 7.9%.
POTENTIAL ADJUSTMENTS TO ECB FORWARD GUIDANCE (INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT)
RATES: With markets currently only pricing in a circa 50% chance of a 10bps deposit rate hike this year, the Bank’s current “at least through the summer of 2019” has continued to be brought into question. Despite source reports suggesting that some at the Bank are reticent to change rate guidance before the current President Draghi is replaced in October, an adjustment at some stage appears to be inevitable, the timing of it though, remains a subject of debate. UBS expect the ECB to acknowledge that rates will likely stay on hold until 2020 at their June meeting, whilst also floating the potential for the Bank to consider a tiered rate system to alleviate the pressure of negative rates on Eurozone banks. Elsewhere, ING states that changing forward guidance to “interest rates to remain at their current levels at least until the end of the year” is a no-brainer but, this will not necessarily be implemented at this meeting. This time around, RBC suggest that Draghi is likely to “qualify the ECB’s guidance to indicate a start later than September 2019 by stressing its state contingent aspect – i.e. the ‘at least’ as well as ‘as long as necessary’ parts of the key sentence”.
ASSET PURCHASES: No changes expected on this front given the recent conclusion of the Bank’s PSPP; a view backed by Rabobank.
GROWTH/TRADE: Given that the last two meetings have seen tweaks on this front, it is unlikely that policymakers will make another adjustment to their assessment of the risk outlook with the latest incoming data neither disappointing enough to justify an even more pessimistic outlook or seeing enough of a pick-up to prompt a reversal in their recent adjustments. Instead, market participants will be looking at the Bank’s growth projections (see below) for greater clarity on the ECB’s current assessment of the risk outlook.
INFLATION: No changes expected on this front. Danske Bank expect the ECB “to hold on to its narrative that ongoing labour market improvements and rising wages will eventually push up underlying inflation pressures.” However, Danske highlight that the minutes from the January meeting note increasing worries at the Bank over the missing transmission from wages to consumer prices.
STAFF ECONOMIC PROJECTIONS:
- Current ECB HICP forecasts: 2018 at 1.8% (prev. 1.7%), 2019 at 1.6% (Prev. 1.7%), 2020 at 1.7% (Prev 1.7%), 2021 at 1.8%
- Current ECB real GDP forecasts: 2018 at 1.9% (prev. 2.0%), 2019 at 1.7% (Prev. 1.8%), 2020 at 1.7% (Prev 1.7%), 2021 at 1.5%
Growth: On the growth front, as detailed above, Q4 2018 Eurozone GDP printed at 0.2%, which thus fell short of the ECB’s forecast of 0.4%. RBC note that, although growth is forecast to pick-up in H2, the ECB’s quarterly growth rates of 0.5% look too optimistic given current headwinds. Furthermore, the Bank will likely need to play catch-up to their latest guidance on growth (altered in January), which is yet to be accompanied with a round of economic projections. With this in mind, consensus looks for a downgrade to the Bank’s 2019 and 2020 growth outlook, with 2021 to be subject to little in the way of material changes, if at all.
Inflation: From an inflation perspective, as highlighted earlier in our report, price pressure remains a key concern for the Bank.
Morgan Stanley opines that although the narrative on inflation might not change in the statement, adjustments to staff projections on this front are likely. More specifically, Nomura note that, considering the cut-off point for staff estimates, the oil price ssumption underpinning the forecasts is likely to be around 8% lower than the one seen in December. This, allied with the weaker growth outlook, Nomura argues could see 2019 and 2020 forecasts lowered. Nomura also highlight the importance of the 2021 forecast, which they explain acts as a useful indicator of the Bank’s stance on policy normalisation, which, if close to 2%, would suggest the ECB believes it remains on track.Please see below for Danske Bank’s expectations grid for ECB staff projections
<!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>
TLTRO
TLTROs have been a focus for the market as they are seen as a useful tool for the Bank to help soothe the transition of policy normalisation and shield some of the more fragile Eurozone economies (particularly Italy) this year. At the January meeting, the matter of TLTROs was raised during the press conference with Draghi stating that the matter was brought up by several officials but no decision was taken as the monetary case for a fresh round needs to be presented. Since then, (as discussed above), one source report suggested that TLTROs are seen as a priority, whilst another stated that the governing council sees no urgent need to unveil a fresh round of funding and questioned the necessity in doing so at all. In terms of expectations for this week’s meeting, UBS suggest that given the likelihood of the Bank’s acknowledgement of lower growth and limited inflationary pressures, policymakers will send a strong signal on Thursday that it will soon offer a new TLTRO with a final decision and details potentially to be announced in April. Elsewhere, SocGen look for a formal announcement in June, adding that the decision is far from clear-cut, Barclays look for an unveiling between March and June, whilst Goldman Sachs look for an announcement this week with details to follow at a later point. In terms of how the TLTRO could be offered to lenders, RBC highlight that the main sticking point for the ECB is more about the design of the operations, rather than whether to offer them or not. RBC explains that one issue facing policymakers is whether or not to offer a fixed rate, which would be at odds with the ECB’s current setting of expected rate hikes, or a floating rate, which could potentially lower the incentives for participation. Furthermore, Rabobank also highlight the potential debate between whether TLTROs will come with the precondition of increased lending or maintaining the current stock of loans; Rabobank favour the latter.
MARKET REACTION
Please see below for ING’s scenario analysis
- China Has No Choice
Authored by Jeffrey Snider via Alhambra Investment Partners,
China’s central bank was given more independence to conduct monetary policies in late 2003. It had been operating under Order No. 46 of the President of the People’s Republic of China issued in March 1995, which led the 3rd Session of the Eighth National People’s Congress (China’s de facto legislature) to create and adopt the Law of the People’s Republic of China on the People’s Bank of China. This was amended in December 2003 by the 6th Meeting of the Standing Committee of the Tenth National People’s Congress.
Already by then, the PBOC had begun using more of its monetary toolkit. It had experimented in 2002 with Open Market Operations, or OMO’s. The central bank would issue “bills” to Chinese banks, selling them in order to “soak up” excess liquidity under its definitions.
These were supplemented beginning in September 2003 by the first increase in the RRR, the reserve requirement ratio. This bank lever had been around since the eighties though rarely was it ever used. During China’s rough experience with the Asian flu in the late nineties, the RRR had been deeply reduced to help cushion the economic impact of massive eurodollar irregularities sweeping across its front.
This was an economic response in terms of a debt policy, not a monetary decision.
The RRR told banks how much they needed to keep in liquid reserves (a ledger entry, satisfied via cash holdings or on account with the central bank). If it was reduced, theoretically banks would be able to increase lending because they would be increasingly freed from the reserve constraint. This would include lending in China’s nascent wholesale money markets.
By 2003, the winds of eurodollar influence were blowing heavily in China’s favor again. That meant an excess of monetary resources for the banking sector, only some of which was scooped up by the PBOC as a consequence of pegging CNY’s exchange value to the dollar. To head off harmful inflation, the central bank required the more flexible mandate which was finally sanctioned at the Tenth Congress.
In those early years of it, authorities stuck to mostly OMO’s. There were only two RRR increases in the beginning, an experiment, too, of sorts. The Chinese central bank was new to this potential liquidity framework and the last thing they wanted was to do too much.
As the middle 2000’s progressed, and “hot money” eurodollar inflows only intensified, a more aggressive campaign was called for. By the middle of 2006, RRR increases became as regular as OMO’s.
The thing is, these didn’t really work all that well individually or in combination(s). There were several reasons for the lack of control, including the bureaucratic structure of China’s official apparatus, government to central bank and back again.
But most of all, RRR and/or OMO’s are blunt instruments of indeterminate pathologies. Exactly how does a 50 bps increase in the RRR effect a Chinese bank’s proclivity to lend? No one really knows but a higher reserve requirement does sound a lot like tightening.
As you can see above, China’s economy came to be plagued by high inflation anyway, especially damaging food price inflation. The country’s CPI suggested still the deflationary drag at the end of 2002, a decrease of 0.4% in the month of December 2002, but rising to a breakout +3.2% in December 2003.
It had at first seemed like the OMO’s were working, with inflation rates falling in the middle of 2005 before another sharp surge which triggered the aggressive response relying more on the uncertain RRR mechanics. By early 2008, despite the RRR having been pushed as high as 17.5% (for large banks), consumer price inflation was rampant the CPI reaching 8.5%. Food prices were rising by more than 20% per year.
The only thing that stopped the onslaught was Euro$ #2. The Global Financial Crisis of 2008, Euro$ #1, had been a temporary reprieve before the same massive money imbalances revisited China in its immediate aftermath. The RRR was pushed up to as much as 21.5% before the second global deflationary wave finally erased its momentum.
Since the middle of 2011, inflation is no longer a problem for the Chinese. Rather, monetary authorities now have nothing but the opposite concern.
Their patchwork response has been to do the same things only in reverse; for eurodollar outflows the RRR is reduced. At times, the central bank even refrains from issuing central bank bills. As with the period before 2008, from 2011 to 2013 it didn’t go well.
By the middle of 2014, the PBOC had added new capacities for more targeted bank liquidity, lending windows such as the MLF or SLF.
Here’s the thing, though. Chinese monetary authorities after relying heavily on tools like the MLF in 2016 and 2017 are no longer as much interested in them. They increased the RMB part of the central bank balance sheet to no avail.
This then left the RRR as China’s main monetary line of defense against deflationary forces in 2018 and going forward. Given its obviously poor performance as an inflation-fighting instrument, why would anyone be optimistic on its chances of succeeding now? You could try to make the case that it could possibly be more effective when used in reverse, but that’s just silly.
China’s Communists aren’t silly; they are authoritarian monsters, meaning they have to be pragmatic for their own survival especially where economic growth (the peasant-to-middle class pipeline) is concerned.
China’s Premier Li Keqiang announced today that the national growth target for 2019 was reduced to a range between 6.0% and 6.5% real GDP expansion. This is lower still than 2018’s mandate for “about” 6.5%, which came in as expected at exactly 6.5%. What are the chances China’s GDP sees the top end of its newly set corridor? If the bottom, this would be the lowest growth since the eighties.
Perhaps a significant sign, China’s Communist leadership appears to have given up entirely targeting both retail sales growth and fixed asset investment.
Li warned:
China will face a graver and more complicated environment as well as risks and challenges that are greater in number and size. China must be fully prepared for a tough struggle.
This is not a new theme except if you have been listening exclusively to the wishful thinking of Western Economists and central bankers. Since the 19th Communist Party Congress (the political apparatus, a separate entity from the National People’s Congress) held in October 2017, government officials have been consistent about this “tough struggle.” There never was globally synchronized growth at least not at a level that would meaningfully change the world’s economic circumstance.
Behind everything is the same thing. Keynes was right. Inflation is one monetary evil, but its twin is far, far worse. At least with inflation things are moving, Chinese peasants are progressed up into the middle class even if it is more expensive when they get there.
Deflation, however, is when everything stops; Dante’s Hell was freezing cold. It doesn’t have to be all at once like in the early thirties, this can be a prolonged affair dragging out across more years than anyone cares to remember. The frog isn’t being slowly boiled, it is being progressively frozen. It is now almost completely frigid, too cold to be able to leap out of the icy water. Stuck here without any other options, it must conserve its energy as best it can and hope that it can somehow survive.
If given a choice, you pick the heat of high inflation over this every day of the week; until you realize it isn’t your choice. It never really was.
Digest powered by RSS Digest
Saving...![<!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>](https://www.zerohedge.com/s3/files/inline-images/Qatar%20Russia%20presser.jpg?itok=MLVO-cYY){kind=link}
![<!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>](https://www.zerohedge.com/s3/files/inline-images/S-400s.jpg?itok=GSEy0wIA){kind=link}
![<!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>](https://www.zerohedge.com/s3/files/styles/inline_image_mobile/public/inline-images/broeck.jpg?itok=prcBT1oN){kind=link}