How far away is your phone right now? When did you last look at it? For many of us, these digital devices are almost constantly in our hands, and a new study highlights the effects on brain activity that can happen when we cut back on using them.
The research involved 25 young adults aged between 18 and 30, who were asked to restrict their smartphone use as much as possible for 72 hours: Only essential communications and work-related activities were allowed.
Researchers from Heidelberg University and the University of Cologne in Germany used magnetic resonance imaging ( MRI) scans and psychological tests before and after the phone diet to determine what kind of effect this had on neural patterns and activity.
“We used a longitudinal approach to investigate effects of smartphone restriction in smartphone users,” write the researchers in their published paper.
“Associations between changes of brain activation over time and addiction-related neurotransmitter systems were found.”
During the scans run after the 72-hour period, the participants were shown a variety of image prompts – including pictures of smartphones turned on and turned off, as well as more ‘neutral’ images showing subjects such as boats and flowers.
Images of phones and other objects were used to spark brain activity. (Schmitgen et al., Computers in Human Behavior, 2025)
When phone image prompts were used, changes were observed in parts of the brain linked to reward processing and cravings, similar in some ways to brain signals connected to substance addictions – suggesting our phones can be addictive like nicotine or alcohol.
That the changes seen in the brain were associated with dopamine and serotonin systems backs up this idea of phone addiction. These two neurotransmitters are linked to multiple brain functions, including compulsive behavior and mood control.
Based on the psychological tests, however, there were no changes in the mood of the participants or any feelings of craving, despite the limited phone access. Some volunteers did report improvements in mood, but this didn’t show up in the test data as significant.
The study didn’t delve into any detail about why the smartphone behaviors prompted the brain activity changes, but there are likely to be several factors at play. It’s possible that not all phone-based activities are as addictive as others.
“Our data does not disentangle craving for smartphone use and craving for social interaction, nowadays two tightly intertwined processes,” write the researchers.
“Although our data shows relatively robust findings without unraveling these processes, future studies should clearly aim to address this aspect.”
Scientists are still figuring out how phones are changing our lives, and our brains – it’s less than 20 years ago since the first iPhone appeared – but now we know a little more about some of the subtle withdrawal symptoms that happen when we aren’t picking up our mobiles every few minutes.
“The identified neural mechanisms may substantially promote addictive behavior in people at risk for excessive smartphone use,” write the researchers.
Our smartphones enable—and encourage—constant connection to information, entertainment, and each other. They put the world at our fingertips, and rarely leave our sides. Although these devices have immense potential to improve welfare, their persistent presence may come at a cognitive cost. In this research, we test the “brain drain” hypothesis that the mere presence of one’s own smartphone may occupy limited-capacity cognitive resources, thereby leaving fewer resources available for other tasks and undercutting cognitive performance. Results from two experiments indicate that even when people are successful at maintaining sustained attention—as when avoiding the temptation to check their phones—the mere presence of these devices reduces available cognitive capacity. Moreover, these cognitive costs are highest for those highest in smartphone dependence. We conclude by discussing the practical implications of this smartphone-induced brain drain for consumer decision-making and consumer welfare.
We all understand the joys of our always-wired world—the connections, the validations, the laughs … the info. … But we are only beginning to get our minds around the costs.
With the recent focus on Making America Healthy Again (MAHA) with food, knowing a bit about the USDA and food labeling has never been more important.
The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) is a huge executive division within the US government. It is subdivided into 15 agencies with oversight by 15 administrative offices. The USDA employs nearly 100,000 people, working at more than 4,500 locations nationwide and abroad. For 2024, the USDA was given an operating budget of $24.46 billion, an increase of 11.5% over the previous year. The bureaucratic behemoth has oversight regarding food, agriculture, natural resources, rural development, nutrition, and issues related to public policy.
One agency is the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS). The AMS creates and administers domestic and international marketing opportunities for producers of “food, fiber, and specialty crops.” This includes commodity procurement and contract management for cotton, tobacco, livestock, poultry, specialty crops, and all types of food labeled organic.
As it turns out, the National Organic Program (NOP) is the federal regulatory program within the AMS that develops then enforces national standards for organically produced agricultural products sold within the United States. Run by only 34 employees and the Office of the Deputy Administrator, the NOP was allocated $24 million within the 2024 operating budget to oversee and regulate all elements of the organic food industry. For comparison, the budget for the Packers and Stockyards program, which regulates and monitors the activities of livestock, meat, and poultry, was allocated $35 million.
NOP oversees the work of 84 certifiers who perform audits, write audit report reviews, send out notices of noncompliance, issue corrective action reviews, and respond to consumers and producers seeking information and assistance regarding all food categories of organic food and labeling, including meat. The expanded availability of organic products in retail stores, supermarkets, and online platforms has made it easier for consumers to access organic meat and has contributed to its market’s growth. In 2021, just over 16,000 certified organic farms were in operation in the US, with California having the most certified farms by far (3,061) while nearly 7,000 farms were certified as organic pastureland and rangeland.
Want to become an organic farmer? There’s a lot to know…
The organic food market’s overall growth has impacted the organic meat sector in many positive ways. As consumers become more aware and critical of the quality of food they eat and prepare for their families, their concerns are driving the availability of organic products in retail stores, supermarkets, and online platforms, including the search for organic meat.
The size of the Global Organic Meat Market was valued at USD $18.78 Billion in 2022 and is poised to grow to USD $37.39 Billion by 2031. The concern for animal welfare is a significant driver for the organic markets. North America is expected to lead the global demand for organic meat. This is, at least in part, due to NOP and USDA programs that support the production of organic meat and meat-related goods.
There is also a growing emphasis on regenerative organic practices for the organic meat industry. Organic meat production typically adheres to stricter animal welfare standards than conventional meat production.
Regenerative farming has been used since the late 1970s, but the terms Regenerative Agriculture and Regenerative Farming came into wider circulation in the early 1980s and is becoming a very popular buzzword now. The technology focuses on restoring soil health via holistic land management, rotational grazing, and enhancing crop biodiversity. While organic farms also prioritize soil health, regenerative practices often go beyond organic standards.
Under NOP regulations, each certified organic farm must have an organic systems plan (OSP), a detailed outline that explains how the farm operations will satisfy the requirements of the NOP regulations. Just understanding all the rules used to monitor and market the organic food market is onerous. This includes (in part) keeping track of updates to each of these regulations:
Organic is a labeling term that indicates that the food or other agricultural products have been produced through approved methods. These methods integrate cultural, biological, and mechanical practices that foster the recycling of resources, promote ecological balance, and conserve biodiversity. Synthetic fertilizers, sewage sludge, irradiation, and genetic engineering may not be used.
Many consumers want to eat as “clean” as possible, meaning they want real food that is not contaminated with chemicals, antibiotics, pesticides, GMOs, and toxic vaccines.
Livestock and poultry farmers have caught on to this. Many farmers believe in the organic certification concept but are unwilling to go through the long, and often very expensive, certification program process. After the certification, farmers have to pay an annual, often pricey, fee to maintain the certification.
When consumers see the word “organic” on a package or a label, they have expectations about the product they are purchasing. USDA-certified organic foods must be grown and processed according to federal guidelines that take into consideration soil quality, animal raising practices, pest and weed control, and the use of antibiotics and hormones.
USDA organic regulations prohibit the use of GMO ingredients, listing them as “excluded methods.” Foods labeled organic are also not allowed to contain bioengineered ingredients (BE), which means ingredients made using recombinant DNA technology such as gene deletion, gene doubling, introducing a foreign gene, and changing the positions of genes. (NOTE: These ingredients ARE in foods that are NOT organic).
Organic products are labeled according to the percentage of organic ingredients they contain. There are four distinct labeling categories for organic products:
100 Percent Organic – Products with this label contain only certified organic ingredients, including any processing aids.
Organic – For products in the “organic” category, at least 95% of the ingredients must be certified organic. The remaining five percent of ingredients must be organically produced, unless commercially unavailable or allowed on the National List.
Made With Organic ***– For multi-ingredient agricultural products, the “Made with organic ***” label means the product must contain at least 70 percent certified organic ingredients. These products may contain up to 30% of allowed non-organic ingredients. All ingredients – including the 30% non-organic ingredients – must be produced without GMOs.
If a product states, “Made with organic grains,” all ingredients derived from grains— including enriched wheat flour, corn oil, or oats—must be certified organic. If a product contains both organic and non-organic forms of the same ingredient, they must be identified separately in the ingredient statement.
Specific Organic Ingredients – This label is a mixture of non-organic and certified organic ingredients. The ingredient statement of the products identifies that the product contains less than 70% organic content.
These labeling differences help educated consumers to distinguish between products that are either labeled as “made with organic ingredients” or products that are made with a mix of ingredients.
The USDA and NOP organic regulations prohibit organically labeled food from being contaminated with residuesfrom pesticides, antibiotics, hormones, and genetically modified (GMO) or bioengineered (BE) ingredients. Products undergo required residue testing. If foods are found to be even minimally contaminated (there is no minimum level that is tolerated), penalties and warning letters are issued. (In other words, organic food appears to have a zero tolerance level for these residues. That’s good!)
Labels for Meat
Chicken
To be designated as organic, the birds must be raised organically, starting no later than two days after they hatch. The USDA requires the chicken’s feed to be grown without pesticides or synthetic fertilizers and certified.
Being free-range is not the same as being organic. Free-range and cage-free refers to where/how the chickens lived, not what they were fed, and gives no indication about the quality of the air or hygiene levels where they lived. According to the New Roots Institute,
“Outside space provided to free-range chickens is loosely defined and often just a formality: it’s likely too small, barren, and otherwise inadequate for the thousands of chickens being raised in a farm for slaughter.’
Free-range. “Free-range” is a marketing term used by the food industry. It means the bird was provided shelter, unlimited access to food, fresh water, and outdoor access during their production or life cycle for at least 51% of their lives (making it “the majority” of their lives).
Cage-free. This label indicates that the bird could roam within a building, a room, or an enclosed area with unlimited access to food and fresh water. Cage-free hens generally have no access to the outdoors.
Don’t be fooled by food labels that sound like the living conditions are better for chickens. The ASPC (American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals®) has a table to help make informed choices about chicken meat. The guide helps consumers make choices based on chicken welfare. These three are the best choices:
Source: ASPC table
Eggs
With labels like “organic,” “free-range,” “cage-free,” and “vegetarian fed” it’s hard to know which eggs are the best to buy. While food labeling should be simple and transparent, unfortunately, is mostly about marketing.
Conventional Eggs
Conventional eggs are not the most ethical or nutritious eggs. These birds are generally fed poor quality feed that often contains antibiotics and hormones. Hens live in stacked rows of cages and live in a space approximately the size of a sheet of paper. The vast majority of egg-laying hens are confined in battery cages. Unable to spread their wings, caged laying hens are among agribusiness’s most intensively confined animals. The poor living conditions increase the risk of bacterial contamination.
Globally, non-typhoidal Salmonella is the most frequently documented cause of foodborne disease. In the US, it is the second most common cause of foodborne outbreaks, and around 20% of the illnesses caused by Salmonella are related to poultry, poultry products, and eggs.
In a study from 2023, Salmonella contamination varies widely among egg-producing countries. Contamination in US is low, and reported to be 0.005%. In Europe, Salmonella contamination has been found to be about 0.37%, and in China, the world’s largest egg producer eggs, between 0.5% and 5.6% of eggs were found to be contaminated with the bacteria.
Free-Range Eggs
Lines can get blurred when it comes to the free-range egg label. This is because organic eggs must be from free-range hens, but free-range eggs aren’t necessarily organic, because the birds do not need to be fed organic feed. The USDA only requires free-range eggs come from “free-range” chickens but most really only have limited access to a small, fenced in outdoor area.
Likewise, eggs labeled as “vegetarian,” “antibiotic-free,” or “all-natural” don’t have to meet the strict standards required for certified organic eggs. There’s little oversight, so it’s often up to individual farms or companies to define what those labels mean
Organic Eggs
Under the USDA Organic Certification Requirements, organic eggs must come from chickens that are fed only organic feed that is free of animal by-products, synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, or chemical additives. These chickens must not be given any antibiotics or additional hormones.
Organic eggs must be laid by 100% free-range, cage-free chickens with access to an outdoor area, even if it’s small. Overall, organically raised hens offer the highest standard of animal welfare, making them the most ethical egg option available.
Organic eggs are more nutritional sound, even though the industry says there is no difference between organic and non-organic eggs. Since the hens are fed high-quality feed, have more movement, and are drug-free, they produce fresher eggs with more nutrients. The yolks of organic eggs have a richer orange color; they certainly taste richer and healthier. After eating organic eggs, I find the non-organic eggs served in most restaurants taste like styrofoam in comparison.
While organic eggs are often more expensive, sometimes double the cost of commercial eggs, they’re worth it. Look for the USDA Certified Organic label on the egg carton or buy from local farmers who follow the strict standard s for raising organic birds.
Beef
NOTE: Grass-fed describes WHAT the animal was eating, whereas pasture-fed describes WHERE the animal was being fed.
Organic means the cows ate only organic feed and were not given antibiotics or hormones.
Grass-fed
Animals receive most of their nutrients from grass and forages (such as hay) throughout their life. However, the animal’s diet has nothing to do with whether or not it received hormones or antibiotics, or was exposed to toxic pesticides, including glyphosate. In other words, just because it the meat is labeled grass-fed, doesn’t necessarily mean it is organic.
The American Grassfed Association (AGA), a non-governmental organization, developed an approval label to clear this concern. If the meat has an AGA label , it means the animal was raised in a pasture, only fed grass or hay, and was never treated with hormones or antibiotics. American Grassfed Association (AGA) is a producer-founded and run non-profit organization that supports American Family Farms and Ranchers through certification, advocacy, and education programs.
A list of AGA-approved providers can be found here.
Pasture-raised
A pastured-raised animal must have had access to the outdoors for at least 120 days per year. According to USDA regulations, this label includes terminology that refers to only a particular animal. For example, the animal may have lived in a field or on a wide-open ranch, or it may have lived outside in a small pen. The USDA has not developed a labeling policy regarding hormones and antibiotics for pasture-raised products.
Pork
Pigs intended for meat products must be raised organically from the last third of gestation and, like beef, without the use of antibiotics and growth hormone stimulants. To be labeled USDA certified organic, the pork must not only come from pigs raised on organically certified farms but also be processed by a USDA certified organic processing plant.
There are four major aspects of USDA-certified organic regulations relating to pig production—source of animals, feed, healthcare, and living conditions. The only piglets that can be sold as organic are those who whose mother (the sow) has been managed organically from the last third of gestation to birth (gestation ranges from 111 to 120 days.) Federal organic regulations require that organic pigs have access to the outdoors, shade, shelter, exercise areas, fresh air, clean drinking water, and direct sunlight. Organic pigs must have access to clean, dry bedding. If the bedding has crop residue, it must be from organic crops. (Pigs are treated more humanely than chickens).
Pork labeled as organic must come from pigs that have only been fed a diet consisting of organic grains and protein sources, including organic soybean meal. The animal feed must be 100% organically produced and without animal byproducts or daily drugs. GMOs, or hormones. While antibiotics are strictly prohibited, vaccines are allowed….andthey get many.
Sheep
As of Jan. 31, 2024, there were 5.03 million head of sheep in the United States, with the largest numbers being located in Texas, California, and Colorado. Even though sheep are produced in all 50 states, most large sheep ranches are located west of the Mississippi River. When it comes to the countries with the most sheep, the US isn’t even inthe top 10.
Lamb is meat from a young sheep, under one year of age. Lamb is said to have a very delicate, even slightly sweet, grass-fed flavor; the meat is very tender. Lamb is usually 60-70% more costly than mutton. Mutton is the meat of mature sheep, harvested between 2 to 3 years of age. Mutton is said to have a robust, greasy, even gamey taste compared to true cuts of lamb. Because the animal is older, the meat tends to be tougher and more “chewy.” Most lamb meat sold in the US comes from older sheep.
The USDA does not have clear labeling rules that differentiate between lamb and mutton. Classifying and labeling the meat lamb, yearling, or mutton is left to producers. Therefore, any sheep meat under 24 months at the time of harvest can be labelled as lamb when it is actually mutton.
An astonishingly large and diverse number of products are made from sheep and their byproducts, from food to cosmetics and shaving cream to surgical sutures. Check out this American Sheep Industry Association flier to seethe full list.
What about produce labels?
Produce can be labeled organic if it was grown in soil that has not had any prohibited substances applied to it for at least three years before harvest. Products that are clearing not organic have no misleading labeling, except for products that now bear the label coated with Apeel, which I’ve written about previously.
Another chemical used on produce since 1996 is called 1-MCP, which stands for methyl-cyclopropane, marketed under the name Smart Fresh. When sprayed on apples and oranges, the shelf life can be extended for up to three years by blocking the replication of bacteria on the surface of the fruit, but it can also disrupts human and animal gut microbiome.
Other labels found on produce are the PLU labels, standing for Price-LookUp codes. They allow retailers to manage inventory, process customer checkout faster, and help manage the produce industry supply chain. Assigned by the International Federation for Produce Standards (IFPS), more than 1,400 PLU codes have been assigned to various types of fruits and vegetables. The labels also identify if the produce is organic or conventionally grown.
A four-digit code starting with the number 3 or 4 (3000 or 4000 series) is used for conventionally grown produce. This means synthetic fertilizers, chemicals, and/or pesticides might have been used during the growth of the produce.
A five-digit code starting with the number 3 identifies fruits and vegetables that have been irradiated or electronically pasteurized.
A five-digit code starting with the number 6 identifies pre-cut fruits and vegetables.
A five-digit code starting with the number 8 is designated for fruits and vegetables that have been genetically modified or bioengineered.
A five-digit code starting with the number 9 is designated for organic fruits and vegetables.
If the code contains more than five digits, it is not part of the IFPS standardized system.
Summary
the next time you go to the grocery store, spend a little more time reading food labels. Now that you know a little more how they are categorized, you can be an even better consumer for yourself and your family. You’ll want to chose organic eggs, Certified Humane chicken, and AGA labeled beef. You may want to shop using the ASPC food shopping list. They say on their website, but it’s a place to start.
“Where to buy” information is kept up-to-date by individual companies; please contact the store or seller directly to confirm product availability.
*The ASPCA does not audit farms or ranches and instead relies on independent animal welfare certifications as the basis for evaluating different food brands in the marketplace.
No surprise it would be taking over in the UK, where the Nanny State boobs are some of the most deranged on the planet.
Buckle up.
BBC: “Every newborn baby in England will have their DNA mapped to assess their risk of hundreds of diseases, under NHS plans for the next 10 years.”
“…part of a government drive towards predicting and preventing illness…”
“The government’s 10-year plan…is aimed at easing pressure on [medical] services. The Department for Health and Social Care said that genomics—the study of genes—and AI would be used to ‘revolutionise prevention’ and provide faster diagnoses and an ‘early warning signal for disease’.”
This is complete bullshit.
The study of genes to treat disease is aimed largely at raising MONEY for research.
Aside from isolated “miracle cases” here and there, there are NO genetic cures for any disease.
So how in the world will analyzing the DNA of every baby add up to “better medical care?”
What WILL happen is lots more government surveillance of citizens from cradle to grave—using their DNA profiles—under the convenient do-good cover story of “we’re catching disease earlier and treating it.”
Also, the people of the UK can look forward to hundreds more nonsense disease labels, supposedly describing what “genetic research” is uncovering.
Every person will be a captive of the medical cartel from birth to death. Featuring all new toxic drugs and vaccines. (link)
The Bibi Files is a film that features leaked interrogation footage from the trial of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin (Bibi) Netanyahu.
He faces corruption charges that may to lead to a prison sentence if he loses his seat in office. Critics say that he has prolonged the Gaza war in order to keep his post as prime minister and avoid being tried on corruption charges for accepting lavish gifts and bribing the media for positive news coverage.
The corruption charges include accepting expensive gifts that include champagne for his wife Sara, who witnesses in the film say drinks excessively. Hollywood film producer Arnon Milchan said that he bought her a necklace. It is alleged that Milchan, who revealed that he secretly helped Israel develop its nuclear weapons program, received benefits from Netanyahu. Critics believe that Sara Netanyahu sets policy and gained power after Bibi admitted to an affair in 1993.
Miriam Adelson, who pledged $100 million to Trump in the 2024 election made a startling statement when she was asked if the basis of the Adelson’s friendship with the Netanyahus was money. She replied, “What can I say? If this comes out, I am dead.”
.
Excerpts from Al Jazeera December 2024:
Analysts and observers posit that in his [Netanyahu’s] efforts to avoid the trials and possible conviction, Netanyahu has been extending and expanding Israel’s assault on the besieged Gaza Strip.
Save
Here’s a breakdown of what he is accused of doing:
Case 1000
Also known as the “Gifts Affair”, this case charges the Israeli prime minister with fraud and breach of trust.
It involves allegations that Netanyahu and his wife Sara received lavish gifts from two wealthy businessmen in exchange for political favours.
The businessmen are Arnon Milchan, an Israeli Hollywood film producer, and Australian billionaire James Packer. The gifts allegedly include champagne and cigars.
Milchan testified that he provided gifts to Netanyahu in June 2020.
Netanyahu is accused of advancing Milchan’s interests by helping secure a United States visa after speaking to US government officials.
He is also accused of advancing a tax exemption law that could have benefitted Israelis abroad, including Milchan.
Fraud and breach of trust can result in prison sentences of up to three years, while bribery charges can result in up to 10 years in jail and/or a fine.
Then-Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit said the gifts were given continuously, “such that they became a sort of ‘supply channel’”.
The goods were valued at approximately 700,000 shekels ($186,000), according to a statement made by Mandelblit following the indictment, and were given to Netanyahu “in connection with his public roles and his status as Israel’s Prime Minister”.
Case 2000
It says Netanyahu made a deal with businessman Aron Mozes, a controlling shareholder of the Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth, for favourable coverage in exchange for legislation to slow the growth of the rival Israel Hayom newspaper.
This case also charges him with fraud and breach of trust.
In Mandelblit’s indictment summary, he said despite “a profound rivalry” between the two men, they conducted three series of meetings between 2008 and 2014.
During these meetings, Netanyahu and Mozes “engaged in discussions regarding the promotion of their common interests: improving the coverage that Mr. Netanyahu received in the ‘Yedioth Aharonoth’ media group; and the imposition of restrictions on the ‘Israel Hayom’ newspaper”, Mandelblit said.
A legislative bill was also being considered that would have limited the circulation of Israel Hayom, according to the indictment’s summary.
Case 4000
This case indicts Netanyahu for granting regulatory favours to Israeli telecommunications company Bezeq in return for positive coverage of him and his wife on a news website controlled by its former chairman.
Netanyahu, in his capacity as communications minister at the time, allegedly provided regulatory benefits to Shaul Elovitch, the owner of Bezeq who also controlled the news website Walla.
The benefits reportedly included mergers and financial gains.
In exchange, Elovitch provided favourable coverage of Netanyahu and his wife.
Netanyahu “dealt on several occasions with regulatory matters pertaining to Mr Elovitch, and took specific actions that promoted significant business interests of Mr Elovitch of substantial financial value”, the indictment summary said.
Besides fraud and breach of trust, Netanyahu has been charged with bribery in this case.
•A long history exists of a wave of severe injuries following new vaccinations being introduced to the market. In most cases, those injuries were swept under the rug to protect the business.
•In many cases, the severe “mysterious” injuries we see now are remarkably similar to those that were observed over a century ago. Unfortunately, a widespread embargo exists on ever allowing this data to come to light (as that would instantly destroy the vaccine program).
•A variety of independent studies (summarized below) have shown that vaccines cause a wide range of chronic illnesses.
•A 1990 book made a strong case that widespread vaccination was also causing an epidemic of widespread brain damage which was both lowering America’s IQ and causing a massive rise in violent crime.
•In this article, we will also review exactly what in that 1990 book and the classic signs that can be used to determine if someone has a vaccine injury (along with the subtle more spiritual ones).
Note: due to the recent ACIP changes (the committee which decides which vaccines you take) and past interest in this article, I revised and updated it.
My mind often overlaps the past present and future onto themselves. Because of this, I will frequently recall events that happened in the past which perfectly mirror what is unfolding before us, and in turn, I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve witnessed humanity repeat its same mistakes or can see a slow motion train-wreck ahead on the horizon. During COVID, I realized we were again reenacting the same tragedy humanity had ever experienced since the smallpox vaccine was brought to the market and I had a thought. If people became aware of what had happened before and ended our collective amnesia, perhaps this could at last stop.
As fate would have it, my wish came true, and without knowing me, Steve Kirsch gave me the opportunity to begin introducing that forgotten history to the world. This happened after he chose to publish an article I wrote illustrating how the trucker protests were identical to smallpox protests that had happened more than a century before and then for reasons I still do not understand, encouraged his readers to subscribe to me so I would start writing here. Note: At the time I chose the username “A Midwestern Doctor” (for the smallpox article), I did not put much thought into it as I was never expecting to use it again.
Over the years, I’ve noticed again and again that a vaccine disaster happens which injuries many in a very similar way, it gets swept under the rug (often by officials who are quite conflicted in their decision to do so), and then the same thing happens again a few decades later.
Given that we give dozens of vaccines to each member of society, this raises an obvious question—what is that doing to society?
A Brief History of Vaccine Disasters
In 1798, the smallpox vaccine hit the market. Once it hit the market, it was observed to frequently cause smallpox outbreaks (rather than prevent them) and to cause a wide range of debilitating and complex injuries that many of the doctors had never seen before (and many of which I believe were examples of “blood stasis”). Curiously, rather than recognizing this was a mistake, most of the medical profession endorsed the smallpox vaccine, and governments around the world mandated it as cases kept on increasing, leading to a downward spiral that was eventually broken by mass public protest against those mandates. Having looked at it extensively, I am of the opinion the smallpox vaccine reshaped the trajectory of humanity’s health and was an inflection point in the era of chronic illness.
In the 1800s and early 1900s, a variety of early vaccines (e.g., rabies, typhoid, diphtheria, tuberculosis) and horse-generated antiserums (for most of the common infections at the time) entered the market. Since many of these vaccines were produced in small independent labs, there were a variety of quality control issues with these products, which frequently led to hot lots being released that severely injured or killing a group of people. Additionally, many of those vaccines had a high degree of toxicity. Because of this, a variety of new and severe medical conditions emerged, many of which were deemed to be due to brain inflammation (encephalitis) or brain damage (encephalopathy) and observed to occur in conjunction with cranial nerve damage. Most of these conditions (which I discussed in detail here) in turn mirrored the myriad of injuries we now too see from modern vaccinations. In addition to the injuries, two major issues stood out during this period:
•First, in addition to sometimes being directly contaminated with the disease causing organism (e.g., yellow fever or tuberculosis) and causing the illness, vaccines would often cause a temporary immune suppression which lead to disease outbreaks in those vaccinated (discussed here). However, each time this happened, rather than it being seen as a sign we needed to dial back vaccination, it was interpreted as not enough people being vaccinated and harsher and harsher vaccine mandates being instituted to enact that policy or new vaccines being created to address the existing damage of vaccination (e.g., the DPT vaccine frequently caused polio outbreaks).
•Second, public health officials and vaccine designers were well aware of the injuries vaccines were causing, but since no other treatments existed for the disease, regrettably deemed this to be a necessary sacrifice for the greater good and hence covered the injuries up so the public would continue to vaccinate. However, while I understand their perspective, it rested on a faulty premise—effective treatments did exist for the illnesses (e.g., in 1920 it was known IV hydrogen peroxide could treat severe infections and in 1928 it was known that ultraviolet blood irradiation could treat many otherwise incurable infections). Note: as you might have noticed, everything I just described also applies to the COVID-19 vaccines, hence illustrating how these dysfunctional cycles frequently perpetuate indefinitely.
In the 1940s-1950s, the original pertussis vaccine (DPT) entered the market. This vaccine excelled at causing brain inflammation and a variety of concerning differences were seen in the generations born after its mass adoption in America. Note: The rabies vaccine also excelled at causing encephalitis (around 1 in 750 injections, of which 20% were fatal), but it did not have as large an impact on society because far fewer people received it.
Between the 1950s to 1970s, numerous instances happened where a rushed and poorly produced experimental vaccine (e.g., polio or the swine flu) was brought to market to address a non-existent “emergency,” and the government chose to ignore warnings from its scientists that it was not safe to give to America. Since the press was honest at this time, they reported the disaster, it became a national scandal and the government provided compensation to the victims. Note: I compiled those media reports here, the last of which happened in 2002 with Bush’s smallpox vaccine.
In 1986, enough public awareness existed of the dangers of the DPT vaccine that lawsuits were regularly being filed for the brain damage and sudden infant deaths it caused (discussed here). This in turn led to the 1986 vaccine injury act being passed (discussed further here), an act that both shielded vaccine manufacturers from product liability and was intended to help parents of vaccine injured children (even though it didn’t due to selective enforcement of its provisions and the Supreme Court exempting manufacturers from injuries caused by defective vaccines). This act being passed led to an industry gold rush to bring experimental and liability free vaccines to the market, and before long the childhood vaccination schedule ballooned in parallel to chronic illnesses increasing as well.
Note: since this time other vaccines (e.g., RSV and annual COVID vaccinations) were also added to the childhood schedule (but fortunately MAHA managed to recently do the impossible and remove COVID from it).
In 1990, an experimental anthrax vaccine was deployed upon the military to prepare them for invading Iraq. While the war was non-eventful (Saddam did not use anthrax and it was likely the most one-sided conflict in history), the anthrax vaccine severely injured over 100,000 servicemen (leading to what was known as Gulf War Syndrome). Despite these issues, individuals within the Department of Defense who were committed to funding their bioweapons defense program mandated it—leading to severe injuries throughout the military and widespread rebellion against this edict.
After this, new biotechnologies began emerging which made it possible to genetically engineer a plethora of new vaccines that then began to flood the market as ACIP endorses virtually every vaccine given to them regardless of its merits (in fact, throughout their dozens of endorsements I could only identify one case where ACIP did not [boosters for teachers and healthcare workers], and in that instance the CDC simply overrode ACIP). In tandem, direct to consumer pharmaceutical advertising was legalized by a 1997 FDA decision, making it possible for the pharmaceutical industry to buy the mass media’s silence, and hence end all future coverage of vaccine injury.
In 2010, Merck convinced America’s women they were at a high risk of dying from cervical cancer (which in reality only kills about 1/38,000 American women each year) so that everyone would buy their highly lucrative vaccine (which was never proven to reduce cervical cancer deaths). This vaccine had an extraordinarily high rate of injuries (e.g., severe autoimmune disorders), but nonetheless, despite a deluge of complaints, the CDC and FDA did everything they could to protect it, and to this day it is still mandated for children.
In 2021, the COVID vaccine hit the market and caused an unprecedented amount of injury (e.g., many noticed healthy adults dying “suddenly” and large polls showed 34% of vaccine recipients reported minor side effects while 7% reported major ones severely impacting their quality of life). Fortunately or unfortunately, the rate of injuries from it was so high that unlike the past disasters, the mass media could no longer sweep it under the rug, which eventually culminated in MAHA ascending as a political force and RFK Jr. being put in charge of the agency which has orchestrated the vaccine disaster for decades.
In my eyes, one of the most important points to take from this history is that at the time each of these happened, the medical profession and public were struck by the explosion of these new diseases (and their immense social cost) but before long, became acclimated to them and forgot they had ever emerged in the first place.
The Harms of Vaccination
There is a large body of evidence suggesting vaccines are either solely responsible for, or one of the primary things responsible for the tsunami of chronic illness which has followed their ever-increasing adoption. …
to read the rest go to: https://www.midwesterndoctor.com/p/how-much-damage-has-mass-vaccination?publication_id=748806&post_id=166011036&isFreemail=true&r=19iztd&triedRedirect=true&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Someone our family has known forever recently told my sister that they’ve been reading my Substack and that if they wrote the things I write, people would call them crazy. I got a kick out of that—not because it’s untrue, but because it reveals something darker about where we’ve ended up as a society. Most people are terrified of being themselves in public.
My sister’s response made me laugh: “People do call him crazy. He simply doesn’t care.” The funniest part is that I don’t even write the craziest stuff I research—just the stuff I can back up with sources and/or my own personal observations. I always try to stay rooted in logic, reason and facts though—I’m clear when I’m speculating and when I’m not.
This same guy has sent me dozens of private messages over the last 4 or 5 years challenging me on stuff I share online. I’ll respond with source material or common sense, and then—crickets. He disappears. If I say something he doesn’t want to hear, he vanishes like a child covering his ears. Over the last few years, I’ve been proven right about most of what we’ve argued about, and he’s been wrong. But it doesn’t matter—he’s got the memory of a gnat and the pattern never changes.
But he’d never make that challenge publicly, never risk being seen engaging with my arguments where others might witness the conversation. This kind of private curiosity paired with public silence is everywhere—people will engage with dangerous ideas in private but never risk being associated with them publicly. It’s part of that reflexive “that can’t be true” mindset that shuts down inquiry before it can even begin.
But he’s not alone. We’ve created a culture where wrongthink is policed so aggressively that even successful, powerful people whisper their doubts like they’re confessing crimes.
I was on a hike last year with a very prominent tech VC. He was telling me about his son’s football team—how their practices kept getting disrupted because their usual field on Randall’s Island was now being used to house migrants. He leaned in, almost whispering: “You know, I’m a liberal, but maybe the people complaining about immigration have a point.” Here’s a guy who invests mountains of money into companies that shape the world we live in, and he’s afraid to voice a mild concern about policy in broad daylight. Afraid of his own thoughts.
After I spoke out against vaccine mandates, a coworker told me he totally agreed with my position—but he was angry that I’d said it. When the company didn’t want to take a stand, I told them I would speak as an individual—on my own time, as a private citizen. He was pissed anyway. In fact, he was scolding me about the repercussions to the company. What’s maddening is that this same person had enthusiastically supported the business taking public stands on other, more politically fashionable causes over the years. Apparently, using your corporate voice was noble when it was fashionable. Speaking as a private citizen became dangerous when it wasn’t.
Another person told me they agreed with me but wished they were “more successful like me” so they could afford to speak out. They had “too much to lose.” The preposterousness of this is staggering. Everyone who spoke out during COVID sacrificed—financially, reputationally, socially. I sacrificed plenty myself.
But I’m no victim. Far from it. Since I was a young man, I’ve never measured achievement by finance or status—my benchmark for being a so-called successful person was owning my own time. Ironically, getting myself canceled was actually a springboard to that. For the first time in my life, I felt I’d achieved time ownership. Whatever I’ve achieved came from being raised by loving parents, working hard, and having the spine to follow convictions rationally. Those attributes, coupled with some great fortune, are the reason for whatever success I’ve had—they’re not the reason I can speak now. Maybe this person should do some inward searching about why they’re not more established. Maybe it’s not about status at all. Maybe it’s about integrity.
This is the adult world we’ve built—one where courage is so rare that people mistake it for privilege, where speaking your mind is seen as a luxury only the privileged can afford, rather than a fundamental requirement for actually becoming established.
And this is the world we’re handing to our children.
We Built the Surveillance State for Them
I remember twenty years ago, my best friend’s wife (who’s also a dear friend) was about to hire someone when she decided to check the candidate’s Facebook first. The woman had posted: “Meeting the whores at [company name]”—referring to my friend and her coworkers. My friend immediately withdrew the offer. I remember thinking this was absolutely terrible judgment on the candidate’s part, however it was dangerous territory we were entering: the notion of living completely in public, where every casual comment becomes permanent evidence.
Now that danger has metastasized into something unrecognizable. We’ve created a world where every stupid thing a fifteen-year-old says gets archived forever. Not just on their own phones, but screenshot and saved by peers who don’t understand they’re building permanent files on each other—even on platforms like Snapchat that promise everything disappears. We’ve eliminated the possibility of a private adolescence—and adolescence is supposed to be private, messy, experimental. It’s the laboratory where you figure out who you are by trying on terrible ideas and throwing them away.
But laboratories require the freedom to fail safely. What we’ve built instead is a system where every failed experiment becomes evidence in some future trial.
Think about the dumbest thing you believed at sixteen. The most embarrassing thing you said at thirteen. Now imagine that moment preserved in high definition, timestamped, and searchable. Imagine it surfacing when you’re thirty-five and running for school board, or just trying to move past who you used to be.
If there was a record of everything I did when I was sixteen, I would have been unemployable. Come to think of it, I’m way older than that now and I’m unemployable anyway—but the truth still stands. My generation might have been the last to fully enjoy an analog existence as children. We got to be stupid privately, to experiment with ideas without permanent consequences, to grow up without every mistake being archived for future use against us.
I remember teachers threatening us with our “permanent record.” We laughed—some mysterious file that would follow us forever? Turns out they were just early. Now we’ve built those records and handed the recording devices to children. Companies like Palantir have turned this surveillance into a sophisticated business model.
We’re asking children to have adult judgment about consequences they can’t possibly understand. A thirteen-year-old posting something stupid isn’t thinking about college applications or future careers. They’re thinking about right now, today, this moment—which is exactly how thirteen-year-olds are supposed to think. But we’ve built systems that treat childhood immaturity as a prosecutable offense.
The psychological toll is staggering. Imagine being fourteen and knowing that anything you say might be used against you by people you haven’t met yet, for reasons you can’t anticipate, at some unknown point in the future. That’s not adolescence—that’s a police state built out of smartphones and social media.
The result is a generation that’s either paralyzed by self-consciousness or completely reckless because they figure they’re already screwed. Some retreat into careful blandness, crafting personas so sanitized they might as well be corporate spokespeople for their own lives. Others go scorched earth—if everything’s recorded anyway, why hold back? As my friend Mark likes to say, there’s Andrew Tate and then there’s a bunch of incels—meaning the young men either become performatively brash and ridiculous, or they retreat entirely. The young women seem to either drift toward fearful conformity or embrace monetized exposure on platforms like OnlyFans. We’ve managed to channel an entire generation’s rebellion into the very systems designed to exploit them.
The COVID Conformity Test
This is how totalitarian thinking takes root—not through jackbooted thugs, but through a million small acts of self-censorship. ……
TO read the rest go to: https://stylman.substack.com/p/the-cowards-bargain?publication_id=24667&post_id=166277693&isFreemail=true&r=19iztd&triedRedirect=true&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Republicans can only afford to have three members vote ‘no’ to stop Trump’s “big, beautiful bill.” Representative Thomas Massie said that he is opposed to the bill that adds $20 trillion to the debt over 10 years. He said, “I don’t think he [Mr Trump] wants to talk about cutting spending.”
Trump emphasized that he does not want Medicare touched, and said that only waste, fraud and abuse would be cut. Representative Ted Lieu observed, “I don’t think the President has read the bill. He said ‘Don’t F around with Medicaid.’ The bulk of their bill messes around with Medicaid.”
Meanwhile, zero cuts were made to the Pentagon, instead, about $10 billion was funneled into it.
About 80 million Americans get Medicare and 70 million get Medicaid. Analysis from the congressional budget office shows that 7.6 million people would lose their Medicaid coverage if the current House proposal becomes law. 63% of nursing home care is funded by Medicaid. The bill would also cut 3 million people from the SNAP food stamps program.
The Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimated that the bill as written would increase deficits by $3.8 trillion through to 2034.
.
From The Telegraph:
Donald Trump has told Republicans in Congress not to “f— around” with his “big, beautiful bill” in a closed-door meeting to quash dissent.
The US president met with GOP representatives on Tuesday, urging them to unite around the budget reconciliation bill which will be crucial to driving through his massive domestic programme.
“Don’t f— around with Medicaid,” he told fiscal conservatives, who have pushed for cuts to the programme providing health insurance to low-income Americans, while urging moderates to drop their backing for tax relief.
Tuesday’s meeting was a test of Mr Trump’s ability to enforce his will on Congress and unite warring factions of his party behind his “big, beautiful bill” on energy, tax and border security.
Although he insisted before heading into the closed-doors gathering that the party was united behind his agenda barring “one or two grandstanders”, at least eight Republicans said immediately afterwards they were still opposed.
Trump ‘losing patience’
Republicans have a razor-thin majority in the House of Representatives and can only afford to lose three votes if the bill is to pass through the chamber.
While fiscal conservatives want Medicaid cuts to limit the growth of the deficit, other Republicans have warned it would hurt the party’s popular appeal and see it lose control of the House in the mid-terms next year.
A senior White House official said Mr Trump is “losing patience with all holdout factions”, according to The Wall Street Journal. A House Republican described the US president’s attitude: “He’s done with this.”
Andy Harris of Maryland, chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, which is pushing for Medicaid cuts, said he would not support the bill and that Republicans were “a long ways away” from a deal.
Chip Roy, a Texas congressman and another member of the caucus, said the bill needed to “deliver on the spending restraint” and was not “exactly where it needs to be, yet”.
Mr Trump pledged to oppose slashing the health insurance programme during his White House run last year, although he told Republicans on Tuesday that savings would be generated by addressing “waste, fraud and abuse”.
Marjorie Taylor Greene, the hardline Republican from Georgia, was one of the staunchest defenders of protecting Medicaid.
She has repeatedly warned her party that it risks losing touch with its base and on Tuesday told her colleagues that Mr Trump had not been elected to cut Medicaid, a source familiar with the meeting told The Telegraph.
Writing in The New York Times last week, Josh Hawley, the Missouri senator, said slashing the health programme would be “morally wrong and politically suicidal”.
It would mean “workers and their children will lose their health care” and end “any chance of us becoming a working-class party”, he argued.
A White House spokesman said: “President Trump and Republicans are protecting and preserving Medicaid for the Americans who the programme was intended to be a lifeline for: pregnant women, children, disabled individuals, and seniors.”
Analysis from the congressional budget office shows that 7.6 million people would lose their Medicaid coverage if the current House proposal becomes law.
Warren Davidson, an ally of Mr Trump’s, said he would vote against the bill as it stands because it “grows the deficit this Congress”.
The Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimated that the bill as written would increase deficits by $3.8 trillion through to 2034.
Trump Taps Palantir to Create Master Database on Every American
Hafiz Rashid
The Trump administration is collecting data on all Americans, and they are enlisting the data analysis company Palantir to do it.
The New York Timesreports that President Trump has enlisted the firm, founded by far-right billionaire Peter Thiel, to carry out his March executive order instructing government agencies to share data with each other. The order has increased fears that the government is putting together a database to wield surveillance powers over the American public.
Since then, the administration has been very quiet about these efforts, increasing suspicion. Meanwhile, Palantir has taken more than $113 million in government spending since Trump took office, from both existing contracts and new ones with the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security. That number is expected to grow, especially given that the firm just won a new $795 million contract with the DOD last week.
Palantir is speaking with various other agencies across the federal government, including the Social Security Administration and the IRS, about buying its technology, according to the Times. Palantir’s Foundry tool, which analyzes and organizes data, is already being used at the DHS, the Department of Health and Human Services, and at least two other agencies, allowing the White House to compile data from different places.
The administration’s efforts to compile data began under Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency initiative, which sought Americans’ personal data from multiple agencies including the IRS, the SSA, Selective Service, Medicare, and many others. In some cases, court orders hindered these efforts, but not in all of them.
Thiel has multiple ties to DOGE, both through Musk and through many of his former employees working for the effort or taking other jobs in the Trump administration. And this data collection effort could give Thiel, Musk, and Trump unprecedented power over Americans, with the president being better able to punish his critics and target immigrants.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has cleared its first-ever lab-grown fish for sale in the United States — based entirely on data submitted by the manufacturer. Wildtype, a California-based food tech company, is now approved to serve its cell-cultivated coho salmon.
This FDA approval makes Wildtype the fourth company cleared to market lab-grown animal products in the country. The salmon is now available on the menu at Kann, a high-profile Haitian restaurant in Portland. The company plans to roll out its “salmon” in four additional restaurants in the coming months, followed by a broader launch into the food-service sector.
What FDA Said
In its review, the FDA stated that it had “no questions” regarding the safety of Wildtype’s salmon. This bureaucratic phrasing marks the final step in the agency’s voluntary pre-market consultation process. The agency wrote:
Based on the data and information presented in [Wildtype’s pre-market safety submission to the FDA], we have no questions at this time about Wildtype’s conclusion that foods comprising or containing cultured coho salmon cell material resulting from the production process defined in [the submission] are as safe as comparable foods produced by other methods. Furthermore, at this time we have not identified any information indicating that the production process as described in [the submission] would be expected to result in food that bears or contains any substance or microorganism that would adulterate the food.
The FDA did not conduct its own tests. Instead, it based its clearance on Wildtype’s internal safety assessments. The agency said it found no evidence to contradict the company’s conclusions — but, apparently, also made no effort to verify them independently.
How It’s Made
Wildtype begins the process of creating what it calls “the cleanest, most sustainable seafood on the planet” by extracting cells from a single coho salmon. These can come from muscle tissue or even from a fertilized egg, per the company. The cells belong to the mesenchymal lineage, meaning they have the natural ability to turn into muscle, fat, or connective tissue.
Once collected, the cells are placed in a sterile, nutrient-rich environment designed to mimic the conditions inside a living fish. They grow and multiply in stainless steel tanks, similar to the fermenters used in brewing. Over time, the cell mass expands to form the basis of what will become the finished product.
After harvesting, the cells are combined with a small number of plant-based ingredients. These help fine-tune the taste, color, and texture, giving the final product its sushi-grade look and feel. Wildtype previously used a plant-based scaffold to help shape the product, but has since moved away from that approach. The company now applies thermal processing after harvest to ensure food safety.
The result is a fillet that resembles raw fish in appearance and taste. According to Wildtype, it delivers the same amount of omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids as conventional salmon, but without the harmful levels of mercury, antibiotics, or parasites.
However, many of the details remain undisclosed — such as what gives it its pink color or which agents are used to prevent bacterial contamination. While the process appears clean and carefully controlled, critics point out that the lack of transparency and independent oversight leaves some important questions unanswered.
Safety, Hazards, and Oversight
Wildtype claims it follows a rigorous food-safety protocol. This includes a seafood-specific HACCP (Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points) plan, good manufacturing practices, allergen controls, verified suppliers, traceability for all inputs, batch testing, sanitation procedures, and employee retraining. On paper, the system checks all the regulatory boxes.
But key questions remain unanswered. Wildtype conducted no animal trials. No human feeding trials. And there is no post-market surveillance to monitor long-term health effects. The FDA didn’t request any of that. Instead, it accepted the company’s internal safety assessment, backed by a legal mechanism known as GRAS — “Generally Recognized as Safe.”
The GRAS designation was originally developed for substances used widely and safely for decades — food ingredients like vinegar or black pepper. As the FDA itself explains, GRAS status applies only when “all data necessary to establish safety” are publicly available and recognized by qualified experts. GRAS ingredients must meet the same standard as food additives: a “reasonable certainty of no harm” with intended use.
In Wildtype’s case, the FDA stretched that standard, to say the least. The cultivated salmon isn’t a familiar pantry item or time-tested seasoning. It’s an entirely new food category created in a lab, using techniques borrowed from pharmaceutical manufacturing. And the only data the FDA relied on came from the company itself.
Jaydee Hanson, policy director at the Center for Food Safety, told The Defender that the FDA’s move was “outrageous.” He argued that the GRAS pathway was never meant for novel biotech products like this:
The FDA is negligent, I would say, in allowing a company to use the self-approved generally recognized as safe method. And then the FDA should have developed its own new guidelines for how to test this new food.
Without those guidelines, and without independent testing, critics say, the FDA handed off its regulatory role to the very company seeking approval — leaving consumers to hope the science holds up.
Cultivated Food and Globalism
The push for lab-grown meat and seafood doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It aligns closely with Agenda 2030, the United Nations’ sweeping blueprint for global control. Among its 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), several specifically target the way food is produced, distributed, and consumed.
Under SDG 2 (“Zero Hunger”) and SDG 12 (“Responsible Consumption and Production”), the UN calls for “sustainable food systems” that reduce environmental impact, use fewer natural resources, and decrease reliance on traditional agriculture. Cultivated meat, at least in theory, promises to do just that: no livestock, no methane, no deforestation.
Global institutions like the World Economic Forum (WEF), which supports cell-cultivated food as a scalable solution to “climate change” and global food insecurity, echo this narrative. Together, the UN and WEF promote a future of food that is lab-made, patent-protected, and centrally controlled.
Needless to say, this approach hands power over what we eat to a narrow set of actors: multinational corporations, unelected global bodies, and venture-backed biotech firms. Traditional farming, food independence, and personal choice are being engineered out of the equation.
(Tero Vesalainen/Getty Images Plus)
