Seeking Truth in a World of Propaganda. Links do not necessarily indicate agreement with stories or perspectives.
“Those who are able to see beyond the shadows and lies of their culture will never be understood, let alone believed, by the masses.” - Plato
It's only when the tide goes out that you learn who's been swimming naked," the billionaire investor Warren Buffett has famously said. During the crash of 2008, the whole world learned just how dangerously nude Wall Street was. Now it may be happening again – this time not with residential mortgage-backed securities, based on loans for homes, but commercial mortgage-backed securities, or CMBS, based on loans for businesses. John M. Griffin and Alex Priest are, respectively, a prominent professor of finance and a Ph.D. candidate at the McCombs School of Business at the University of Texas at Austin. In a study released last November, they sampled almost 40,000 CMBS loans with a market capitalization of $650 billion underwritten from the beginning of 2013 to the end of 2019. "Overall," they write, "actual net operating income falls short of underwritten income by 5% or more in 28% of loans." This was just the average, however: Some originators – including an unusual company called Ladder Capital as well as the Swiss bank UBS, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, and Morgan Stanley – were significantly worse, "having more than 35% of their loans exhibiting 5% or greater income overstatement." With almost every lender, including Ladder, the overstatement increased as time went on. These income overstatements might cause defaults under any circumstances. But it has been particularly dangerous in a severe economic downturn like the one caused by the coronavirus pandemic.
Note: For more along these lines, see concise summaries of deeply revealing news articles on financial industry corruption from reliable major media sources.
“OSHA does the right thing,” read my subject line for the email noting OSHA’s warning to employers not to require their workers to get jabbed.
So it looks like the globalist Gleichschaltung is now complete, vis-a-vis US federal agencies.
From Sanjoy Mahajan:
But they quickly decided to do the wrong thing:
https://twitter.com/sallyKP/status/1396108040236044288
Are adverse reactions to the COVID-19 vaccine recordable on the OSHA recordkeeping log?
DOL and OSHA, as well as other federal agencies, are working diligently to encourage COVID-19 vaccinations. OSHA does not wish to have any appearance of discouraging workers from receiving COVID-19 vaccination, and also does not wish to disincentivize employers’ vaccination efforts. As a result, OSHA will not enforce 29 CFR 1904’s recording requirements to require any employers to record worker side effects from COVID-19 vaccination through May 2022. We will reevaluate the agency’s position at that time to determine the best course of action moving forward.
Because the entire purpose of government, in case you hadn’t heard, is to “encourage COVID-19 vaccinations.”
Three researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology were so sick in November of 2019 that they sought hospitalization, according to the Wall Street Journal, citing a previously undisclosed US intelligence report "that could add weight to growing calls for a fuller probe of whether the COVID-19 virus may have escaped from the laboratory."
Photo: hector retamal/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images
The details of the reporting go beyond a State Department fact sheet, issued during the final days of the Trump administration, which said that several researchers at the lab, a center for the study of coronaviruses and other pathogens, became sick in autumn 2019 “with symptoms consistent with both Covid-19 and common seasonal illness.”
The disclosure of the number of researchers, the timing of their illnesses and their hospital visits come on the eve of a meeting of the World Health Organization’s decision-making body, which is expected to discuss the next phase of an investigation into Covid-19’s origins. -WSJ
"The information that we had coming from the various sources was of exquisite quality. It was very precise. What it didn’t tell you was exactly why they got sick," one source told the Journal, while another person said the information, provided by an "international partner," was potentially significant but still in need of further investigation and corroboration.
But... but... but https://t.co/lTDs2RcNkG
— zerohedge (@zerohedge) May 23, 2021
The Wuhan lab has notably refused to share raw data, safety logs and lab records of its extensive experiments with bat coronaviruses, which a US-funded NGO, EcoHealth Alliance, collaborated with.
Beijing, meanwhile, has repeatedly denied that COVID-19 escaped from one of its labs - going as far on Sunday as to cite a WHO-led team's conclusion that a lab leak was unlikely. A WHO team, mind you, which included EcoHealth's Peter Daszak, the guy paid $666,000 per year by Anthony Fauci's NIH to collaborate with the WUhan lab.
"The U.S. continues to hype the lab leak theory," China's foreign ministry told the Journal in response to a request for comment. "Is it actually concerned about tracing the source or trying to divert attention?"
Maybe Beijing - with its sophisticated tracking techniques - can explain the whereabouts of still-missing WIV lab worker Huang Yanling?
Missing Chinese researcher Huang Yanling. Photo / news.com.au
Huang Yanling, who worked at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, was one of scores of doctors, scientists, activists and journalists who disappeared during the Chinese Communist Party's suspected cover-up.
During the early weeks of the outbreak last February, rumours swirled on Chinese social media that the graduate student was "patient zero", creating a direct link between the controversial lab and the virus outbreak.
Chinese officials quickly stepped in to censor the reports from the internet.
The Wuhan Institute of Virology denied she was patient zero and insisted, without evidence, that she was alive and well elsewhere in the country – while scrubbing her biography and image from its website. -NZ Herald
The Biden administration, meanwhile, has gone from scoffing at the lab-leak hypothesis to a more neutral 'wait-and-see' stance.
"We continue to have serious questions about the earliest days of the Covid-19 pandemic, including its origins within the People’s Republic of China," said a spokeswoman for the National Security Council. "We’re not going to make pronouncements that prejudge an ongoing WHO study into the source of SARS-CoV-2," she added.
The Journal, playing devil's advocate, notes that "It isn’t unusual for people in China to go straight to the hospital when they fall sick, either because they get better care there or lack access to a general practitioner," and that COVID-19 shares a multitude of symptoms with the flu despite being very different illnesses.
"Still, it could be significant if members of the same team working with coronaviruses went to hospital with similar symptoms shortly before the pandemic was first identified," the report continues.
That said, former US State Department official David Asher, who led a task force on the origins of COVID-19, told a Hudson Institute seminar in March that he doubted the lab workers were infected with an ordinary flu.
"I’m very doubtful that three people in highly protected circumstances in a level three laboratory working on coronaviruses would all get sick with influenza that put them in the hospital or in severe conditions all in the same week, and it didn’t have anything to do with the coronavirus," he said, adding that the researchers who fell ill may represent "the first known cluster" of COVID-19 cases.
Long characterized by skeptics as a conspiracy theory, the hypothesis that the pandemic could have begun with a lab accident has attracted more interest from scientists who have complained about the lack of transparency by Chinese authorities or conclusive proof for the alternate hypothesis: that the virus was contracted by humans from a bat or other infected animal outside a lab.
Many proponents of the lab hypothesis say that a virus that was carried by an infected bat might have been brought to the lab so that researchers could work on potential vaccines—only to escape.
While the lab hypothesis is being taken more seriously, including by Biden administration officials, the debate is still colored by political tensions, including over how much evidence is needed to sustain the hypothesis. -WSJ
That's a nice way of saying the CCP and the anti-Trump establishment politicized the most logical theory and wasted nearly 18 months covering for Beijing.
Trump State Dept in Jan, WSJ months later pic.twitter.com/GzObtz3eta
— Jack Posobiec (@JackPosobiec) May 23, 2021
LOL. Trump was talking about the Wuhan lab over a year ago.
— thebradfordfile (@thebradfordfile) May 23, 2021
He was right.
During the last week of the Trump administration, the State Department issued a fact sheet which drew on classified intelligence stating that the "U.S. government has reason to believe that several researchers inside the WIV became sick in autumn 2019, before the first identified case of the outbreak, with symptoms consistent with both Covid-19 and seasonal illnesses."
The Jan. 15 fact sheet added that this "raises questions about the credibility" of Wuhan bat researcher Shi Zhengli, and criticized Beijing for its "deceit and disinformation."
Thus far the Biden administration hasn't disputed a single aspect of the fact sheet.
And now the United States, along with the European Union and several other governments, have called for a more transparent investigation into the origins of COVID-19.
This is the moment when the mainstream media stands beneath your apartment building in front of everyone, drunk out of its mind to tell you it sees the light, after it called you a racist and crank for not believing its own absurd propaganda.
— Eric Weinstein (@EricRWeinstein) May 23, 2021
Enjoy it. The stupor will wear off.. https://t.co/8Y9E6segrL
Amazon Appeases FDA Removes Sulfur-Based Dietary Supplement From Online Offerings Because It Cures COVID-19 And Threatens Vaccine Emergency-Use Provisions.
Late last year (2020) the FDA issued a warning letter that a sulfur-based dietary supplement couldn’t be lawfully marketed because it was first studied as a drug in 1963 and marketed in that same year under the trade name Mucomyst to break up mucus accumulation in the upper respiratory tract (bronchus, lung).
The dietary supplement industry legally challenged the FDA over this categorical restriction for use solely as a drug to treat disease to the exclusion of its use to promote health, which is the what dietary supplements are permitted to claim.
In May of 2021 Amazon.com, obviously the major online marketer of dietary supplements, caved in to the FDA and removed the sulfur-based pills, called N acetyl cysteine, or NAC for short, from its online offerings. The dietary supplement industry is advising its members to continue selling NAC supplements. The FDA and supplement industry are in a standoff.
The FDA holds that any marketer of a dietary supplement like NAC cannot make any claim that their products prevent, treat or cure any disease. The first use of the molecule determines whether it is classified as a prescription-only drug or commercially available nutraceutical without need for a doctor’s prescription.
History of NAC
NAC lives two lives— one as a drug and one as a supplement. A guide to the use of Mucomyst can be found online at drugs.com. Mucomyst is categorically on both sides of the Rx vs non-Rx issue as it is an over-the-counter non-prescription drug, not a dietary supplement.
NAC has been marketed for many years as a non-prescription dietary supplement and is largely without side effects when used properly.
NAC was first synthetically made in 1961and patented by Mead Johnson in 1965 as an agent that broke up mucus in the respiratory tract in 1986 and as the antidote for acetaminophen (Tylenol) overdose poisoning of the liver in 1988.
NAC was first noted as a molecule that can restore glutathione levels in 1991 (pronounced gloo-tuh-thai-own), glutathione being the master antioxidant in the human body. The chemical pathway for glutathione is N-acetyl cysteine (NAC) à cysteine à glutathione.
L-cysteine, the sulfur-based precursor to glutathione, is found in garlic, eggs and fowl.
NAC’s presence in garlic has been confirmed. So, it could be said that NACs first use was as a component of dietary garlic that preceded its use as a synthetically produced drug molecule in 1963. But certainly, the first use of synthetically-made NAC was for a disease – bronchitis.
An FDA lawyer says: “We do not favor anybody. We read the law. We look at facts, not favoring one commodity over another, and we make our determinations.” But the FDA may have another motive for its timing to take NAC off store shelves.
NAC supplements don’t claim they treat diseases
NAC is marketed today without any disease claims so, what is the big stink over?
It’s about NAC curing COVID-19. In its overcommitment to vaccination to quell infectious diseases, the FDA appears to be hiding behind its own regulations on behalf of vaccine and drug makers who are allowed to market their experimental vaccines under emergency use provisions of the law given that COVID-19 allegedly threatens the life of every human being on the planet.
The regulatory statute that authorizes emergency use of vaccines carries with it the caveat that as long as “there are no adequate approved and available alternatives.” NAC may just be such an alternative that would block emergency use of COVID-19 vaccines.
These first of a kind coronavirus vaccines are reported to be 95+% effective at preventing symptomatic infection, but that is only among those who are exposed and infected. Since less than 1% of any population is infected at any given time, that is 95% of one-percent effectiveness. Ninety-nine people have to be immunized to prevent 1 infection. Actually it is more like 1 in 1000 for COVID-19
The presumption is that all vulnerable unvaccinated individuals will eventually be exposed and infected by COVID-19 and will develop antibodies upon future infection. But that is called natural immunity, something the medical community ignores.
Rather than enhance the immune system with essential vitamins A, C, D, and trace minerals zinc and selenium, pharmaceutical companies want to artificially intervene and introduce their patented antibody-provoking vaccines. There are three problems with that approach.
Hence, the idea to use NAC. A report published in the British Medical Journal advocates NAC’s use at least as an adjuvant (secondary, auxiliary) treatment.
NAC: Severe Cases COVID-19
Moreover, clinicians writing in the British Medical Journal alert the medical community that “a distinctive feature of COVID-19 is the presence of mucus plugs in the respiratory tract that explain the severity of this disease… we recommend treatment with NAC to relieve bronchial obstruction.”
OK, but that would typically be among severely infected patients in the ICU under a doctor’s care who would prescribe NAC. But this does show NAC addresses both the severely infected as well as the vulnerable uninfected individuals.
COVID-19 vaccines aren’t initially intended to save lives or prevent disease
At this point it must be emphasized that current studies to gain licensure for COVID-19 vaccines are not designed to prove these inoculums prevent or cure. The bar has been set very low to gain FDA licensure.
The so-called measurable end points to gain licensure are 50% reduction in severity or prevention. In other words, these vaccines don’t have to prove they save lives or even prevent infection to gain licensure, as long as they reduce severity of symptoms. (Page 14, Development & Licensure of Vaccines To Prevent COVID-19, Guidance For Industry, HHS, June 2020; COVID-19: Vaccines To Prevent SARS-CoV-2 Infection, Up-To-Date.com)
COVID-19 mortality studies would take a few years to complete. So, any data that would claim COVID-19 vaccines save lives is a long way off.
NAC: Implied effectiveness
Based upon a study published in 1997 showing 600 milligrams of oral NAC reduced flu symptoms from 79% to 25% in virus-infected subjects, NAC was recently suggested for use with COVID-19 infected patients.
A report published in the journal Therapeutics & Clinical Risk Management proposes 600 milligrams/day of NAC would prevent COVID-19, particularly for health care workers who are repeatedly exposed to infected patients, says a report in Future Microbiology.
Published studies also point to NAC as an effective antidote to vaccine side effects as well as being an immune booster.
Several scientific reports are coming to the conclusion “the oral administration of NAC is likely to attenuate (reduce) the risk of developing COVID-19.” Numerous clinical trials are underway to sort out NAC’s ability to quell COVID-19 coronavirus infection.
NAC addresses spike protein
NAC actually addresses the spike protein that is causing all the lung damage in COVID-19 this is explained and demonstrated eloquently in a report published in Circulation Research of April 2021 regardless of viral strain.
Method of action
Recently researchers investigated the biological activity stimulated by NAC. Unexpectedly, researchers found NAC is a poor antioxidant but as a sulfur molecule converts to hydrogen sulfide, primarily in the cell energy compartments of cells called mitochondria, that actually raises glutathione levels and produces the health benefits.
A hypothesis is that glutathione deficiency “is the most plausible explanation for serious manifestation and death in COVID-19 patients has been proposed. NAC is proposed as the most obvious and already proven way of raising glutathione levels in respiratory disease.
Safety profile
NAC works with minimal side effects (sometimes nausea, vomiting) when properly dosed. There is no disagreement that NAC is remarkably safe.
To withdraw NAC from the open marketplace while thousands of people are hospitalized and many are dying, seems unconscionable.
Of course, the confinement of NAC to prescription-only status would not likely extend to Mucomyst, which is an over-the-counter remedy for bronchitis.
Withdrawal of NAC from store shelves would necessitate a visit to the doctor’s office to obtain a prescription, which adds cost to the consumer.
NAC is often used by mothers for behavioral conditions (not diseases) that affect their children, such as skin picking, hair pulling, or nail biting (which affects a surprising 20-30% of the population), or for simple chronic bronchitis which affects 9.5 million Americans or 4% of the population, would appear to be harmful.
In a sane world, there ought to be an emergency use provision for NAC to quell the current COVID-19 pandemic. Consumers might want to purchase a bottle of NAC for health security reasons while they are still on store shelves. In the meantime, let’s see where this standoff between the supplement industry and the FDA ends up.
The post FDA Protects Covid-19 Vaccine Makers Seeks Withdrawal Of Competing Dietary Supplement appeared first on LewRockwell.