About 5 million U.S. adults and 1 million U.S. children use homeopathy every year, and the remedies are known to be “generally safe and unlikely to cause severe adverse reactions,” according to the U.S. National Institutes of Health’s National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health. Yet, if the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) continues on its latest crusade, this natural health modality may soon be much harder to come by.
In a draft guidance document released in December 2017, the FDA takes aim at homeopathic remedies, or as they put it, “drug products labeled as homeopathic.” In a reversal of a long-standing decision to treat homeopathic remedies differently from other drugs, the FDA has now labeled virtually all of these products as “new drugs” that are “subject to FDA enforcement action at any time.”
While deaths from drugs like opioids are now a public health crisis, homeopathy has maintained a much lower, and presumably safer, profile. Yet, the FDA is using its limited resources to target the latter, citing a need to “protect consumers who choose to use homeopathic products.” Why now? The FDA also cited a “large uptick in products labeled as homeopathic that are being marketed for a wide array of diseases and conditions,” to the extent that homeopathic products are now a close to $3 billion industry.
Perhaps that’s $3 billion too much for Big Pharma, FDA’s cozy partner in crime. “[I]n one fell swoop, the FDA has declared that virtually every single homeopathic drug on the market is being sold illegally,” the Alliance for Natural Health USA (ANH USA) wrote — and it’s not an exaggeration. In essence, the FDA’s guidance reads:
- Any homeopathic drug that has not been considered “generally recognized as safe and effective” (GRAS/E) is considered a new drug
- FDA has not determined that any homeopathic drugs are GRAS/E
- A new drug cannot be marketed unless it goes through the FDA’s approval process
- No homeopathic drugs have gone through FDA approval nor can any producer afford to take them through the approval process….
FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds asserts Pierre Omidyar decided to create The Intercept to not only take ownership of the Snowden leaks but also to continue his blockade against WikiLeaks and create a “honey trap” for whistleblowers.
WikiLeaks, the transparency organization known for publishing leaked documents that threaten the powerful, finds itself under pressure like never before, as does its editor-in-chief, Julian Assange. Now, the fight to silence Wikileaks is not only being waged by powerful government figures but also by the media, including outlets and organizations that have styled themselves as working to protect whistleblowers.
As this three-part series seeks to show, these outlets and organizations are being stealthily guided by the hands of special interests, not the public interest they claim to serve. Part I focuses on the Freedom of the Press Foundation, The Intercept, and the oligarch who has strongly influenced both organizations in his long-standing fight to silence WikiLeaks.
Mid-November, 2017 – The Daily Beast ran an exclusive report detailing how the Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) was set to break ties with WikiLeaks amidst concerns among the foundation’s board, which includes such well-known figures as Daniel Ellsberg, Edward Snowden, Laura Poitras, John Cusack and Glenn Greenwald, among others. The news was confirmed less than a month later when the nonprofit’s board officially voted to stop accepting U.S. donations for WikiLeaks, which had been blacklisted for years by Visa, MasterCard and PayPal after publishing leaked U.S. government documents provided by Chelsea Manning.
Even though the FPF had been founded to allow WikiLeaks to circumvent the banking blockade — which, according to WikiLeaks, sapped nearly 95% of the transparency organization’s funds — the board’s decision to end its founding mission was unanimous.
Last Monday, the FPF made it official, severing its ties with WikiLeaks, leaving it to rely on cryptocurrencies and other esoteric means of funding in order to get around the banking blockade. Journalist Trevor Timm, the FPF’s director, told WikiLeaks’ editor-in-chief Julian Assange in an email that the foundation’s reason for ending the partnership was “that the financial blockade by the major payment processors is no longer in effect, and as such, we will soon cease processing donations on behalf of WikiLeaks readers.”
“The financial censorship of WikiLeaks is ongoing in various ways, as is our litigation in response,” Assange told Timm in response, adding that:
The FPF faces criticism for receiving donations on our behalf, but that is its function. If it bows to political pressure it becomes part of the problem it was designed to solve and yet another spurious free-speech organization — of which there are plenty.”
Assange had made the exchange public by publishing it on his personal Twitter, but it has since been deleted.
Indeed, the pressure against WikiLeaks has reached fever pitch, with Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ calling Assange’s arrest a “priority” and CIA Director Mike Pompeo labeling it a non-state hostile intelligence service. Last Thursday, former CIA analyst and whistleblower John Kiriakou stated his belief that “the Americans want Assange’s head on a platter.” All of this has followed Wikileaks’ publication of the Podesta emails and DNC leaks in 2016 prior to that year’s U.S. presidential election, as well as its more recent publication of CIA hacking secrets in the “Vault 7” and “Vault 8” releases.
Though Timm’s explanation seemed benign enough, WikiLeaks took to Twitter to suggest that something more nefarious was behind the board’s decision to cut ties. Once the news became public, WikiLeaks and its associated accounts linked the FPF’s decision to the fact that many of its members now work for organizations financed by eBay billionaire and PayPal owner Pierre Omidyar. In addition, the FPF itself has received large sums of money from Omidyar and his various businesses and foundations.
WikiLeaks, in recent tweets, has suggested that Omidyar’s influence was responsible not only for the FPF’s decision but also for the unusual attacks that some FPF members have launched against WikiLeaks, particularly Assange, in recent months. The most outspoken of these members has been FPF director Micah Lee, who is employed by the Omidyar-owned publication, The Intercept.
In February of last year, Lee called Assange a “rapist, liar & ally to fascists” in a tweet — despite the fact that Assange was never charged with rape, his alleged accusers have also claimed that Assange had not sexually assaulted them, and there is abundant evidence suggesting that the rape investigation was a means of ensnaring Assange to ensure his extradition to the United States. Based on Lee’s other tweets, the “ally to fascists” charge ostensibly refers to Lee’s belief that Wikileaks’ publications of emails from the DNC and Clinton campaign chair John Podesta was done explicitly, with Assange’s blessing, to aid the Trump campaign.
Lee has also claimed that Assange is a “Putin fanboy” who doesn’t care “about government transparency if the government in question is Russia,” even though WikiLeaks has published information damaging to the Russian government while Putin was president. Lee also intimated that Assange may have a direct relationship to the Kremlin, an outlandish claim for which there is no basis.
Lee, in other tweets, has also perpetuated the “Russiagate” conspiracy in attempts to link Assange to Trump to Putin. …
I think it’s reasonable to wonder whether Lee being bribed or blackmailed. Likewise with Greenwald and even Snowden. What happened to the millions of pages of documents that Snowden supposedly gave to Greenwald when they met in hong kong? Why isn’t Snowden asking about them?
When a parent and infant interact, various aspects of their behaviour can synchronise, including their gaze, emotions and heartrate, but little is known about whether their brain activity also synchronises — and what the consequences of this might be.
Brainwaves reflect the group-level activity of millions of neurons and are involved in information transfer between brain regions. Previous studies have shown that when two adults are talking to each other, communication is more successful if their brainwaves are in synchrony.
Researchers at the Baby-LINC Lab at the University of Cambridge carried out a study to explore whether infants can synchronise their brainwaves to adults too — and whether eye contact might influence this. Their results are published in the Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).
The team examined the brainwave patterns of 36 infants (17 in the first experiment and 19 in the second) using electroencephalography (EEG), which measures patterns of brain electrical activity via electrodes in a skull cap worn by the participants. They compared the infants’ brain activity to that of the adult who was singing nursery rhymes to the infant. …
In the second experiment, a real adult replaced the video. She only looked either directly at the infant or averted her gaze while singing nursery rhymes. This time, however, her brainwaves could be monitored live to see whether her brainwave patterns were being influenced by the infant’s as well as the other way round.
This time, both infants and adults became more synchronised to each other’s brain activity when mutual eye contact was established. This occurred even though the adult could see the infant at all times, and infants were equally interested in looking at the adult even when she looked away. The researchers say that this shows that brainwave synchronisation isn’t just due to seeing a face or finding something interesting, but about sharing an intention to communicate. …
Dr Sam Wass, last author on the study, said: “We don’t know what it is, yet, that causes this synchronous brain activity. We’re certainly not claiming to have discovered telepathy! In this study, we were looking at whether infants can synchronise their brains to someone else, just as adults can. And we were also trying to figure out what gives rise to the synchrony.
“Our findings suggested eye gaze and vocalisations may both, somehow, play a role. But the brain synchrony we were observing was at such high time-scales — of three to nine oscillations per second — that we still need to figure out how exactly eye gaze and vocalisations create it.” …
Quack! Get that ointment in the newborn’s eyes before they meet with the mother’s eyes. Must … prevent … mother … child … bond …
Social control 101.
On Wednesday morning Judge Andrew Napolitano spoke to Varney and Co. on the latest developments of the FISA memo and its release.
Judge Napolitano told FBN that FBI Director Christopher Wray and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein told the White House on Tuesday that they were concerned about the memo’s release.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions was AWOL again.
Judge Napolitano: According to the Washington Post the president has not yet seen it. He’s going to see it this morning… So the FBI and DOJ do not want it out because they believe it reveals sources and methods of inquiring data, of inquiring intel. And they don’t think it can be effectively redacted. How do we know this? Because Christopher Wray, the director of the FBI, and Rod Rosenstein, the number two person of the DOJ, the chief operating officer of the DOJ… Where’s Jeff Sessions in all of this?… Spent about an hour-and-a-half with General Kelly the president’s chief of staff yesterday afternoon trying to persuade him of the potential dangers coming out.
Via Varney and Co.:
Clark County Nevada Coroner John Fudenberg is defying a court order to release the full autopsy report of Stephen Paddock, the shooter who caused the deadliest mass murder in the nation, killing 58 and wounding close to 700 people at a concert in Las Vegas.
District Court Judge Timothy Williams ordered the coroner Tuesday to immediately release the autopsy. Fudenberg is conferring with others in his office, and no date had been given for his compliance with the judge’s order, the coroner’s office told The Daily Caller News Foundation.
The office also told the Las Vegas Review-Journal, which sued for the autopsy report, they wouldn’t release Paddock’s autopsy report until it was “finalized.”
“The coroner’s office has fought to keep autopsy reports confidential,” according to the the Review-Journal.
A judge ordered the coroner Jan. 11 to pay about $32,000 in legal costs to the Review-Journal for refusing to release public records to the newspaper.
Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department released an interim report Jan. 8 on the shooting. The report gave only scant information about the autopsy and did not release either the autopsy or a toxicology report on Paddock….