In our ongoing attempts to glean some objective insight into what is actually happening “on the ground” in the notoriously opaque China, whose economy has been hammered by the Coronavirus epidemic, last week we showed several “alternative” economic indicators such as real-time measurements of air pollution (a proxy for industrial output), daily coal consumption (a proxy for electricity usage and manufacturing) and traffic congestion levels (a proxy for commerce and mobility), before concluding that China’s economy appears to have ground to a halt. These observations were subsequently reaffirmed when we showed that steel demand, property sales, and passenger traffic had all failed to rebound from the “dead zone” hit during China’s Lunar New Year hibernation.
Meanwhile, as every investor scrambles for clues to find the upward inflection point in China’s economic output which would at least partially validated the unbridled euphoria in the stock – and, ironically, the bond market – we have some unpleasant news: more than one week after our initial report on “alternative” high-frequency (read daily) indicators in China’s economy, any tangible improvement in China’s economy has yet to be observed….
Look to the hand in the puppet. The communists (or fascists or whatever you want to call them) are still largely based on wall street and the city of london. China is just a metastatic tendril of the cancer.
“On April 20, 2010, a fiery explosion on the Deepwater Horizon oil rig had killed 11 workers and injured 17. One mile underwater, the Macondo well had blown apart, unleashing a gusher of oil into the gulf,” Grist reported.
For 87 days, the leak was unstoppable.
“The damaged Macondo wellhead, located around 5,000 feet beneath the ocean’s surface, leaked an estimated 3.19 million barrels (over 130 million gallons) of oil into the Gulf of Mexico — making the spill the largest accidental ocean spill in history,” according to Grist journalist Mark Hertsgaard, in an article written three years after the accident.
“At risk were fishing areas that supplied one-third of the seafood consumed in the U.S., beaches from Texas to Florida that drew billions of dollars’ worth of tourism to local economies, and Obama’s chances of reelection.”
In revisiting the terrible accident, which produced lasting environmental contamination, it’s important to examine the Obama administration’s “pragmatic” decisions that caused, allowed to proceed, and ultimately failed to remediate the disaster by:
Allowing the driller, BP, to cut corners, and to self-regulate
Ignoring well-known corruption within the federal agency charged with oversight
Dismissing concerns posed by its own scientists
Bypassing authentic remediation and instead pouring 1.84 million gallons of a chemical product called Corexit into the Gulf of Mexico without regard for environmental or health consequences.
This was done, ostensibly, to clean up the contamination. The reality is that Corexit did not clean up the over 92,000 miles of spilled oil. Instead, it visually covered up the extent of the damage done by the fossil fuel industry. Protecting the industry’s image superseded the environmentally sound response to the worst environmental disaster in the U.S.
Unsound Environmental Decisions
Ten years later, it’s easier to recognize that such decisions, which elected officials at the time viewed as pragmatic, can produce major, ongoing negative ramifications when the superficial solution fails to address the problem.
Revisiting the now decade-long evolution of the disaster and the cover-up, a recent article in Common Dreams reports on a study published in Science, which reveals that “a significant amount of oil was never picked up in satellite images or captured by barriers that were meant to stop the spread.”
One of the study’s authors notes that “[o]ur results change established perceptions about the consequences of oil spills by showing that toxic and invisible oil can extend beyond the satellite footprint at potentially lethal and sub-lethal concentrations to a wide range of wildlife in the Gulf of Mexico,” with “invisible oil” reaching an area 30% larger than the 92,500 square miles experts identified at the time.
Public officials may exonerate themselves for a bad decision by claiming that the terrible outcome could only be known with 20/20 hindsight. But in this case, that’s not true.
As a health reporter back in 2010, I always read labels, because products sometimes contain understudied toxic ingredients, which are mistakenly regarded by the general public as harmless when diluted or dispersed — a claim made then and now by industry and its media spokespeople, and ignorantly codified even by journalists well-versed in other areas but overly zealous in a unilateral defense of science. I therefore researched Corexit, which, as I reported back then in HuffPost, is a dispersant that its producer, a company called NALCO, claimed on its website was “safer than dish soap.”
My specific concerns were, first, that the use of the product would spread the oil throughout the waters of the gulf, making it harder to pick up and remove the spilled oil. Because Corexit was known as a dispersant, I could not understand why the government chose to use it.
According to the Center for Biological Diversity, “Dispersants are chemicals that are sprayed on a surface oil slick to break down the oil into smaller droplets that more readily mix with the water. Dispersants do not reduce the amount of oil entering the environment, but push the effects of the spill underwater.”
I also was concerned about the biological hazards of exposure to Corexit’s proprietary and undisclosed ingredients. The claim that Corexit was safer than dish soap did not account for possible health impacts of ingredients in soap, when used at such scale in combination with the already toxic oil. It turned out that this concern was shared by scientists.
A study published in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Pollution found that crude oil becomes 52 times more toxic when combined with Corexit.
Government scientists also found that the combination of Corexit and crude oil “caused terrible damage to gulf wildlife and ecosystems, including an unprecedented number of seafood mutations; declines of up to 80 percent in seafood catch; and massive die-offs of the microscopic life-forms at the base of the marine food chain.”
The Government Accountability Project noted that “as a result of Corexit’s perceived success, Corexit … has become the dispersant of choice in the U.S. to ‘clean up’ oil spills.” …
I note the referenced study hardly mentioned the reason why the oil became invisible to satellites and cleanup crews. The corruption of academia parallels that of government, media, medicine and the rest of the establishment. Not a surprise. That’s how regimes (as opposed to democratic republics) operate. A vast echo chamber. That’s why we rilly rilly need to take the power to create currency out of the hands of bankers. http://thoughtcrimeradio.net/2017/03/censored-ben-franklin-on-the-real-cause-of-the-american-revolution/
In any case it seems many people are still in denial about obama the trojan horse intelligence asset. The gulf catastrophe was not an accident. The actions which led to the blowout were done over the objections of senior workers at the site and established safety guidelines. Furthermore, many countries offered to help with the cleanup by donating very effective oil sweeper ships which skim oil from the surface, a strategy which was precluded by the subsequent corexit catastrophe, which was also excoriated by real environmental activists (i.e. not the global warming crowd) AT THE TIME.
But why? Was it caused by incompetence and corruption, or disaster capitalism?
Let me put this in a larger context by asking who could benefit from the poisoning of the single most abundant source of seafood in the american diet?
There are longstanding and well-advanced plans to overturn the “american empire” and move it to china, in service to the financial aristocracy which created it (as well as nazi germany and soviet russia) to begin with. The idea is maximization of profit per unit time. Stable economies with stable commodity flows, wage structures and populations do not maximize this quantity. War, economic depression and ecological catastrophes do, for those properly positioned to take advantage of them. The only requirement is that such “investors” be capable of triggering such “acts of god” as needed. Not a problem. This is a well-worn business model: http://thoughtcrimeradio.net/2015/02/milton-friedman-on-the-origins-of-the-great-ripoff/
It should go without saying that the perpetual deployment and scattering of the US military to distant unwinnable whack-a-mole operations plays right into this agenda. This is a full-spectrum take down on every level: economic, medical, military, media, “entertainment” and education. It’s not just the land that they’re after. They want to dismantle western culture itself, to facilitate centralized elite rule. The middle class must be eliminated.
Given the locked down state of the genocidal media and much of the puppet government, is it such a stretch to think that insiders who are determined to break through the information blockade might resort to such tactics as Q?
We’re living in dramatic times that are difficult to understand. One way to try to interpret them is through the cryptic clues provided by Q, which appear on an anonymous online forum and imply top-secret knowledge of upcoming events.
As I wrote in my article “An Introduction to Q,” “Q’s followers believe that Q is a military intelligence operation, the first of its kind, whose goal is to provide the public with secret information… Q is a new weapon in the game of information warfare, bypassing a hostile media and corrupt government to communicate directly with the public.” It’s interesting to note that shortly after my article was published here, American Thinker suffered a series of unprecedented hacking attempts. Also noteworthy is that Twitter permanently shut down the account of Zero Hedge, a popular finance blog, two weeks after it posted my article.
President Trump continues to bring attention to Q, repeatedly retweeting Q followers, featuring Q fans in his ad campaign, and making a public display of a “Q baby” at a rally. Yet the media never asks Trump the obvious question: What do you think about Q?
Instead, the media keeps ratcheting up its attacks on Q and the ever-growing worldwide movement that Q inspires. On February 9, both the AP and New York Times published blistering anti-Q articles, claiming that Q promotes baseless, debunked far right conspiracies and accusing Q of inciting violence in deranged followers. The day before this latest media ambush, a massive cyber assault temporarily brought down 8kun, the message board on which Q posts. Ron Watkins, 8kun’s administrator, tweeted,
“Attacks have been coming in all day. Very sophisticated and expensive attacks; the person paying for this likely has deep pockets.”
At the same time that 8kun was attacked, X22 Report, which covers Q postings, also was bombarded. On its Twitter feed, the site wrote it was “being attacked from 54 different countries using hundreds of different IP addresses, I have never seen anything like it.”
On February 12, in response to these events, Q posted, “Highly sophisticated ‘State-level’ attacks [v 8kun] followed by FAKE NEWS attacks [v Q] the next day? Coordinated? Ask yourself a simple question – – why? It’s time to wake up.”
In almost 4,000 posts, Q has painted a disturbing, multi-faceted portrait of a global crime syndicate that operates with impunity. In recent weeks, President Trump has grown more explicit about some of the syndicate’s crimes. Speaking to the National Governors Association, President Trump stated, in an almost casual, offhand manner, why the United States had recently upgraded its nuclear missile technology at great expense. “…we’re buying new, we have the super-fast missiles, tremendous number of the super-fast. We call them super-fast where they’re four, five, six, or even seven times faster than ordinary missiles. We need that because again, Russia has some. I won’t tell you how they got it. They got it supposedly from the Obama Administration when we weren’t doing it. And that’s too bad. It’s not good. But that’s how it happened.”
The President’s lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, has also grown more specific in his accusations, tweeting “The Biden Family Enterprise has been selling his office for years. The corrupt media has been covering up. It was handed to me and I had the courage to reveal it knowing the Swamp would try to destroy me. I served my country. They are betraying it. I will not stop.”
Q followers were not surprised by President Trump’s remarks or Giuliani’s charges, since they have probed into Q’s numerous clues about the treachery of America’s elite. The Q Army reads the headlines through a different lens than those who rely on the mainstream media for information. For instance, Q followers expected Jussie Smollett’s recent arrest on charges related to his alleged staging of a hate crime, and they anticipate his hoax will be tied directly to two failed presidential candidates and their political strategies.
I would like to offer some Q references that may help to illuminate recent events and prepare us for future developments. With the defeat of the impeachment threat, President Trump appears to be launching significant countermoves against those he accuses of plotting a coup. Q followers anticipate that he will declassify sensitive government documents, revealing shocking crimes and collaborations. The exposed criminals are likely to respond with dangerous counterattacks, most of which are unseen by the public. As Q recently wrote, the silent war continues.
Let’s take a look at some recent events, in light of Q’s messages….
The director of a hospital at the epicenter of China’s coronavirus outbreak has died, according to state media, marking the latest death as Beijing scrambles to contain the virus.
Liu Zhiming, the director of Wuchang Hospital in Wuhan, died on Tuesday morning after “all-out rescue efforts failed”, state broadcaster CCTV reported.
At least six other medical workers in China have died from the virus, while an additional 1,716 have been infected, AFP reported, citing official figures.
In this episode of The China Report we speak with Jeff Nyquist, author and researcher, about the Chinese Communist Party’s stated programs for biological warfare and how they tie into alleged military strategies against the United States.
Did China’s Plan to Destroy the United States Backfire?
In a secret speech given to high-level Communist Party cadres nearly two decades ago, Chinese Defense Minister Gen. Chi Haotian explained a long-range plan for ensuring a Chinese national renaissance.
He said there were three vital issues that must be grasped. The first was the issue of living space—because China is severely overpopulated and China’s environment is deteriorating. The second issue, therefore, was that the Communist Party must teach the Chinese people to “go out.” By this, Chi meant the conquest of new lands, in which a “second China” could be built by “colonization.” From this, arose the third vital issue: the “issue of America.” ….
A recent study published by the journal Pediatrics found that vitamin D deficiency diagnosis has exponentially increased among children in the UK in recent years.
Although vitamin D has continued to gain recognition for its role in childhood health, there is a lack of research evaluating the trends of vitamin D testing and diagnosis in clinical practice. Therefore, researchers recently conducted a cohort study to investigate whether the rate of vitamin D deficiency diagnosis among children has changed over time.
The researchers gathered the records of 711,788 children between the ages of 0-17 years from the Health Improvement Network database. This database contains large anonymized electronic records from primary care clinics across the UK. The researchers observed the trends in vitamin D deficiency diagnosis among children between 2000-2014.
The researchers found that vitamin D deficiency diagnoses dramatically increased from 3.14 cases per 100,000 children in the year 2000 to 261 cases per 100,000 children in 2014. After adjusting for confounding factors, the researchers observed a 15-fold increase in diagnosis between 2008 and 2014. Children who were nonwhite ethnicity, were of low socioeconomic status and at least 10 years of age were independently associated with an increased frequency of diagnosis. Boys who were less than 5 years and girls at least 10 years of age were more likely to be diagnosed with vitamin D deficiency.
The researchers concluded,
“There has been a marked increase in diagnosis of vitamin D deficiency in children over the past decade.”
It is important to note that this exponential growth in vitamin D deficiency diagnosis does not indicate an increased prevalence of vitamin D deficiency, but a change in diagnostic screening practices. These findings demonstrate increased recognition of the importance of maintaining optimal vitamin D status for supporting the proper growth and development of children among the medical community in the UK.
The researchers continued,
“Future research should explore the drivers for this change in diagnostic behavior and the reasons prompting investigation of vitamin D status in clinical practice.”
The Vitamin D Council recommends parents supplement their children with 1,000 IU vitamin D3 per 25 pounds of body weight (with a max of 5,000 IU/day) during times they are unable to receive safe, sensible full-body sun exposure when their shadow is shorter than they are tall.
