By Peter Van Buren | We Meant Well | June 5, 2024
A New York jury convicted Donald Trump of 34 counts of falsifying business records in connection with buying the silence of a porn star. He is the first American president to become a felon. The verdict is not unexpected from the deep blue Democratic enclave of Manhattan; the larger question is if lawfare will defeat Trump on November 5.
The jury found Trump faked records (hiding hush payments as “legal expenses”) to conceal the purpose of money given to the onetime attorney Michael Cohen. Trump was actually reimbursing Cohen for a $130,000 hush-money deal struck with porn star Stormy Daniels, to silence her account of an affair with Trump. The affair was in 2006, a decade before Trump was elected president. The falsification of business records took place in 2017, after Trump was already in the White House and thus could not have influenced the election. He was found guilty nonetheless.
For the jury to reach its unanimous decision of guilt on all 34 charges, the key was believing two witnesses over Trump.
There are only two people on earth who know if an affair actually took place between Stormy and Trump. Trump said no, Stormy said yes and the jury agreed with her, fully absent of any further actual evidence. Daniels benefitted greatly from her claims to having the affair, and violated a nondisclosure agreement she voluntarily signed and accepted money for, to achieve her goals. “Proving” the affair was the base upon which the rest of the case to find Trump guilty was made.
It is important to understand that having an affair and paying off someone to remain quiet about it are not crimes, even for a presidential candidate. Nonetheless, the prosecutor claimed in closing arguments Trump “hoodwinked the American voter” with a conspiracy to influence the 2016 election. In addition to those who may have benefitted from the plan, “all roads lead to the man who benefited the most: Donald Trump,” Joshua Steinglass told the jury.
But the witness whose testimony was fully believed by the jury, and whose testimony will see Trump receive a criminal penalty when he is sentenced on July 11 (four days before the Republican National Convention!) is Michael Cohen. In the total absence of physical evidence and in the face of Trump’s claims to the contrary, Cohen served as connective tissue for many disparate elements. It was Cohen who claimed Trump masterminded the plan to hide the payments to Stormy. It was Cohen who said the 34 checks and invoices, only nine of which were signed by Trump himself, were not for legal expenses as they were labeled but were to reimburse Cohen for paying off Stormy. Stormy’s name appeared on none of the 34 documents, a fact which instead of exonerating Trump became under Michael Cohen’s testimony the linchpin of the conspiracy to falsify business records. Todd Blanche, a lawyer for Trump, told jurors the case hinged on the testimony of Michael Cohen, whom he called “the greatest liar of all time.”
Nearly incredibly (Trump’s defense team called Cohen a “walking reasonable doubt”) the jury believed Cohen based on nothing but his good word. This is despite Cohen having gone to jail for perjury, been caught lying to Congress, being disbarred, and actually telling a lie during his testimony at the instant trial. It remains difficult to understand how a jury could objectively grant so much credence to Cohen in the face of his record of lying to his own advantage. Every critical element of the case came down to whether his word could be trusted. That is what convicted Trump. You might have thought Robert De Niro was leading the deliberations.
There’s more. For jurors to have found Trump guilty of all 34 counts, they must have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt not only that Trump falsified or caused the falsification of business records “with intent to defraud” but also that he did so with the intent to commit or conceal another crime. That second element — the intent to commit or conceal another crime — elevates the charges to felonies and got around the statue of limitations that usually governs misdemeanors such as false business records. To reach this conclusion the jury had to also believe Cohen that Trump’s primary intent in all this was election influence and not, as Trump claimed, to hide the affair from his family.
There are many questions surrounding the jury’s verdict, and the fact pattern of the case itself, all of which should come out in Trump’s inevitable appeal. With that in mind, the actual legal conclusion of this case is far into the future, almost certainly after the November 5 election. But that begs the more important question: does any of this matter to voters? This is lawfare, not justice, after all. “The real verdict is going to be November 5, by the people,” said Trump.
CNN, for example, concluded “Donald Trump, who built a mystique as the brash epitome of power, has never been more powerless to dictate his own fate. His reputation, future, and even perhaps the White House’s destiny, [was] placed in the hands of 12 citizens of his native New York City, proving that not even once-and-possibly future commanders in chief are above the law.”
So a victory for Democratic lawfare? Maybe not. Trump remains eligible to campaign for the presidency and serve if elected. None of the other lawfare shots is likely to conclude before November.
So does it matter? A majority of registered voters said a guilty verdict in Trump’s trial would make no difference in their vote in the 2024 presidential election. Across all registered voters, 67 percent said a guilty verdict would have no effect on their vote, while 17 percent say they would be less likely to vote for him and 15 percent say they would be more likely, according to the NPR/PBS News Hour/Marist poll released before the verdict. An ABC News poll earlier this month showed 80 percent of Trump’s supporters say they would stick with him even if he’s convicted of a felony in this case. Some say they would either reconsider their support (16 percent) or withdraw it (four percent.) Similar polls followed Trump’s defeat in New York courts over supposed real estate fraud.
And Biden knows it. A Biden campaign spokesman said Trump’s conviction showed “There is still only one way to keep Donald Trump out of the Oval Office: at the ballot box. Convicted felon or not, Trump will be the Republican nominee for president.”
As in other Third World countries where the judiciary is used to smite political opponents, let us hope the people can see the truth, as they still hold the final card to be played. The Deep State has tried from day one to destroy Donald Trump — Russian collusion and dossier hoax, pee tape accusation, Mueller hearing and report, Emoluments Clause, various calls for extra-legal interventions and coups, Alfa Bank hoax, Impeachment I, Impeachment II, demands Mike Pence invoke the 25th Amendment, MSM blackout of Hunter Biden laptop story, Twitter purge of conservative accounts, FBI raid on Mar-a-Lago, Letitia James prosecution “show me the man, and I’ll show you the crime” with no victims, no monetary loss but an effort to bankrupt Trump with civil judgment, Colorado attempt to remove Trump from state ballots over the 14th Amendment, and false statements Trump will “take revenge,” “demand retribution,” ensure a “bloodbath,” and “end democracy” (America’s last election if he wins.)
Trump meanwhile has characterized this trial, and the others, as unjust, rigged, lawfare pure and simple. He has kept the voters’ eyes not on who he is (his personal life has been baked-in to the vote long ago) but on what he represents to the electorate. As such, it is hard to see this guilty conviction, however unfair, as mattering too much come November.
The Highwire with Del Bigtree | June 6, 2024
The Highwire with Del Bigtree | June 6, 2024
The WHO’s Pandemic Treaty missed its deadline, but their amendments to the International Health Regulations have passed enshrining new pandemic rules for the legally binding contract for 196 countries.
Press TV – June 6, 2024
Iran’s permanent ambassador to the United Nations has firmly rejected allegations by the IAEA against the Islamic Republic’s peaceful nuclear program.
In a letter to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and the rotating president of the UN Security Council Joonkook Hwang on Thursday, Amir Saeed Iravani said Tehran’s decision to take remedial measures is in full compliance with its inherent right under Iran’s 2015 nuclear deal known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).
The resolution was issued by the International Atomic Energy Agency’s Board of Governors on Wednesday.
The Iranian diplomat also lambasted Britain, France and Germany – known as the E3 – for spearheading the anti-Iran resolution at the UN’s nuclear agency.
Tehran, he said, “rejects all the allegations” in the E3’s letter and “reiterates its position concerning its peaceful nuclear program and the JCPOA.”
Iravani said the E3 continues to level unfounded allegations against Iran for non-compliance with JCPOA commitments.
“Iran’s decision to take remedial measures was in full accordance with its inherent right under paragraphs 26 and 36 of the JCPOA, in reaction to the United States’ unlawful unilateral withdrawal from the agreement on 8 May 2018, and the subsequent failure of the E3 to uphold their commitments. The objective behind Iran’s decision, which was made a full year after the US’s unlawful withdrawal and the E3/EU’s failure to fulfill their sanctions-lifting obligations, was crystal clear: to restore a balance in reciprocal commitments and benefits under the JCPOA,” Iran’s ambassador to the UN said.
“The claim that the E3 has consistently upheld its JCPOA commitments is simply untrue. On the contrary, the E3 has constantly failed to honor its obligations under paragraph 20 of Annex V of the JCPOA. This significant non-compliance is still ongoing. The E3’s failure to implement its sanctions-lifting commitments specified in paragraph 20 of Annex V of the JCPOA on Transition Day (18 October 2023) as an unjustifiable unilateral is a clear example of substantial non-performance of their obligations, thereby violating both the JCPOA and UNSC Resolution 2231 (2015),” Iravani stated.
He said Tehran has persistently complied with its obligations under the Comprehensive Safeguard Agreements (CSA), including through maximum cooperation with the UN nuclear agency to implement its verification activities in Iran, emphasizing that Iran has so far been under the most “robust verification and monitoring activities” of the IAEA.
“Iran’s decision to enrich uranium in Fordow was a remedial measure in response to non-compliance of the United States and E3/EU with their legally binding obligations under Resolution 2231 (2025) and their significant non-performance under the JCPOA commitments. That decision was also made in exercising Iran’s rights expressly stated in paragraphs 26 and 36 of the JCPOA and in full accordance with its inherent rights under the NPT and the commitment under CSA. However, all such activities have been and continue to be under the supervision of the IAEA,” Iravani further wrote in the letter.
Iran’s UN envoy also stated that Iran’s commitment to its obligations under the NPT remains steadfast.
“States parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) shall not be prevented from exercising their inalienable rights under the Treaty to develop research, production, and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in full conformity with articles I and II of the Treaty. Any allegation to the contrary is baseless and categorically rejected. The claim that Iran’s nuclear program has reached a critical and irreversible point, coupled with assertions that Iran’s peaceful nuclear activities pose a threat to international peace and security, are entirely false and unfounded,” he said.
In conclusion, Iravani said Iran “reaffirms its unwavering commitment to diplomacy. It has repeatedly shown its willingness to resume talks with the aim of full implementation of the JCPOA by all participants. The JCPOA is a hard-won multilateral diplomatic achievement that remains the best option with no alternatives. It exemplified successful dialogue and diplomacy, effectively averting an undue crisis. Its revival is indeed in the interest of all participants.”
Iran asserts that it runs one of the most transparent peaceful nuclear energy programs among the IAEA’s members.
The Islamic Republic has also repeatedly voiced its readiness to resolve differences with the IAEA within a framework of constructive and mutual interaction and technical cooperation.
Net Zero Watch | June 4, 2024
The Guardian has been forced to withdraw an advertorial, paid for by National Grid, that purported to debunk ‘myths’ about clean energy.
Energy writer David Turver, who had formulated a detailed rebuttal,[1] submitted complaints to both the Guardian and the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA).
The Guardian’s response said that they did not think that there was any need to correct the article. However, the ASA appear to have taken more jaundiced view, and the article has now been removed from the Guardian website. As they told Mr Turver:
We have decided to resolve your complaint through the provision of advice to the advertiser. Therefore, we have explained the concerns raised to the advertiser and provided them with guidance on how to ensure that their advertising complies with the Codes both now and in future.
Mr Turver, who has written extensively on the relative costs of renewables and other forms of electricity generation,[2] said:
The Guardian piece was a mess of untruths and half-truths and attempted to paint the picture that renewables are cheap. Although the ASA seems to have avoided giving a ruling, the disappearance of the article suggests that they think any such claims are misleading.
Notes
[1] https://davidturver.substack.com/p/national-grid-propaganda
[2] https://davidturver.substack.com/p/debunking-cheap-renewables-myth
Press TV – June 5, 2024
In a long-running social media campaign, Israel has been trying to influence legislators of the United States to support the occupying entity’s actions in its genocidal war on the besieged Gaza Strip, according to a report by the New York Times.
Citing unnamed officials and documents, The NY Times reported on Wednesday Israel’s so-called Ministry of Diaspora Affairs has paid at least $2 million for the covert campaign of convincing American lawmakers to back the regime’s atrocities in the war-torn Palestinian territory.
The report said the Israeli ministry has hired the Israeli-based firm STOIC, a political marketing firm in Tel Aviv, to carry out the campaign.
The firm has for months been generating anti-Hamas and pro-Israel content across the Internet.
According to the report, the influence campaign, which started in October and is still ongoing on X (formerly known as Twitter), has used hundreds of fake accounts that posed as real Americans on X, Facebook and Instagram to post pro-Israel comments.
The accounts, the report added, targeted US lawmakers, particularly those who are Black and Democrat, “such as Representative Hakeem Jeffries, the House minority leader from New York, and Senator Raphael Warnock of Georgia”, with posts urging them to continue funding Israel’s military.
“ChatGPT, the artificial intelligence-powered chatbot, was used to generate many of the posts. The campaign also created three fake English-language news sites featuring pro-Israel articles,” said the Times, which verified the influence operation with four current and former members of the so-called Ministry of Diaspora Affairs.
“The secretive campaign signals the lengths Israel was willing to go to sway American opinion on the war in Gaza,” it further said.
Citing Meta and OpenAI, the report said the influence campaign has failed to generate a widespread impact.
Furthermore, according to FakeReporter, an Israeli misinformation watchdog, the fake accounts accumulated more than 40,000 followers across X, Facebook and Instagram, but as Meta said, many of those followers may have been bots and did not generate a large audience.
Israel’s bloody war machine has killed over 36,500 Palestinians since October 7, 2023. The vast majority of the fatalities are women and children.
The savage campaign was launched after Hamas carried out its historic Operation Al-Aqsa Storm against the usurping entity in retaliation for the regime’s intensified atrocities.
Israel has additionally enforced a comprehensive blockade on the coastal sliver, severing the supply of fuel, electricity, sustenance and water to the population of over two million Palestinians residing there.
Net Zero Watch | May 31, 2024
The Labour Party is saying that its energy policies – a rapid decarbonisation of the electricity system – will save consumers money. The claim is apparently based on an October 2023 report by Ember,[1] which says that a decarbonised electricity system can reduce bills by £300 per household.
However, the report also says[2] that the authors are assuming that windfarms in the future will secure ‘the same price as [Contracts for Difference] auction round 4’. The prices achieved in Round 4 (£37.50) are around half the price (£73/MWh) currently on offer to offshore windfarms in Round 6 [3]. And industry insiders are suggesting that even the latter figure may be inadequate.[4]
In other words, Labour’s claimed savings rely on assuming that wind power costs half of what it actually does.
A second problem Labour’s putative savings figure is that Ember’s report compares bills in their hypothetical decarbonised electricity system against bills in the third quarter of 2023, which were still inflated by the Ukraine war.
Net Zero Watch director Andrew Montford said:
Labour’s claim of a reduction in household bills is based on figures that are entirely divorced from today’s reality.
And Mr Montford continued by calling for a new reality-based debate on Net Zero.
When it comes to energy policy, the political establishment is operating in a fact-free void. For the sake of the country, they need to start asking very hard questions about what they are being told by civil servants and environmental activists like Ember.
Notes
2. Page 20.
3. All values are in 2012 prices, as is standard practice when discussing CfDs. In current prices, AR4 is worth £47/MWh, and AR6 is offering around £102/MWh.
By Ian DeMartino – Sputnik – 02.06.2024
The US Department of Justice (DOJ) is attempting to prevent the release of the audio of the infamous “memory interview” between US President Joe Biden and special counsel Robert Hur, arguing that “deepfakes” may appear as a result.
Hur was investigating Biden’s handling of classified documents he obtained as a senator and vice president. While Hur wrote in his report that Biden likely violated the law intentionally, he declined to press charges because he thought Biden would appear to the jury as a “sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.” It also noted that Biden had trouble remembering when he was vice president and which year his son Beau died.
The DOJ issued a filing on Friday that argued “The passage of time and advancements in audio, artificial intelligence, and ‘deep fake’ technologies only amplify concerns about malicious manipulation of audio files. If the audio recording is released here, it is easy to foresee that it could be improperly altered, and that the altered file could be passed off as an authentic recording and widely distributed.”
While the DOJ admits that there is plenty of “other raw material to create a deepfake of President Biden’s voice” available to unscrupulous actors, it argues that if the public became aware that the legitimate recording was released, they would be more apt to believe a fake recording is legitimate.
The filing was first obtained by Politico.
It is not known how the court will respond to the strange reasoning. If a legitimate copy of the recording were released, it stands to reason it would become easier –not more difficult– to disprove fake versions.
As the DOJ admits in its filing as part of its argument that the release of the audio recording is unnecessary, the full transcript of the interview has already been released. It would be trivial for someone with AI experience to use the “raw material” already available of Biden to create a deepfake version of the interview and say it was leaked. A legitimate version being released would make that much easier for other internet users and the media to definitively debunk.
The filing also comes after Biden used his executive privilege to stop the release of the tape to House Republicans who had sought to obtain it as part of their investigation into the Biden family. The latest filing was in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.
The DOJ also argues that the release of the audio would be a violation of Biden’s privacy. However, since we already know what he said thanks to the transcript– and we have no reason to believe that the transcript is incorrect, the only thing that would be revealed is everything between those words. How long did Biden pause before answering? How many times did he stumble on his words? Did he sound confused or angry during the interview?
These are the questions that could be revealed through the release of the audio and according to the filing, the DOJ doesn’t think it is in the “public interest” to reveal the answers, so much so that they are willing to resort to absurd fear-mongering over a new technology in hopes that the judge will be cowed into blocking its release.
On the Nature of Cartel Medicine
Lies are Unbekoming | June 1, 2024
What would the world look like without Obstetricians and Pediatricians?
I don’t need to wonder.
It would be a better place.
With everything I’ve recently read and written about Hysterectomy and Childbirth, let alone Childhood Vaccination, I’ve been thinking about the Nature of Cartel Medicine.
I’ve described Cartel Medicine as predatory many times, but what am I really describing?
I’m describing its Nature.
The same as if I was describing the Nature of a Wolf.
A wolf sees me as prey because that is its Nature.
I am trying to understand what IT is, why it behaves the way it does, and I’m trying to help others orient themselves correctly to this creature.
Its Nature is to eat, to feed, to prey.
We are the Prey.
The “clothing” for this Nature are the Doctors.
The well intentioned, naïve sheep that are poured into The Academy to be “educated” by the most sophisticated indoctrination technology the world has ever seen.
They emerge, shiny and sparkling with their white coats that coincidentally are a similar color to that of a sheep’s coat.
The Wolf manages to perpetually drape itself with a constantly renewed Sheep’s Clothing.
The Sheep don’t understand their purpose.
Dr Robert Mendelsohn understood their purpose more than anyone else I have read so far, and to our eternal loss only got to write three books about it.
This stack is about the Wolf and how it preys on mothers and newborns via the assault on breastfeeding and the industrial propaganda of the Baby Formula Cartel.
We will start with an excerpt from Mendelsohn’s masterpiece Male Practice.
We will then look at a Q&A drawn from a chapter of Your Baby, Your Way, by Jennifer Margulis.
And I will end with a Q&A based on four Mercola articles.
With thanks to all three of these giants.
Male Practice by Dr Robert Mendelsohn
Chapter 23 – “I Know What’s Best for Your Child.”
A mother is doubly victimized by Modern Medicine. In addition to the abuses she suffers, she must also worry about what a doctor may do to her child. Creative diagnosis and the harmful intervention that often follows isn’t limited to adults. Doctors will practice it on any available victim, regardless of size.
The damage inflicted on children begins, as noted earlier, when silver nitrate drops are placed in their eyes. It continues throughout childhood in an endless succession of useless examinations, worthless medications, and needless surgery that serve only to make pediatricians rich.
The child’s health is often placed at risk shortly after birth when the doctor discourages breast-feeding and urges the mother to raise her baby on formula milk. There is virtually no medical or physical reason, short of a bilateral mastectomy, why doctors should urge substitution of nutritionally deficient formula for a perfect food like mother’s milk. Breast-feeding may be impractical for some working mothers, of course, but that doesn’t explain why doctors seem so determined to deny the benefits of breast-feeding to all the rest. Many aspects of obstetrical intervention mitigate against breast-feeding and, if these are not sufficient to discourage the mother, pediatricians always seem able to find another excuse. They tell her that her breasts are too small, her milk is too thin, or that she has a cold and should stay away from the baby.
I blame three factors for the failure of doctors to urge that mothers breast-feed their children. First, they learn nothing about nutrition in medical school and are actually taught that formula is just as good as mother’s milk. Second, this belief is reinforced by the misleading medical journal advertising purchased by the formula manufacturers. It stops just short of citing women as defective because their breasts aren’t calibrated and encased in tin. Finally, I believe doctors oppose breast-feeding for the same reason they oppose natural childbirth. It denies them too many lucrative opportunities to intervene.
Rather than discouraging breast-feeding, conscientious doctors should be doing everything they can to promote it because of its enormous importance to both mother and child. It strengthens the bond between them in a way that no amount of holding and hugging will achieve. It stimulates hormones that reduce postpartum bleeding and discomfort and causes the uterus to contract more rapidly to its normal size. It gives the mother sensual pleasure. It helps protect her from cancer of the breast.
Breast-feeding also stimulates the production of prolactin by the pituitary gland, which enhances maternal behavior. It also has a tranquilizing effect (without drugs) that helps the mother adjust to the pressures of having a new baby in the home. The prolactin also suppresses production by the ovaries of the hormone that triggers ovulation, thus providing natural birth control for a much longer time.
The baby benefits because breast-feeding provides it with nourishment superior to that supplied by formula milk. It provides better bone maturation and intellectual development. It protects the child from asthma and other hereditary allergies. Because nursing babies are not locked into rigid feeding schedules they eat when they are hungry. This makes them less prone to the digestive upsets seen in babies who are allowed to cry until the clock says mother can shove a bottle in their mouths. There is even evidence that the resulting avoidance of emotional disturbances and the breast-fed baby’s closer bond to its mother reduce the danger of hypertension later in life.
One of the most important benefits that the baby receives from mother’s milk is protection from infectious diseases that the mother has fought off through her well-developed immune system. The bottle-fed baby is much more likely to suffer a nightmare of illnesses that include diarrhea, colic, gastrointestinal and respiratory infections, meningitis, asthma, hives, other allergies, pneumonia, eczema, obesity, arteriosclerosis, dermatitis, growth retardation, hypocalcemic tetany, neonatal hypothyroidism, necrotizing enterocolitis, and sudden infant death syndrome. Babies raised on canned formula milk may also be affected by ingesting too much lead.
Not long ago the American Academy of Pediatrics finally discovered the virtues of breast-feeding and took a strong position in favor of mother’s milk. With an enthusiasm usually reserved for products of the pharmaceutical labs, it said that “Human milk is nutritionally superior to formula,” and it urged all elements of the medical profession to encourage breast-feeding.
That’s mildly encouraging, but I’m not so naive as to believe that the Academy’s recommendations will prevail. Hospital personnel don’t like breast-feeding because it involves more work for them and upsets their routine. Pediatricians don’t like it for the opposite reason. It means less work and fewer office call fees for them. When babies are breast-fed, pediatricians are hard put to justify their existence. There are no diets to juggle and the babies enjoy a natural immunity to most ailments. There’s nothing more useless than a doctor who has nothing to treat.
Breastfeeding provides numerous physical and emotional benefits for mothers. Physically, breastfeeding helps the uterus contract and return to its pre-pregnancy size, reduces postpartum bleeding, and helps women lose pregnancy weight more easily. Emotionally, breastfeeding releases the hormones oxytocin and prolactin, which promote feelings of bonding, relaxation, and well-being. The skin-to-skin contact during breastfeeding also enhances the emotional connection between mother and baby.
Breastfeeding facilitates a strong bonding experience between mother and baby. The close physical contact, skin-to-skin touch, and eye contact during breastfeeding sessions create an intimate and nurturing environment. The release of oxytocin, known as the “love hormone,” during breastfeeding promotes feelings of attachment and affection. Mothers who breastfeed often report feeling a deep sense of connection and satisfaction in providing nourishment and comfort to their babies.
Breastfeeding offers several long-term health benefits for women. Studies have shown that women who breastfeed have a lower risk of developing breast cancer, ovarian cancer, endometrial cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, heart disease, and type 2 diabetes later in life. Breastfeeding also helps with natural child spacing, as exclusive breastfeeding can delay the return of ovulation and menstruation.
Despite the well-established benefits of breastfeeding, the United States has one of the lowest breastfeeding rates among industrialized countries. While 77% of American women initiate breastfeeding, only 36% are exclusively breastfeeding at three months postpartum. This means that out of the 4.3 million babies born in the United States each year, only 1.5 million are still being nursed at three months of age.
Several factors contribute to the low breastfeeding rates in the United States. These include insufficient support and education from healthcare providers; aggressive marketing practices by formula companies; and cultural attitudes that may view breastfeeding as inconvenient or embarrassing. Additionally, the medicalization of childbirth and common hospital practices that separate mothers and babies after delivery can hinder the initiation and establishment of breastfeeding.
Medical interventions during labor and delivery can significantly impact a woman’s ability to breastfeed. Procedures such as induction of labor, epidural analgesia, and cesarean section can lead to prolonged labor, delayed skin-to-skin contact, and separation of mother and baby, all of which can interfere with the initiation of breastfeeding. Medications used during labor may also cause drowsiness in the newborn, making it more difficult for the baby to latch on and feed effectively.
Pediatricians and other medical professionals can undermine breastfeeding by providing inaccurate information, encouraging unnecessary supplementation with formula, or failing to offer adequate support to breastfeeding mothers. Some healthcare providers may lack sufficient knowledge about breastfeeding and its challenges, leading them to recommend formula supplementation prematurely. Additionally, the influence of formula company marketing on medical professionals can lead to a bias toward formula feeding over breastfeeding.
Formula companies use various misleading advertising tactics to promote their products. They often make claims that their formula provides benefits similar to breast milk, such as promoting brain development, eye health, and immune function, despite the lack of scientific evidence to support these claims. Formula advertisements may also depict unrealistic and idealized images of formula-fed babies, suggesting that formula feeding is a superior or more convenient choice for mothers.
Formula companies employ several tactics to undermine breastfeeding and increase their sales. These include providing free formula samples to new mothers in hospitals, which has been shown to decrease breastfeeding rates; offering coupons and discounts on formula products; sponsoring parenting events and baby fairs; and marketing directly to pregnant women and new mothers through advertisements, websites, and social media. Formula companies also partner with hospitals and healthcare providers to distribute promotional materials and samples, effectively endorsing their products.
Formula companies influence nurses and other medical professionals by providing free samples, gifts, and educational materials that promote their products. They may offer sponsored continuing education courses, conferences, and workshops that present information biased toward formula feeding. Formula representatives often develop personal relationships with nurses and hospital staff, providing meals, gift baskets, and other incentives. This subtle influence can lead healthcare professionals to view formula as an acceptable or even preferred alternative to breastfeeding.
Professional medical organizations, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), receive funding from formula companies through sponsorships, grants, and donations. In the five years following the AAP’s endorsement of exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months of life, formula manufacturers donated more than $6.7 million to the organization. This financial relationship raises concerns about potential conflicts of interest and the influence of formula companies on the AAP’s policies and recommendations regarding infant feeding practices.
Breastfeeding offers several neurological advantages for babies. Breast milk contains essential nutrients, such as long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids (DHA and ARA), that are crucial for brain development. The act of breastfeeding also provides important sensory stimulation through skin-to-skin contact, which promotes optimal brain development. Studies have shown that breastfed infants have higher scores on cognitive and developmental tests compared to formula-fed infants, and these benefits may extend into childhood and adulthood.
Breast milk is a dynamic, living substance that adapts to the changing needs of the growing infant. It contains a perfect balance of nutrients, including proteins, fats, carbohydrates, vitamins, and minerals, as well as immune-boosting components such as antibodies, white blood cells, and enzymes. In contrast, cow’s milk and infant formula are static, processed products that cannot replicate the complexity and adaptability of human milk. While formula attempts to mimic the composition of breast milk, it lacks many of the bioactive components and living cells found in human milk.
Breastfeeding rates in Norway have undergone significant changes over time. In the 1960s, breastfeeding rates reached an all-time low, with only one out of five Norwegian babies being breastfed at three months of age. This decline was largely attributed to the medicalization of childbirth and hospital practices that discouraged breastfeeding. However, with the rise of mother-to-mother support groups and changes in hospital policies, breastfeeding rates began to increase in the 1980s. Today, Norway has one of the highest breastfeeding rates in the industrialized world, with nearly 100% of mothers initiating breastfeeding and 80% still breastfeeding at six months postpartum.
Norway has implemented several policies and practices to support breastfeeding. These include paid maternity leave, which allows mothers to stay home and breastfeed their infants for an extended period; restrictions on the marketing of infant formula, in accordance with the International Code of Marketing of Breast-Milk Substitutes; and the establishment of the National Resource Center for Breastfeeding, which provides education and support to healthcare professionals and parents. Norwegian hospitals also prioritize skin-to-skin contact between mother and baby immediately after birth, encourage rooming-in, and provide lactation support to new mothers.
Infant mortality rates in the United States are significantly higher than those in Norway. A baby born in the United States is almost twice as likely to die in infancy compared to a baby born in Norway. Breastfeeding plays a crucial role in this difference, as it has been shown to reduce the risk of infant death, particularly from sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) and necrotizing enterocolitis. Norway’s high breastfeeding rates and supportive policies contribute to its lower infant mortality rates, while the United States’ low breastfeeding rates and lack of support for breastfeeding mothers may contribute to its higher infant mortality rates.
Formula feeding is significantly more expensive than breastfeeding. The cost of formula for an infant for 12 months is estimated to be around $2,366, while the cost of breast milk is essentially zero. In addition to the direct cost of formula, there are indirect costs associated with formula feeding, such as increased healthcare expenses due to the higher rates of illness and infection among formula-fed infants. Breastfeeding, on the other hand, provides significant cost savings for families and the healthcare system as a whole.
The National Resource Center for Breastfeeding in Norway is an academic center that aims to promote and support breastfeeding through research, education, and information dissemination. The center, overseen by Dr. Gro Nylander, uses scientific evidence to provide accurate and up-to-date information about breastfeeding to healthcare professionals, parents, government agencies, and the media. By serving as a centralized resource for breastfeeding information and support, the National Resource Center for Breastfeeding plays a crucial role in maintaining Norway’s high breastfeeding rates and ensuring that both healthcare providers and parents have access to reliable, evidence-based guidance on breastfeeding practices.
Norwegian hospitals implement several practices to support breastfeeding and minimize the use of formula. These practices include encouraging skin-to-skin contact between mother and baby immediately after birth, promoting rooming-in (keeping the baby in the same room as the mother), and allowing babies to breastfeed on demand. Norwegian hospitals also avoid giving newborns supplemental feedings of formula or sugar water, which can interfere with the establishment of breastfeeding. If a baby does require formula for medical reasons, it is given via alternative methods, such as a syringe or spoon, rather than a bottle, to avoid nipple confusion and maintain the baby’s ability to latch and breastfeed effectively.
Supplementing breastfed babies with sugar water or formula in the early days of life can pose several potential dangers. First, it can interfere with the establishment of a healthy milk supply, as the baby’s suckling stimulates milk production. If a baby receives supplemental feedings, they may not nurse as frequently or effectively, leading to decreased milk production. Additionally, sugar water can cause digestive issues, such as stomach discomfort and diarrhea, while formula can alter the gut microbiome and increase the risk of infections and allergies. Supplementation can also disrupt the natural bonding and attachment process between mother and baby, as well as undermine the mother’s confidence in her ability to nourish her child.
Formula feeding carries several risks, as evidenced by product recalls and contamination incidents. In recent years, there have been several instances of formula being recalled due to contamination by harmful substances, such as insects, larvae, and bacteria. These contaminants can cause serious health issues in infants, including gastrointestinal distress, infections, and even life-threatening illnesses. Additionally, formula products have been recalled for issues such as off-odors, unusual consistencies, and the presence of foreign objects. These incidents highlight the importance of strict quality control in formula manufacturing and the potential dangers of relying on a processed, artificial product to nourish infants.
The profits of major formula companies are substantial, particularly when compared to the cost of formula for families. In 2011, Abbott Laboratories, the maker of Similac, reported global sales of $38.9 billion, while Mead Johnson Nutrition, the manufacturer of Enfamil, reported $3.7 billion in sales. Nestlé, the company behind Gerber formula, earned $10.1 billion in profits in the same year. In contrast, the average cost of formula for a family over a 12-month period is estimated to be $2,366. This disparity highlights the significant financial burden that formula feeding places on families, while formula companies continue to generate substantial profits.
If American women followed the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) breastfeeding guidelines, which recommend exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months of life and continued breastfeeding for at least one year, the potential cost savings in healthcare could be significant. According to one study, if 90% of U.S. families followed the AAP guidelines, the country could save $13 billion in healthcare costs annually. These savings would be primarily due to the reduced incidence of illness and infection among breastfed infants, as well as the long-term health benefits for both mothers and children.
If American women breastfed according to the recommendations set forth by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the World Health Organization, a significant number of infant deaths could potentially be avoided. One study estimated that if 90% of U.S. families followed the AAP breastfeeding guidelines, approximately 900 infant deaths could be prevented annually. This reduction in infant mortality would be largely attributed to the protective effects of breastfeeding against sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), necrotizing enterocolitis, and other life-threatening conditions. By increasing breastfeeding rates and duration, the United States could make substantial progress in improving infant health outcomes and reducing preventable infant deaths.
Formula weakens the baby, versus breastfeeding, and makes them less resilient to the assault of vaccination. So, it’s an indirect relationship rather than a direct causal one.
Most Baby Formula Claims Not Backed by Science (substack.com)
How to Mitigate the Infant Formula Disaster (substack.com)
The US Campaign Against Breastfeeding (substack.com)
Infant Soy Formula – A Risky Public Experiment (substack.com)
According to a study published in February 2023, only 26% of the infant formula products surveyed attempted to support their health and nutrition claims with a clinical trial or a review. Of these, only 14% used clinical trials in humans, and 90% of those trials carried a high risk of bias due to missing data or conclusions that were not supported by the data.
The 2023 Lancet Series on breastfeeding called for greater regulation over the “predatory” nature of the infant formula industry’s marketing campaigns aimed at new mothers. These marketing techniques and strategies have influenced families, policy, and science, often portraying commercial milk formula products as solutions to common infant health and developmental challenges in ways that systematically undermine breastfeeding.
Grocery store conglomerate Albertsons has entered the digital health space with its app “Sincerely Health,” which encourages customers to connect data from wearable monitoring devices and track their prescriptions, grocery store purchases, and vaccination appointments. This merger between Big Food and Big Pharma uses tracking technology to gather details about consumers’ activities, potentially leading to a database of private health decisions that could be used against individuals during future public health emergencies or to limit their access to food based on their medical history.
By gathering and analyzing this data, companies and government entities may create detailed profiles of individuals’ health status, medical history, and purchasing habits. This information could then be used to restrict access to certain products or services based on a person’s health profile or vaccination status. For example, unvaccinated individuals or those with specific medical conditions could be denied access to certain foods or be subject to higher prices. Such practices could lead to discrimination and infringe upon personal freedoms and privacy rights, ultimately limiting consumer freedoms in various ways.
Breastfeeding offers numerous evidence-based benefits for both mother and baby. For mothers, breastfeeding is associated with a lower risk of developing Type 2 diabetes, ovarian or breast cancer, and high blood pressure, as well as reduced stress and improved sensitivity to their infant’s needs. Breastfed infants have a lower risk of obesity, asthma, ear infections, sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), and necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) in preterm infants. Breastfeeding also promotes cognitive development and socio-affective response in children.
Most commercial infant formulas are nutritionally inferior to breast milk and contain questionable added ingredients. While breast milk contains hundreds of unique substances, including over 100 different types of fats and complex sugars called oligosaccharides that nourish healthy gut bacteria, infant formulas are primarily composed of processed sugars, dried skim milk, and refined vegetable oils. Many formulas also contain synthetic vitamins, inorganic minerals, excessive protein, and harmful contaminants like glyphosate and perchlorate.
In 2018, the World Health Assembly introduced a nonbinding resolution to encourage breastfeeding and emphasize its health benefits. The U.S. delegation opposed this resolution, demanding the removal of language that called on governments to “protect, promote and support breastfeeding.” They threatened countries with trade sanctions and the withdrawal of crucial military aid if they did not reject the resolution. Additionally, the American delegation insisted on adding the phrase “evidence-based” to references to breastfeeding initiatives, which critics saw as an attempt to undermine these programs. The international response was one of shock and dismay, with many delegates expressing astonishment at the U.S. government’s aggressive tactics to prioritize the interests of the infant formula industry over global public health.
The infant formula industry’s aggressive marketing practices have negatively influenced the perception and prevalence of breastfeeding over time. Following the development of manufactured infant formula, mothers were told that breastfeeding was unnecessary and that formula offered greater freedom for busy moms. The promotion of the idea that breastfeeding in public is shameful also contributed to the decline in breastfeeding rates, as more mothers opted for bottle-feeding to avoid social stigma.
Soy-based infant formulas are considered among the worst options for babies due to the potential dangers associated with their high levels of phytoestrogens, such as genistein. These formulas have been linked to a number of troubling side effects, including altered age of menarche in girls, uterine fibroids, endometriosis, tumors, disrupted thyroid and reproductive function, inhibited testosterone in boys, and autoimmune diseases. The estrogen content in soy formulas can be equivalent to at least five birth control pills per day, posing significant risks to infant development.
For mothers who cannot breastfeed, healthy alternatives include using donated breast milk from a trusted source or making homemade infant formula using high-quality, organic ingredients. Homemade formulas, such as those based on raw cow’s milk or liver, can provide a more nutritious option compared to commercial formulas. These homemade recipes often include essential nutrients like lactose, whey, probiotics, acerola powder, cod liver oil, and coconut oil, while avoiding the processed sugars, synthetic vitamins, and harmful additives found in many commercial products.
Predatory marketing practices by infant formula companies can undermine breastfeeding efforts and contribute to suboptimal infant nutrition in several ways. These practices often portray infant formula as a superior alternative to breast milk, making unsubstantiated claims about its ability to solve common infant health and developmental challenges. By promoting the idea that formula is a convenient and effective substitute for breastfeeding, these marketing tactics can discourage mothers from breastfeeding, leading to lower breastfeeding rates and depriving infants of the unique benefits of breast milk.
Breast milk contains several unique components that provide benefits for infants, many of which are not found in commercial formulas. One example is the presence of over 150 different oligosaccharides, which are complex sugars that nourish healthy gut bacteria and support the development of a strong immune system. Breast milk also contains antibodies that provide passive immunity to the infant, as well as growth factors and hormones that promote optimal development. In contrast, commercial formulas are primarily composed of processed sugars, dried skim milk, and refined vegetable oils, lacking the diverse array of beneficial components found in breast milk.
Excessive sugar consumption, particularly in the form of processed corn syrup, has been linked to an increased risk of obesity, diabetes, and metabolic disorders later in life. Other concerning ingredients, such as genetically modified organisms (GMOs), synthetic vitamins, and harmful contaminants like glyphosate and perchlorate, may negatively impact infant health and development. These ingredients can disrupt the gut microbiome, contribute to inflammation, and expose infants to potentially toxic substances during a critical period of growth and development.
Societal attitudes and marketing campaigns have significantly influenced the perception of breastfeeding in public, often portraying it as shameful or indecent. Formula companies have promoted the idea that bottle-feeding is a more convenient and socially acceptable alternative, contributing to the stigmatization of public breastfeeding. This negative perception has led to lower breastfeeding rates, as many mothers feel discouraged from breastfeeding in public spaces for fear of judgment or legal consequences. In some cases, women have faced fines or charges of public indecency for breastfeeding in public, further reinforcing the idea that it is an unacceptable practice. As a result, many mothers have opted for formula feeding, even when they may have preferred to breastfeed, leading to suboptimal infant nutrition and health outcomes.
The high levels of phytoestrogens, particularly genistein, found in soy-based infant formulas pose several specific hormonal and developmental risks. These phytoestrogens can mimic the effects of estrogen in the body, leading to potential disruptions in endocrine function and development. Some of the risks associated with soy formula include altered age of menarche in girls, increased risk of uterine fibroids, endometriosis, and tumors, disrupted thyroid function, and inhibited testosterone in infant boys, which may impede appropriate male development. Additionally, exposure to high levels of phytoestrogens in infancy has been linked to an increased risk of autoimmune diseases and reproductive issues later in life.
There are several key differences between the composition of breast milk and commercial infant formulas that can significantly impact infant health and development. Breast milk contains a unique blend of nutrients, including easily digestible proteins, healthy fats, and complex sugars called oligosaccharides that support the growth of beneficial gut bacteria. It also contains antibodies, growth factors, and hormones that promote optimal immune function and development. In contrast, commercial formulas are typically made from processed ingredients, such as corn syrup, refined vegetable oils, and synthetic vitamins and minerals, which may be harder for infants to digest and absorb. Formula also lacks many of the beneficial compounds found in breast milk, such as antibodies and growth factors, which can leave infants more vulnerable to infections and developmental issues. Furthermore, the high sugar content and lack of complex oligosaccharides in many formulas can disrupt the development of a healthy gut microbiome, increasing the risk of obesity, diabetes, and other chronic health conditions later in life.
Sputnik – 31.05.2024
Anna Neistat, the Legal Director of the Clooney Foundation for Justice’s Docket Project, revealed that the organization is seeking to obtain secret arrest warrants for Russian journalists in Europe.
Neistat explained that some European countries have laws against “war propaganda” in their criminal codes.
“We are submitting requests to initiate criminal proceedings in countries where this provision exists in the criminal code,” Neistat told the US state-controlled ‘Voice of America’ radio (listed as a foreign agent in Russia).
“Prosecutors can issue an arrest warrant,” she said. “If the warrant is issued, it essentially becomes an EU-wide warrant through Europol. This means journalists could potentially be arrested and extradited to the country investigating them.”
Neistat added that no requests have been submitted yet, and the names of the journalists targeted by the project have not been disclosed. She mentioned that the focus is on “the most prominent Russian propagandists.”
“We are asking prosecutors to issue secret arrest warrants… so the names are not revealed,” she added. “We want these individuals to travel to other countries and be arrested there. It’s better if they are left guessing rather than receiving a clear warning.”
However, Neistat acknowledged that no cases have ever been initiated under the “war propaganda” articles in the criminal codes of the relevant countries.
The project is also considering approaching the International Criminal Court (ICC) to hold journalists accountable and investigate their involvement in “incitement to genocide.”
Neistat noted this would be a legally complex process, requiring evidence of the crime. Moreover, the court is currently dealing with a large number of cases.
Western countries overlook the persecution and murder of Russian journalists and threats against them from the Kiev regime.
Dmitry Polyanskiy, Russia’s First Deputy Permanent Representative to the UN, stated that the Kiev regime openly boasts about its involvement in the killings of Russian journalists.
He mentioned recent deaths at the hands of Ukrainian special services, including Darya Dugina, Vladlen Tatarsky (real name Maxim Fomin), Oleg Klohov, Sputnik war correspondent Rostislav Zhuravlev, Rossiya-24 war correspondent Boris Maksudov and Izvestia war correspondent Semyon Yeremin. Polyanskiy added that the West deliberately turns a blind eye to these crimes by Kiev.
Additionally, Russian law enforcement authorities have uncovered Kiev’s plans to commit terrorist acts against several Russian journalists, including Vladimir Solovyov, Margarita Simonyan, Dmitry Kiselev, Olga Skabeeva and Yevgeny Popov.
By Bill Buppert | The Libertarian Institute | May 30, 2024
Yet another existential chaos avalanche in American foreign policy.
The pier took two months and $350m to build, lasted 12 days, and delivered less than 60 trucks’ worth of food (most of which was stolen after it reached Gaza) before it broke and had to be towed away for repairs. Think through the process: ships provide a mass delivery mechanism for cargo and the draft of a ship prevents it from getting close to shore hence the need for pier structures for off-loading and the US spends a third of of billion dollars for a temporary structure to facilitate the off-loading. Weather conditions and sea states are not a mystery and for those keen enough to observe, the facilitators of this disaster had access to all the historical data to know what to do and whether to proceed ahead with the project.
And, remember, this is the same US foreign policy that provides military aid, even now, that necessitated the need for the temporary pier in the first place.
This debacle is a demonstration project of the American experience in the Middle East.
By Oleg Burunov – Sputnik – 29.05.2024
Almost 40 former UK Royal Air Force (RAF) pilots and aircrew who have developed cancer as a result of toxic exhaust fumes from military helicopters are taking legal actions against the Ministry of Defenсe (MoD), The Times has reported.
The government has been aware of the fumes-related risks since 1999, but did nothing about it, according to testimony from sick personnel and their family members.
The number of those who have sued the MoD is predicted to double in the coming weeks. At least three of those affected are already understood to have died, with some former service personnel being handed out-of-court settlements.
The pilots who traveled in Sea King, Westland Wessex, Puma and CH-47 Chinook helicopters have been diagnosed with lung cancer, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, throat cancer, multiple myeloma, and testicular cancer. Notably, while Sea King and Westland Wessex choppers were retired, Puma and Chinook remain in service in the RAF.
Those affected reportedly include personnel of all ranks, “from those in the highest positions in the armed forces to leading aircrew and sergeants.”
Jonathan Dingle, a leading barrister at Normanton Chambers who is working on the cases, told The Times that engine jet efflux gases, which contain benzene carcinogens, that “were apparently being sucked through the cabin and out again through the cockpits — mixing as the air which everyone onboard the aircraft was breathing.”
The pilots, however, “were not provided with masks or filters or purified air or any form of filtration system. They were not warned about the whole system,” Dingle added.
A MoD spokeswoman has meanwhile reacted by stating that the ministry “hugely” values its service personnel and veterans and owes “a debt of gratitude to all those who serve, often with great personal sacrifice.” According to the spokeswoman, those who “believe they have suffered ill health due to service from April 6, 2005 have the existing and longstanding right to apply for no-fault compensation under the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme.”
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
By Prof. Tony Hall | American Herald Tribune | July 28, 2016
The Kevin Barrett-Chomsky Dispute in Historical Perspective – Sixth part of the series titled “9/11 and the Zionist Question”
In his chapter on “Left Gatekeepers” and the “Shame of Noam Chomsky,” Barrie Zwicker refers to the the “New World Order” as the “diaboligarchy’s” directing agency. Less compelling is Zwicker’s reference to the “New World Order” as the “diaboligarchy’s” directing agency. To me this unfortunate choice of words is much too closely associated with the often crude and chauvinistic populism of Alex Jones and his Infowars media network. Many have come to see Jones’ lucrative media operation as a limited hangout set in place by handlers trying to hold the activities of the 9/11 Truth Movement within manageable constraints.
Due to the important findings over fifteen years of the citizens’ investigation into 9/11, the culprits most deeply implicated in the crime can be identified with much more specificity than an entity vaguely described as a “New World Order.” As Kevin Barrett and many others insist, the time has come to name the names of the probable culprits, Noam Chomsky prominent among them.
While Alex Jones ultimately serves the same masters as Chomsky, the former’s media product is often much closer to the mark of what is really going on than the content of Noam Chomsky’s more magisterial pronouncements. Jones goes at least part of the way into realities of the deep state politics of the twenty-first century. Chomsky, however, sacrificed his capacity to contribute cogently to sensible discourse on contemporary geopolitics by making himself a primary instrument of the most consequential deep state deception of recent times. As a leading agent of disinformation in the psychological trenches of the ongoing Global War of False Flag Terrorism, Chomsky has reduced himself to the level of skeptic pretender Michael Shermer. In the style of Shermer, the elder Chomsky has become an establishment TV professor readily available on Netflix. … continue
 | Coronistan on EU member to sue bloc over ‘su… |
 | loongtip on Vicious |
| loongtip on EU turns to India for defense… |
| Coronistan on Donald Trump Is No Peace … |
 | seversonebcfb985d9 on French court jails pro-Palesti… |
 | eddieb on Fourteen Incredible Facts Abou… |
 | Bill Francis on European leaders’ shift in the… |
| seversonebcfb985d9 on Villains of Judea: Philip Esfo… |
| loongtip on Report warns that ‘Jewish terr… |
 | Craig Nelms on New study shows that toxic gas… |
| loongtip on A Funny Thing Happened on the… |
| loongtip on EU free trade pact on hold as… |
Aletho News If Americans Knew No Tricks Zone
Aletho News 