Democrat Congressional Committee Demands Google Bury “Climate Misinformation”
By Eric Worrall | Watts Up With That? | January 29, 2020
The U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on the Climate Crisis has demanded Google demonetize climate skeptics, and provide education to millions of people who have been exposed to “dangerous misinformation”.
If the letter is not readable on your device, the original link is available here.
The key actions demanded:
- Stop promoting climate denial and climate disinformation videos by removing them immediately from the platform’s recommendation algorithm.
- Add ‘climate misinformation’ to the platform’s list of borderline content
- Stop monetising videos that promote harmful misinformation and falsehoods about the causes and effects of the climate crisis.
- Take steps to correct the record for millions of users who have been exposed to the climate misinformation on YouTube.
The people who wrote that letter seem to believe ordinary people are too stupid to figure things out for themselves; they think voters have to be guided into making acceptable choices, by experts like the Democrat majority members of The U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on the Climate Crisis.
‘If I Listened To Him, We’d Be On World War Six’ – Trump Slams “Nasty & Untrue” Bolton Book
By Tyler Durden – Zero Hedge – 01/29/2020
The coordinated leak of the Bolton manuscript has revived Democrats’ hopes for calling the former National Security Advisor to testify at Trump’s trial in the Senate, Mitch McConnell reluctantly admitted last night.
And as Republican frustration with the mustachioed neocon reaches a boiling point, President Trump – who famously fired Bolton via Twitter – has taken to his favorite social media platform to bash his former NSA.
Trump begins by slamming Bolton’s disloyalty, claiming that Bolton begged him for a “non-Senate approved” job and that Trump caved and gave it to him despite “many saying ‘don’t do it, sir’.”
Trump also mocked Bolton’s tendency toward gaffes during TV appearances, like the time he claimed the US was looking at “the Libya model” to handle North Korea. He was immediately roasted by national security experts who noted that Gadhafi’s decision to surrender his nuclear ambitions eventually led to his overthrow and brutal murder.
Moving on, the president said that if he followed Bolton’s advice, the US would be in “World War Six” by now – a reference to Bolton’s famously interventionist views, particularly regarding Iran. It’s believed that, if Bolton had his druthers, the US would have authorized a full-blown invasion.
It turns out Donald Trump isn’t the only Republican president who regrets trusting Bolton. Former President George W. Bush said he regretted his decision to recess-appoint Bolton as his top envoy to the United Nations over the objections of the Senate after it became clear he wouldn’t be confirmed.
“Let me just say from the outset that I don’t consider Bolton credible,” Bush reportedly told an assembled group of political writers, according to the Federalist.
Trump’s criticisms come after the WSJ editorial board said Bolton should be allowed to testify, once again breaking with the Trump administration.
Bolton skeptics – of which there are many – have accused the hotheaded former NSA of merely trying to sell books with the stunt (since getting another job in government is probably out of the question). Of course, this type of attention from the president should only help Bolton achieve that goal. After all, there’s no such thing as bad publicity.
Yet Democrats are giving a former “warmonger” the Comey treatment.
Truth a Major Casualty of Impeachment Hearings
By Jeremy Kuzmarov | CounterPunch | January 28, 2020
As in any political battle, truth has been one of the major casualties of the impeachment proceedings against President Donald J. Trump.
While the Democratic impeachment managers have accused Trump repeatedly of dishonesty – often with good reason – they themselves have twisted the truth to serve their own political agenda.
Impeachment manager Adam Schiff, for example, claimed that “more than 15,000 Ukrainians have died fighting Russian forces and their proxies” and that the military aid [which Trump subverted] was for “such essentials as sniper rifles, rocket propelled grenade launchers, radar… and other support for the war effort.”
While the military aid may have assisted the war effort, Schiff’s comments are misleading because the majority of those killed have been Eastern Ukrainians who died at the hands of the Ukrainian military that the U.S. has armed – not the Russians.
The UN Monitoring Mission on Human Rights determined that of the approximately 13,000 people killed between April 2014 and December 2018, 3,300 of the victims were civilians, 4,000 were Ukrainian military and 5,500 “Russian-backed armed militants.”
Thus, according to Schiff, Russia is responsible for killing 5,500 of its own men!
Human Rights Watch found that the Ukrainian military actually caused many of the civilian deaths by “us[ing] explosive weapons with wide-area effect in populated areas, including near school buildings, in violation of international humanitarian law.”
But this doesn’t fit with Schiff’s alarmist views about Russia, which are straight out of the 1950s McCarthy era.
At the hearings, Schiff frequently referenced the danger of “Russian expansion” and its efforts to “remake the map of Europe” and quoted a witness who stated that “the U.S. aids Ukraine and her people so that they can fight Russia over there, and we don’t have to fight Russia here.”
Sounding like Ronald Reagan or any one of the most hawkish of cold warriors, this assessment has no basis in reality.
Among other things, it ignores that Russia under Putin was the first country to offer sympathy to the U.S. following the 9/11 terrorist attacks and has repeatedly pushed for better diplomatic relations.
Schiff’s misinformation extends to his defense of Joe Biden.
In his opening statement, Schiff claimed that Biden never wanted the “corrupt prosecutor removed in order to stop an investigation into Burisma Holdings, on whose board Biden’s son Hunter sat.”
However, Biden has been filmed in a speech before the Council on Foreign Relations bragging about his efforts to blackmail the Ukrainian government by threatening to withhold a $1 billion loan if that prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, was not removed.
Shokin had never actually been censured or indicted for corruption, although his successor, Yuriy Lutsenko was.
The latter settled the case with Burisma and its chief executive Mykola Zlochevsky by allowing it to pay a $7 million fine when the company stood accused of evading $40 million in taxes – a clear victory for Burisma.
Lutsenko did not even have a law degree and has been characterized by Ukrainian officials as a crooked political appointee of Ukraine’s former Prime-Minister Petro Poroshenko, whom Biden had cultivated close ties with.
(For more information on this see Olivier Berrayer’s documentary, Ukraine-Gate- Inconvenient Facts.)
Schiff and other Democratic Impeachment Managers such as Sylvia Garcia of Texas claimed that under Shokin the investigation against Burisma had lain “dormant.”
However, Shokin told ABC News in an interview – which was conveniently never aired – that this was not true and that the case was proceeding prior to his removal in February 2016.
The Ukraine-Gate saga has commanded a huge amount of attention and contributed to the rising fame of Schiff who has been praised in some circles for his magnificent performance.
By spreading misleading or outright false information about Russia and Ukraine, and drumming up anti-Russian sentiment, the consequences of the hearings, however, could be even more damaging then the Trump presidency.
Jeremy Kuzmarov is the author of The Russians are Coming, Again: The First Cold War as Tragedy, the Second as Farce (Monthly Review Press, 2018) and Obama’s Unending Wars: Fronting for the Foreign Policy of the Permanent Warfare State (Atlanta: Clarity Press, 2019).
Hamas calls Trump’s Mideast plan ‘aggressive,’ Jerusalem proposal ‘nonsense’
RT | January 28, 2020
Hamas has brushed off US President Donald Trump’s proposal on Jerusalem as “nonsense.” The group rejected his peace plan altogether by calling his statement “aggressive,” adding that it would only spark “anger.”
“Trump’s statement is aggressive and it will spark a lot of anger,” Hamas official Sami Abu Zuhri told Reuters. The member of the Hamas movement that has a political and a militant wing particularly slammed the US leader’s proposal on the future of Jerusalem, calling it “nonsense.”
He added that the city “will always be a land for the Palestinians”, and that they would oppose Trump’s deal.
Trump’s speech contained conflicting messages, with him first declaring that Jerusalem would be Israel’s “undivided” capital, only to then say that Eastern Jerusalem will be turned into the capital of a newly formed Palestinian state if Palestinians accept his deal. He even vowed to open a US embassy there.
Thousands of Palestinians turned up on the streets in Gaza and elsewhere on Tuesday to protest Trump’s Middle East peace plan even before the US president announced it. The protesters were waving Palestinian flags as well as burned pictures of Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who attended the announcement ceremony.
The US has consistently promoted its peace plan as the “Deal of the Century” that will put an end to a decades-long conflict. Netanyahu also hailed it as a “once in a lifetime opportunity for Israel.” That never sat well with Palestinians, who even branded the proposed accord “a deal of the devil.”
Trump deal: A prize for Israel at the expense of Palestine
Press TV – January 28, 2020
Just as US President Donald Trump is taking time off his controversial impeachment trial to unveil his much hyped-up peace plan for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a potentially explosive situation is unfolding in Palestinian territories where there is huge resentment among the leadership and the people towards the so-called ‘deal of the century.’
Palestinians argue that one primary flaw of Trump’s deal is that despite presumably offering a recipe for peace between Israelis and Palestinians, it totally excludes and sidelines them, as one side of any mutual agreement.
Palestinians view the deal as Washington’s seal of approval for Israel’s long-desired annexation of their territories it has been illegally occupying for decades, in total disregard for UN Security Council resolutions and the opposition by the vast majority of the international community.
The timing for the unveiling of the deal has also drawn much attention as both President Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are embroiled in major national scandals. The US president is in the midst of an impeachment trial, while the Israeli premier is facing three corruption indictments.
Palestinian leaders from different factions raised their voices on Monday against the US-devised deal and stressed the need for popular resistance in the face of the American scheme which Trump prepares to unveil in the presence of Israeli leaders at 17:00 GMT on Tuesday.
Palestine has already rejected the so-called peace plan as “the slap of the century.”
The scheme is reported to be hugely biased towards the Tel Aviv regime by extending Israel’s “sovereignty” over all settlements and annexing the Jordan Valley in the West Bank.
Washington released the economic portion of its initiative during a conference last June, which was boycotted by Palestinians and supporters of the Palestinian cause against Israel’s decades-occupation.
I won’t become a traitor: Abbas
Speaking at a meeting with members of the Fatah Party’s central committee on Monday, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas was cited in media reports as saying that Trump “wants to impose something on us that we do not want.”
Fatah officials also quoted Abbas as saying that he “did not pick up the phone” after calls from Washington.
“I said no and I will continue to say no… We are going for difficult days and we are beginning to bear the consequences of the refusal. Resistance must be escalated at all points of friction. All young people must be encouraged,” he said.
Abbas said he had received threats over his firm opposition to Trump’s deal, but that he will not back down from his stance.
“I was told I’ll pay a heavy price for my foolish behavior. I do not have much longer to live and I will not go down as a traitor. It’s either dying like martyrs or flying the Palestinian flag on the walls of Jerusalem [al-Quds],” he added.
Abbas also instructed Palestinian security forces not to interfere with protests against the US scheme, according to the reports.
US deal will be another Nakba: Hamas
Fawzi Barhoum, spokesman for the Gaza-based Hamas resistance movement, said Trump’s deal represents another Nakba for the Palestinian nation.
The Nakba Day (the Day of Catastrophe) is commemorated every year on May 15 to mark the forcible eviction of Palestinians from their motherland by Israel in 1948.
Barhoum also stressed that confronting “the disgraceful deal of the century” requires declaring public mobilization and stepping up resistance in various forms throughout Palestine.
He further urged Abbas to take important decisions towards opposing the initiative, among them ending security cooperation with Israel.
‘Arab envoys should boycott unveiling ceremony’
Abbas’ spokesman Nabil Abu Rudeineh called on all ambassadors of Arab and Muslim countries invited to the unveiling ceremony of the US plan not to attend the event, according to the Palestinian WAFA news agency.
The Palestinians consider the deal “a conspiracy aimed at undermining the rights of the Palestinian people and thwarting the establishment of the State of Palestine.”
Reports, however, suggest that Arab Persian Gulf states — which have long had secret contacts with Israel — are likely to voice general support for the contentious US scheme, but only if it does not allow Tel Aviv to immediately annex parts of the West Bank.
So far Jordan has openly opposed the deal.
Trump attempting to boost Netanyahu: Israeli MK
Ahmad Tibi, Israeli lawmaker from the Arab-majority Joint List political alliance, said that Trump was intervening in the Palestine issue in favor of scandal-hit Netanyahu, amid an election deadlock in the occupied territories, Al Mayadeen TV channel reported.
Anyone who supports Trump’s initiative is actually against Palestine, he added.
Islamic Jihad calls for new Intifada
Mohammed al-Hindi, a member of Gaza-based Islamic Jihad’s politburo, called on people to launch a new Intifada (uprising) in the occupied territories.
He further underlined the need for an emergency meeting between all Palestinian groups on how to counter the US plan.
Gazans to protest; Palestinian leaders to convene
Meanwhile, groups based in the Gaza Strip have called on Palestinians in the blockaded coastal enclave to protest against Trump’s deal in central Gaza on Tuesday.
Separately, Abbas has called for an emergency meeting of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) Executive Committee and the Fatah central committee at 17:00 GMT on Tuesday, which coincides with the plan’s release.
Hamas, which governs Gaza, is also set take part in the meeting.
“We invited the Hamas movement to attend the emergency meeting of the leadership and they will take part in the meeting,” senior Palestinian official Azzam al-Ahmed said.
Why Dems, MSM Ignore FBI Whistleblower’s Revelations on the Clintons’ Links to the Uranium One Deal
By Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – 28.01.2020
While US lawmakers and media pundits are busy discussing Donald Trump’s impeachment process, the Clinton Foundation’s alleged misdeeds, including its supposed role in the Uranium One deal, remain neglected, says Wall Street analyst Charles Ortel, referring to a mid-January public interview with an FBI whistleblower.
On 15 January, FBI whistleblower Nate Cain told OAN’s investigative journalist Richard Pollock that he possesses classified documents implicating former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation with regard to the Uranium One deal. However, he added that he would never release them unless he receives approval from the appropriate federal authorities.
According to Cain, who joined the FBI in 2016, he overheard major concerns voiced by top brass FBI officials who purportedly came across damning evidence about the Clinton Foundation’s role in the Uranium One deal. The whistleblower said that having reviewed the materials, he had been sure that the Clintons would be indicted.
However, the case was apparently swept under the rug after then-FBI chief James Comey recommended no criminal charges for Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified emails in 2016.
Being a protected whistleblower under US law, Cain delivered 450 pages of documents concerning the deal to Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz in June 2018. However, in November, 16 FBI agents raided Cain’s Maryland home, accused him of possessing “stolen federal property” and ignored his argument about whistleblower protection, as The Daily Caller revealed on 29 November 2018.
Uranium One Case Remains Undeservingly Neglected
According to Charles Ortel, a Wall Street analyst and investigative journalist who has been looking into the Clinton Foundation’s alleged fraud for the past few years, the Uranium One issue still remains undeservedly neglected both by the American authorities and media pundits.
“It strikes me that President Trump needs to make sure that his senior team finally addresses long-unanswered questions concerning Uranium One anyway,” he underscores.
In his interview with OAN, Cain asserted that former FBI chief James Comey had been aware about the agency’s concerns with regard to the deal. One might ask how this happened that the former agency’s boss “overlooked” the supposed “damning evidence”.
“This question needs to be considered alongside questions about others who tried to inform James Comey concerning suspected mishandling by Hillary Clinton of classified information,” the Wall Street analyst notes.
He recalls that Cain wasn’t the only one whistleblower who stepped forward to shed light on the Clinton Foundation’s alleged role in the uranium deal: another one was William Campbell and his claims “to date, do not seem to have been considered carefully enough”, according to the analyst.
On 7 February 2018, Republican and Democratic staff from the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence interviewed Campbell. However, the summary of the interview released on 8 March 2018 said that Campbell “provided no evidence” of alleged quid pro quo involving Hillary Clinton or the Clinton Foundation in arranging and approving the Uranium One deal.
“It certainly seems as if Comey was determined not to examine core issues involving mishandling – one imagines that one reason for this could be that numerous senior Obama administration officials might be implicated in potential wrongdoing, and that these officials were determined and remain determined not to let the truth out in advance of the pivotal election of 2016 and the looming one this year,” Ortel suggests.
The Wall Street analyst presumes that it was no coincidence that the Uranium One case was buried when Comey announced that he would not recommend charging Hillary Clinton over mishandling classified government emails.
“I do not believe in coincidences when it comes to this matter,” Ortel says. “More likely, President Obama’s Justice Department had made decisions to bottle up Comey’s ‘investigation’ and remained ‘all-in’ to support Hillary Clinton through the 2016 election contest.”
Whistleblowers & Double Standard Approach
The Wall Street analyst also emphasises the apparent double standard approach exercised by the FBI and DoJ towards Cain, Campbell and the unnamed whistleblower whose complaint to IG Michael K. Atkinson became the trigger for the impeachment process against Donald Trump.
According to Ortel, one can hardly “reconcile the protection given to the whistleblower who even now cannot be named (in theory) with the aggressive tactics allegedly taken by elements within the US government against Campbell and Cain”.
“It certainly seems to me that the aggressive handling of the ‘impeachment case’ by Democrats in the House and Senate and mainstream media stands in stark contrast to the lack of interest by too many in understanding what really has been going in and around the Clinton Foundation, including with Uranium One and other projects where Clinton donors, and possibly the Clinton family, may have derived personal benefits in projects where US government approvals and/or financial support were involved,” the investigative journalist concludes.
The controversy over the Uranium One deal, which envisaged a partial sale of Canadian company Uranium One to Tenex, a subsidiary of Russia’s nuclear company Rosatom which was approved by the Obama administration in 2011, erupted ahead of the 2016 elections. In his 5 May 2015 book, “Clinton Cash” American author Peter Schweitzer wrote that at the time the uranium deal was arranged, former US President Bill Clinton received thousands in speaking fees in Russia; the Clinton Foundation got substantive donations from firms interested in the deal; while then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton oversaw the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. However, Hillary Clinton and Obama administration officials denied the accusations, insisting that neither Russians nor the foundation’s sponsors had been involved in any wrongdoing and that at the time there was no security reason to axe the deal.
An Unusual Lawsuit against Iran
By Jacob G. Hornberger | FFF | January 28, 2020
The Washington Post recently published an article about a lawsuit that American citizens have brought against Iran. The plaintiffs are Iraq veterans and families of veterans who suffered horrendous injuries or deaths while serving in the U.S. armed forces in Iraq. In their lawsuit, the plaintiffs are claiming that Iran sent roadside bombs into Iraq that wreaked massive injuries or death on U.S. troops.
For example, Chris Levi’s Humvee was torn apart by a roadside bomb that cost him both his legs. Kelli Hake and her 13-year-old son are living their lives without their husband and father, who was killed by a roadside bomb in Iraq. There were thousands more like them.
It stands to reason that the plaintiffs would feel deep anger toward Iran, especially given their belief that Iran did, in fact, furnish the bombs that ended up inflicting death and injuries on U.S. soldiers serving in Iraq.
What is unusual, however, is that there appears to be absolutely no animus directed toward another regime. That regime is the U.S. government. I find the lack of ill will toward the U.S. government to be totally bizarre.
After all, let’s not forget something important: When a nation-state invades, attacks, and occupies a country and in the process intentionally wreaks death, suffering, and destruction, there is a very high probability that people are going to get extremely angry and are going to exact vengeance by doing the same thing to the invading and occupying troops.
We should keep in mind that the U.S. war on Iraq was illegal under our form of government. That’s because the U.S. Constitution, which is the higher law that we the people have imposed on the federal government, prohibits the president from waging war without a declaration of war from Congress. It is undisputed that Congress never declared war on Iraq.
The U.S. war on Iraq was also illegal under the principles set forth by the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal. It held that nation-states do not have the authority to invade and attack other nations.
Nonetheless, knowing that an invasion and occupation would be illegal under both the Constitution and the principles set forth at Nuremberg, the Pentagon ordered U.S. forces to invade and occupy the country, knowing full well that many of them would be killed, maimed, or injured in the process.
Did an illegal U.S. war of aggression against Iraq justify intervention by Iran to help Iraqis throw U.S. occupying forces out of the country? Of course not. Nonetheless, everyone knows — or should know — that when one nation illegally attacks and occupies another nation, there is a high likelihood that other nation-states are going to come to the assistance of the invaded and occupied country. That’s just the way the world works.
Consider, for example, when it was the Soviet Union, rather than the United States, that was the invader and occupier in Afghanistan. Guess who came to the assistance of the Afghans who were fighting to evict the Soviets from their country. That’s right — the U.S. government. It provided weaponry, including missiles, that was used to kill, maim, and injure Soviet soldiers. U.S. intervention wasn’t right, but that’s the way the world works.
What if those Soviet soldiers had sued the U.S. government for damages for the deaths and injuries caused by U.S.-supplied weaponry? There is not one court in the United States that would permit such a lawsuit to proceed. Unlike the lawsuit against Iran, a lawsuit by Soviet citizens against the U.S. government would be summarily dismissed.
If U.S. officials hadn’t ordered U.S. troops to invade and occupy Iraq, there never would have been any U.S. soldiers killed, maimed, or injured by anyone. Why shouldn’t the U.S. government be joined as a defendant in that lawsuit against Iran? If the Iranian government isn’t immune from liability, why should the U.S. government be immune from liability? Why are the plaintiffs giving their own government a pass, both legally and morally?
Cancel Culture Hits Medical Journals
By Donna Laframboise | Big Picture News | January 27, 2020
Much scientific research is now conducted by tribes. Some tribes think certain foods are good for us. Eggs, fat, coffee, dairy, whatever. Other tribes insist their own research shows the opposite.
The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) has just published a shocking account of how the ‘eat red meat sparingly’ tribe tried to make research by a rival tribe disappear.
Last fall, a collection of systematic reviews were published by a prominent journal, the Annals of Internal Medicine (see here, here, here, here, and here). Online publication happened on October 1st, prior to the material appearing in the printed journal in mid-November.
After carefully reviewing scientific evidence concerning meat consumption, the PhDs and medical doctors involved formulated a clinical guideline, aka a nutritional recommendation, which was published at the same time. This was intended to help practicing doctors provide appropriate advice to their patients.
The short version is that most of these researchers (11 votes to 3), believe no reliable evidence justifies telling adults to eat less red meat and less processed meat. As this commentary explains, nutritional research is typically “shaky.” Studies that identify a link between meat consumption and a particular disease usually show tiny increases in risk.
The Annals had taken into account the feedback of peer reviewers both pro and con, and had made its call. To quote editor-in-chief Christine Laine, “the public should know we don’t have great information on diet.”
The JAMA article tells us that, as the Annals was preparing to publish this material online, the anti-meat tribe began mobilizing. An estimated 2,000 vitriolic e-mails flooded into Laine’s inbox during a half-hour period.
Members of an organization called the True Health Initiative contacted her at least twice. They complained about the wording of a press release the journal was circulating about the upcoming research. They also urged her to “preemptively retract publication of these papers” for “the sake of public understanding and public health” (read their letter here).
How did these people react when their outrageous attempts to suppress scientific results failed? Did they start behaving like grownups? Hardly. Instead, they complained to an agency of the US government, the Federal Trade Commission. You can read about that here in their own words.
The anti-meat tribe thinks a government body tasked with ensuring marketplace competition and fair business practices should be second-guessing medical journals. Arguing that the journal’s press release amounted to misleading advertising, their petition asked the Trade Commission to:
permanently prohibit [the Annals of Internal Medicine] from disseminating, or causing the dissemination of the advertisement at issue and require [the journal] to issue a public retraction and corrective statement regarding the advertisement. [bold added]
When that went nowhere, did these people finally start behaving in a civilized manner? I’m afraid not. Their next stop was the Philadelphia district attorney’s office. You know, the prosecutors and detectives tasked with keeping citizens safe from criminals. (The Annals offices are in Philadelphia.)
In their own press release, the anti-meat tribe said the Annals should be investigated for “potential reckless endangerment.” The journal, they insisted, had distributed “dangerous and misleading information.”
The entity that turned first to the Trade Commission and then to the criminal justice system calls itself the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. It’s unofficial motto is: if you can’t persuade people to do what you want, find a third party who’ll compel them to do so. Just kidding. It actually sees itself as leading a “revolution” – based on the idea that plant-based diets “can prevent and even reverse diabetes, heart disease, and high blood pressure.”
This is a lobby group, an activist organization. According to its own website, only 12,000 of its 175,000 members (7%) are actually physicians.
Welcome to the polarized world of medical publishing. This is how the scientific community now behaves.
To be continued…







Zeolite is old. It is in Roman concrete that has held for two thousand years. It’s in the water filters of ancient cisterns. It’s in the stomachs of Pacific livestock whose keepers knew, somehow, that this grey crumbling rock made the animals healthier. It’s in Soviet clinical protocols from the 1960s. It’s in the standard emergency response to the Chernobyl explosion.