Stuart Jeanne Bramhall's Blog: The Most Revolutionary Act , page 78

China Has Quietly Won the Trade War—and Now Leads the World

Ricardo Martins PhD

 

“There are decades where nothing happens; and there are weeks where decades happen.”
—Vladimir Lenin

A Silent but Seismic Turning Point

In a silent but seismic shift, President Xi Jinping has ended five centuries of Western global dominance—not with bombs or blockades, but with strategic patience and unyielding confidence. Without firing a single shot, China has emerged not only as the victor of Trump’s chaotic trade war but also as the world’s new de facto leader.Learning from China doesn’t mean becoming China

This transformation did not happen overnight, but the past few years have accelerated an inevitable rebalancing, especially after Trump’s first administration. The West, and particularly the United States, once sat atop a unipolar world order. Today, that dominance has not just eroded—it has been decisively challenged.

The Biden administration, like Trump’s before it, ultimately came to terms with a critical truth: global decoupling from China is economically untenable. The U.S. Treasury now openly acknowledges that tariffs are unsustainable, signaling what amounts to a strategic surrender in a trade war that began with bravado but ended in backpedaling.

The Cost of Financial Hubris

America’s attempt to sever its economic entanglement with China unraveled under the weight of its own financialization. Tariffs imposed during the Trump years wiped out trillions in global capital, not by transferring wealth to Beijing but by annihilating it. Markets froze, supply chains fractured, and America’s inflationary spiral deepened as Chinese imports became pricier and scarcer. Grocery chains and tech firms sounded the alarm: shelves were going empty, and production lines were halting. A $1 trillion trade dependency can’t simply be wished away.

China, by contrast, played the long game. It neither retaliated rashly nor blinked. It held five powerful economic levers in reserve: U.S. Treasury holdings, currency manipulation, control over rare earth elements, asymmetric trade dependencies, and vast cross-border investments. Each of these tools remains in Beijing’s back pocket—unleashed only when necessary. That quiet strength was Xi’s real strategy: win without war.

A Battle of Ego vs. Shred Future

In truth, this wasn’t merely a contest of policies—it was a duel between two men: Xi Jinping and Donald Trump. One ruled by consensus and long-term vision; the other by tweetstorms and impulsive tariffs. While Trump chased headlines and short-term victories, Xi pursued civilizational restoration. His goal was not just to withstand American pressure, but to lead a new era of global governance rooted in sovereignty, economic connectivity, and multipolar cooperation.

Xi Jinping’s vision for the world is a shared future for mankind: a multipolar global order based on mutual respect, non-interference, economic cooperation, and sovereign development, which, to some extent, revives the spirit of Bandung and the aspirations of the Global South. It emphasizes connectivity through initiatives like the Belt and Road, stability over confrontation, and a shift from Western-dominated liberalism, where rules and norms are dictated by the market and leaders follow the market’s ruling, to a more inclusive, pragmatic global governance model rooted in civilizational respect.

The results are stark: The U.S. Navy is aging, and its shipbuilding capacity is stagnant. Military overstretch has weakened alliances, with even Europe questioning the future of NATO. Meanwhile, China builds ports, railways, and satellites. Through initiatives like the Belt and Road and critical mineral diplomacy, Beijing now anchors vast swaths of Africa, Latin America, and Central Asia into its sphere of influence, not by force, but by finance and infrastructure.

A Different Kind of Leadership

The question no longer is whether China will lead the world—it already is. The question is how it will share that leadership. Xi’s vision, contrary to Western paranoia, is not zero-sum. As Zhou Bo, senior fellow at Tsinghua University, eloquently put it in his recent book Should the World Fear China?, “The world is becoming less Western, and it’s about time the West learned to listen.”

What the West perceives as fear, the Global South sees as opportunity. In Africa, Chinese workers build roads and hospitals; in Latin America, Chinese investments fuel clean energy and education. Even amid complex territorial tensions, China has maintained a foreign policy grounded in non-interference and regional diplomacy. When was the last time China toppled a government or bombed a nation into regime change?

Toward a Shared but Multipolar Future

To those who say China seeks to upend the international order, the response is simple: What is the order worth if it only serves the few? China doesn’t reject rules—it seeks fairness in their making. The Belt and Road isn’t a trap, as some Western media narratives suggest; it’s a lifeline for nations long ignored by Washington and Brussels. Even the narrative of Chinese “militarism” collapses under scrutiny: China hasn’t engaged in foreign combat since 1979, while U.S. interventions stretch across every continent.

This doesn’t mean China is perfect—no nation is. But it does mean the West must move from denial to adaptation. The future will not be American or European-dominated. It will be co-governed, with China holding a preponderant role. The West must recalibrate, not in fear, but in mutual respect.

In the words of Zhou Bo: “You cannot be the world’s strongest power and still claim victimhood.” The same could be said of the U.S.—it must accept that others have risen, and that humility, not hegemony, will define the 21st century.

From Pax Americana to Pax Sinica?

We are indeed entering a new era—not marked by the collapse of the West, but by its maturation. Learning from China doesn’t mean becoming China. It means recognizing that leadership today is measured not just in aircraft carriers or GDP, but in resilience, diplomacy, and the ability to build.

The West ruled the world for 500 years. It is now time to share the stage with a resurgent power, one that has reclaimed its rightful place and carries within it the wisdom of a 5,000-year-old civilization.

[…]

Via https://journal-neo.su/2025/05/03/china-has-quietly-won-the-trade-war-and-now-leads-the-world/

Iran: US ‘not serious’ about nuclear talks after Trump imposes new sanctions

 

(Photo credit: Tehran Times)

The Cradle

The Iranian Foreign Ministry affirmed on 2 May that Tehran is committed to continuing the diplomatic process and negotiations regarding its nuclear program but that it “will not accept pressure and threats that violate international law and target the rights of the Iranian people.”

In a statement, the ministry condemned the continued illegal sanctions on Iran and the “pressure on its economic partners,” viewing them as “further evidence that the United States is not serious about adopting a diplomatic approach toward Iran.”

It also stressed that the continuation of these policies “will not change Iran’s firm positions in defending its legitimate rights,” and that “testing failed methods will only lead to a repetition of past failures.”

The Foreign Ministry went on to say that the Iranian negotiating delegation, during the first three rounds, attempted to “reach a fair agreement that guarantees the rights of the Iranian people, within the specified frameworks that allow Tehran to use peaceful nuclear energy.”

Tehran entered indirect negotiations with Washington following US President Donald Trump’s letter to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, to “resolve a fabricated crisis through diplomacy, based on good faith,” the statement added.

The Ministry’s statement came after Trump announced on Thursday that all purchases of Iranian oil or petrochemical products must stop, warning that any country or individual continuing such trade would face immediate secondary sanctions and be barred from doing business with the US.

“They will not be allowed to do business with the United States of America in any way, shape, or form,” he wrote on Truth Social on Thursday.

Secondary sanctions are a powerful tool for the US because of the size of its economy.

Trump’s comments follow the postponement of the latest US talks with Iran over its nuclear program.

The Iranian Foreign Ministry announced on Thursday that the fourth round of talks, which were due to take place in Rome on Saturday, had been rescheduled at the suggestion of the Sultanate of Oman for “logistical reasons.”

Sources speaking with Al Mayadeen explained that the postponement came “against the backdrop of the conflicting positions taken by the US administration regarding the talks, and Washington’s efforts to change the general framework for negotiations that had been previously agreed upon.”

In a related development, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio asserted on 1 May that Iran must “walk away” from both uranium enrichment and the development of long-range missiles.

“They have to walk away from sponsoring terrorists, they have to walk away from helping the Houthis (in Yemen), they have to walk away from building long-range missiles that have no purpose to exist other than having nuclear weapons, and they have to walk away from enrichment,” Rubio said in an interview with Fox News.

His comments came as the fourth round of nuclear negotiations between Tehran and Washington, set to take place in Rome on Saturday, were postponed.

An Iranian official cited by Reuters said a new date for the talks would be set “depending on the US approach.”

Tehran has repeatedly affirmed that both its uranium enrichment and its defense capabilities are non-negotiable in the talks with the US.

[…]

Via https://thecradle.co/articles/iran-says-us-not-serious-about-nuclear-talks-after-trump-imposes-new-sanctions

CT scans linked to 100,000 future cancers as doctors warn of overuse

Dr Eddy Betterman

CT scans may cause 5% of future U.S. cancer cases, with 103,000 cancers projected from 2023 scans alone.A single abdominal CT delivers radiation equal to 1,000 chest X-rays, with children facing 10 times higher cancer risks than adults.Experts warn of profit-driven overuse, with 93 million scans performed annually and many offering little medical benefit.Infants and children are at highest risk, yet parents are rarely informed about long-term cancer dangers.Patients should question unnecessary scans, seek radiation-free alternatives, and demand lower-dose options for children.

Millions of Americans undergo CT scans each year, trusting these high-tech imaging tests to diagnose injuries or illnesses. But shocking new research reveals a dark side to this routine procedure: CT scans may be responsible for 5% of all future cancer cases in the U.S. — equivalent to roughly 103,000 cancers from scans performed in 2023 alone. Experts warn that overuse, profit motives, and lax regulations are exposing patients to dangerous radiation with little benefit.

A landmark study published in JAMA Internal Medicine estimates that CT scans now rival alcohol consumption and obesity as a leading preventable cancer risk. The scans use ionizing radiation, a known carcinogen, with doses varying wildly between machines. For example, an abdominal CT delivers radiation equivalent to 1,000 chest X-rays, while a child’s head CT may carry a 10-fold higher cancer risk than the same scan for an adult.

Dr. Rebecca Smith-Bindman, a radiologist at UC San Francisco and lead study author, bluntly states: “It’s unfathomable. We keep doing more and more CTs, and the doses keep going up.” Her research found that doses for identical scans can vary tenfold between hospitals, with no standardized safety checks.

Profit over patients?

With 93 million CT scans performed annually in the U.S.—a 30% increase since 2007—critics accuse healthcare providers of prioritizing revenue over safety. Each scan costs up to $6,800, creating a lucrative incentive for overuse. Dr. David Johnson, a gastroenterologist at Eastern Virginia Medical School, urges doctors to “hit the pause button on ordering CT scans just because it’s easy and convenient.”

The parallels to other medical controversies are striking. Like COVID-19 vaccines and statins, which critics argue are overprescribed despite risks, CT scans are often deployed as a “default” diagnostic tool.

Infants subjected to CT scans face the highest lifetime cancer risk, with thyroid, lung, and breast cancers most likely to develop later in life. Yet parents are rarely warned. “Few patients and their families are counseled about the risk,” admits UCSF pediatrician Dr. Malini Mahendra. The study projects 9,700 future cancers in children scanned in 2023 alone.

The U.S. healthcare system’s reliance on CT scans mirrors its broader dysfunction. Medicare’s new rules requiring hospitals to report radiation doses by 2027 are a belated response, but critics say real change requires rejecting medicine’s “mechanistic” approach.

What you can do

If your doctor is recommending a CT scan, it is important to make sure it is necessary. While these tests are justified in some cases, there are a few points you should keep in mind.

First, question every scan. Ask: “Is this absolutely necessary? Are there radiation-free alternatives like MRI or ultrasound?” In some cases, it may be possible to choose a diagnostic tool with a lower risk. Reject “defensive medicine.” Up to 90% of scans offer “little to no medical value,” according to studies. Ask your doctor if the benefits outweigh the risks.

Be particularly cautious when it comes to children. Demand lower-dose protocols or non-radiation options for young patients given their higher risk.

CT scans save lives when used judiciously, but their rampant overuse—driven by profit, fear of lawsuits, and outdated medical dogma—has created a silent epidemic. As Dr. Smith-Bindman warns, “These future cancers can be reduced by avoiding unnecessary scans.” Until the healthcare system prioritizes prevention over profit, patients must arm themselves with knowledge and push back when needed.

[…]

Via https://dreddymd.com/2025/05/03/ct-scans-linked-future-cancers-doctors-overuse/

Thomas Sankara: Africa’s Che Guevara

Thomas Sankara: The Upright Man

Directed by Robin Shuffield (2006)

Film Review

This film is especially pertinent, given the West’s latest attempted coup two weeks ago (see Tensions Mount in Burkino Faso a Week After the Coup Attemp). Burkino Faso was one of the first African countries to successful resist Western economic colonialism. The popular resistance there was largely inspired by revolutionary hero Thomas Sankara, often referred to as Africa’s Che Guevara.

Thomas Sankara came to power in the Republic of Upper Volta in 1983 and changed the country’s name to Burkino Faso (land of the upright man). The chief aim of Sankara’s regime was to free his country from French neocolonial rule. Prior to Sankara’s rule, the country’s chief purpose was as a reservoir of cheap labor for its neighbor Ivory Coast.

One of Sankara’s first acts as president was to reduce the salaries of public officials (including his own) and require them to give up their Mercedes for cheaper brands. He also banned unions and opposition parties (many of which were infiltrated by the CIA under its USAID program).

His first main goal was to reduce Burkino Fasso’s reliance on colonial powers by making it self-sufficient in food production. This involved considerable infrastructure investment, including the first African campaign against desertification and the planting of several million trees, as well a heavy investment in irrigation and fertilizer production. He simultaneously enacted land reforms, removing land from the control of landowners who kept it out of food production. By 1986 the country was producing 3800-3900 kg of wheat per hectare, in contrast to the African average of 1700 kg per hectare.

He also built affordable housing in city slums and began major road and rail construction. His goal was to connect the cities with the country’s manganese mines (to eliminate reliance on foreign countries to run them and to isolated rural areas. He also endeavored to increase funding for science and technology education and manufacturing

In 1984 he embarked on a cultural revolution in which he questioned the way traditional African society devalued women. He was one of the first world leaders to argue for women’s rights and advocated for all women who wanted to work to have access to paid employment. He also outlawed forced marriages, clitoral excision and male violence against their wives. He encouraged women to join the military and appointed them to ministerial positions.

As part of his campaign to guarantee food, housing and health care to all Burkino Faso citizens, he vaccinated 2 1/2 million people over a week. and started a massive physical fitness campaign.

Sharing the same vision as Jerry John Rawlins did for Ghana, he had substantial influence over the Organization for African Unity (OAU). He encouraged other OAU leaders to resist interest rate increases on foreign debt and confronted many of them for getting rich off the backs of their citizens.

In 1986 the country experienced an economic downturn, and he implemented a number of disastrous policies:

Peoples revolutionary tribunals, in which local officials and ordinary citizens were encouraged to try corrupt government leaders and bureaucrats, people who didn’t work hard enough or behaved like counterrevolutionaries. Although the only punishment was public humiliation, people were forced to prove their innocence and some local leaders established tribunals to settle personal scores.Firing 1200-1400 primary teachers, when students started to try their teachers, who went on strike.Replacing striking teachers with revolutionary teachers with 10 days training.Appointing people with no military training to run revolutionary defense committees and to use their weapons to settle private scores.

The resulting popular disaffection coincided with raight wing shift in France’s government (with Jacques Chirac becoming prime minister).

With French support, Sankhara’s personal guard and second in command Blaie Compaoré launched a coup on October 15,1987 in which Sankhara was killed. Compaoré, who remained president until 2014, instituted a “recitification” of the revolution and returned Burkino Faso to its colonial relationship with France and the Ivory Coast.

Sankhara’s death was widely mourned. Despite accusations Sankhara enriched himself personally from his rule, a thorough investigation revealed he died with empty pockets.

Bankruptcies and layoffs slam wide range of transportation companies

Florida, Tennessee, Illinois, Texas and South Dakota all saw recent supply chain bankruptcies and layoffs. (Photo: Jim Allen/FreightWaves)

By Steve Barett

Layoffs and bankruptcies hit multiple sectors of the supply chain throughout April, as new or soon-to-be-imposed tariffs continue to weigh on freight markets.

Truck & Trailer Leasing Avenue

Truck & Trailer Leasing Avenue of Joliet, Illinois, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on April 16 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

The company stated in the petition that it has both assets and liabilities of $10 million-$50 million and said that money would be available to pay unsecured creditors. The largest unsecured creditors are Bank Midwest of Kansas City, Missouri, owed about $818,000, and De Lage Landen Financial Services, owed about $623,000.

The filing marks Truck & Trailer Leasing’s second Chapter 11 case in just over a year, following a bankruptcy filed on March 21, 2024.

FreightWaves could not reach Truck & Trailer Leasing Managing Member Sergiu Tintiuc, and a law firm representing the company did not immediately return a phone call seeking comment.

Starr Rail

Starr Rail of Cooper, Texas, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on April 11 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas.

The company, which provides rail-to-truck and truck-to-rail transloading, as well as warehousing, contract packaging and last-mile dedicated trucking, has both assets and liabilities of $1 million-$10 million, according to the bankruptcy petition.

No funds will be available for unsecured creditors after administrative expenses are paid, according to the filing. The creditors with the largest unsecured claims are Canada’s CPKC railroad, owed about $220,000, and Kiamichi Railroad of Southlake, Texas, owed about $133,000.

A call to Starr Rail on Wednesday morning was unanswered.

LML Logistics

LML Logistics of Ocala, Florida, filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition on Friday in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida.

The company stated in the petition that it has assets totaling $100,000-$500,000 and liabilities of $1 million-$10 million. Funds will be available for unsecured creditors, the largest of which are Farm Credit of Florida, owed about $794,000, and the Small Business Administration Economic Injury Disaster Loan program, owed about $107,000, according to the filing.

LML has 10 power units and 16 drivers, according to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s SAFER website. It carries general freight, building materials, fresh produce, meat, refrigerated food and other products.

LML Logistics could not immediately be reached for comment.

Accelerate360

Magazine distributor Accelerate360 Distribution filed a Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act notice Friday on its plan to close its Dakota Merchandising Work location in Sioux Falls, South Dakota.

A total of 324 permanent layoffs will result, including 22 people who work at a facility in Missouri, according to the notice.

“The employer anticipates that all employees who work in the Dakota Merchandising function will be laid off as a result of the work unit closure on June 28, 2025,” the WARN notice stated. “The decision to close the unit is due to these positions being outsourced.”

Jannine Clemons, vice president of human resources for Accelerate360, told FreightWaves in a phone interview that the jobs were primarily held by part-time workers and that the work would be taken over by another provider.

Kadam Logistics Corp.

Kadam Logistics Corp. of Chicago filed a Chapter 11 petition on April 4 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The company lists both assets and liabilities of $100,000-$500,000.

Kadam has a number of unsecured creditors, the largest of which are First Federal Bank & Trust of Sheridan, Wyoming, owed $98,000, and Transportation Alliance Bank of Ogden, Utah, owed about $84,000. The petition stated that funds will be available to pay unsecured creditors.

A notice of financial conditions filed with Kadam’s petition showed decreasing gross revenue the past few years. Revenue fell from about $1.5 million in 2023 to less than $1.1 million in 2024 and was at $360,000 so far in 2025.

A voicemail left at a number listed for Kadam Logistics was not returned on Wednesday, and an attorney representing the company in the bankruptcy did not immediately return a message.

Sweet Trucking Co.

Sweet Trucking Co. of Knoxville, Tennessee, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee on April 21.

Sweet Trucking’s gross revenue has fallen each of the past three years: about $2.7 million in 2022, roughly $2.3 million in 2023 and about $2.1 million in 2024.

The petition states the company has both assets and liabilities of $1 million-$10 million, and that funds will be available for unsecured creditors.

Among the largest unsecured creditors are the IRS, owed $75,000, Thompson Truck Leasing, owed about $67,300, and Truist Bank, owed about $51,500.

The SAFER website states that Sweet Trucking has 10 power units and 12 drivers. It carries metal, lumber, machinery and other goods.

The company did not immediately respond Wednesday morning to a request for comment.

[…]

Via https://www.freightwaves.com/news/bankruptcies-and-layoffs-slam-wide-range-of-transportation-companies

McDonald’s store traffic falls unexpectedly as diners grow uneasy about economy

McDonald’s restaurant signs are shown in in East Palestine, Ohio, Feb. 9, 2023. McDonald’s reports earning on Monday, July 29, 2024. (AP Photo/Gene J. Puskar, File)

By  DEE-ANN DURBIN

McDonald’s store traffic fell further than expected in the first quarter as economic uncertainty weighed on diners.

The trouble was particularly acute in the U.S., where same-store sales — or sales at locations open at least a year — slumped 3.6%. That was the biggest U.S. decline McDonald’s has seen since 2020, when a pandemic shuttered stores and restaurants and other public spaces nationwide.

McDonald’s Chairman and CEO Chris Kempczinski said lower- and middle-income consumers, worried about inflation and the economic outlook, cut back on fast food during the January-March period.

Industrywide traffic from consumers making $45,000 per year or less was down by double-digit percentages, he said, and traffic from middle-income consumers was down nearly as much. Only traffic from those making $100,000 or more remained solid, he said.

“We believe McDonald’s can weather these difficult conditions better than most,” Kempczinski said Thursday in a conference call with investors. “However, we’re not immune to the volatility in the industry or the pressures that our consumers are facing.”

McDonald’s rivals have reported similar downturns. Yum Brands, which owns the Taco Bell, KFC, Habit Burger & Grill and Pizza Hut brands, said Wednesday that its U.S. same-store sales fell 2% in the first quarter. Chipotle also reported weaker-than-expected same-store sales in the first quarter.

[…]

Via https://apnews.com/article/mcdonalds-first-quarter-results-dbfdc5ab9be9a36ea5a20026280e8cf9

Department of Justice Launches Inquiry Into Top Medical Journals Over Pandemic Bias, Fraud, and Corruption

Nicolas Hulscher, MPH

According to NBC, at least three major medical journals—CHEST, the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), and Obstetrics and Gynecology—have received letters from the U.S. Department of Justice questioning their editorial practices. The letters, sent by interim U.S. Attorney Ed Martin, raised legitimate concerns about bias, lack of transparency, and whether these journals fairly presented competing scientific viewpoints—especially on topics like COVID-19 policies and treatments.

The consistent direction of bias was to suppress any new studies of combination early therapeutics and reports on poor efficacy and side effects of COVID-19 vaccines. Essentially, the journals became vaccine promotional vehicles. None of the major journals published manuscripts that concluded the risks outweigh the benefits of vaccination, despite more comprehensive papers published elsewhere arriving at the truth. As a result, the medical readership and public at large were duped into believing the COVID-19 vaccines were “safe and effective” yet nothing could be further from the truth. Here are two extensively referenced analyses that found COVID-19 vaccines were ineffective and unsafe for human use:

Mead, M. N., Seneff, S., Wolfinger, R., Rose, J., Denhaerynck, K., Kirsch, S., & McCullough, P. A. (2024). COVID-19 Modified mRNA “Vaccines” Part 1: Lessons Learned from Clinical Trials, Mass Vaccination, and the Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex. International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research, 3(2), 1112–1178.Mead, M. N., Seneff, S., Rose, J., Wolfinger, R., Hulscher, N., & McCullough, P. A. (2024). COVID-19 Modified mRNA “Vaccines”: Lessons Learned from Clinical Trials, Mass Vaccination, and the Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex, Part 2. International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research, 3(2), 1246–1315.

While some journals pushed back—claiming editorial independence—others, like The Lancet, which apparently did not yet receive a letter, went so far as to label the inquiries “harassment.”

For years, we have seen top-tier journals prioritize ideology over open scientific debate. In fact, most of the major publishers, including Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley, Sage Publications and Taylor & Francis, have formed a cartel under the International Association of Scientific, Technical, and Medical Publishers. The Cartel controls two-thirds of global journal publications, enforces unpaid peer reviews, restricts manuscript submissions, and delays scientific progress—all to protect their multi-billion-dollar profits. This resulted in a recent class action lawsuit against the Cartel for “tremendous damage to science and the public interest.”

The Fall of the Academic Publishing CartelNicolas Hulscher, MPH2 November 2024

Most of the major publishers, including Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley, Sage Publications and Taylor & Francis, have formed a cartel under the International Association of Scientific, Technical, and Medical Publishers. The Cartel controls two-thirds of global journal publications, enforces unpaid peer reviews, restricts manuscript submissions, and del…

Nearly half of medical journal editors have financial conflicts of interest with pharmaceutical companies, while 59% of peer-reviewers for major medical journals received more than $1 billion from drug companies from 2020 to 2022:

The Journal Cartel’s corruption extends to censoring critical pharmaceutical product safety data in accordance with the Biopharmaceutical Complex, likely costing lives:

A prime example of this corruption is when Cartel member Elsevier blatantly violated COPE guidelines by censoring our study “A Systematic Review Of Autopsy Findings In Deaths After COVID-19 Vaccination” — shortly after successful peer review and official acceptance — likely because it demonstrated a high likelihood of a causal link between COVID-19 vaccines and death. Our study had just become the #1 trending research paper worldwide across all subject areas before Elsevier abruptly intervened:

You can now read our paper in the non-biased and transparent journal Science, Public Health Policy, and the Law.

Many other studies that contradicted the official corrupted narrative have faced the same fate of wrongful retraction after full publication:

Mead MN, Seneff S, Wolfinger R, et al. Retraction: COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines: Lessons Learned from the Registrational Trials and Global Vaccination Campaign [retraction of: Cureus. 2024 Jan 24;16(1):e52876. doi: 10.7759/cureus.52876.]. Cureus. 2024;16(2):r137. Published 2024 Feb 26. doi:10.7759/cureus.r137Hazan S. Microbiome-Based Hypothesis on Ivermectin’s Mechanism in COVID-19: Ivermectin Feeds Bifidobacteria to Boost Immunity [retracted in: Front Microbiol. 2023 May 11;14:1216170. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2023.1216170.]. Front Microbiol. 2022;13:952321. Published 2022 Jul 11. doi:10.3389/fmicb.2022.952321Hazan S, Vidal AC, Hulscher N, Goudzwaard A, McCullough PA, Steinberg AA. Cardiac findings in a phase II double-blind randomized placebo-controlled trial of combination therapy (HAZDPac) to treat COVID-19 patients [retracted in: BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2025 Feb 18;25(1):112. doi: 10.1186/s12872-025-04554-6.]. BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2024;24(1):710. Published 2024 Dec 19. doi:10.1186/s12872-024-04376-yGautret P, Lagier JC, Parola P, et al. RETRACTED: Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin as a treatment of COVID-19: results of an open-label non-randomized clinical trial [retracted in: Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2025 Jan;65(1):107416. doi: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2024.107416.]. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2020;56(1):105949.Rose J, McCullough PA. WITHDRAWN: A Report on Myocarditis Adverse Events in the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) in Association with COVID-19 Injectable Biological Products. Curr Probl Cardiol. Published online September 30, 2021. doi:10.1016/j.cpcardiol.2021.101011

This corrupt web of suppression, fraud, and retractions demands a legal reckoning:

The targeting and censorship of scientific studies, particularly when done systematically or for financial or ideological gain, could potentially have serious legal ramifications:

1. Fraud and Misrepresentation

Potential Legal Violation: Journals or reviewers may engage in fraud if they intentionally suppress or retract studies based on misleading or false pretenses. Examples include:

Retracting studies under the guise of ethical or procedural issues when no such issues are substantiated.Suppressing research that challenges commercial interests, thereby misleading the public about the safety or efficacy of certain products (e.g., pharmaceuticals).

Applicable Laws: Federal and state fraud statutes, such as:

18 U.S.C. § 1341 (Mail Fraud): Applies if traditional postal services or courier systems are used to further the fraudulent scheme.18 U.S.C. § 1343 (Wire Fraud): Covers schemes executed through electronic communications, including email and online platforms, to suppress or discredit legitimate research.2. Anti-Trust Violations

Potential Legal Violation: If a group of publishers, journals, or organizations (dubbed the “Academic Publishing Cartel”) colludes to suppress competing scientific narratives or alternative viewpoints, this could constitute anti-competitive behavior.

Applicable Laws: Sherman Antitrust Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 1–7), which prohibits monopolistic practices and conspiracies to restrain trade.

3. Defamation

Potential Legal Violation: If the “science sleuths” or journals publish untrue statements about the integrity or validity of researchers or their studies, this could constitute defamation.

Applicable Laws: State defamation laws, which protect against reputational harm caused by false statements.

4. Violation of Retraction Guidelines (Breach of Contract or Good Faith)

Potential Legal Violation: Retractions that violate the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines, journal policies, or contractual agreements with authors could result in lawsuits for breach of contract or bad faith actions.

Applicable Laws: Contract law and tort law (e.g., duty of good faith and fair dealing).

5. Obstruction of Justice and Public Health

Potential Legal Violation: Systematically suppressing research that highlights public health risks (e.g., vaccine side effects) could be construed as obstruction of justice or even endangerment if the suppression results in harm to the public.

Applicable Laws: Federal statutes related to obstruction of justice (18 U.S.C. § 1503) and public endangerment.

6. Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO)

Potential Legal Violation: If the coordinated censorship, suppression, and fraudulent retraction of scientific studies is part of an organized pattern of activity involving fraud, obstruction, or extortion for financial gain, it could rise to a RICO violation.

Applicable Laws: RICO Act (18 U.S.C. §§ 1961–1968), which targets ongoing criminal enterprises that engage in a pattern of racketeering activity.

New Peer-Reviewed Paper Exposes Journal Cartel as Targeted Retractions MountNicolas Hulscher, MPH25 Jan

Given the overwhelming evidence of corruption, censorship, and financial conflicts of interest within the Journal Cartel, the DOJ’s letters are not harassment — they are a necessary first step toward restoring integrity to scientific publishing. For too long, powerful publishers have suppressed critical research, misled the public, and prioritized corporate profits over public health. If violations of fraud, anti-trust laws, or obstruction are confirmed, full legal action should follow.

[…]

Via https://www.thefocalpoints.com/p/breaking-doj-launches-investigation

Florida Makes History: First State to Criminalize Geoengineering and Weather Modification

Sayer Ji and Global Wellness Forum

Florida has officially passed SB 56 / HB 477, becoming the first state in the nation to criminalize weather modification and geoengineering.

This is not just a legislative milestone — it is a declaration of atmospheric sovereignty.

The law makes it a felony crime to engage in unauthorized geoengineering or weather modification, punishable by up to 5 years in prison and $100,000 in fines.

On April 30, the Florida House passed the measure with a decisive 82–28 vote, adopting the Senate’s version, which had already cleared all committees.

Florida has drawn a bright line in the sky:

It will not allow corporate interests, climate interventionists, or covert operations to tamper with its atmosphere or pollute its environment.

The Sunshine State intends to keep the sun shining — unmodified and sovereign.

Legislative Champions

This groundbreaking bill was courageously championed by Senator Ileana Garcia and Representative Kevin Steele. Their bold leadership in the face of intense opposition affirms a new model of governance — one that prioritizes public health, transparency, and the rights of future generations.

Pictured are Aimee McBride (GWF Executive Director), Marla Maples (GWF Cofounder), Senator Ileana Garcia (Bill Sponsor), and Jacquie Jordan (GWF Media).

Strategic Advocacy by the Global Wellness Forum

The Global Wellness Forum (GWF) played a pivotal role in advancing this legislation — providing expert testimony, conducting public education, and organizing targeted strategic advocacy across Florida and beyond.

Our Anti-Geoengineering Expert Council, a multidisciplinary body of scientists, legal scholars, and environmental health leaders, has helped catalyze this shift in political consciousness and provided briefings to the Legislative and Executive branches of our newly reinvigorated constitutional republic. And this bill’s passage represents a critical validation of their ongoing work.

Powered by the People: A Grassroots Triumph

Florida’s citizens rose to meet this historic moment. Over the last three months, nearly 100,000 emails were sent to the Florida Legislature demanding action. Your voices mattered — and they were heard.

We extend deep gratitude to all who spoke out, educated others, showed up, and refused to remain silent.

We also recognize the essential civic infrastructure provided by Stand for Health Freedom, whose platform empowered tens of thousands of Floridians to contact their representatives quickly and effectively. This was a team effort, and their contribution was indispensable.

From Florida to the Nation — and Beyond

This win is not an endpoint — it is a beginning.

Currently, 34 other states are exploring legislation or resolutions to ban or criminalize geoengineering. The demand for protection from atmospheric tampering and chemical trespass is reaching a critical mass.

At the federal level, momentum is building:

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. recently affirmed that HHS “will do its part” in response to geoengineering concerns.In a landmark public statement on The Dr. Phil Show, RFK Jr. elevated geoengineering as a national concern, marking a mainstream breakthrough in both visibility and political resolve.Lee Zeldin, now leading the EPA, has opened investigations into rogue weather modification programs such as “Making Sunsets” that are operating without public oversight.Our international allies — including the World Council for Health — are helping coordinate a global response to the weaponization of our skies.

[…]

A New Phase of the Clear Skies Movement

This victory signals the emergence of a coherent, collaborative, and strategic Clear Skies Movement — one that is science-informed, legally grounded, and citizen-powered.

We will not stop until the sky above every state and nation is:

Protected by lawFree from covert tamperingHonored as part of the commons we all share and stewardEvery Voice Matters

To every advocate, whistleblower, expert witness, legislator, and concerned citizen: this victory is yours.

We extend heartfelt thanks to all of our partners, allies, and collaborators across the wellness and health freedom communities. You have helped make the invisible visible — and the impossible, inevitable.

Stay Involved

This is only the beginning. Here’s how you can stay connected and amplify the movement:

Learn more about our work at globalwellnessforum.org Take further action via our trusted partner: standforhealthfreedom.com Sign up for our email list to receive updates on state and federal actionsSupport our advocacy efforts by becoming a donor or memberShare this article widely with your network, especially decision-makers and changemakers

In solidarity and stewardship,
Sayer Ji
Chair, Global Wellness ForumIn a Historic Move for Environmental Integrity and Public Health

Tell Al Gore: Records Show Arctic Ice Stable Since 2007

Photo by Juan Cruz Mountford on Unsplash

Tom Knighton

Al Gore said all Arctic Ice would be gone by 2014.

[…]

Dramatic confirmation that the sea ice in the Arctic has been stable for nearly two decades is contained in a recently published science paper from a team led by Dr Mark England from the University of Exeter. The finding is of course obvious to anyone who studies the data but it will inconvenience the activist cranks who continue to promote supposed reductions in Arctic sea ice as an important sign of their imaginary ‘tipping points’ and their fake climate crisis. Despite the data showing the ice has been stable over every month in the year since around 2007, Sir David Attenborough told BBC viewers in 2022 that the region could be summer ice-free by 2035. The climate hysteric Al Gore never quite recovered his authority when he said all the ice could be gone by 2014.

There is still an occasional sighting in mainstream media but the ice vanishing act is having to be retired. In fact the smarter scientists seem to be rushing to accept the ice data while moving the climate trenches back to more defendable lines. The England paper notes a “surprising, but not unexpected pause” simulated by climate models, “relatively frequently”. Old school to the end, the Guardian reported last March that “scientists say” that ice-free summers were possible in the Arctic within the next decade.

…

Last year, the Daily Sceptic noted that Arctic sea ice had soared to its highest level for 21 years. The article noted this interesting and correct fact but made our usual point that ice trends can only be understood over a long, preferably very long term context. The BBC More or Less statistical radio programme referred to the article without putting the high in context. Rather it provided a case study in how alarmists counter the obvious lengthy pause. Professor Julienne Stroeve from UCL suggested the ice extent was thinner, although the presenter Tom Colls had to admit, “the data is not available yet”. What you see, claimed Stroeve, is that the trend is downwards for four decades. The overall decline in long-term Arctic ice is very easy to see, added Colls. A more statistically objective view, something the programme constantly tells listeners it aims to provide, might have noted the lower levels of the 1950s and the recent obvious lengthy pause.

In other words, they said sea ice was declining and we were doomed—DOOMED, I SAY!—if we didn’t bend over and take the climate agenda up the kiester.

But sea ice is stable. It has been for 20 years, which we haven’t heard in the media at all.

Then again, the media likes to play up the climate crap because it scares people.

They’re terrified of the scenarios they’ve pushed for years, such as famine, drought, terrible storms killing people in job lots, and so on. They’ve seen every skeptic discredited, so clearly the experts must be right!

Only, they’re not. They’re lying.

Every climate model they’ve produced has failed to pan out. Every single one. I haven’t found a single example, and I’ve looked.

And yet, every new model gets breathlessly reported on like it’s the voice of God speaking to Moses or something. It’s the most important thing ever, and climate change will doom us all, and yet they can’t get any of their predictions right.

Sea ice is relatively stable. The climate models are wrong time and time again.

Yet no one in the entire field seems interested in stopping and asking, “Hey, maybe we don’t understand climate as well as we thought and should probably stop making doom-and-gloom predictions until we can predict climate with some degree of accuracy.”

But nope.

Then again, anyone who did would see their career destroyed, their lives ruined, and no one would listen to them on anything.

[…]

Via https://tomknighton.substack.com/p/waitwhat-they-lied-to-us-im-shocked

Waiting on Xi

[image error]

Mike Whitney[…]

The purpose of President Trump’s tariff policy is not what he says it is. If the goal of the tariffs was to reindustrialize the country and create more jobs in manufacturing, the announcement would have been accompanied by an industrial policy that would outline a coordinated government effort to rebuild America’s critical industries. It would have provided details on tax incentives, infrastructure investment, workforce training, government subsidies and R&D funding; all aimed at achieving Trump’s stated objectives. By now—late April—Trump would have made numerous public appearances with important banking and business leaders who would have expressed their support for this ambitious project of rebuilding the country into a manufacturing powerhouse. Trump also would have presented an overview of the many public-private agreements that had been made with wealthy capitalists who supported the idea and wanted to participate in its implementation.

But none of these things have happened, because there is no industrial policy; just as there is no expectation that the imposition of onerous duties on foreign imports will magically “bring jobs back to America”. It’s all a pipedream aimed at hoodwinking the public. So, what is the tariffs business really all about? Here’s how the WSWS answers that question:

The real purpose of Trump’s tariffs (in the words of socialist Tom Hall) is “to prepare supply chains for world war, especially against China.” (The administration) “is promoting a policy which recalls the darkest period of the 20th century under the Nazis, where trade war preceded the outbreak of World War II in September 1939.” World Socialist Web Site

We find this analysis compelling, but not particularly believable. True, Trump has failed to back his tariff edicts with any solid proposals for rebuilding America’s anemic industrial base. But that doesn’t mean he’s gearing up for a war with China. That seems like a bit of a stretch. Even so, it’s worth putting the question to Grok to see if the historical analogy is accurate.

Question—Did Hitler use the trade war to strengthen supply lines to Germany before the war?

Grok—Yes, Hitler exploited the global trade war and economic turmoil of the 1930s to strengthen Germany’s supply lines and prepare for war. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act and subsequent retaliatory tariffs by other nations disrupted global trade, creating opportunities for Germany to pursue autarky (economic self-sufficiency) and secure strategic resources through bilateral agreements. Here’s how:

Hitler’s regime aimed to reduce reliance on imports by boosting domestic production, particularly in agriculture and synthetic materials (e.g., fuel, rubber). The Nazi “Four-Year Plan” (1936) prioritized rearmament and self-sufficiency to insulate Germany from trade disruptions.

Bilateral Trade Agreements: With global trade hampered, Germany negotiated barter deals with smaller nations, especially in Eastern Europe and the Balkans….

Exploiting Weakened Economies: The trade war weakened economies globally, making countries more willing to trade with Germany on favorable terms….

Control of Neighboring Economies: Germany’s economic influence over Austria and Czechoslovakia before their annexation (1938-1939) ensured access to their resources and industries, further strengthening supply lines….

While the trade war wasn’t the sole factor, it created a fragmented global economy that Hitler manipulated to bolster Germany’s war machine. By 1939, these efforts gave Germany a robust, though not complete, supply network for the early stages of World War II. (Grok)

[image error]

So, a case could be made that Trump is thinking along the same lines as Hitler, trying to make the US more self-sufficient in the event of a military confrontation with China. That might explain why he is patching up relations with Putin (so he can shift his attention to China). It might also explain his sudden interest in Greenland which would provide the US with easy access to precious metals, rare earth, and oil and gas reserves in case war breaks out in the Asia-Pacific. The de facto seizure of the Panama Canal could fit within this same paradigm as it relates to the control of critical sea lanes and maritime passageways. These are all actions you would expect the government to take if they were planning a long-term conflict with a peer competitor located halfway around the world.

But we’re still not convinced that this is the opening volley in a war with China. We think it’s the Shock-and-Awe phase of an aggressive containment strategy that seeks to isolate and encircle China without actually veering into a shooting war. Even so, it should be fairly obvious by now that the Liberation Day extravaganza was merely a way to conceal Trump’s real motive, which was to formally launch a trade war on China. That’s what’s really going on behind the scattershot tariffs that have been haphazardly aimed at friend and foe alike. The real bullseye is on China, the greatest emergent threat the US has ever faced.

The embargo on Chinese goods suggests that Washington is finally making its definitive pivot to Asia. Ukraine is being handed over to the NATO allies while the US shifts its attention to the Far East. The administration is already committed to strengthening its military presence in the region, building support for an anti-China coalition, inciting incidents in the Taiwan Strait and the South China Sea and now, imposing a complete embargo on China without any prior notice and without the slightest provocation. The new tariffs fit seamlessly with Washington’s broader strategy of containing the one rival that is most likely to become the undisputed regional hegemon.

[image error]

But whatever Trump’s intentions may have been, there is no doubt that the plan was poorly thought-out and is not having the impact he had hoped for. For example, Trump thought his gigantic tariffs would send Chinese Premier Xi Jinping racing for the phone to see what concessions he could make to placate strongman Trump. But so far, that hasn’t happened, and it doesn’t look like it will. Instead, China’s Foreign Minister has repeatedly stated that “all unilateral tariffs must be removed” before China will even talk to Trump. In short, China has left Trump with no choice but to capitulate now or watch as the US economy goes into cardiac arrest. Check out this shortlist of recession predictions by some of the bigger names in finance:

Goldman Sachs: Prediction: Raised U.S. recession odds to 45% for 2025… If reciprocal tariffs proceed, they expect a recession, albeit mild, similar to 2001’s dot-com bust….

JPMorgan Chase: Prediction: Sees a 60% chance of a global recession by year-end 2025 CEO Jamie Dimon predicts tariffs will slow growth and boost inflation...

TD Securities: Prediction: Raised U.S. recession odds to 50% due to “blunter than expected” tariffs.

Moody’s Analytics: Prediction: Chief Economist Mark Zandi raised recession odds to 40% calling tariffs “fodder for an economic downturn”....

Deutsche Bank: Prediction: Sees a “meaningful increase in recession risk,”… Tariffs raise core PCE inflation by 1–1.5 points and reduce growth via higher costs and reduced competitiveness. Uncertainty and retaliation amplify downturn risks.

Morningstar, Prediction: Calls tariffs a “self-inflicted economic catastrophe,” predicting a recession with reduced GDP growth for 2025–2026…Reasoning: Tariffs raise effective rates to 20–25%, the highest since the 1930s Smoot-Hawley Act, increasing inflation and reducing consumer demand. Supply chain disruptions and retaliation worsen outcomes.

So, while no one can predict a recession with 100 percent accuracy, there’s a mounting consensus that tariffs are going to impact spending, inflation and growth. The anticipated outcomes are simply ‘baked in the cake.’

[image error]

So, what should Trump do?

Well, the data’s clear that he has made a serious blunder that requires immediate action. He needs to acknowledge his mistake and make a course correction before the supply chain disruptions deteriorate and the hole he’s dug for himself gets even bigger. He needs to remove the tariffs, comply with WTO rules and regulations, and replace the members of his economics advisory team who concocted this madcap idea. We have to assume that it wasn’t Trump who thought tariffs could be used to counter China’s so-called “unfair practices” that “hollowed out U.S. manufacturing.” No, it was likely Robert Lighthizer (who is a key architect of Trump’s first-term trade war) and Peter Navarro, a former Trump trade advisor who co-authored Death by China (2011) and who influenced Trump’s tariff policy during his first term. These are the brainiacs responsible for the current debacle. Trump is merely the unwitting accomplice implementing the destructive views of loony ideologues.

[…]

While neither Lighthizer or Navarro are yet “defunct”, it’s clear that Trump is in the grip of their misguided ideas.

Here’s a short sketch of both men:

Robert Lighthizer—who is a key architect of Trump’s first-term trade war and likely influenced the current tariff strategy—is a trusted Trump advisor whose protectionist views jibe with the majority of the other Trump appointees. “Lighthizer views China as an economic adversary exploiting globalization to undermine U.S. manufacturing. He advocates high tariffs, export controls, and decoupling to protect American industries and reduce trade deficits ($295 billion with China in 2024). His approach prioritizes economic nationalism over military or ideological confrontation… Lighthizer’s ideas directly inform Trump’s 2025 tariff hikes(125%–245% on China) justified as countering China’s “lack of respect”…

Lighthizer’s protectionism mirrors Smoot-Hawley’s intent to shield U.S. industries but ignores how such measures can deepen global economic strife… Robert Lighthizer remains an informal advisor in 2025, shaping Trump’s tariff strategy through his protégés like Jamieson Greer. (Grok)

Then, there’s Peter Navarro, who views China as a predatory economic power, stealing U.S. jobs through unfair trade practices. He advocates aggressive tariffs, export bans, and reshoring manufacturing to counter China’s $640 billion trade advantage…. Navarro’s ideas reinforce Trump’s 2025 tariff hikes and decoupling goals… Navarro’s tariff-heavy approach echoes Smoot-Hawley’s protectionism, which backfired by deepening the Great Depression…. Navarro’s policies under Trump may disrupt global markets without a robust U.S. industrial policy. (Grok)

Finally, we have Stephen Miran, Chairman, Council of Economic Advisers (CEA):

Miran is a chief architect of Trump’s tariff strategy, proposing a “Mar-a-Lago Accord” to restructure global trade, using tariffs to force countries to “pay tribute” for U.S. military and financial dominance (Geopolitical Economy Report, April 10, 2025). In an April 7, 2025, speech, he called China “our biggest adversary” and argued tariffs could win a trade war by leveraging U.S. consumer market power. He defended tariffs as historically successful, stating, “American economic history has seen periods of high tariff rates coincide with extraordinary economic success”

(Note—Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Kevin Hassett, Director, National Economic Council (NEC) appear to be only minor players in the tariff’s fiasco.)

[…]

Via https://www.unz.com/mwhitney/waiting-on-xi/